Category: Religion and History
Posted by: an okie gardener
The United States is not the only nation in which Christianity and politics mix. This report from the Pew Forum on the upcoming presidential election in South Korea highlights the growth and power of Christianity in ROK.
Category: Religion and History
Posted by: an okie gardener
Time magazine, evidently anticipating a quiet Christmas season, has released its list of Top Ten Religion Stories in 2007.
Their list.
1. Release of Mother Teresa's letters.
2. Democrats embrace religion and Mitt Romney Channels JFK.
3. Jerry Falwell Dies
4. The Pope's Moto Proprio
5. The Episcopal Church at Odds over Gays
6. The Greening of Evangelicalism
7. The Roar of Atheist Books
8. The Trials of New Life Church
9. The Creation Museum Opens
10. South Korean Christian Missionaries Kidnapped in Afghanistan
As usual, I beg to disagree. I really do not think their number one story will matter much in 100 years, except to scholars. I think Falwell's death is rated too high: his national influence was highest in the 1980s. The papal permission to celebrate the Latin Mass without a bishop's permission is ranked too high. And, though indicative of the continuing strength of Fundamentalism in the U.S., the opening of the Creation Museum does not deserve a top ten.
My list.
1. The continuing Islamic jihad against the rest of the world. We are in another hot spell of the nearly 1400 year-long war between Islam and everyone else.
2. The continued decline of Christianity in Europe, and growth of Islam.
3. The continuing consolidation of power in Russia under Putin, a practicing Russian Orthodox Christianwho seems to be trying to bring back the situation of the Czars, including a close relationship between the Church and the State.
4. The issues of religion in the U.S. Presidential primaries.
5. Pope Benedict XVI's conservative pontificate, which coming after Pope John Paul II, moves the Roman Catholic Church away from any liberalizing trends Vatican II may have engendered.
6. Troubles in the Anglican Communion caused by the U.S. Episcopal Church's positions regarding same-sex practice.
7. Related to number 1, but deserving its own space, the moves into international power by Iran; the government of which is propeled by apocalyptic expectation.
8. The continuing suppression of Tibetan religion and culture by the Chinese government, as well as the continued persecution of Falun Gong.
9. The growth of underground Christianity in Iran.
10. The "Quiet Revival" of conservative Christianity in the Boston area.
Their list.
1. Release of Mother Teresa's letters.
2. Democrats embrace religion and Mitt Romney Channels JFK.
3. Jerry Falwell Dies
4. The Pope's Moto Proprio
5. The Episcopal Church at Odds over Gays
6. The Greening of Evangelicalism
7. The Roar of Atheist Books
8. The Trials of New Life Church
9. The Creation Museum Opens
10. South Korean Christian Missionaries Kidnapped in Afghanistan
As usual, I beg to disagree. I really do not think their number one story will matter much in 100 years, except to scholars. I think Falwell's death is rated too high: his national influence was highest in the 1980s. The papal permission to celebrate the Latin Mass without a bishop's permission is ranked too high. And, though indicative of the continuing strength of Fundamentalism in the U.S., the opening of the Creation Museum does not deserve a top ten.
My list.
1. The continuing Islamic jihad against the rest of the world. We are in another hot spell of the nearly 1400 year-long war between Islam and everyone else.
2. The continued decline of Christianity in Europe, and growth of Islam.
3. The continuing consolidation of power in Russia under Putin, a practicing Russian Orthodox Christianwho seems to be trying to bring back the situation of the Czars, including a close relationship between the Church and the State.
4. The issues of religion in the U.S. Presidential primaries.
5. Pope Benedict XVI's conservative pontificate, which coming after Pope John Paul II, moves the Roman Catholic Church away from any liberalizing trends Vatican II may have engendered.
6. Troubles in the Anglican Communion caused by the U.S. Episcopal Church's positions regarding same-sex practice.
7. Related to number 1, but deserving its own space, the moves into international power by Iran; the government of which is propeled by apocalyptic expectation.
8. The continuing suppression of Tibetan religion and culture by the Chinese government, as well as the continued persecution of Falun Gong.
9. The growth of underground Christianity in Iran.
10. The "Quiet Revival" of conservative Christianity in the Boston area.
Category: Religion & Public Policy
Posted by: an okie gardener
I eulogized the late Dr. Thomas Torrance in this earlier post. He was a brilliant theologian, a faithful churchman, family man, and folower of Christ. In constructive theology he wrote especially on the nature of God, and on religion and science.
