Renewing American Leadership

Many Thousands Left Behind

hlevine@victorynh.com (Marvin Olasky) — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 19:25:23 +0000

Pastor John Piper and others have told the story of 19th-century evangelist D.L. Moody visiting Scotland and opening his talk at a local grade school by asking rhetorically, "What is prayer?" To his amazement, hundreds of children's hands went up.

Moody called on a boy near the front, who promptly stood up and answered, "Prayer is an offering up of our desires unto God, in the name of Christ, by the help of His Spirit, with confession of our sins, and thankful acknowledgment of His mercies." Moody, recognizing that as the answer to question No. 78 in the Westminster Catechism, responded, "Be thankful, son, that you were born in Scotland."

"Should our children be thankful that they were born in America? In one sense, of course: Even most of the poor among us are materially, technologically, and medically better off than most people at any time in history anywhere in the world. "

Should our children be thankful that they were born in America? In one sense, of course: Even most of the poor among us are materially, technologically, and medically better off than most people at any time in history anywhere in the world. In a second sense, of course: As Lee Greenwood sang, "I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free."

But what else do our children know? Educationally, how do American children compare with their 19th-century Scottish counterparts? The Scots of Moody's time learned that God created the world and them, but American children typically hear a murky story of ascent from the muck. Educrats talk about children developing high self-esteem, but that often turns into a desperate search for crowd-esteem. Neither lasts.

Beyond the lack of education in what's most important—our knowledge of God—slouches a frequent lack of education in what's needed to get a good job. The 10-year-old No Child Left Behind (NCLB) plan was supposed to help children stuck in bad public schools. The bipartisan deal that greased its passage gave liberals what they wanted, a huge increase in dollars from taxpayers. It was supposed to give conservatives a way to demand that schools push their students to become proficient in reading and math.

"After a decade, it looks like NCLB proponents snookered conservatives. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan acknowledges that 80,000 of the nation's 100,000 public schools could be declared failing this fall—so he wants to dumb down the passing grade"

After a decade, it looks like NCLB proponents snookered conservatives. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan acknowledges that 80,000 of the nation's 100,000 public schools could be declared failing this fall—so he wants to dumb down the passing grade. He's like the corrupt teacher who sees 80 percent of his students fail, and gives them C's anyway. Duncan says grades of F will demoralize public-school administrators and teachers, but what about the students who are demoralized now, or will be once they graduate without adequate skills?

Should schoolchildren in Detroit be thankful for their educational opportunities? The National Institute for Literacy estimates that 47 percent of Detroit adults (more than 200,000 individuals) are functionally illiterate. That means difficulty in performing everyday tasks such as locating an intersection on a street map, reading and comprehending a short newspaper article, or calculating total costs on an order form.

"And what about those who do well enough to go to college? Tests of basic reading and math are helpful in elementary school, but Michigan State University professor Jerry Weinberger recently complained in City Journal that an emphasis on test-taking among older students has crowded out the study of history, science, literature, and anything that requires creativity."

According to "Addressing Detroit's Basic Skills Crisis," a paper produced by the Detroit Regional Workforce Fund, half of the 200,000 functionally illiterate adults have a high-school diploma or GED. That means they have been lied to, passed from grade to grade or test to test without gaining basic skills. Yes, not one child was left behind—tens of thousands were.

And what about those who do well enough to go to college? Tests of basic reading and math are helpful in elementary school, but Michigan State University professor Jerry Weinberger recently complained in City Journal that an emphasis on test-taking among older students has crowded out the study of history, science, literature, and anything that requires creativity. Weinberger said his students link education not to learning how to think but learning how to pass standardized tests.

Throughout its history WORLD has favored educational innovations such as tax credits and vouchers. Particularly and unabashedly, we'd like more children to learn what prayer is, but in general we favor opportunity and diversity over one-size-fits-all approaches. Bill Gates, now the largest private grantmaker in education, recently praised in the Wall Street Journal the "very positive characteristics" of vouchers, but said "the negativity about them" among some groups has kept his foundation from supporting them.

Too bad. The status quo is broken, the NCLB fix hasn't worked, and the alternative proposal we're hearing is: Shovel more dollars into the jaws of failure.

Marvin Olasky is Editor in Chief of World Magazine. Republished by permission.

{sharethis}

The Religious Left’s Photo-Op Martyrdom

hlevine@victorynh.com (Mark D. Tooley) — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 14:26:42 +0000

Christians around the world often risk arrest (and worse) by repressive Islamist or Communist regimes because of their deep faith. (One Iranian pastor is currently imprisoned after 2 years for objecting to compulsory Islamic teaching of his children at school.) In America, left-leaning church officials seek symbolic arrest for public show in their defense of Big Government.

Religious Left officials on July 28 successfully sought arrest for “faithful civil disobedience” in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda to protest any consideration of limits on the Welfare and Entitlement State. They were also demanding tax increases. Unlike more courageous and spiritually insightful fellow believers imprisoned in Iran, China, and North Korea, these U.S. activist prelates were presumably arrested, booked, bonded and released back to their nearby air-conditioned offices in time for posting fresh news releases.

Arrestees included United Methodism’s chief lobbyist Jim Winkler; former United Church of Christ President Paul Sherry; and multi-faceted Bob Edgar, himself an ordained United Methodist, former NCC general secretary, former Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania, and now chief of the liberal advocacy group Common Cause, the secular chief organizer of the “prayer” witness at the U.S. Capitol.

"Why do these church officials associate the Gospel with unlimited government, spiraling debt, higher taxes, and dysfunctional welfare policies that perpetuate poverty?"

Why do these church officials associate the Gospel with unlimited government, spiraling debt, higher taxes, and dysfunctional welfare policies that perpetuate poverty? “Budgets reflect the priorities of a nation, and we are not a nation that puts its biggest burdens on the backs of those who have the least,” Edgar explained in his own Common Cause news release. “We believe Congress has a moral obligation to stand strong against cuts to our most needy and to assure that corporations and billionaires pay their fair share.”

With the others, Edgar vaguely admitted that “spending has to be controlled, long-term” without specifying how. He insisted that higher taxes on the “wealthy” were the answer and attacked plans from House Speaker John Boehner and U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid because they omitted tax increases.

Are there enough “wealthy” to cover multi-trillion dollar deficits? Would tax increases not have to include the middle class? How would tax increases impede investment, job growth, and consumer spending? Would tax increases only fuel further government growth? These questions did not seem much to interest Edgar and the religious arrestees in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda, whose faith in ever larger Big Government is nearly without limits.

Across the street from the U.S. Capitol on the lawn of the historic Methodist Building, United Methodist chief lobbyist Jim Winkler, in addition to his arrest, has been hosting daily “prayer” vigils in defense of Big Government with other left-leaning church groups and the Islamic Society of North America. (See my assistant Bart Gingerich’s onsite report.) To the media, Winkler explained of his arrest: “We are sending a visible signal to those in power that we do not believe the negotiations over the debt ceiling and budget can be resolved on the backs of poor people.”

"Ignoring scriptural warnings against covetousness, the Religious Left likes to rant against unnamed 'corporations and wealthy individuals.'"

