How Being Anti-Abortion Is Like Being Anti-SlaveryAn appeal to the Pro-Life movement

I am not the kind of person who is frustrated when my opponent makes a point that I am not prepared for. My reaction is usually, "Huh. I should research that." But what really grinds my gears is when an ally makes a really bad point.

I'm sure as fellow pro-lifers you can empathize with that. Here we are, trying to stop people from killing babies, and somehow we are treated as horrible people. With a vast majority of the media on one side, all they have to do is quote any pro-life advocate that misspeaks, or when a stupid person who happens to be pro-life... well speaks. This is why it is incredibly important for us to really focus on messaging, because there are millions of lives that count on us communicating our message well.

So I propose a two piece plan. First of all, we need to associate ourselves with a historical movement which was not only successful, but recognized as a good thing by the general public, as well as one that we have a legitimate association with. And lo and behold this isn't that difficult: slavery.

So similarities between Pro-Life and Abolitionism:

• Both have to do with human rights. At the end of the day, that is all that we are fighting for: that the rights of a particular group of humans is recognized and respected. And not just the right to speak or anything like that, but the right to be treated as human beings.
  
  
• Both have to confront dehumanization. I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not think that being Pro-Choice is anything like being Pro-Slavery. Abortion and slavery are very different institutions, and thus the defences for them are very different. That said, since both abolition and Pro-life are based on recognizing a group's humanity, opposition to us must include why that group isn't fully human. This means that we can look to how such dehumanization was combated in the 19th century, and see if any of it is translatable. And of course maintain the campaign of showing people how these children really are children through pictures and other such means.
  
• Both are religiously motivated. I am not ashamed of this, but it is important to point out how religion plays a role in this debate. It is because the issue which really divides the two sides is whether or not an unborn child is human, and defining what a human is outside of religious circles is difficult. Indeed, the very notion of human rights was founded by religious circles, and it is questionable whether the concept can really survive when societies shift to secularism. But philosophy aside, when we are accused about being overly religious, we can look back and point out how important religion was to the abolitionists.
  
  
• Both are driven by an uncompromising ethic. It is as difficult to compromise on the killing of children as it is to compromise on men, women, and children living in chains. Which means that we should be the first who are appalled by sex-trafficking, bigotry, and all denials of humanity that exist around the world. Don't let the liberals own those issues. Those should be our issues.
  
  
• Both are movements championed by the Republican Party. Just saying. 

Right now the Pro-Choice movement gets a lot of distance by connecting itself to the feminist movement. We really should be using the same kind of rhetoric since we are really grounded in the same tradition as the abolitionists. So let us celebrate that heritage and proclaim it. 

The second piece of the plan is to stay on message. We are about human rights. The unborn child has rights. That's it. Any objection, and I mean "any", can and should be answered from that basic viewpoint. 

PC: What about in the case of rape?
PL: Does that justify killing the offspring?

PC: What if the mother's life were in danger?
PL: Yes, she also has the right to life. We don't ignore the women, and therefore there is not simple answer, but such a question should recognize that both lives are equally precious.

PC: It is the woman's body?
PL: There are two person's bodies in question here. Both should be respected

Just this simple rule would prevent us from saying anything dumb. Nothing more needs to be said. The argument stands for itself. If the conversation shifts to why is the child human, than that is exactly where we want it to go! Focus all of our energy on that one point. The Pro-Life movement stands or falls on that point. Therefore let it!

Thank you.

Abortion Is Not About EqualityAn appeal to the Pro-Choice movement

OK, a couple of caveats. I don't want to be deceitful, so I'll come right out and say that I am Pro-Life and I am sure that affects how I view Pro-Choice rhetoric. But, to any Pro-Choice person out there, please don't reject my point here until I have actually stated it, because I may not be saying what you think I will be saying.

First of all, I completely acknowledge that it is proper to understand the Pro-Choice movement as defending rights, specifically women's rights. What I reject is the idea that just because we are dealing with women's rights that we are therefore dealing with equality. In reality, we are dealing with a moral issue that happens to only directly affect women.

Here is where I think you (that is pro-choice people) have a point. In most contexts, a person has the right to decide what medial procedures will and will not be done to them. The government should not have the right to say that a smoker who develops lung cancer should just deal with the cancer because it is the natural consequences of their choices. In fact, I think we pro-lifers actually undercut our message when our arguments seem to ignore this.

However, there are other notable exceptions to this: suicide and drugs for instance. I would also include prostitution here, though it isn't a medical procedure. But it is still true that there are exceptions to the idea that we are allowed to do whatever we want with our own bodies. It is also important to note that the above activities are illegal for both men and for women. It is not gender specific.

And, quite frankly, neither is the illegality of abortion. The fact that it only influences woman is a consequence of biology, not patriarchy. Any Pro-Life person would equally abhor a man killing a fetus if he were pregnant; it just only happens in movies. The morality of the thing falls on our belief that the fetus is a human being and thus should have human rights. I want the full rights and privileges of the mother to be maintained in tension with the full rights and privileges of the child.

But here is the Pro-Life position, and I'll wrap it up really tight so that there is no confusion: fetuses are children. To me, the distinction between a fetus and a newborn is no different than a newborn and a toddler. Morally they are equivalent. So in a nutshell, we want human rights for fetuses. That is it. Period.

I regret that making abortion illegal will force a long term medical situation on the mother, and that is not shallow regret. I really regret it. It is a horrible thing to force on someone, especially since pregnancy shouldn't be something horrible. It is the most beautiful thing in the world, and I hate the fact that it can become something ugly in a woman's life because it was forced on her. That is appalling to me. But so is killing children.

And that is what we are against: killing children whether by men or women. This particular means is only biologically available to women, so naturally restricting it would only affect women. Thus, it is legitimately a matter of women's rights: how should the mother's rights and the child's rights be resolved when they are in direct conflict? That is a very difficult question, but it has nothing to do with mean at all, and thus has nothing to do with equality or inequality. I believe that equality is a very important thing, and tying abortion into the category of equality both waters down the word, and can hinder legislation that is truly about equality under the law between men and women. This issue is a separate issue, and should be kept separate.

Thank you for your consideration.

Why Are You Defending The Rich? (repost)

"Why are you defending the rich?" Provocative question isn't it? There are so many little assumptions that are built into that one sentence.

As a conservative, I get asked this question occasionally. Ironically, it is not because I am saying the rich are great, and it is not because I am defending some of the immoral behavior of some CEOs and corporations. It is simply because I disagreeing with liberal economic policy. So why ask this particular question?

So, let us consider some of the assumptions lying behind this, and maybe then we can offer some appropriate answers.

A Matter of Motivation

The first assumption is that what I am doing is defending the rich. People have a very difficult time accepting that the thought process of someone else can be radically different from their own. As such, we often assume that someone's reasons for opposing our beliefs are along the same lines as our reasons for holding them. For instance, some Pro-life people believe that Pro-choice people actually don't mind killing children. Meanwhile many Pro-choice people assume that Pro-life people are sexist. Neither one of these assumptions are accurate, but both are based off of us having trouble separating out our motivations from the motivations of others.

In this case, I do not hold to conservative economic principles because I have any love for the rich. To be frank, I don't care about the rich one way or the other, at least not as a category. It is irrelevant to me. I don't see economic policy as a means of rewarding or punishing people for behavior. I see it as a means of maintaining economic stability for our civilization. That's all I care about.