He recently was honored by Presbyterians Pro-Life. This notice also links to Torrance's booklet The Being and Nature of the Unborn Child.
Here is a direct link to Torrance's address. Scroll down to view the unedited version.
He recently was honored by Presbyterians Pro-Life. This notice also links to Torrance's booklet The Being and Nature of the Unborn Child.
Here is a direct link to Torrance's address. Scroll down to view the unedited version.
14/12: A Genuine Crisis in America
This morning Instapundit links to this post by Clayton Cramer entitled What's Gone Wrong in Oakland.
Some quotations from the the San Francisco Chronicle given in the post.
The body count is woven into the civic consciousness here - a number chased by homicide inspectors, studied by criminologists, lamented in churches, reported by journalists. Every mayor leaves City Hall on broken promises to quell the violence, and the killings continue. An additional 115 have been killed this year, putting Oakland on pace for another gruesome record. In the last five years, 557 people were slain on the city's streets, making Oakland the state's second-most murderous city, behind Compton. Most victims are young, black men who are dying in forgotten neighborhoods of East and West Oakland. A handful of their killers, speaking from prison, describe an environment where violence is so woven into the culture that murder has become a symbol of manhood. The inmates say the only difference between these neighborhoods and prison is the absence of walls. The same hierarchies apply - the meanest rise to the top. It's a survival skill that ensures ownership of drug corners, a sense of self-worth, female attention and protection from attack.
Experts fear that the neighborhoods are only getting more violent. There are entire blocks without a single two-parent family, where drug dealers have become the predominant male role models, and children fend for themselves in crowded, chaotic homes where they are routinely exposed to drugs, sex and guns. Criminal families are on their third and fourth generations. Grandparents - the ones who have historically stepped in to help raise fatherless boys and instill a sense of right and wrong - are dying off.
...
Increasingly, the young murder suspects coming to the station for questioning seem to lack basic morality, said Sgt. Tim Nolan, who has been investigating Oakland homicides for 17 years.
"There are more and more families where there's less and less structure," he said. "Talking to these suspects day in and out, there's a higher percentage today with no sense of right and wrong. It's frightening, but we are creating super-criminals." All it takes is a look, a put-down or a lost fight, and bullets fly. Disrespect has become the No. 1 reason to kill.
...
Without parents to help them mature, the mental world of these young killers stays stuck in an infantile, egotistic state, said forensic psychologist Shawn Johnston, who has conducted more than 15,000 court evaluations of adult and juvenile criminals in 15 Northern California counties. "What keeps us from killing each other is empathy, and we learn it from bonding with parents who pick us back up when we get hurt or teased as children," Johnston said. "Without it, you get guys who live in a constant state of protecting the fantasy that they are the most important thing this side of the Milky Way. And because they don't have empathy, they will shoot or stab to protect their illusion."
Cramer, the author of Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic: Dueling, Southern Violence, and Moral Reform (Praeger, 1999), points to the parallel with the Southern culture of honor and violence in the antebellum South: the concern with honor (how do I look to others, am I being treated with respect and deference, I must maintain my place and keep others below me in their place) that is defended with violence. But, the differences are what strike him: in the Old South dualists and brawlers were a large minority, not majority; by and large the court system worked. By contrast, in the neighborhoods described by the Chronicle those who use violence have intimidated witnesses to the point that the entire community will not hold murderers to account.
(more below)
Some quotations from the the San Francisco Chronicle given in the post.
The body count is woven into the civic consciousness here - a number chased by homicide inspectors, studied by criminologists, lamented in churches, reported by journalists. Every mayor leaves City Hall on broken promises to quell the violence, and the killings continue. An additional 115 have been killed this year, putting Oakland on pace for another gruesome record. In the last five years, 557 people were slain on the city's streets, making Oakland the state's second-most murderous city, behind Compton. Most victims are young, black men who are dying in forgotten neighborhoods of East and West Oakland. A handful of their killers, speaking from prison, describe an environment where violence is so woven into the culture that murder has become a symbol of manhood. The inmates say the only difference between these neighborhoods and prison is the absence of walls. The same hierarchies apply - the meanest rise to the top. It's a survival skill that ensures ownership of drug corners, a sense of self-worth, female attention and protection from attack.