Adding to the religious class warfare rhetoric was former NCC President Michael Livingston, who declared: “Our elected officials are protecting corporations and wealthy individuals while shredding the safety net for millions of the most vulnerable people in our nation and abroad.” Ignoring scriptural warnings against covetousness, the Religious Left likes to rant against unnamed “corporations and wealthy individuals.” These prelates do not typically acknowledge that many poor people would like the understandable opportunity to earn wealth themselves, and possibly create their own corporations, rather than remain appendages of the Welfare State. But free markets that allow new wealth creation and independence from Big Government frighten the Religious Left. After all, its “Kingdom of God” is centered on a coercively centralized redistributionist state that rewards political homage and correct opinions rather than merit and entrepreneurship.

Livingston further claimed: “Today, we ‘offer our bodies as a living sacrifice’ to say to congress ‘Raise revenue, protect the vulnerable and those living in poverty.’” In fact, these lobbyists and activists were not “offering their bodies” towards any personal sacrifice but to news photographers and reporters as a photo op. One liberal church demonstrator failed to cite to a reporter any specific budget limits that were upsetting, instead exclaiming: “All of them concern us.” In other words, no limits on government social spending are ever acceptable.

Naturally, there were the inevitable claimed parallels to the Civil Rights Movement. But civil rights demonstrators often paid a real price and were demanding equal legal rights for all. In their contrived “prayer” and pursuit of arrest in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda, these modern Religious Leftists linked their faith to an uncontrolled and suffocating entitlement state in which government benefits equal salvation. The needy for whom they claimed to speak deserve better. And the overseas Christians who risk far more dangerous and permanent arrest for much nobler causes are vastly more deserving of media attention and reverence.

Mark Tooley is President of the Institute on Religion and Democracy and author of "Taking Back the United Methodist Church." Republished with permission.from FrontPage Magazine.

{sharethis}

The Hand of God

hlevine@victorynh.com (A ReAL Review by Gerard Reed) — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 20:41:10 +0000

For 20 years I showed my ethics students Silent Scream, a moving anti-abortion film narrated by the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who died earlier this year. He not only clearly described the abortion procedure (using an ultrasound) but shared his sorrow for playing a major role in legalizing it in 1972. When he made the film he professed no religious faith, merely a humanistic concern for taking innocent life. But in time, as he joined various anti-abortion endeavors, he came to faith and joined the Catholic Church. To explain his spiritual journey, including his early commitment to abortion-on-demand, and to evaluate the evil of killing unborn babies, he wrote The Hand of God: A Journey from Death to Life by the Abortion Doctor Who Changed His Mind Washington (Regnery Publishing, Inc., c. 1996). “This book,” he said, “will be semi-autobiographical, using myself as a paradigm for the study of the systematic fission and demise of one system of morality, no matter how fragmented, fatuous, and odious, and the painful acquisition of another more coherent, more reliable, and less atomistic one” (p. 3).

His father, a brilliant obstetrician, “was a formidable, dominant force in my life and in many ways forged the ruthless, nihilistic pagan attitudes and beliefs that finally drove me to unleash—with a handful of co-conspirators—the abortion monster” (p. 5). Though nominally Jewish, the Nathansons (father and son) were thoroughly secularized, much attuned to the relativism of modernity. Highly intelligent, Nathanson moved easily through Cornell University and McGill Medical School. Importantly, at McGill he “forged a strong, even compelling teacher-student relationship” (p. 45) with Professor Karl Stern, an alluring lecturer who had left Judaism to enter the Catholic Church in 1943—a journey beautifully portrayed in The Pillar of Fire. While unaware of this at the time, 20 years later, “floundering in the wake of my hegemony of the abortion clinic and the doubts that were beginning to crack my own pillars of certainty,” Nathanson learned “that even as I had spoken to him on so many occasion about so many other things, he [Stern] possessed a secret I had been searching for all my life—the secret of the peace of Christ” (p. 46)

While at McGill Nathanson impregnated a young woman. To eliminate the problem his father sent him money to kill the baby, and he slipped easily “into the satanic world of abortion” (p. 58). Years later he would impregnate another woman (who begged to give birth to the child) and performed, without remorse, the abortion himself, killing his own child. “I have aborted the unborn children of my friends, colleagues, casual acquaintances, even teachers. There was never a shred of self-doubt, never a wavering of the supreme confidence that I was doing a major service to those who sought me out” (p. 61). Practicing medicine at Women’s Hospital in New York, he came to see abortion as a valuable service, particularly for the poor, making life better for the disadvantaged.

His commitment to abortion rights led to a relationship with Larry Lader, an “ardent feminist and a great admirer of Margaret Sanger” who “was obsessed with abortion” (p. 87). Nathanson and Lader teamed up to legalize abortion, forming the National Association for Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) and other action committees. Manipulating the media, recruiting ideological feminists and liberal clergy, fabricating statistics, making emotional appeals to pity and equity, they effectively orchestrated a repeal of New York’s abortion laws in 1970. A year later Nathanson became director of the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, an abortion clinic launched with the assistance of the Rev. Howard Moody and his Clergy Consultation Referral Service. He continued practicing obstetrics and gynecology and toured the country urging politicians to legalize abortion (unexpectedly accomplished through judicial fiat in Roe v. Wade in 1972) and “was known as the abortion king” (p. 124).

While promoting the cause, however, new technologies (preeminently the ultrasound) confronted and troubled Nathanson with the stark truth of abortion. To actually see the fetus in the womb revealed its fully human form, and he began to see the vapidity of all the assorted pro-abortion arguments he’d earlier espoused. He publically expressed his doubts and performed his last abortion in 1979, persuaded “that there was no reason for an abortion at any time; this person in the womb is a living human being, and we could not continue to wage war against the most defenseless of human beings” (p. 128). He clearly describes pre-natal developments, insisting “we have a virtually unbroken series of quantifiable, noncontingent, scientifically verifiable and infinitely reproducible events that signifies the beginning of a new human life” (p. 138).

His growing pro-life convictions led to an alignment with pro-life people—virtually all deeply religious and unusually at ease with themselves. He was amazed at the “sheer intensity of the love and prayer” evident in those who gathered to protest outside abortion clinics. His convictions regarding the sanctity of life, coupled with his amazement at Christians witnessing to their faith, led to an openness to the Lord and Giver of life. So, “for the first time in my entire adult life, I began to entertain seriously the notion of God—a god who problematically had led me through the proverbial circles of hell, only to show me the way to redemption and mercy through His grace. The thought violated every eighteenth-century certainty I had cherished; it instantly converted my past into a vile bog of sin and evil; it indicted me and convicted me of high crimes against those who had loved me , and against those whom I did not even know; and simultaneously—miraculously—it held out a shimmering sliver of Hope to me, in the growing belief that Someone had died for my sins and my evil two millennia ago” (pp. 193-194).

Now he is “no longer alone” (p. 196). The lost is found. The blind now sees. The sinner’s saved. With his mentor Karl Stern, Nathanson has discovered, as Stern wrote in a letter, that that “‘toward Him we had been running, or from Him we had been running away, but all the time He had been in the center of things’” (p. 196). Along with Nathan’s earlier treatises—Aborting America and The Abortion Papers—this book provides invaluable insight into the monumental battle between the cultures of life and death.