The reason why someone would accuse me of defending the rich is because they view themselves as assaulting the rich. They may not use or like that terminology, but clearly that is the way they view things. Why else would my opposing their beliefs be considered to be defending a different group?

It's OK To Have A Little Class

Assumption two, of course, is that the rich need to be assaulted and shouldn't be defended. The poor are seen as victims of society, while the rich are seen as hoarders, preventing the poor from being delivered from their economic woes. I am speaking in hyperbole here, since I know no one that would express it this way. Every liberal I've ever met will acknowledge that there are good rich people in existence. But you can tell by the way that some of them talk, specifically the kind who would ask the titular question of this post, that they see these as exceptions.

So, do I disagree with this view? Yes, though not because I think the rich are great mind you. It is because I don't think the rich are monolithic. Some are good, and some are bad. Some of the poor are good, and some are bad. Economic status has nothing to do with moral integrity in my opinion, and I don't target a group simply because of their class. I believe this to be bigotry.

I think we can all agree that those who view the poor as universally lazy are bigoted. I think we can also agree that those who view the rich as the epitome of what it means to be an American to be equally bigoted. Where we disagree is that I believe the opposite to be bigoted as well. And I don't abide by bigotry.

Economic Justice

The last assumption is that the purpose of economic policy is to bring justice to the world by evening out the classes. I've hinted at this before of course, but it is good to address it directly.

I believe in justice and fairness, but I don't think that fairness means everyone gets the same thing. I believe everyone should get the same chances. The law is to treat everyone equal. That is not the same thing as making everyone equal. Whether we like it or not, we are not all equal in this society. I believe we were created equal, but as we live our lives, we go in different directions. Some of us succeed, and some of us don't. While it is tragic to be unsuccessful, it is not necessarily unjust or unfair.

Directly controlling the economic flow simply won't work. People are too selfish, and those in charge of directing that flow will be a higher class than those who aren't. Those who desire to eradicate the classes will merely recast them, and will cause that upper class to have considerably more control over the lower class than the system we have now. Instead of it being the rich vs the poor, it would be the government vs. the people. It isn't an improvement.

Classes are OK. They're not perfect, and it would be better if we didn't need them, but it is a natural result of living in a fallen world. It is the kind of problem that if you try and fix it, you end up breaking the whole system. What is wrong is when we think that being of one class makes you a more valuable human than someone else. That is bigotry as I said before. To some degree there will always be bigotry, and even if we managed to create a society without economic classes, we will still find ways to categorize each other and prejudge one another. We are very creative.

As a Christian, I believe that we are a fallen race. Sin and wickedness are inevitable. I am not going to look to a human system to try and fix the problem because I know it will fail. Instead, I will fight for justice within my own context, proclaim the gospel, and look forward to the return of the Son. That is the lot of the Christian, wherever we find ourselves.

The Moral Case For Free Enterprise

I saw this video on Joel's website last week. I thought it was so powerful that I wanted to pass it on.

Why Are You Defending The Rich?

"Why are you defending the rich?" Provocative question isn't it? There are so many little assumptions that are built into that one sentence.

As a conservative, I get asked this question occasionally. Ironically, it is not because I am saying the rich are great, and it is not because I am defending some of the immoral behavior of some CEOs and corporations. It is simply because I disagreeing with liberal economic policy. So why ask this particular question?

So, let us consider some of the assumptions lying behind this, and maybe then we can consider some appropriate answers.

A Matter of Motivation

The first assumption is that what I am doing is defending the rich. People have a very difficult time accepting that the thought process of someone else can be radically different from their own. As such, we often assume that someone's reasons for opposing our beliefs are along the same lines as our reasons for holding them. For instance, many Pro-life people believe that Pro-choice people actually don't mind killing children. Meanwhile many Pro-choice people assume that Pro-life people are sexist. Neither one of these assumptions are accurate, but both are based off of us having trouble separating out our motivations from the motivations of others.

In this case, I do not hold to conservative economic principles because I have any love for the rich. To be frank, I don't care about the rich one way or the other, at least not as a category. It is irrelevant to me. I don't see economic policy as a means of rewarding or punishing people for behavior. I see it as a means of maintaining economic stability for our civilization. That's all I care about.

The reason why someone would accuse me of defending the rich is because they view themselves as assaulting the rich. They may not use or like that terminology, but clearly that is the way they view things. Why else would my opposing their beliefs be considered to be defending a different group?

It's OK To Have A Little Class

Assumption two, of course, is that the rich need to be assaulted and shouldn't be defended. The poor are seen as victims of society, while the rich are seen as hoarders, preventing the poor from being delivered from their economic woes. I am speaking in hyperbole here, since I know no one that would express it this way. Every liberal I've ever met will acknowledge that there are good rich people in existence. But you can tell by the way that some of them talk, specifically the kind who would ask the titular question of this post, that they see these as exceptions.

So, do I disagree with this view? Yes, though not because I think the rich are great mind you. It is because I don't think the rich are monolithic. Some are good, and some are bad. Some of the poor are good, and some are bad. Economic status has nothing to do with moral integrity in my opinion, and I don't target a group simply because of their class. I believe this to be bigotry.

I think we can all agree that those who view the poor as universally lazy are bigoted. I think we can also agree that those who view the rich as the epitome of what it means to be an American to be equally bigoted. Where we disagree is that I believe the opposite to be bigoted as well. And I don't abide by bigotry.

Economic Justice

The last assumption is that the purpose of economic policy is to bring justice to the world by evening out the classes. I've hinted at this before of course, it is good to address it directly.

I believe in justice and fairness, but I don't think that fairness means everyone gets the same thing. I believe everyone should get the same chances. The law is to treat everyone equal. That is not the same thing as making everyone equal. Whether we like it or not, we are not all equal in this society. I believe we were created equal, but as we live our lives, we go in different directions. Some of us succeed, and some of us don't. While it is tragic to be unsuccessful, it is not unjust or unfair.

Directly controlling the economic flow simply won't work. People are too selfish, and those in charge of directing that flow will be a higher class than those who aren't. Those who desire to eradicate the classes will merely recast them, and will cause that upper class to have considerably more control over the lower class than the system we have now. Instead of it being the rich vs the poor, it would be the government vs. the people. It isn't an improvement.

Classes are OK. They're not perfect, and it would be better if we didn't need them, but it is a natural result of living in a fallen world. It is the kind of problem that if you try and fix it, you end up breaking the whole system. What is wrong is when we think that being of one class makes you a more valuable human than someone else. That is bigotry as I said before. To some degree there will always be bigotry, and even if we managed to create a society without economic classes, we will still find ways to categorize each other and prejudge one another. We are very creative.

As a Christian, I believe that we are a fallen race. Sin and wickedness are inevitable. I am not going to look to a human system to try and fix the problem because I know it will fail. Instead, I will fight for justice within my own context, proclaim the gospel, and look forward to the return of the Son. That is the lot of the Christian, wherever we find ourselves.

Obama's Big Blunder

By this point everyone knows about Obama's blunder regarding telling entrepreneurs that they aren't really responsible (or merely partially responsible) for their businesses. Now, I get what the president meant, so please do not try to correct me on that. His point was that businesses are reliant on public services in order to build their business, and are, to some degree, dependant on the government.