Experts fear that the neighborhoods are only getting more violent. There are entire blocks without a single two-parent family, where drug dealers have become the predominant male role models, and children fend for themselves in crowded, chaotic homes where they are routinely exposed to drugs, sex and guns. Criminal families are on their third and fourth generations. Grandparents - the ones who have historically stepped in to help raise fatherless boys and instill a sense of right and wrong - are dying off.
...
Increasingly, the young murder suspects coming to the station for questioning seem to lack basic morality, said Sgt. Tim Nolan, who has been investigating Oakland homicides for 17 years.
"There are more and more families where there's less and less structure," he said. "Talking to these suspects day in and out, there's a higher percentage today with no sense of right and wrong. It's frightening, but we are creating super-criminals." All it takes is a look, a put-down or a lost fight, and bullets fly. Disrespect has become the No. 1 reason to kill.
...
Without parents to help them mature, the mental world of these young killers stays stuck in an infantile, egotistic state, said forensic psychologist Shawn Johnston, who has conducted more than 15,000 court evaluations of adult and juvenile criminals in 15 Northern California counties. "What keeps us from killing each other is empathy, and we learn it from bonding with parents who pick us back up when we get hurt or teased as children," Johnston said. "Without it, you get guys who live in a constant state of protecting the fantasy that they are the most important thing this side of the Milky Way. And because they don't have empathy, they will shoot or stab to protect their illusion."
Cramer, the author of Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic: Dueling, Southern Violence, and Moral Reform (Praeger, 1999), points to the parallel with the Southern culture of honor and violence in the antebellum South: the concern with honor (how do I look to others, am I being treated with respect and deference, I must maintain my place and keep others below me in their place) that is defended with violence. But, the differences are what strike him: in the Old South dualists and brawlers were a large minority, not majority; by and large the court system worked. By contrast, in the neighborhoods described by the Chronicle those who use violence have intimidated witnesses to the point that the entire community will not hold murderers to account.
(more below)
13/12: Spirit: the band
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
The summer of '75 I listened a lot to the band Spirit. I am not sure why. In the '70s I was even more into jazz than I am now, and I remain a huge fan. But, a friend turned me on to Spirit, a band described in enotes as
Beginning in one of the most fertile periods of American rock music, Spirit created some of the most memorable music of the past three decades, outlasting many pop music trends along the way. With its eclectic musical mix of rock, jazz, blues, and folk influences, Spirit was one of the premier West Coast rock bands to emerge during the late 60s. Although the band never reached superstar status, it has maintained a dedicated following. Spirit's musical activities came to a premature and tragic end with the accidental death of leader and guitarist Randy California in 1997.
One of the reasons they "never achieved superstar status" was a management decision to send them on a tour of radio stations instead of to play Woodstock.
Some clips from YouTube, listening to them I have '70s flashbacks:
Fresh Garbage one of their earliest songs, and Taurus
1984
Nature's Way
Mr. Skin
Spirit: The Video History, Part 1
Beginning in one of the most fertile periods of American rock music, Spirit created some of the most memorable music of the past three decades, outlasting many pop music trends along the way. With its eclectic musical mix of rock, jazz, blues, and folk influences, Spirit was one of the premier West Coast rock bands to emerge during the late 60s. Although the band never reached superstar status, it has maintained a dedicated following. Spirit's musical activities came to a premature and tragic end with the accidental death of leader and guitarist Randy California in 1997.
One of the reasons they "never achieved superstar status" was a management decision to send them on a tour of radio stations instead of to play Woodstock.
Some clips from YouTube, listening to them I have '70s flashbacks:
Fresh Garbage one of their earliest songs, and Taurus
1984
Nature's Way
Mr. Skin
Spirit: The Video History, Part 1
Category: General
Posted by: an okie gardener
Every technological advance the human race has made, has been used to kill and enslave fellow human beings.
The invention of the bow and arrow made it easier to kill deer to feed the family: and to kill members of the neighboring tribe. Mastering the use of iron gave us better and more durable tools: and swords and armor superior to bronze. Roman engineering prowess built roads and aquaducts that still stand: and enabled them to destroy the walls of any city that resisted them. Dynamite made road building easier: and battlefields much more deadly. Nuclear technology provides low-cost electricity: and bombs that destroy cities. Computer technologies make the internet, and this blog, possible: and create precision-guided weapons and data systems for police-states.