Gerard Reed is a retired professor of history and philosophy, most recently Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego. He is the author of three books--The Liberating Law; C.S. Lewis and the Bright Shadow of Holiness; C.S. Lewis Explores Vice & Virtue--as well as a variety of articles and book reviews.

{sharethis}

Global Warming Propaganda and the Biblical Worldview

hlevine@victorynh.com (E. Calvin Beisner) — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 14:26:42 +0000

According to the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, the first command God gave to mankind was to “be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth, subdue it, and rule over” everything in it (Genesis 1:28). Many environmentalists, following the lead of Lynn White, Jr., whose article "The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,” first published in Science magazine in 1967 and reprinted many times, believe that command is the real root of environmental degradation because, so they think, it validates abuse of the environment. Thus it’s not surprising to find considerable antipathy to the Bible and its worldview in the environmental movement.

In reality, that command, taken in its context, requires humanity to exercise dominion over the Earth in a way that glorifies God and serves our neighbors by enhancing its safety, fruitfulness, and beauty—incrementally transforming more and more of the Earth into garden (Genesis 2:15). No Jewish or Christian theologian or Biblical scholar has ever interpreted it as permitting abuse. The Greens’ accusation, therefore, asserts a straw man.

"...environmentalism’s hostility to Biblical faith arises in many quarters. One of the most troubling is school curriculum that exposes a captive audience of young, impressionable children to a steady drumbeat of Green propaganda, much of it openly hostile to Biblical faith, but even more of it subtly so."

Nonetheless, environmentalism’s hostility to Biblical faith arises in many quarters. One of the most troubling is school curriculum that exposes a captive audience of young, impressionable children to a steady drumbeat of Green propaganda, much of it openly hostile to Biblical faith, but even more of it subtly so. (For examples, type “environmental curriculum” plus the name of any given state into an Internet search engine and start reading.)

Consider a case in point: “The Magic School Bus and the Climate Challenge,” a book and Webcast video from Scholastic.com. It tells Kindergartners through third graders about the serious danger of global warming caused by burning fossil fuels and how we all can “go Green” to “help save the planet” by resorting to wind, solar, and other alternative energy sources.

Is this message consistent with a Biblical worldview? It’s certainly not impossible, in this post-Fall world in which all people are sinners (Romans 3:20) and the Earth itself is under God’s curse because of our sin (Genesis 3:17-19; Romans 8:18-23), for human beings to do things that harm the Earth.

"...the widespread belief that human emission of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases, though by comparison their contribution is slight) is causing what either already is or will become dangerous global warming rests on an assumption—common to almost all environmentalist thought—that goes well beyond this. It is that the Earth and its natural systems are extremely fragile and thus subject to catastrophic harm even by comparatively tiny influences."

However, the widespread belief that human emission of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases, though by comparison their contribution is slight) is causing what either already is or will become dangerous global warming rests on an assumption—common to almost all environmentalist thought—that goes well beyond this. It is that the Earth and its natural systems are extremely fragile and thus subject to catastrophic harm even by comparatively tiny influences.

To be specific, in the case of global warming the hypothesis is that increasing carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere from about 270 parts per million by volume to about 540 parts per million by volume (that is, from about 27 thousandths of a percent to 54 thousandths of a percent) would cause catastrophic heating that could jeopardize human civilization as we know it, or even perhaps all life—although CO2 would still make up less than 0.06 percent of the atmosphere.

In a moment I’ll suggest some empirical arguments against that hypothesis, but first let’s focus on the worldview issue: whether that hypothesis is consistent with a Biblical understanding of God as Creator and Sustainer of His creation, and the climate system as part of that creation. And to take the issue out of the highly charged one of global warming, let’s apply it to an analogy. Suppose an architect designed a building so that if someone leaned against one wall it would collapse. Would anyone say, “Oh, that architect must be brilliant!”? No. But that’s the view of Earth’s climate system presupposed by global warming alarmism. Let me explain more fully.

Even proponents of the hypothesis acknowledge that, according to basic physics, doubling atmospheric CO2 would cause only about 2.16 degrees Fahrenheit of increase in global average temperature. Nobody thinks that would be harmful; indeed, most studies indicate it would benefit most parts of the Earth, lengthening growing seasons in high latitudes, increasing rainfall, and thus improving agricultural yields and plant growth generally. The fears all come from the belief—generally embraced by those working under the auspices of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—that climate feedback mechanisms would greatly magnify that warming—indeed, by about 250% (to 5.4F) to 375% (to 8.1F). That belief entails that Earth’s climate system is highly fragile and unstable—exactly opposite what the Bible implies.

"In short, then, the Christian worldview provides a basis, a presupposition, from which to be quite skeptical of the kind of reasoning that leads to fears of catastrophic, anthropogenic (manmade) global warming (CAGW)."

In short, then, the Christian worldview provides a basis, a presupposition, from which to be quite skeptical of the kind of reasoning that leads to fears of catastrophic, anthropogenic (manmade) global warming (CAGW).

That’s not the only reason why many Christians—including many Christian climate scientists and other natural scientists—reject fears of CAGW. Increasingly in recent years empirical research has provided significant support.

The fears assume high “climate sensitivity”—that climate will warm a lot because of increased CO2 concentration. But increasing empirical observations point to low “climate sensitivity”—that climate will warm very little. Why? Because the overall feedback mechanisms are not positive (magnifying the influence of any given stress on the climate system) but negative (reducing it). That is, they’re finding that the climate system, though not static or in equilibrium (no natural system is), is generally stable, varying within a fairly narrow range—just what the Biblical worldview implies.

A variety of different studies increasingly lead these scientists to believe that the 2.16F of increased warming that would come from doubled CO2 in the absence of feedbacks is not magnified by the overall feedbacks (to about 5.4F to 8.1F) but rather is reduced by them (to something in the range of 0.9-1.8F). For just one illustration of that, see the recent work of Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist in climatology at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, discussed in his two most recent blog posts here and here. They’re a little technical and assume that readers are already familiar with some of Spencer’s ongoing work in this field, but the basic case can be summarized briefly.

We start with a fact that will surprise the vast majority of the public, since the media have failed to pass this along effectively: There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995. Alarmists have been puzzled by this. Lately one hypothesis offered to explain this lack of atmospheric warming is that the “missing” heat (“missing,” of course, only if one first assumes overall positive feedbacks) is being absorbed into the deep oceans, from whence, sometime in the future, it will return to the atmosphere, causing a sudden increase in temperature. The work on which Spencer reports demonstrates that this isn’t the case—because in fact there’s been no warming in the deep ocean over the period in question. This entails that the “missing” heat—if indeed there is any—is going out into space, whence it will never return. That, in turn, means that overall feedbacks are negative (minimizing warming from added CO2) rather than positive, the climate system is stable rather than fragile, and the fears of CAGW are unfounded.

"“The Magic School Bus and the Climate Challenge” presents only the alarmist view of global warming, with no balancing consideration of the scientific, let alone the worldview, objections to it. It thus will cause unnecessary fears among children who view it. This puts it in the category of propaganda, not true education."

The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation has made the case against CAGW in greater depth in the major study, A Renewed Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Examination of the Theology, Science, and Economics of Global Warming (the work of 29 theologians, scientists, and economists) and in climatologist Dr. David Legates’s lecture “Putting Out the Dragon’s Fire on Global Warming,” part of the 13-part DVD series Resisting the Green Dragon.