However, even with the necessary qualifications, I still am in stark disagreement with the president's point. Not only do businesses and the wealthy already pay more in taxes than other groups in this country (something that Obama consistently ignores in his rhetoric), and not only to non-entrepreneurs have access to the same public services (of the same class of course), but I don't believe that there would be no success for entrepreneurs either without infrastructure.

It is not as if there were no businesses or leadership before the invention of infrastructure. It was of a much different form, but so was success. Infrastructure makes communities larger, and thus adds layers of success, but there was still success. Individuals in nomadic societies still could succeed, and create new positions and ways of doing things. So while the entrepreneurial spirit may use infrastructure, and while infrastructure can encourage it, it does not require the infrastructure.

At least, that's my opinion

Judging Newt

As I am writing this, there is a great controversy rising around Newt Gingrich on the issue of judges. I'm scheduling this to publish after Christmas though, so I don't know where the controversy will stand when this goes public.

In either case, Newt is being criticized for saying that he will eliminate court offices which he has deemed to populated with activist judges, and he proposes putting more power in the legislature and away from the courts. Here are his words on the subject from his 21st century contract with America:

The Founding Fathers felt strongly about limiting the power of judges because they had dealt with tyrannical and dictatorial British judges. In fact, reforming the judiciary was second only to “no taxation without representation” in the American colonists’ complaints about the British Empire prior to the revolution. A number of the complaints in the Declaration of Independence relate to judges dictatorial and illegal behavior.

Since the New Deal of the 1930s, however, the power of the American judiciary has increased exponentially at the expense of elected representatives of the people in the other two branches. The judiciary began to act on the premise of “judicial supremacy,” where courts not only review laws, but also actively seek to modify and create new law from the bench. The result is that courts have become more politicized, intervening in areas of American life never before imaginable.

Look here to see my friend Chris's look at Newt's contract.

A big part of me agrees with Newt. In fact, the first political post I published on this blog deals with this exact issue. There I discuss a Constitutional amendment for the ability of the executive branch and Congress to overturn a Supreme Court's decision by declaring it outside of federal jurisdiction (something which I feel would also prevent those branches from overturning something for their own power). I still think that this is a good idea BTW.

However, I do share with the Conservatives' apprehension of a president simply getting rid of a judge because he/she disagrees with them on policy. Mind you, I don't think that this is what Newt is proposing (which I will get back to), but I do share that apprehension. Whenever you have a shift in power, you always have to remember the principle of inheritance. Even if you want "your guy" to have this power, you need to remember that "your guy" will not always be in power, and the next guy will inherit that power. Never give "your guy" power that you don't want someone else to inherit.

However, I think there are some built in checks and good reasons for what Newt wants to do. First of all, he has not proposed that as president he would overturn court decisions. He couldn't do that even if he wanted to. Instead, he is claiming that he can eliminate judge positions. According to him, precedent for this was established by Jefferson and Monroe. However, that is a rather old reference, and the political system may have changed since then to disallow the president from doing this. This is beyond my knowledge. Still, if he does remove these judges, their decisions would remain on the books. He wouldn't be able to undo them.

Second, he isn't attempting to centralize power to the president. Instead, he is trying to bring it back to the Congress, which is consistent with the political theories which founded the nation. Now I know that Conservatives have a tendency to treat the founding fathers as a monolithic group when the weren't, but I do agree that the Constitution doesn't really talk about three perfectly equal branches of government, though it does leave room for it.

Third and finally, his contract speaks of a national conversation of how to deal with this. He is not claiming that he has discovered the answer and is going to push it through (other than taking out certain judges positions and courts). Does he have a suggested answer? Yes, I do agree that presently it is too raw to put into practice as is. But then, that is how our system works. Just like no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy, no piece of legislation survives first contact with the Congress. It'll get shifted, ironed out, and hopefully improved (hopefully being the key word there).

Newt right now is my guy. He is the one that I am rooting for because his ideas excite me, he has shown historically the creativity to deal with real problems, he has worked with both sides of the aisle without losing his fundamental philosophies, and he will bring the kind of experience, both in terms of leadership and interaction within the Federal government, that his predecessor was sorely lacking. His courage to actually deal with this issue is refreshing, and though I think his plan could use some work, I think his own words have shown that he is willing to negotiate and invite input to build a final plan that would be best for America.

Why Respecting My Religon Is Disrespectful

There are a lot of words thrown around today in the political arena that simply don't mean what they used to mean; some are more obvious than others. However, the biggest area where this goes on is within the context of religion. Many have talked about how those who preach "tolerance" are often intolerant of those who disagree with them, but that is not the word that I talking about today. I'm talking about respect (insert Aretha Franklin joke here).

First a caveat: I do believe that we should respect other people's beliefs. Not all beliefs are worthy of respect, but most are. Besides, they are human beings, and they have reasons for what they believe. Often times we just have different starting places (or "bliks" as Roger Olson recently said). If you don't respect that they have a right to their opinions, and that there are reasons behind what they are saying, then you are not going to be able to have a serious conversation about truth with them, evangelisic or otherwise.

However, what many mean by respect isn't respect at all. Many times, I have gotten into conversations with someone, and they talk about what they believe, and I either assess what they said, or offer my own opinion on the subject. And then, they turn to me utter that great conversation stopper, "I respect that opinion."

However, they don't. They don't because they ended the conversation, and left it at that. By "respect that opinion" they mean "I am fine with you believing that but I'm not going to think about." That isn't respect. Respect isn't taking what I said, wrapping it up in a little box with a ribbon that says "respect" on it, and then putting it on a shelf to collect dust. Respect is taking what I said seriously.

I don't believe what I believe because it makes my life simpler, easier, or happier. Indeed, it doesn't always. I believe what I believe because I am convinced that it properly describes reality. If I am right, then that belief is as true for you as it is for me.

It seems to me that this "respect" and "tolerance" movement often allows people who don't really want to get involved with thinking about such things to hide their beliefs from criticism. People have taken personal possession of their beliefs: their own little creations that marks who they are, and shows how creative they are. Like those paintings that I made in high school that I still have for some reason, there is this self-gratifying nostalgia looking back at such creations.

However, also like those paintings from high school, many times they're crap! However, the difference is that I am aware that those paintings were crap, but many of these people expect to receive the same level of respect for such opinions as ancient beliefs that have had thousands of persons carefully meditate and consider the implications of for centuries. While being old or organized doesn't make something true, it certainly makes it more worthy of respect than a really cool idea someone came up with while eating pizza and playing Halo.

Respect needs to be earned, and if your idea really is brilliant (and it may be), then demonstrate it by allowing it to stand up against scrutiny. True respect is not only recognizing that someone has good reasons for believing what they believe, but that they could be right, and that therefore what they are saying is worthy of consideration. This is especially true if what they are saying has serious ramifications for your life (like the future of the country, or the eternal state of your soul). These are things to be taken seriously, and not "respected" like I respect that you like Elvis over the Beatles (which I don't understand, but I digress). It needs to be true respect. It needs to be a recognition that this is something worthy of my time.

Here is my advice to you: don't use respect, tolerance, or other political words to ignore important ideas. Really take the time to think things out, and hear what people say. Show people enough respect to take them, and their ideas, seriously. Then maybe, just maybe, we'll become a society of real dialog that has conversations of substance.