This pattern of human history is one reason I am not thrilled-to-death by the developing genetic technology illustrated in these stories.
Mice with no fear of cats.
Cloned kittens that glow.
Somewhere, perhaps China, I bet a group of scientists is even now experimenting with genetic engineering of humans with the intent of creating ideal soldiers, or ideal mine workers. Bacteria and viruses never before seen in nature, for which humans would have no defense: right now someone is thinking what wonderful weapons these would be.
The invention of the bow and arrow made it easier to kill deer to feed the family: and to kill members of the neighboring tribe. Mastering the use of iron gave us better and more durable tools: and swords and armor superior to bronze. Roman engineering prowess built roads and aquaducts that still stand: and enabled them to destroy the walls of any city that resisted them. Dynamite made road building easier: and battlefields much more deadly. Nuclear technology provides low-cost electricity: and bombs that destroy cities. Computer technologies make the internet, and this blog, possible: and create precision-guided weapons and data systems for police-states.
This pattern of human history is one reason I am not thrilled-to-death by the developing genetic technology illustrated in these stories.
Mice with no fear of cats.
Cloned kittens that glow.
Somewhere, perhaps China, I bet a group of scientists is even now experimenting with genetic engineering of humans with the intent of creating ideal soldiers, or ideal mine workers. Bacteria and viruses never before seen in nature, for which humans would have no defense: right now someone is thinking what wonderful weapons these would be.
Category: Campaign 2008.8
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
The worst ever? Charles Krauthammer thought so. Maybe.
"Thank you, thank you," the monotone moderator repeated time and time again, lamely signaling that the allotted thirty-second period for candidate responses had concluded.
Two asides:
Nothing irritates me more than a disingenuous "thank you."
Nine people on a stage, only three of whom have a serious chance at being president of the United States, all of them confined to thirty-second sound bites, strikes me as a recipe for a worthless eighty two minutes.
Having said that, the debate offered two big revelations:
1. Alan Keys is running for president again? Seriously?
2. Fred may have finally found his stride. Was this a breakthrough for him? I hope so. While Romney delivered another sharp and optimistic performance, Fred was the story. Like an all-star athlete who skipped spring training, Thompson has looked sluggish and out of sorts for the first few debates. But last night he finally showed up with his game face on.
Too little too late? Maybe. Maybe not. This race still seems very fluid to me. Because the field is so weak, it may not be too late for Fred.
What did Fred do that was so great?
1. He had a mini Ronald ("I paid for this microphone") Reagan moment, when he refused to comply with the "show of hands" on global warming.
--He was right to point out that this issue is more complicated than a "yes or no" answer to a politically driven "trap" question.
--As a Republican, skepticism about global warming hyperbole and hysteria plays well with a whole slew of target voters. McCain and Rudy clamoring to agree with Al Gore did not do them any good with the GOP base.
--And taking on a not very attractive and incredibly annoying media stiff is always a popular thing to do for a Republican candidate.
2. Fred also scored with two humorous retorts: still ostensibly on global warming, Alan Keyes delivered an impassioned speech about everything and about nothing all at the same time, all the while neglecting to address the actual issue explicitly. At which point, Fred interjected: I agree with Alan's position on global warming," which elicited a big laugh from the audience. The other case, which has made all the highlights, Thompson made light of Romney's wealth and his "acting ability." More good laughs.
3. Fred looked presidential and tough. "We can't stand for that," he said once in relation to our friends taking advantage of free trade agreements. I believed him. He clearly wanted to set himself apart from (above) the mad scramble for votes, and he did that (at least for a moment).
"Thank you, thank you," the monotone moderator repeated time and time again, lamely signaling that the allotted thirty-second period for candidate responses had concluded.
Two asides:
Nothing irritates me more than a disingenuous "thank you."
Nine people on a stage, only three of whom have a serious chance at being president of the United States, all of them confined to thirty-second sound bites, strikes me as a recipe for a worthless eighty two minutes.
Having said that, the debate offered two big revelations:
1. Alan Keys is running for president again? Seriously?
2. Fred may have finally found his stride. Was this a breakthrough for him? I hope so. While Romney delivered another sharp and optimistic performance, Fred was the story. Like an all-star athlete who skipped spring training, Thompson has looked sluggish and out of sorts for the first few debates. But last night he finally showed up with his game face on.