“The Magic School Bus and the Climate Challenge” presents only the alarmist view of global warming, with no balancing consideration of the scientific, let alone the worldview, objections to it. It thus will cause unnecessary fears among children who view it. This puts it in the category of propaganda, not true education. It’s precisely the kind of thing against which Dr. Michael Farris, founder and chancellor of Patrick Henry College and founder and chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, warns in his lecture “From Captain Planet to Avatar: The Seduction of Our Youth,” in Resisting the Green Dragon.

E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is Founder and National Spokesman of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, a network of evangelical theologians, pastors, ministry leaders, scientists, economists, other academics, and policy experts committed to bringing Biblical worldview, theology, and ethics together with excellent science and economics to promote simultaneously (a) balanced, Biblical Earth stewardship, (b) economic development for the poor, and (c) the proclamation and defense of the gospel of Christ. A former Christian college and seminary professor, Dr. Beisner has written over 10 books, including Where Garden Meets Wilderness: Evangelical Entry into the Environmental Debate.

{sharethis}

RESURGENT

hlevine@victorynh.com (A ReAL Review by Gerard Reed) — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 05:00:00 +0000

In Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism Can Save America (New York: Threshold Editions, c. 2011), expand upon ideas and injunctions earlier set forth in The Blueprint. Blackwell served for a term as Ohio’s Secretary of State and is one of the more prominent African-Americans active in the Republican Party. Klukowski is a lawyer who played a role in some significant recent cases (e.g. challenging Obamacare) in federal courts. Both men are associated with Liberty University Law School and make no secret of their commitment to the Christian faith and worldview. They summarize the book’s argument in its first two sentences: “The democratic republic created by the Framers of our Constitution—and designed with the hope of enduring forever—is hanging by a thread. Are you willing to do your part to save it?” (p. 1).

The United States, as originally established by the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, was in profound ways a “promised land,” a “city set on a hill.” “Our Founders understood they were doing something unprecedented. For the first time in human history, a nation-sized body of people with a preexisting economic system and shared legal philosophy and basic religious faith were seeking to learn from all the lessons of human experience over the centuries to design the best governmental system ever created” (p. 131). To recover this nation’s promise, doing our part means recalling the Republican Party to constitutional conservatism (and, importantly, not supporting any divisive third party movement), for while both parties share responsibility for the nation’s plight only the Republicans indicate any openness to fiscal and cultural conservatism.

Our republic may collapse if it continues its prodigal ways, illustrating Thomas Jefferson’s lament that the “natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” Illustrating this loss of liberty, under Obamacare a person is in fact required to buy health insurance. Thus the government can “tell you how to spend your own money” (p. 244). Aptly, Ronald Reagan said: “Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem.” Employing a nautical metaphor the authors say: “The USS America has been hit by a missile—an economic and governmental missile. Unless all citizens muster to general quarters, our ship of state will go down” (p. 3). The missile carried three explosive war-heads: “economic mismanagement, trillions of dollars of deficit spending, and massive entitlements that cannot possibly pay what they’ve promised. The 111th Congress (2009 and 2010) amassed more debt--$3.22 trillion—in just two years than the first one hundred Congresses combined over a period of two hundred years. That’s $10,429 per person—including each child—in the United States, just in the past two years. And that number doesn’t even touch our other $11 trillion in debt, or $88 trillion in unfunded entitlements” (p. 3). We face a literal “tsunami” of entitlement spending that will surely swamp us unless we quickly take action to avoid it.

Structuring the book’s argument is an appeal to three basic strains of conservatism: “economic, social, and social security” (p. 76)—the ECons, SoCons, and SafeCons. However they may differ in their convictions and priorities, they share a basic commitment to constitutional principles and the underlying belief in a “Sovereign Society,” wherein “individual Americans are truly sovereign in their own lives” (p. 99).

All three groups must forget their differences and support the great cause of our day: constitutionalism. They really do need each other, since not even a united two of the three movements can prevail in modern America. In fact, their causes overlap in significant ways. As Congressman Mike Pence, a leading SoCon, noted, “‘We must realize there’s a direct correlation between the stability of families and the stability of our economy’” (p. 85). The ECons stress the need for jobs, balanced budgets, and private property. SoCons plead for the restoration of the traditional family and the role of faith in both individuals and the public square. As Ronald Reagan insisted, “‘politics and morality are inseparable. And as morality’s foundation is religion, religion and politics are necessarily related. We need religion as a guide’” (p. 114). Thus a “family flat tax” replacing the income tax would, Blackman and Klukowski argue, help both the nation’s economy and traditional families.

SafeCons demand that government enforce the laws and protect the nation—police and courts, soldiers and arms that make us secure. Beyond these concerns, there are two important philosophical positions essential for conservative constitutionalism: 1) federalism, allowing what Justice Louis Brandeis described as 50 creative “laboratories of democracy,” and 2) judicial restraint and originalism in the courts. Given the authors’ background, it is understandable that they devote significant sections of the book to judicial matters. Since the New Deal’s triumphant reshaping of this nation the Left has found “that an activist judiciary was essential to their agenda” (p. 149). Lawyers and judges committed to an ever-evolving, “living constitution,” threaten the very foundations of this nation, for justices seeking to implement their own visions of “social justice” become activists rather than guardians of the constitution. “In their left-wing world, it’s absurd to think that the Constitution actually limits the power of the federal government. They think government should do anything it wants” (p. 227).

Resisting such leftist trends are members of the Federalist Society, now numbering “almost fifty thousand judges, lawyers, law professors, and law students” who champion judicial restraint and originalism. Should originalists come to dominate the federal court system healthy changes would quickly take place in America. One sign of this possibility came in 2008 (D.C. v. Heller) and 2010 (McDonald v. Chicago) when the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment, securing gun rights for individual Americans. These decisions were informed by two decades of vigorous scholarship, providing evidence employed by the Court when rendering its decisions. Though these two decisions are only the beginning of a larger struggle regarding gun rights, “[a]ny way you look at it, we are at the beginning of a new era of constitutional law” (p. 294).

Though filled with warnings and laments, this book is basically a hopeful call to arms, an appeal for conservative Americans of all stripes to speak out and vote and bring this nation back to its original principles. While the book’s length and intricate legal arguments may tax the general reader’s patience, it certainly provides both analysis and information important for citizens concerned about the nation’s prospect. Thus an ECon, Steve Forbes, says: “We need leaders advocating policies that will reverse our economic decline, balance our budget, and bring sanity to our tax system and ruinous spending. This book makes the case for how the Constitution can return America to prosperity.”

A SoCon, Tony Perkins, writes: “America’s families are in crisis. Without apologies, Ken and Ken make a compelling case of why our economy cannot reach its full potential, or America face our most pressing needs, unless we protect and rebuild the family as the basic unit of our society. Their book is a must read.” Then a SafeCon, Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin (Ret.) says: “The United States faces deadly threats to our citizens and our way of live. Our Constitution was written for trying times such as today. This book explains how and what we as a country must do about it.” Could all the Americans who share the concerns of Steve Forbes, Tony Perkins, and Jerry Boykin come together and energetically engage in the political process, this nation can be restored to its Founders’ vision.