A Take on the Republican Field

I thought I would do a quick little post on my thoughts on the Republican field. Because we are talking about the primaries, I am going to use my friend Chris Bastedo's stock metaphor of buy (someone I think might succeed), hold (someone I could succeed), sell (someone who I don't expect to succeed), and sold (someone who I think is a joke). Also, to avoid bias, Chris always lists everyone alphabetically. Therefore, to flaunt my bias, I'm going to start with who I like least and move to who I like best:

• Jon Huntsman (Sold)
  Huntsman is a RINO and simply is not going to win. His only chance was if the "establishment" portion of the party backed him, and they are backing Romney. I also don't care.
  
  
• Ron Paul (Sold)
  Ron Paul is a libertarian, and a good man. He cares about freedom, which I like, and pushes small government, which I also like. However, he also has very naive views on foreign policy. While this naiveté makes for an adorable Representative, it doesn't inspire confidence for someone aspiring to be Commander and Chief. In short, I like the man, I am glad he is in Congress, and I hope he stays there.
  
  
• Rick Santorum (Sell)
  To be honest, I have trouble with someone who attempts to make everything about values. Santorum is the kind of guy that I would probably vote for in the 90s when we were confident and comfortable. In those conditions, we usually care a lot about values. But right now we have a strife-ridden Middle East and a failing economy. I want someone practical. I just don't see Rick as that guy. (I also question whether value based voting should have a place in federal elections, but I digress)
  
  
• Michelle Bachmann (Sell)
  I think, for this race, Bachmann has had her day in the sun, but it is now past. Overall, I like Bachmann. However, I have found very little of her campaign differentiates her from the other candidates. She has a lot of slogans, and a lot of anti-Obama rhetoric, but I don't see anything that I can't get from someone else in the race.
  
  
• Rick Perry (Hold)
  Perry is a guy with some really good ideas who suffers terribly from foot-in-mouth disease. I also feel like him and Santorum through the most mud around, which isn't really something that gets me behind someone. What I fear the most is if he goes against Barak Obama and says foolish things which cost him the election. Besides, I think we can do better.
  
  
• Mitt Romney (Hold)
  I am sure many of you are surprised that I am saying "hold" for Mitt. Well, to be honest, a large portion of the Conservative base of the Republican Party is trying to find someone other than Romney, and I think there are better choices. Personally, I would be happy with Romney. He does a very good job. I also think he has a fantastic poker face (is he ever not half smiling?). The guy knows his economics, and he understands federalism (which a lot of his nay-sayers apparently don't). But I also think we can do better. He's a Rockefeller Republican instead of a true conservative, and I think a lot of his economic plans are too safe. The radical economic plans of Cain, Gingrich and even Perry are much more exciting and to my liking. In short, I would be happy Romney, but happier with a couple of others.
  
  
• Herman Cain (Buy)
  First of all, I trust his character a lot more than the persons who are criticizing him. I am also exciting about anyone who wants to implement the fair tax (which his 9-9-9 plan is supposed to be an intermediate step towards). I also love his foreign policy, which is essentially appointing other people who know what the heck they are doing and then trusting them. That is what every president without military and diplomatic experience should do. However, I have a couple of concerns: first I little worried that his 9-9-9 plan will be a permanent intermediate step. In other words, I am worried that he'll pass it, and then his term will end before he can implement the next phase towards the fair tax (in government you always have to keep in mind that others with inherit what you do, and may not do with it what you would want). My second concern is a lack of political experience. Solution: Cain is the VP for...
  
  
• Newt Gingrich (Buy)
  I think Newt is the right man for the job. First of all, seeing as we need someone who is going to work well in both the domestic and foreign environments, it is good to have someone named after an amphibian. More seriously though, this is a man who behind the economic boom in the 90s. Additionally, he has extensive experience in federal politics, not only as a Congressman, but also as a leader. He has demonstrated to have a deep understanding of any issue upon which he speaks. He also rhetorically articulate and aggressive, while seeking fairness on the field with his competitors. Apart from a bit of a tarnished past which he has repented of, there isn't anything I can really say which is negative about him.

I want to finish with one last thought: as Americans, we have a responsibility to make informed decisions. If you want to vote, then get informed. If you don't want to bother to get informed, then don't vote. We have the privilege of living in a country where our opinion matters. But like all privileges, it comes with responsibilities. Don't wait until the last minute to read a pamphlet to hand you your opinion in front of the voting booth. Start looking at the people and the issues now. Remember, it's your future too.

WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY WRONG:Part III: Applying the Answer

Is has been posited by me in my last post that the reason that homosexuality is wrong is because it betrays our responsibility to represent God, and that it misrepresents the divine nature of love. OK, that's great. But what does that mean for us as Americans, evangelists, and church goers? How do we as Christians take this theological understanding and apply it socially, politically, and practically?

The State of Unions

The first question that I think will be asked in terms of applying our opinion of homosexuality is whether or not gay marriage should be legal. Here we have a real conundrum. As someone who believes that homosexuality is wrong, I cannot really be for gay marriage. However, recognizing that my understanding for why it is wrong is completely bound in my understanding of God, I cannot really insist that a government which is not supposed to take sides in religious squabbles should be expected to support my position.

Here it comes to a question of how you understand your own opinion as it comes to government. For instance, if you understand our government simply as a representative democracy, then you may believe that it is the politicians role to represent your opinions, regardless of how the government is supposed to be set up. However, if you take such a position, you cannot really be upset when they also take up the cause of your neighbor with whom you so adamantly disagree. In such an understanding, the politician is ultimately going to represent the majority, and we aren't really the majority on this issue.

Fine. Well if you instead believe that we are a Republic, and those politicians are elected to represent not our opinions but our best interests within in the confines of the Constitution, you would then be closer to my own views. However, can we constitutionally justify the government siding with one religious view over another? There is freedom of religion in this country. I know that that often gets abused, but in this case it is legitimate. Even if we just stick within Christianity, the idea of freedom of religion meant that the government couldn't take the side of Baptists and outlaw infant baptism. That was the kind of thing our forefathers meant. Is it really any different about deciding who our church's are allowed to marry?

I don't really think so. Quite frankly, the government, especially the Federal government should just stay out of it. And it is really this view I think we should support. This is something that needs to be fought in the hearts and minds of the people. This battle needs to take place in books, pulpits, blogs, etc... It shouldn't take place in Washington, or even Albany.

This is why I have always supported the idea of civil unions. I don't mean a separate but equal idea, but removing the language of marriage from the law entirely, and replacing with the structure of the unification of property between two citizens, whether partial or complete. This is the principle reason why government is involved at all, so let's just step out of the religious aspect of the issue, and only deal with property rights. This would free the churches to deal with the issue on the ideological battleground.

Church Life

However, one shouldn't run the church like the government. The government is not a moral institution (it is amoral in nature); the church is though.

We still need to be careful though. We need to make sure that we are not treating them differently than anyone else who has a habitual sin in their life. We need to see them as a person who needs redemption. You don't kick someone out of your church just because they have sin in their life. Naturally, someone who is unrepentant in a sin shouldn't be given a teaching position, or a position of authority, but they can still attend service and bible studies. But if they are trying to teach other people that what they are doing is OK, or if they are causing strife within the church, or if they are flaunting their sin, disciplinary measures are clearly required, up to having them leave the congregation. However, this is true of any sin.