Too little too late? Maybe. Maybe not. This race still seems very fluid to me. Because the field is so weak, it may not be too late for Fred.
What did Fred do that was so great?
1. He had a mini Ronald ("I paid for this microphone") Reagan moment, when he refused to comply with the "show of hands" on global warming.
--He was right to point out that this issue is more complicated than a "yes or no" answer to a politically driven "trap" question.
--As a Republican, skepticism about global warming hyperbole and hysteria plays well with a whole slew of target voters. McCain and Rudy clamoring to agree with Al Gore did not do them any good with the GOP base.
--And taking on a not very attractive and incredibly annoying media stiff is always a popular thing to do for a Republican candidate.
2. Fred also scored with two humorous retorts: still ostensibly on global warming, Alan Keyes delivered an impassioned speech about everything and about nothing all at the same time, all the while neglecting to address the actual issue explicitly. At which point, Fred interjected: I agree with Alan's position on global warming," which elicited a big laugh from the audience. The other case, which has made all the highlights, Thompson made light of Romney's wealth and his "acting ability." More good laughs.
3. Fred looked presidential and tough. "We can't stand for that," he said once in relation to our friends taking advantage of free trade agreements. I believed him. He clearly wanted to set himself apart from (above) the mad scramble for votes, and he did that (at least for a moment).
12/12: GOP Round-Up in brief
Category: Campaign 2008.8
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Huckabee: still dead man walking; review here--but, in a nutshell, the diverse forces of conservatism have united to destroy him: NRO, Drudge, Rush, Hugh Hewitt, et al. I restate my previous prediction: Huck comes in second in Iowa and goes down from there.
Rudy: still dead man walking; he is a good guy--but not GOP nominee material. His pro-choice stand--believe it or not--is forgivable; his anti-gun stand is less so--but, even worse, too many scandals and too many wives. He will never be the Republican standard bearer.
John McCain: still dead man walking. Too bad and unfair--but popular conservatism buried him long ago. He is absolutely right on many issues, and he is by far the best candidate to lead an embattled America. But he is not viable.
Romney: definitely on the upswing. His College Station speech was the most presidential moment of this year-long campaign. He is well-funded and better organized than his opposition. He has a plan. He has powerful friends. He is well positioned to take off coming out of Iowa. But I still have my doubts. The Republican Party has never nominated a presidential candidate from Massachusetts. I think the streak continues. Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire (and Michigan), but I think he finds big trouble down South and out West. This is mostly an inarticulate hunch--but I just don't think red-state America buys what Governor Romney is selling. I like him personally--but he does not energize me.
Fred: and Fred does? As crazy as it sounds, Fred Thompson gives me hope. He is obviously a slow starter, and his campaign, in addition to being horrendously inept, is completely lacking in imagination. As I have said before, he is running the worst campaign, but he is the best candidate. Fred is big and tough and ready to rumble. I have only seen the highlights of the Iowa debate today--but, evidently, he showed that side of himself in Iowa this afternoon. More hope.
Personality, viability, and affability aside, though, Fred is the kind of candidate, win or lose, who represents the ideas and principles of the Republican Party. We need a guy like Fred. He still strikes me as the most authentic choice of our realistic options.
Rudy: still dead man walking; he is a good guy--but not GOP nominee material. His pro-choice stand--believe it or not--is forgivable; his anti-gun stand is less so--but, even worse, too many scandals and too many wives. He will never be the Republican standard bearer.
John McCain: still dead man walking. Too bad and unfair--but popular conservatism buried him long ago. He is absolutely right on many issues, and he is by far the best candidate to lead an embattled America. But he is not viable.
Romney: definitely on the upswing. His College Station speech was the most presidential moment of this year-long campaign. He is well-funded and better organized than his opposition. He has a plan. He has powerful friends. He is well positioned to take off coming out of Iowa. But I still have my doubts. The Republican Party has never nominated a presidential candidate from Massachusetts. I think the streak continues. Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire (and Michigan), but I think he finds big trouble down South and out West. This is mostly an inarticulate hunch--but I just don't think red-state America buys what Governor Romney is selling. I like him personally--but he does not energize me.
Fred: and Fred does? As crazy as it sounds, Fred Thompson gives me hope. He is obviously a slow starter, and his campaign, in addition to being horrendously inept, is completely lacking in imagination. As I have said before, he is running the worst campaign, but he is the best candidate. Fred is big and tough and ready to rumble. I have only seen the highlights of the Iowa debate today--but, evidently, he showed that side of himself in Iowa this afternoon. More hope.