{sharethis}

Whom Would Jesus Indebt?

hlevine@victorynh.com (Tim Dalrymple) — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:41:59 +0000

One of the gravest dangers of the Budget Control Act passed yesterday is that it could provide Americans with a false sense of security. Washington has finally taken action. The crisis has passed. The sky is brightening, the trees are parting before us and — we’re out of the woods. Right?

Alas, but no. Not only are we deep in the dark heart of the forest, but we’re still walking in the wrong direction. The pace may have slowed, but the trajectory has not. The immediate cash-flow crisis has passed, but the long-term solvency crisis remains. We are still borrowing enormous amounts of money, still selling our children into debt slavery through our own spending insanity.

While the Budget Control Act (best summarized by Keith Hennessey) is intended to reduce the deficit (the difference between expected revenues and planned spending, or the amount we have to borrow in order to spend what we want to spend) in the years to come, it does not reduce the debt (the amount the federal government owes). It slows — by a little — the rate at which the debt grows, but the debt is still astronomical and still swiftly growing. So make no mistake: the Budget Control Act doesn’t put a dent in the mountain of debt our government has accrued. If the commitments of the BCA are fulfilled, then we will add to that mountain at a slightly-less-manic pace than before, but the very purpose of the act was to enable the big Beltway spenders to make the mountain bigger.

"One of the great difficulties of this issue, for Christians, is that the morality of spending and debt has been so thoroughly demagogued that it’s impossible to advocate cuts in government spending without being accused of hatred for the poor and needy."

Worse, the BCA leaves completely unchanged the social and political dynamics that have led to this debt in the first place. Our political elite are addicted to spending. It’s how they curry favor, it’s how they win elections, and it’s how they exercise and enjoy their power. They’re perfectly willing to borrow money to feed the addiction, because they have a credit card. The name on the credit card is: You and Your Children.

One of the great difficulties of this issue, for Christians, is that the morality of spending and debt has been so thoroughly demagogued that it’s impossible to advocate cuts in government spending without being accused of hatred for the poor and needy. A group calling itself the “Circle of Protection” recently promoted a statement on “Why We Need to Protect Programs for the Poor.” But we don’t need to protect the programs. We need to protect the poor. Indeed, sometimes we need to protect the poor from the programs.

Too many anti-poverty programs are beneficial for the politicians that pass them, and veritable boondoggles for the government bureaucracy that administers them, but they actually serve to rob the poor of their dignity and their initiative, they undermine the family structures that help the poor build prosperous lives, and ultimately mire the poor in poverty for generations. Does anyone actually believe that the welfare state has served the poor well?

"It is immoral to ignore the needs of the least of these. But it’s also immoral to ’serve’ the poor in ways that only make more people poor, and trap them in poverty longer. And it’s immoral to amass a mountain of debt that we will pass on to later generations."

It is immoral to ignore the needs of the least of these. But it’s also immoral to ’serve’ the poor in ways that only make more people poor, and trap them in poverty longer. And it’s immoral to amass a mountain of debt that we will pass on to later generations. I even believe it’s immoral to feed the government’s spending addiction. Since our political elites have demonstrated such remarkably poor stewardship over our common resources, it would be foolish and wrong to give them more resources to waste. What we need are political leaders committed to prudence and thrift, to wise and far-sighted stewardship, and to spurring a free and thriving economy that will encourage the poor and all Americans to seize their human dignity as creatures made in the image of God, to be fruitful and take initiative and express their talents and creativity.

"The religious left has monopolized the language of morality and justice when it comes to matters of government spending. If we should ask, 'What would Jesus cut?', then we should also ask 'Whom would Jesus indebt?' and 'Whom would Jesus make dependent on government?'"

The religious left has monopolized the language of morality and justice when it comes to matters of government spending. If we should ask, “What would Jesus cut?”, then we should also ask “Whom would Jesus indebt?” and “Whom would Jesus make dependent on government?” Since the poor are the first ones hurt by a damaged economy and high unemployment, there is a deeply moral case to be made for serving “the least of these” through policies that promote a flourishing economy and culture.

Promoting a broader vision of the full counsel of scripture when it comes to matters of spending and debt — and promoting a culture of thrift and stewardship, of creativity and industry, or liberty and opportunity, of life and family — and holding our national leaders accountable to look past the calculations of political advantage and make decisions that will serve our economy and our nation well for generations to come — these are all steps in the right direction, steps that will turn us around and lead us out of the woods.

Dr. Timothy Dalrymple is a Director of Content at Patheos, and managing editor of its Evangelical Portal. Follow him at his blog, Philosophical Fragments,on Facebook or on Twitter. This article appeared first at Patheos. Reprinted with permission.

{sharethis}

Religious Free Exercise Applies to Politicians, Too

hlevine@victorynh.com (Richard Land) — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:41:59 +0000

EDITOR'S NOTE: This column by SBC ethicist Richard Land first appeared in The Washington Post's "On Faith" forum, where religious leaders from different backgrounds discuss matters of faith. This column appeared when the forum was discussing Texas Gov. Rick Perry's participation in an Aug. 6 prayer event called, "The Response." Some have tried to tie him to other participants. The question Land answered was: Should politicians be judged by the religious company they keep?

We are taking a dangerous path when we begin disqualifying individuals for public office if they actually practice the faith they profess.

"Texas Gov. Rick Perry, like every other American citizen, is free to exercise his faith. Our Founding Fathers recognized the threat presented by a state that could at its discretion proscribe or advocate a particular faith. Their time-tested solution? The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, like every other American citizen, is free to exercise his faith. Our Founding Fathers recognized the threat presented by a state that could at its discretion proscribe or advocate a particular faith. Their time-tested solution? The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Rick Perry is an evangelical Christian. It is out of that faith background that he is issuing a call for this solemn gathering. In fact, the idea behind this call reportedly germinated for over a year in the governor's mind. This was far in advance of anyone mentioning the governor as a possible GOP candidate for president.

Furthermore, no government funds or facilities are being used in the "The Response" event. While the office of governor certainly gives Gov. Perry a more visible platform, his involvement in this call to prayer is as a private citizen. After all, Texas voters were well aware of his evangelical faith when they elected him.

In a pluralistic society Christians are as free as anyone else to practice their faith. Other faith traditions are just as free to either hold or not hold prayer events of their own.

"Furthermore, Christians don't require unanimity on every point to agree that coming together to pray for repentance and blessing upon a nation in crisis is both proper and prudent. Those participating in The Response have serious and justifiable concerns about the state of the culture and America's very future."

Furthermore, Christians don't require unanimity on every point to agree that coming together to pray for repentance and blessing upon a nation in crisis is both proper and prudent. Those participating in The Response have serious and justifiable concerns about the state of the culture and America's very future.

As president of the Southern Baptist Convention's moral and social concerns entity, I often work alongside others who agree on addressing an ethical issue, but whose faith principles may be somewhat at odds with mine. In fact, my denomination's confession of faith, the Baptist Faith and Message, addresses this matter: "Christians should be ready to work with all men of good will in any good cause, always being careful to act in the spirit of love without compromising their loyalty to Christ and His truth" (BFM, XV. The Christian and the Social Order.)