For homosexuality in particular, the church needs to be aware of why a person enters into that lifestyle, and offer alternative answers. I believe that a person enters into homosexuality because identity issues: it helps them find their place and role in society. The church can offer that same sense of identity: you are a child of God, made in His image, and represent Him to the world. You are part of God's family, and are love and accepted for who you were truly are (not necessarily who you think you are though).

However, that is a general answer. To truly answer a person's ultimate identity questions, you need to take seriously who they are individually. This isn't something that I can do in this post simply because the precise answer would be different for each individual. Everyone has a place in God's family, and it is part of the church's role to help a person find it.

One On One

"OK Martin, but how do I deal with homosexuals at my job, in the world, and in my life?" Excellent question!

First of all, watch your language. What I mean is make sure that what you are saying reflects your perspective, not the worlds. The world labels men who are effeminate as gay. Don't do the same. This enforces the kind of stereotype which pushes certain males to define themselves as gay just because they are more sensitive or gentle. Indeed, reject the entire label of a homosexual. There are no homosexuals. That isn't a type of person. Just because the world believes that, doesn't mean that you should. If you speak about the issue differently than everyone else, it will cause curiosity, and give you the opportunity to share the truth.

Second, care about everyone. Don't discount a person because of their political or sociological agenda. Recognize them as children of God, and deserving of the respect of divine image-bearers.

Third, be open with what you believe without being overbearing. You don't have to try and convince a person each time you talk with them (especially not the first time). Instead, simply state truth matter of factly, without judgment or coercion. Allow the truth to speak for itself, and only defend it when it is actually attacked. The best offense is a good defense. Perfect your defense.

And one final point before I close: remember that these are people. You don't know why someone is living a homosexual lifestyle. You don't know their life story. Do not interpret their life unless they give you permission. Do not explain their choices and decisions that they have not told. Instead, focus on God, and declare His glory and love unequivocally. Ask questions and don't give slogans. Remember, it is not our job to convert people. It is our job to teach them to listen for God. Let Him do all the hard work. After all, He's better at it.

Should Faith Be A Factor in Politics

My friend Chris recently wrote this post on this subject, and I believe he expressed himself very well. I also completely agree with him. My faith forms the very basics of my ethics and morality. I can I ignore such things like my morality when voting for persons who are going to influence not only my life, but every person around me?

My last post was dealing with my view of war and killing, and how it differed between the Church and the government. Many people saw this as a contradiction, and one person noticed a similarity with Martin Luther's theology of Two Kingdoms.

However, I don't think that my view is really that official. The Church is an ideological institution. It's design and purpose is to house, educate, and equip God's people as they represent Him in the world and spread His Kingdom and influence through the love of Christ. The government is a pragmatic institution. It's design is to protect people from threats foreign and abroad, and to develop an social infrastructure (i.e. common currency, roads, etc) to enable society to function. Violence is never a good thing, but it is sometimes very practical and necessary.

As a Christian, when I vote and consider public policy, I am weighing out two things: morality and practicality. I don't expect the government to be able to defend people without being violent (even though appeasement strategies worked so well in the 1930s). I also don't expect there to be a law against every sin in the Book (laws are meaningless if they can't be enforced, and immoral if they can't be enforced morally).

These are things that have to remain in tension, not because it is some grand mystery on how they work, but because how that tension plays out may vary from situation to situation.

The Bible And The Government

I recently read a post over at Mason's blog that talked about the Myth of Redemptive Violence. Mason is a strong pacifist, and I have a lot of respect for him (that's why I read his blog). However, this is an issue that I have often disagreed with him about, and I just want to explain my thoughts in more detail.

First off, I think that violence is alien to the Christian perspective. Christianity is by nature pacifist. Jesus taught about loving your neighbor, turning the other cheek, and forgiving those that do you wrong.

Second of all, violence is very common in the Old Testament. The only OT book I can think of which is devoid of violence is problably Song of Songs (maybe Job since the only violence is done by looters).

At first glance, this appears to be a contradiction. Personally, I think this is a dialectic.

Barth Having Both

Barth was a early 20th century theologian, and one of the theological greats of our time. Oh, and he loved dialectics, and often pushed them. A dialectic is a kind of theological mystery: something which is clearly true, but impossible to explain in words. Specifically, it is when to opposite things are equally true in such a way that you can't simply explain how the work together. Instead, you need to affirm both and let them live in tension.

In the case of violence: violence is bad. It is unilaterally bad. It is also sometimes necessary. Perhaps I simply read too many comic books, but sometimes someone just needs to be stopped. Nonviolence is great when you are the one in the crosshairs, but when it is someone else, I don't see how it is justifable to not do whatever you can to protect that person.

However, that doesn't mean that it justifies you. Maybe in human courts, but if you strike any person down, even for a righteous cause, you have defiled yourself. I agree with Mason that the idea of redemptive violence is a myth. David's hands were so defiled that he wasn't allowed to build God's temple. However, just because something defiles you, it doesn't mean it shouldn't have been done. After all, the priests were often defiled while performing sacred acts. How much more would one be defiled after striking down on made in the image of God?

Ok, On To Government

One thing I definately believe though is that the Church should be pacifist, and the government should not be. It is the government's principle job to protect its citizens. That is why it exists. It is the Church's job to represent Christ: self-sacrifice.

I believe in the seperation of Church and State, because the Church should be holy, and cannot be defiled in the necessary tasks of governing a fallen world. One of the reasons why the Catholic Church became so corrupted was because it became a political entity. One of the reasons why the NT is so pacifist is because it never deals with state polity. One of the reason why the OT is so violent is because it deals extensively with state polity.

Both must coexist, and remain in tension. As long as humanity remains unsubmitted to God as the one true king, violence is going to remain being an ugly reality. It is one we should never approve of, but it is one that we also cannot avoid.

Newest Development in the Obama/Israel Scandal - Satire

At 8:15 this afternoon, as many of you know, President Obama has released his plan concerning Israel. He announced that he hopes to encourage Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu by a demonstration of returning the entire state of Oklahoma to Native Americans. Already this bold radical plan is beginning to start a scandal.

Robert Gibbs explains, "Many have called us hypocritical for telling Israel to return land that it won in a war while we are still living on land that we won from Native Americans. We hope that this gesture will demonstrate to Netanyahu that we are serious in believing that this is the best way to resolve this conflict." When asked why the president choose Oklahoma he stated, "It's not like we were using it anyway."

So far there have been many complaints about this plan. Tea Party leader Sarah Palin stated, "How does he expect to do this without the approval of the Oklahoma legislature? We are the United States, not the United Territories." Additionally several theatrical groups have spoken out against the plan saying that it will damage sales of the Richard Rodgers play of the same name.

Even some Native American groups have complained. One such leader stated, "It's like being given a lawn mower while living in an apartment. It is rather valuable, but what are we supposed to do with it?"

According to Gibbs, "We know that there are a lot of nay-sayers on this issue. Some think that it is foolish, and some claim that it is based off of a complete misunderstanding of the Middle East situation. However, we stand resolute. We are doing this for peace; we hope for peace... and sometimes hope is audacious."

RECENT UPDATE...

New sources have apparently confirmed that the presidents original plan was to give back Texas which we won in the Mexican-American war back to Mexico. This plan was evidently defeated when the Presidents military advisors pointed out that we didn't win Texas, but rather it was annexed. To this news, the President merely said, "oh."

Weighing in a bit on politics

I don't usually blog about politics because I don't consider myself very knowledgable on the subject. I am principly a theologian, and my understanding of politics is more theorhetical than practical.