Interestingly, in 2008 the liberal press ridiculed any attempt to link then-presidential candidate Barack Obama with Rev. Jeremiah Wright's outrageous and controversial views even though then Sen. Obama had been a member of Wright's church for two decades and Wright had performed the Obama's wedding ceremony. The Wright-Obama relationship was far more substantial than merely attending a prayer event with someone.

Any attempt to smear Perry with such a hypocritical broad brush comes up empty. His association with others who are involved in The Response, but who hold divergent views should not taint Perry any more than it should be presumed that President Obama agrees with the dissimilar views of many of those who attended the National Prayer Breakfast along with him last February.

Finally, at the very least The Response's divergent group of endorsers demonstrates that evangelical Christians are a much less homogenous, monolithic group than the mainstream media has often asserted.

Richard Land is president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. Reprinted with permission.

Click here to learn more about The Response

{sharethis}

The Housing Boom and Bust

hlevine@victorynh.com (A ReAL Review by Gerard Reed) — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 16:44:05 +0000

In 2002—under the auspices of “compassionate conservatism”—President George W. Bush promoted affordable housing for all Americans, declaring: “We can put light where there’s darkness, and hope where there’s despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home.” A year later he proudly signed the “American Dream Downpayment Act,” implementing his aspirations.

Yet thoughtful critics, both academic and congressional, warned against such policies, with Barrons magazine prophetically decrying as spurious any compassion that exposed “taxpayers to tens of billions of dollars of possible losses, luring thousands of moderate-income families into bankruptcy, and risking the destruction of entire neighborhoods. . . . Free down payments carry catastrophic risks. . . Transferring the risk of homeownership from buyers to taxpayers does not endow virtue in America. Giving people a handout that leads them to financial ruin is wrecking-ball benevolence’” (p. 46). What a memorable phrase—“wrecking-ball benevolence”! Six years later, looking bewildered amidst the economic meltdown, a baffled Bush asked his Secretary of the Treasury, “How did we get here?” Amazingly, Thomas Sowell notes, “neither he nor many others in politics and the media saw any connection between their housing crusades and the economic crisis now facing the nation” (p. 100).

Sowell’s The Housing Boom and Bust, rev. ed. (New York: Basic Books, 2010) makes this connection and helps us understand the “great recession” of the past three years. Though politicians such as Barney Frank and Barack Obama feverously blame “corporate greed” and Wall Street “fat cats” and unregulated capitalism, in truth: “The development of lax lending standards, both by banks and by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac standing behind the banks, came not from a lack of government regulation and oversight, but precisely as a result of government regulation and oversight, directed toward the politically popular goal of more ‘home ownership’ through ‘affordable housing,’ especially for low-income home buyers. These lax lending standards were the foundation for a house of cards that was ready to collapse with a relatively small nudge” (p. 57).

As an economist (who has taught at prestigious universities such as UCLA) and syndicated columnist, Sowell deftly analyzes and explains what actually happened, beginning with “the economics of the housing boom.” Housing sales skyrocketed during the first half-decade of the 21st century largely as a consequence of risky policies promoted in Washington D.C. (Fannie Mae; Freddie Mac; HUD; the Federal Reserve System) and Wall Street (banks and brokers). Underlying it all was a “smart growth” process launched in the 1970s that radically restricted land use in some areas, notably California, under the aegis of “preserving ‘open space,’ ‘saving farmland,’ ‘protecting the environment,’ ‘historical preservation’ and other politically attractive slogans” (p. 11). In fact, “vast amounts of land for which the local inhabitants have paid nothing are nevertheless controlled by them politically for their own benefit, to provide a buffer zone between themselves and less affluent people” (p. 131).

Consequently, one could buy the same house in Houston for a fraction of what was required in San Francisco, so “most of the country was not suffering from skyrocketing housing prices, which were largely confined to particular communities in which there were severe limitations on the building of housing” (p. 16). Housing prices and risky loans were, consequently, concentrated in these areas. Add to this the “creative financing” that surged in the 1990s—low (or no) down payment loans, adjustable-rate mortgages, bundling mortgages—and there were soon millions of people “buying homes that they would not be able to afford in the long run” (p. 19).

Much of this resulted from political stratagems promoted by the likes of Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd (most recently co-authors of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the massive financial regulatory mandate imposed by the Obama administration), designed to insure “affordable housing” for everyone.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, hugely expanded by the Clinton Administration in the 1990s, enabled federal agencies to pressure banks and mortgage companies to finance “underserved” groups, especially low income and racial minorities. When, under Clinton, HUD secretaries Henry Cisneros and Anthony Cuomo were given oversight of Freddie Mack and Fannie Mae—transforming staid conservative loan agencies into depositories for high-risk mortgages—new banking strategies were put in place, ripe for abuse. And abused they were! Community activists such as Jesse Jackson extracted millions of dollars from financial institutions fearing any accusation of racial profiling. Crying out for “social justice,” these activists, including Saul Alinsky disciples such as Chicago’s Gale Cincotta, declared: “‘We want it. They’ve got it. Let’s go get it’” (p. 117).

All told, Sowell calculates: “Over the years, the sums of money extracted from financial and other business organizations by community activist organizations, using a variety of tactics, have amounted to more than a trillion dollars, according to the national Community Reinvestment Coalition—nearly all of this money being received since 1992” (p. 119).

Having described the phenomena, Sowell succinctly analyzes the problem by distinguishing “enabling causes from impelling causes from precipitating causes” (p. 138). Easy credit, available on virtually every street corner, was the primary enabling cause. Impelling the process “were growing pressures from government regulatory agencies for mortgage lenders to reduce their lending requirements,” allowing most anyone who wanted a home to acquire one (p. 139). The primary precipitating factor was the abrupt fall in housing prices, especially impacting those speculators (“flippers”) who banked on rapid, booming home values, resulting in the tsunami of defaults, leaving us amidst the ruins of lost savings and battered IRAs.

“Few things,” Sowell laments, “blind human beings to the actual consequences of what they are doing like a heady feeling of self-righteousness during a crusade to smite the wicked and rescue the downtrodden” (p. 162). Declaiming themselves champions of social justice, politicians and community activists polished their images in the light of a pandering press and acted “like scavengers, able to extract large sums of money from banks and other institutions by raising claims of discrimination, whose power to delay government approval of bank mergers and other business decisions made pay-offs to these activists the only prudent course for those accused” (p. 162).

{sharethis}

5 Reasons The Pro-Life Movement Is Winning

hlevine@victorynh.com (Trevin Wax) — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:05:38 +0000

The pro-life cause is winning. In state legislatures, in the media, and in grassroots efforts to reduce the number of abortions, pro-life activists have put abortion rights advocates on defense. The pro-life movement certainly has hurdles to overcome before the United States can become a place where all human life is legally protected. Yet the eventual outcome is certain. Here are five reasons I believe we have reached a tipping point in favor of the pro-life cause.

1) Public Opinion

"A majority of Americans surveyed in a recent Rasmussen poll, including a large percentage of those who identified themselves 'pro-choice,' said they believe abortion is "morally wrong most of the time." Last year, for the third consecutive time, Gallup found that more Americans accept the pro-life label, a result that led the polling firm to acknowledge 'a real change in public opinion.'"

A majority of Americans surveyed in a recent Rasmussen poll, including a large percentage of those who identified themselves "pro-choice," said they believe abortion is "morally wrong most of the time." Last year, for the third consecutive time, Gallup found that more Americans accept the pro-life label, a result that led the polling firm to acknowledge "a real change in public opinion."

One reason for this shift is the high-tech ultrasound machine that reaffirms what embryology textbooks have told us all along -- that the unborn child is truly a human being. In a February Washington Post editorial, Frances Kissling, former president of Catholics for Choice, advised abortion-rights advocates to shift strategies: "We can no longer pretend the fetus is invisible." Yet few pro-choice activists seem to be listening to Kissling's advice. They continue to cast themselves as the defenders of "women's reproductive rights." This worn-out strategy fails to resonate with a large number of Americans because it ignores the point of tension. The debate has moved on from "reproductive rights" to the more perplexing question: "What are the unborn?"

Meanwhile, many people -- including some you would not expect -- are openly registering their unease with the procedure. Take the recently released autobiography of Steven Tyler, the "screamin' demon" lead singer of the rock band Aerosmith. When he impregnated a teenaged girl in the mid-1970s, friends convinced them they could not raise the child and should seek an abortion. "They put the needle in her belly and squeeze the stuff in and you watch," Tyler recounted in his autobiography. "And it comes out dead. I was pretty devastated. In my mind, I'm going, Jesus, what have I done?"

Twenty years ago, many of those who considered themselves "pro-life" were a little hesitant to say so publicly. Today, the reverse is true. Even those who advocate a woman's right to abortion don't want to fight for that position too passionately.

2) The Media

In 1972, an episode of "Maude" concluded with the central character choosing to have an abortion. One would think that nearly 40 years later, we would be past this debate. Not so. In fact, filmmakers and television writers have discovered that fictional abortion not only kills a fetus, but kills a story as well. Movie and television characters who wrestle with the decision (Dr. Abby Lockhart on "ER," for example) almost always choose life.

That's why even pro-choice filmmakers choose life in the end. "Juno" is a good example. The pregnant teenage girl approaches an abortion clinic and meets a pro-life friend who informs her that the baby has a heartbeat, can feel pain, and already has fingernails. Juno chooses "to appreciate her miracle."

Similarly, in a 2009 episode of "Law and Order" ("Dignity"), a female attorney seeking justice for a murdered abortion doctor is shaken by a description of partial-birth abortion. "I grew up thinking Roe v. Wade was gospel," she says. Now, "I don't know where my freedom ends and the dignity of another being begins."

"The media is not leading the way when it comes to the pro-life cause. It's only catching up to the sweeping pro-life sentiments of the majority of Americans. Yet the shift in popular culture reflects the progress the pro-life argument has made."

The media is not leading the way when it comes to the pro-life cause. It's only catching up to the sweeping pro-life sentiments of the majority of Americans. Yet the shift in popular culture reflects the progress the pro-life argument has made.

3) Young People

Seventeen-year-old singing sensation Justin Bieber, was recently asked by Rolling Stone for his position on abortion: "I really don't believe in abortion," he said, since abortion is "like killing a baby." Bieber is not alone. The sea of young faces at this year's annual "March for Life" in Washington prompted NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan to worry: "There are so many of them, and they are so young."

Bieber, ironically enough, was castigated by Barbara Walters for answering questions inappropriate for a person of his age -- even though girls can actually receive abortions, and not merely opine on them, at ages younger than 16 -- Bieber's age when the interview took place. That a veteran journalist like Walters fails to see the inconsistency in her position is a testament to how entrenched are the ideas among the older generation of abortion advocates.

4) The Third Wave

"'In the first wave, Catholics took the lead in declaring the inherent evil of abortion. Evangelicals then flooded in to help advance the pregnancy help movement. The Third Wave points to the victory of our movement and the downfall of abortion as a business, when Black and Hispanic Christians not only join this movement, but lead it.'"

John Ensor of Heartbeat International says: "In the first wave, Catholics took the lead in declaring the inherent evil of abortion. Evangelicals then flooded in to help advance the pregnancy help movement. The Third Wave points to the victory of our movement and the downfall of abortion as a business, when Black and Hispanic Christians not only join this movement, but lead it."

A few months ago, a billboard in New York City featured a picture of an African-American girl with the message "The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb." Many found the ad "racist" and thought it condemned black women for having abortions. Lost in the controversy was the actual point of the advertisement: abortion clinics target poor minorities in the inner city. Although the billboard was taken down, it pointed to the troubling racial history of abortion. When YouTube videos began making the rounds, showing the overtly racist agenda of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, some pro-choice advocates were forced to reconsider their assumptions.

5) Abortion advocates on the defensive

While Roe still stands, legislators in numerous states have begun chipping away at the implications of that decision. Supporting their efforts is increasing evidence of corruption at abortion clinics.

Planned Parenthood's advocates have sought to redirect the discussion by pointing to all the other health care services their clinics provide for low-income women. But implicit in Planned Parenthood's downplaying of abortion and emphasizing of other services is a stunning admission: Abortion is a problem. Planned Parenthood's talking points indicate that fewer and fewer Americans can stomach the idea of "abortion as health care."

And then there is the admission that abortion is a "tragic choice." On a recent episode of "The View," Whoopi Goldberg explained her reason for being pro-choice: the low-income woman who already has too many children. When confronted about women who simply get abortions out of convenience, she called them "idiots." Why does Whoopi have such a visceral reaction to abortion-for-convenience? Because she's an inconsistent advocate of abortion rights: She recognizes that the fetus is a human being and that abortion snuffs out this life. The fact that she (and others like her) sees abortion as a "tragic choice" implicitly speaks to the immorality of the procedure.

"The tipping point in favor of the pro-life cause is not evident to all. Time magazine recently chose Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards for its 100 Most Influential List. There is much work to be done."

The tipping point in favor of the pro-life cause is not evident to all. Time magazine recently chose Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards for its 100 Most Influential List. There is much work to be done.

The abortion debate will not go away. The fundamental issue at stake is not reproductive freedom but the desire to extend human rights to all -- even the smallest and most vulnerable human beings among us. Those who continue to ignore or deny the humanity of the unborn are increasingly on the defensive because new technologies are opening the window into the womb. What we find there are not tissues to be discarded, but human lives worth protecting.

Trevin Wax is editor of "TGM -- Theology -- Gospel -- Mission," a small-group curriculum being developed by LifeWay Christian Resources. A version of this column first appeared on his blog, TrevinWax.com and is reprinted with permission from Baptist Press.

{sharethis}

The Continuing Vitality of America’s Birth Certificate

hlevine@victorynh.com (Bo Perrin) — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 19:36:42 +0000

July 4th is the day we celebrate our nation’s birthday. It’s the day the Continental Congress held the first reading of The Declaration of Independence, the document that birthed our country. By the time it was read, the first pitched battles of the revolution were already under way. The country’s mood was somber and the Colonists were worried. A year earlier, the Continental Congress had adopted the Olive Branch Petition, sending it to King George by Richard Penn. The King had refused both. Then Thomas Paine published his Common Sense. The Olive Branch Petition had referred to Colonists as subjects of the King, and citizens of England. Common Sense repudiated both.

"The Declaration of Independence is the founding document of America, our birth certificate as it were, declaring our complete and utter separation from tyranny. There is no greater document than The Declaration of Independence for without it there would be no Constitution."