However, I have found some of the discussion surrounding President Barak Obama lately interesting. President Obama, in my opinion, is someone who doesn't seem to understand that people disagree with him. He seems to view any detractor as a fringe subversive, rather than as a respected opponent. This has caused him to act in rather uncooth ways in regards to how he pushes his agenda.

Two recent events I think have really clarified this. First of all, there is the entire affair regarding the Honorable Judge Vinson. Vinson declares Obama's healthcare to be unconstitutional, yet Obama continued to enforce it. Techiniquely, as I understand it, the bill is in limbo until it is heard by the Supreme Court. Thus Obama has no actual authority to enforce anything, yet he still attempted to.

A second thing is the recent attack on DOMA, which I think it his attempt to say "Look I really am for the constitution" in a way that still is consistant with his overall agenda. However, ironically, DOMA doesn't really go against the constitution at all. It merely says that the federal government isn't allowed to use the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution to get around state decisions on gay marriage. There are really only two sections to DOMA, considering the section 1 is just naming the thing: Article 2 which is making something official which was already true; that no state is under the obligation to hold up another states law if it contradicts its only public policy. Article 3, which is a bit more contraversial, is defining the terms marriage and spouse only in regards to how they are used within federal documents and agencies (a fact that seems to be routinely ignored). So I don't really see how this is supporting the Constitution.

I have always heald that I don't particularly care about gay marriage: I only care that it remains under the juridiction of the states to decide policy on the matter. I still stand by that, and it seems to me that Obama is trying to get around that. He seems to continuely undermine state authority. I don't like the consolidation of federal power, and it has increasely come to my attention that this is precisely what the current president's agenda is.

So, are you into labels?

Surely you have heard the phrases, "I'm not into labels" or "I don't want to be labeled". It is a very common thing to say nowadays, and represents an overall apathy to philosophical matters (or whatever subject the phrase comes up in). I first want to say that I completely respect these people, since most of them are really just trying to avoid a fight about something that they don't care about it. But I wanted to discuss the concept of labels within society, and maybe tease out why some people use them, what they are for, and whether they should be used at all.

A Rose By Any Other Label...

First of all, let's get down to the basic question: what is a label? Essentially 'label' is nothing more than another word for 'name'. The only real difference is the term 'label' forms a word picture of some kind of visual "name-tag" being placed upon the thing named. It is clear that no one is really against naming things, but yet they are against labeling. This is almost contradictory.

Almost. What people are really against is having a name forced upon them that they don't want, and that is the key. Naming/labelling is incredibly important, and innate to the nature of man, but it also a very powerful thing.

Consider Adam. Adam's first role within the garden was to name everything that was around him. Why? I mean, didn't God have name for these things? It is important to recognize that within the Hebrew thought, the concept of naming something was exerting your power over it. By naming it, you brought it under your dominion: you define it. Thus by having Adam name everything, God was giving Adam dominion over the Earth.

Though this concept isn't quite as conscience within the minds of our culture, it is still true, and we know it on an intuitive level. When someone else applies a label to us, they are, to some degree, exerting some kind of control over us. They are defining us. That's not always comfortable (especially if we don't like or don't identify with the label being applied). Additionally, the person themselves are also somewhat aware of it, for those that insist on a label for you are usually people who are attempting to categorize you to assess how they are supposed to interact with you (often in terms of "friend or foe"). Let's face it, labels of the basic building blocks of organization, and many people want or need to organize the people they know.

This brings up a second word picture that the term 'label' offers. There is the one picture, mentioned above, of the name-tag that defines me, but the far more disturbing image is the box label. I'm much more comfortable with the name-tag that is there to help distinguish me from others, but not so much with being put in a box with a bunch of people I don't like so I can be filed away, perhaps even discarded.

With all of this, it is quite easy to see why people don't like to be labeled.

So, Labels Are Bad?

Not at all! Labels are a necessary part of human interaction! Like I said above, labeling serves very important functions.

First it defines a thing. It is not wrong for things to be defined. Can you imagine what conversation would be like if we didn't have names for things? Imagine if every time I wanted to refer to John, I would have to describe him because he didn't have a name. Indeed, if we had no names at all, imagining trying to describe him without such words as 'hair', 'shirt', 'male', 'head', 'eyes', and even 'age'. Likewise imagine political conversations if we had no names for positions, and a person would have to describe their entire political platform at the beginning of every conversation. I mean we could do it, but who would want to! If you think that I am wrong, just look at the words that are usually used to replace labels (given that the person is trying to abandon "labeling").

Second it organizes things. As much as no one wants to be organized, it is important for one to organize their social life. I want to know who my friends are. I want to know who my family is. I want to be able to quickly identify who is going to support me in a discussion on politics or theology. This is incredibly helpful, and makes life, well, livable.

Third it works as a short-hand. This is sort of already implied with what I said above, but it is important to note separately. It is often helpful within a conversation though to define a concept and then label it for further reference. For those who frequent this site, I often reference the Machine Gun Hermeneutic. This is a term that I invented, but whenever I refer to it, I link to the first article I wrote on it. The truth is I wrote that article for the purpose of defining a label that I was intending to use. That is the value of labeling.

Label Libel

The real problem is in the mismanagement of labels. Many labels in our society are misused, sometimes out of ignorance, sometimes out of malevolence.

Here's an example from a movie. Have you ever seen Hot Fuzz? Hysterical movie, though I would not recommend it to those who are sensitive (though I do recommend it to everyone else). There is one scene where the main character is being asked whether he believes in God. He says no. So the questioner (a priest unfortunately) says, "So you're an atheist?" He says that it more that he isn't certain about the concept of God, to which which the questioner responds, "Ah, you're an agnostic then." It is true that any belief that is unsure about the existence of God can be called an agnostic belief, but technically (as I understand), one is "an agnostic" if they assert that the existence of God cannot be known. However, the term is often used to label those who are simply unsure, as if they actually fell on the spectrum or something.

Another example is a label I take on myself: Arminian. The concept of Arminianism is that God extends his grace to all, and enables all to come to Him, but that only a few respond to this grace (this is a gross oversimplification, but I discuss it in more detail elsewhere). However, many attempt to define Arminianism as "salvation by works" or "man-centered" or "anything that believes in free-will" even though these are fallacious definitions. Indeed, many attach other labels which are completely foreign to the stance.

But it is incredibly important that we don't try to abandon labels or avoid them. Instead we need to own and defend them.

You see, the real problem is not that you are being labeled, but that other people are the ones doing it. When you label or name something, you are exerting power over it. Therefore the problem is other people trying to have power over you. The solution is not to not be labeled (since they label you anyway), but that instead you control which labels are attached to you.

For instance, I don't see myself as a conservative (politically speaking). That is not a label that I attach to myself. However, I do use the labels federalist and capitalist, and if someone calls me conservative, I can correct by using the terms that I define myself as. Yes, I am on the right side of politics, but not for the same reasons as many, and thus I don't really belong in the same category. On the other hand, I don't mind the label "right-winged" for that implies a spectrum rather than a political philosophy, and that is the side of the spectrum I'm on.

Therefore, to answer the question that I labeled this post with: Yes, I am into labels, and I hope that you will be to. Let us just take the time to understand and appropriately choose the labels we use.