Common Sense fired up the Colonists, helping them realize that King George was no longer their benefactor but their enemy, no longer a father but a dictator. Common Sense is the philosophical and philological transition between the Olive Branch Petition and the Declaration. The Declaration of Independence declares a complete national break with England. The Declaration of Independence is the founding document of America, our birth certificate as it were, declaring our complete and utter separation from tyranny. There is no greater document than The Declaration of Independence for without it there would be no Constitution. So, let me take a few minutes of your time to share with you some important information about The Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration is a timeless document, which can never become impotent. Tyranny is an all-pervasive threat. A few among us remember the experience of World War Two while the rest must rely on historical accounts. The void left by the death of Fascism was filled, as all voids are, by the great tyranny of the USSR. Again, the free peoples of the world banded together and with great sacrifice withstood the USSR until its collapse in 1991. That void today is, as you read this, being filled by the fascism of radical Islam.

King George was the great tyrant of the 1700s. It has been speculated that King George suffered from some neurological issues nevertheless, the Parliament, which did not, certainly took advantage of the situation. They declared the Colonists were no longer English citizens, could not use English courts for their grievances and were in fact, slaves of the Empire. Two-thirds of The Declaration of Independence lists, as religious and civic law then demanded, the evidence that King George was tyrannical because he was attempting to strip the Colonists of their unalienable rights. What the Declaration documents is the lawless pattern of every tyrant, from Caesar to Hitler and Stalin. Therefore, the principles of the Declaration will live forever.

The Declaration of Independence is one of two documents that make up the fundamental law of the land. The Declaration is both a political and legal document. Interestingly, most of the scholars who research the Declaration fail to connect the dots between the philosophical basis of the Declaration’s language and the Christian natural law tradition exemplified by Judge Blackstone, John Locke, Cooke, Hooker, Calvin and many others. In fact, some seem to go to great extremes to obscure these dots, imposing their own dots trying to connect the Declaration’s language to that of the Romans and Greeks. The Declaration, so they declare, is a secular document. Not!

The Declaration is also a human document for it lays out the basis of all human freedom. The Declaration’s basis of human rights is not a human construct but rather the unalienable rights bestowed upon us by our Creator. This Creator is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. By either creation or fiat God has endowed us with certain rights which we cannot give away, because they are not ours to give, nor can they be taken because they are from God. The only possible way that any human can limit these unalienable rights to take away our “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.”

But is the Declaration the law of the land? Absolutely. Skeptics may claim otherwise, but I have yet to read a single objection to this view that provides any substantial evidence. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Declaration is a Constitutional document in one of the Slaughter-House Cases (1884) and in Gray v. Sanders (1963). Justice Thomas argues that the only way to understand the Constitution originally is to understand the Declaration of Independence. This is a must read.

Thomas explains that to correctly interpret the Constitution, to understand it’s original intent we must understand “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The Declaration provides the only real lens by which to correctly interpret the Constitution, and the proper foundation for The Declaration is Judeo-Christian principles. Here, then, are some ways to think about the Declaration.

The Declaration is the declaration of our new sovereignty, while the Constitution is the legal structure of this new sovereignty.

The Declaration is the Charter while the Constitution is the by-laws.

The Declaration is the moral lens of interpretation while the Constitution is the document which is to be interpreted.

The committee which designed the Declaration founded that charter upon Judeo-Christian epistemology. So many people have wasted hundreds of gallons of ink as well as millions of man-hours trying to prove that the Founders’ epistemology is Deistic and secular. It can’t be done! Why?

"The phrase “Laws of Nature” refers to the natural law (Law of the heart) which God placed into mankind. The “Laws of…Nature’s God” refers to the Scripture. The two are different sides of the same coin. These two phrases cannot be traced back to the Romans or the Greeks! The Declaration committee drew on the Bible as an integral part of America’s Constitutional system."

The phrase “ the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” historically stretches back hundreds of years from Jefferson’s pen to the writings of Locke, Blackstone, Coke, Aquinas, and ultimately to the Apostle Paul. The phrase “Laws of Nature” refers to the natural law (Law of the heart) which God placed into mankind. The “Laws of…Nature’s God” refers to the Scripture. The two are different sides of the same coin. These two phrases cannot be traced back to the Romans or the Greeks! The Declaration committee drew on the Bible as an integral part of America’s Constitutional system.

The term “self-evident” is a phrase which believers have used since about the eighth century and became prominent in theological discussions around the twelfth century. The term is also found in Romans 2. Self-evident refers to knowledge (first principles) which are self-evidently known because God has placed this information in our hearts to guide us. We call this guide natural Law.

The Declaration mentions the Creator and Supreme Judge throughout. The Declaration’s Creator is the God of the Bible according to the Founders! The Greeks and Romans did not have a deity who actually created the world because the pagan world, past the Romans back to the Classical Greeks, believed in a childish form of evolution. The vast majority of the founders believed in Biblical creationism!

The Declaration of Independence is our nation’s document of freedom, not the Constitution. In the recent movie, National TreasureNicolas Cage (as Benjamin Franklin Gates) is deciding whether to steal or not to steal the Declaration, to keep it out the hands of his archenemy. As Cage is looking at the Declaration he says,

“Of all the ideas that became the United States there is a line here that is at the heart of all the others, ‘But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.’”

This phrase is one reason Progressives do not want the American people to realize that the Declaration is part of the law of their land. Combine the Declaration and second amendment and you have the legal precedent and ability to protect yourself from a rogue government.

"The American Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States are not of equal importance. The Declaration is the greater document because (1) it is the nation’s founding document, (2) it provides the nation’s moral foundation and (3) it made the Constitution possible. This is not to degrade the importance and power of the Constitution, but merely, to put the two into the right perspective."

There is one difference between the Declaration and Constitution, which I have mentioned already, that we often do not think about. The Declaration declares all men are free from tyranny. The Constitution does not free people instead it chains people as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently stated. The Declaration references all people. The Constitution is designed to put limits on government. The Declaration is concerned with humanity. The Constitution is concerned with elected officials who are human. It is possible, someone might argue, that if the Constitution restricts the government that restriction provides freedom for We the People. Maybe. But think of it this way. The Colonists were already free prior to the Constitution under the Articles of Confederation. While the Constitution replaced the impotent Articles, The Declaration of Independence has never been replaced.

The people who penned the Constitution were already free and designed the Constitution to limit the power of the few elected officials they were entrusting with government power. The Constitution therefore does not provide freedom, rather it provides limitations What happens if the elected officials become tyrants? The declaration gives the American people the legal right as free people to change the government and by force if necessary. The Declaration warns that governments are not to be changed for light and transient reasons. Agreed. Nevertheless, it is the legal right, the legal duty of every free American to be willing to stand side-by-side to oppose a tyrant or tyrannical government. This is what freedom expects! Demands!

The American Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States are not of equal importance. The Declaration is the greater document because (1) it is the nation’s founding document, (2) it provides the nation’s moral foundation and (3) it made the Constitution possible. This is not to degrade the importance and power of the Constitution, but merely, to put the two into the right perspective.

For God, Freedom and Country.

Bo Perrin is minister of a congregation in Uniontown Ohio. He may be reached atThe American Heritage Project.

{sharethis}