UnchristianPart VI: Too Political

• Introduction
• Hypocrisy
• Proselytizing
• Antihomosexual
• Sheltered
• Too Political
• Judgmental
• Conclusion

Many view Christians purely in terms of the political right. To them, we are activists of a particular brand of politics and have nothing much to offer apart from that. This is a problem in that the Church should not be defined by politics, though we should engage in them.

Kinnaman's Thoughts

Kinnaman sees the problem, not in terms of what our politics are, but in terms of how we go about engaging poltics. At the end of the chapter, he makes a series of observations and solutions to this problem:

• unChristian: Christians rely too heavily on political
  Christlike: We are cautious not to place too much emphasis on politics
  
  
• unChristian: Christians get enamored with politics
  Christlike: There is nothing gained by winning elections if we lose our soul in the process
  
  
• unChristian: Christians drown out and demonize the voices of others
  Christlike: Respect our enemies and be aware of our capacity for myopia
  
  
• unChristian: Christians do not respect leaders whose political viewpoint is different from their own.
  Christlike: Respect and listen to our leaders and pray for them
  
  
• unChristian: Christians are hypocrites when it comes to politics
  Christlike: In trying to solve problems in society, be vigilant about our own capacity for hypocracy.

My Thoughts

Personally, I like Kinnaman's balance here. He is correct that Christians need to be engaged in politics because we want to make a positive difference in this world. I would add that Christians have a responsibility to be involved in politics because we are called to that positive difference.

But he is also right that politics should not be our focus. They are, by nature, complex, and any attempt to say that "such and such" is the clear Christian perspective on an issue usually fails to grasp the complexity.

For instance, let us take the issue of abortion. Now I'm against it because I believe it is completely Unchristian to allow millions of babies to die every year by government hands. This logic to be is unpenetrable. But I also realize that no pro-abortion person supports the killing of babies. What they reject is the notion that we are even dealing with a baby.

Another basic problem is that political agenda should not be the primary test for fellowship. Any church should be able to exist with different political views within it since the basis for fellowship is commitment to Jesus Christ. Yes, certain views should not be possible, but if we are focused on heavenly things, then we should not be as concerned with what happens in this world. If America falls, the kingdom of God will survive. We need to be OK with that.

The Biblical Perspective of War

I’ve been reading a lot of Ben Witherington’s blog. He has a fantastic mind, and has a fantastic understanding of Scripture. Definitely one of the better biblical scholars out there.

However, he seems to be very strong against the concept of war. Maybe a misunderstand him, but he seems to be against it in all cases, believe that Christians should always refuse to participate in war. I’m not sure if this holds water.

Now, it is very true that God doesn’t like war. War is not really seen as positive, and this is clearest seen in the New Testament, which speaks of peace and love, and speaks of war as demonstration of the depravity of humanity, and signs for the coming of the end of all things. War is a bad thing, and should never be desired.

But a war can also be a necessary thing. To say that war is a bad thing does not mean that a particular war is the wrong thing to do, or participate in. It is very clear in the Old Testament that God does approve of war when the situation calls for it. War can be a very necessary to protect yourself from hostile and oppressive forces. It is not righteous to be idle when the unrighteous abuse the weak. Sometimes you need to fight.

I’ve heard the argument, though, that we are New Testament believers. Even if there is war in the Old Testament, that doesn’t mean that we should be for it now, since we are supposed to be living out the New Testament. To that, I have a few things to say.

First, I’m not talking about be for war, but recognizing that it is, at times, a necessary evil.

Second, I don't believe in the strong dialectic between the Old and New Testament anyway. Saying that “Well that’s the old covenant, and this is the new covenant”, though a relevant argument, is not a sufficient argument because you still have to deal with the fact that in the Old Testament God sanctioned wars. You can’t run away from that, and casting out the entire Old Testament to avoid it is, well, wrong.

Third, the two testaments write on different levels. The OT is written in a more historical way while the NT is written more conceptually. From the NT, we can be sure that God never wants war, but from the OT, we can see that God does recognize the need for war on occasions.

My point is that we should not look to the Bible to deal with the question of war in general to judge a specific war. There is always a difference between the general and the particular. In general, war is to be avoided. In particular, you need to examine the specifics of the specific war to come to a conclusion.

Because we are not part of this nation, but instead belong to God’s kingdom, we cannot follow blind nationalism, and promote “the American ideal in the rest of the world.” But, at the same time, if we are dealing with an evil force, we can help our nation suppress it.

A Very True Cartoon

This is a very true cartoon about how the media tends to spin things:

No Taxation Without Rumination

In England, there is a legend about a hood by the name of Robin who lived in the forest and took money from the rich aristocrats and distributed it among the poor and needy. Many liberals today see themselves in a similar light: taking money from the greedy aristocrats of our society and redistributing it among the poor.

However, have they really thought about whether or not this will actually help the poor, or is it merely assumed? I'm sure there are some who do both. But before you cast your vote on Tuesday, please consider some of the thoughts that I have on this subject. I do not believe that increasing taxes of the rich and big business will help the poor at all. Instead I believe it will lead to instability in the overall economy, keep the poor poor, and slowly erode the middle class. Here are some of my reasons why:

Taxing Businesses Which Sell Needs

There are some businesses which sell things that will be bought, no matter what the condition of the economy is. Due to anti-monopoly laws (which are good things. I'm not against regulation entirely), there are usually competing businesses who sell these commodities. Due to the basic laws of competition, because they all sell the same basic product, these products tend to be the same price. The prices fluctuate due to conditions in the market, and changes in the ability to produce the product, but they tend to fluctuate across the whole market. An excellent example of this is gas, since Americans are so fuel dependent.

The problem with increasing the taxes of these kinds of products is that it is seen as just a change in the market. You see, people who run businesses are greedy, but they are also predictable because of it. They are not going to see the increase of taxes as a burden on themselves, but as part of the cost of producing and selling their product.

Therefore, what do they do? They include it in the price. They are not going to take a personal hit when every other company is experiencing the same increase in taxes. They all will put it into the price of gas so that they will be making consistent profits. Demand already keeps the prices down because the high competition has pushed them as low as they will go. So the rich won't pay for the increase of taxes, we will.

Taxing Businesses Which Sell Luxuries

There are some things we buy that we don't really need. One reason why the market will respond the way I described above with needed products is that there always will be a demand, regardless of price. This is not true with luxuries. With luxuries, if the price goes too far up, people will just stop buying them. Therefore, the prices will remain fairly constant even if taxes go up. Well, at least initially.

Because, at first, the prices will remain the same, and the expense to the business itself has just gone up, the result is that many businesses will not be able to stay in business. And which companies do you think will go out of business? It won't be the really big ones, but the smaller ones. The result is a decrease in small business, causing a fewer amount of businesses controlling the market. This to will lead to a decrease in competition and self regulation.

One may respond that I am assuming that all businesses will get the same increase in taxes. A tiered tax plan will avoid this. Well... yes and no. With a tiered tax plan, to some degree, the smaller businesses within each tier will go under, still decreasing the overall amount of competition. Also, tiers cause a barrier of improvement. If a company starts to make a slightly higher gross income, their taxes significantly increase, meaning that they will be making a lower net income, and it is the net income that marks a business's success. The result is that they will try to remain in the lower tier. So the higher tiers are not only weeding out the weaker companies within the tier, but new companies are also not coming up into it. So the amount of large businesses are decreasing, meaning less competition, meaning less regulation, meaning more money for those companies.

Also, a lack of competition also means that the businesses will be less affected by demand. They will now be able to afford loosing some costumers. This now means an increase in price. This also means that less Americans will be able to afford such a luxury (like eating out for instance), which means a change in the American lifestyle. This change will amount to a social blurring between the middle and lower classes.

Taxing The Individual Rich

One of the great things about this country is that we are very charitable. Even the greediest among us tend to give a lot in charity. Like I said before, the rich are greedy, but very predictable.

Let's say that Bob makes $10 million a year. Now, let's say out of that $10,000,000, he gives away $200,000: 2%. Now, someone may comment about that $9,800,000 that Bob is keeping, and says that he doesn't need all of that, and the poor should have it. This would be true. Bob could, and therefore should, be giving away more. Bob is greedy.

Now, let's say that the government significantly increases Bob's taxes. Indeed, the government targets Bob due to the amount of money he makes. So now, Bob is losing another $100,000 to the government than he was before. Remembering that Bob is greedy, which do you think will get a bigger cut? The amount that he gives away or the amount that he keeps? That's right, the amount that he gives away, and to that, I might add that, in general, charities do a better job at helping the poor than the government does. So money will be taken away from the competent helpers. Good plan.

Now, after a few years, this issue will iron itself out. Bob will probably eventually settle back to about 2% of his income, after he adjusts to the pay cut (if he manages to adjust that is). But it will probably settle out back to 2%, which will be less money total, and it will be a while before this occurs anyway. Overall, we will seeing a decrease in the amount of care that the poor is receiving.

Is It Really Moral?

If you recall the tale of Robin Hood, he stole from rich individuals, and gave to the needy. What many liberals forget is that he stole from the government who was overtaxing the people. Using Prince John's methods to achieve Robin Hood's goals is kind of iffy (if you don't want to admit that the whole idea of robbing was iffy to start with).

What exactly is the proposal here. Let us try to think this out. Let's take Bob again. Bob has a lot of money. Then over here we have Darrel. Darrel has barely any money. Now, it makes sense, given this problem, that some of Bob's money can be given to Darrel, then the problem will be solved. Therefore we should take Bob's money and give it to Darrel.

Wait, hold up. Let me rethink that. Are we sure we can take Bob's money? I mean ethically speaking. We've already established that Bob is immoral, so that's not the issue here. Is it right for us to take Bob's money? It is Bob's after all, not ours.

Well, maybe we can. I mean, if we are the government, right? The government has a right to tax, and it is the government which decides the taxes, not Bob. So the government has a right to take as much of Bob's money as it wants. Right?

Well... why does the government have that right? Indeed, is it a right? If we think of the government as a service, as it is providing security and stability within our society, then it makes sense that the consumers of that service, i.e. citizens, are charged a fee. Indeed, the government also has a lot, and I mean a lot, of overhead. Therefore, it actually needs to charge a fee for it's citizens. Thus the government needs to charge taxes. But it doesn't really have a right to. By that, I mean that the word 'right' isn't the correct term to describe it. It is more that we, as citizens, if we want the stable society that the government is offering us, then we need to pay it, and if we choose not to, then, naturally, the government can remove us from that society. But, if it isn't a right, but merely a fee for service, than does the government have the right to set the amount for taxes? Well, yes for the service sure.

However, and this is key, does the government have the right to charge one class of people differently than another? Is that moral? Can the government charge this class differently than this one? I mean, they are both getting the same product, aren't they? That is the stable society. Sure, they have different places within that society, but that's always going to be true. In the end we are talking about treating one class of people differently than another.

Also, one of the fundamental rights granted to us by this nation, at least originally, was the right to property. My property is mine, not the government's. Regardless of whether or not you agree with that philosophy, it is one of a basic right that was meant to be protected by the Bill of Rights (hence no illegal search and seizures, among other things). We are talking about the government singling out a particular group of people, and taking away their property for the government's own use.

Tax Breaks for the Rich?

Often I hear the conservative view on taxes as "tax breaks for the rich" but that isn't really true, not if you look at the philosophy behind it. The view is really equal treatment under the law, a.k.a. a flat tax. Now, it doesn't have to be perfectly flat, but I think rolling hills is better than the jagged mountains that Obama's proposing. It is not that conservatives are for "tax breaks for the rich", but more that conservatives are against "tax penalties for the rich". From the conservative perspective, the rich are being punished for being rich, and that just sound unethical to us.

And, no, I'm not saying, "oh poor persecuted millionares. Whatever will they do?" Nah, many of them are incredibly greedy. But doing an unethical thing, even if it is against bad people, is still the wrong thing to do in my book. I do believe that two wrongs don't make a right. Combine this with the more practical reasons that I gave above, as well my overall cynical view in that I doubt that the democrat poloticians are any less greedy or power hungry, and you get the result of me siding with the conservatives on this one.

Podcasts on Homosexuality

These are some podcasts on the subject of homosexuality that I wanted to keep tabs on, as well as my reactions to it. This was posted August 29th, 2006:

These two podcasts are very good, and back my own understanding on homosexuality. Mind you, I find the host of these podcasts to be a generic prat, but I like the speaker. I would like to do more research into this guy though. Curious what you guys think.

http://www.coralridge.org/BroadcastArchives.asp#2394

Scroll down for "Truths that Transform" and then do a search for "Male Homosexuality".

I will probably add my thoughts later on.

---

*UPDATE*

Ok, the speak in the podcast is named Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, and he is a clinician that works for helping men with homosexual issues. The primary thing that he is teaching on here is the nature vs. nurture issue.

First, here is the stance that I have had for some time founded solely on Scripture. Having sexual relations with someone of the same gender is wrong, what ever your reason is. However, considering all the data that I have ever recieved, and agreed that one is born with the problem. Thus, I considered in the same light as original sin: we are all born sinners, and these people are just born with a predisposition for that particular sin. But regardless of the reason why, it is possible to repent and be healed of it.

Dr. Nicolosi argues for the nurture argument. He states that homosexuality is not a sexual issue, but an attempt for a man who does not consider himself to be mascaline to "reach" or "get in touch with" mascalinity. However, he further argues, that this doesn't work since the results leave one feeling less mascaline, and that they only have relationships with men that have the same problem.

He mentions this one comment that a gay man made on a television program. This man saw another man, and said, "I either wanted to be him or have him." Dr. Nicolosi said this is primarily what is going on. They want to be a man, but can't, so they try to possess mascalinity relationally and sexually.

As a side note, he also differentiated between the term "gay" and "homosexual". A homosexual is shorthand for someone with a homosexual problem, someone attract to persons of the same gender. Gay is someone who as adopted the homosexual lifestyle as a self-identification.

As for myself, I'm inclined to believe him, since what he says is consistant with my own thoughts and experience with homosexuals. Additionally, he said that he has had a lot of success. Many men have turned away from homosexuality due to his techniques, which consist primarily of making them confortable with their own mascalinity. The only doubts I really have with what he is saying is that it sounds a bit too good to be true. The fact that I want him to be right makes me doubt whether I am objectively considering what he is saying. However, as of right now, I do support what he is saying, and I am interested in looking into his work.

BTW, he does mentions lesbians here and there. However, he works with men, so he goes into more detail with them. There is also a lot of interesting facts in there, as well his an indepth look at how homosexuality develops in the podcast. please listen to the podcast since you will get a lot more information out of it.