Personality, viability, and affability aside, though, Fred is the kind of candidate, win or lose, who represents the ideas and principles of the Republican Party. We need a guy like Fred. He still strikes me as the most authentic choice of our realistic options.
Category: Courts
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
From the Washington Post Tuesday:
Sentencing Guidelines for Crack Cocaine Offenses to Be Made Retroactive
"The U.S. Sentencing Commission voted today to make retroactive its new federal sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine offenses, raising hopes for reduced prison terms among thousands of mostly black federal inmates and defying stiff opposition from the Bush administration" (full story here).
Stack that on top of the Supreme Court news from Monday (again via the Post):
Justices Reinforce Leeway on Sentences:
Cocaine Disparity At Heart of 1 Case
"The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that federal judges are not bound by federal guidelines calling for tougher penalties for those who sell crack rather than powder cocaine, giving them broad discretion in drug and other criminal cases" (full story here).
Note: This was a 7-2 ruling in which Justices Scalia and Roberts sided with the petitioner.
This is a huge week for the 100:1 crew (see previous post here for background), who took quite a beating getting to the Supreme Court. Special kudos to Mark Osler, who argued several of those cases at the circuit court level, filed an amicus brief on behalf of the petitioner on this case, and attended the Supreme Court hearing this fall. His post-ruling expert analysis on SCOTUSblog and some celebratory pictures of a severed Goliath head and an exultant Chewbacca on his blog.
Well done. Congratulations. This is a story of perseverance in the pursuit of a righteous cause.
The title of this post is borrowed from James Brewer Stewart's 1976 monograph about the American abolitionists of the nineteenth century, Holy Warriors.
Mark Osler, a professor of law at Baylor Law School, has several causes about which he is passionate. The other night at the Law School, I attended a Baylor Federalist Society-sponsored debate concerning "Faith and the Law," focused on the death penalty.
The Question: Is the Death Penalty compatible with Christianity?
Professor Osler took the negative.
During the course of the program it suddenly occurred to me that the modern proponents of abolishing the death penalty, especially those like Osler who are motivated by their particular Christian worldview, have much in common with the storied abolitionists of old.
More on that comparison in the days to come.
Sentencing Guidelines for Crack Cocaine Offenses to Be Made Retroactive
"The U.S. Sentencing Commission voted today to make retroactive its new federal sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine offenses, raising hopes for reduced prison terms among thousands of mostly black federal inmates and defying stiff opposition from the Bush administration" (full story here).
Stack that on top of the Supreme Court news from Monday (again via the Post):
Justices Reinforce Leeway on Sentences:
Cocaine Disparity At Heart of 1 Case
"The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that federal judges are not bound by federal guidelines calling for tougher penalties for those who sell crack rather than powder cocaine, giving them broad discretion in drug and other criminal cases" (full story here).
Note: This was a 7-2 ruling in which Justices Scalia and Roberts sided with the petitioner.
This is a huge week for the 100:1 crew (see previous post here for background), who took quite a beating getting to the Supreme Court. Special kudos to Mark Osler, who argued several of those cases at the circuit court level, filed an amicus brief on behalf of the petitioner on this case, and attended the Supreme Court hearing this fall. His post-ruling expert analysis on SCOTUSblog and some celebratory pictures of a severed Goliath head and an exultant Chewbacca on his blog.
Well done. Congratulations. This is a story of perseverance in the pursuit of a righteous cause.
The title of this post is borrowed from James Brewer Stewart's 1976 monograph about the American abolitionists of the nineteenth century, Holy Warriors.
Mark Osler, a professor of law at Baylor Law School, has several causes about which he is passionate. The other night at the Law School, I attended a Baylor Federalist Society-sponsored debate concerning "Faith and the Law," focused on the death penalty.
The Question: Is the Death Penalty compatible with Christianity?
Professor Osler took the negative.
During the course of the program it suddenly occurred to me that the modern proponents of abolishing the death penalty, especially those like Osler who are motivated by their particular Christian worldview, have much in common with the storied abolitionists of old.
More on that comparison in the days to come.
11/12: NRO ENDORSES ROMNEY
This strikes me as huge. Although I am not in a place to agree with it entirely, it is well said and well reasoned.
In full, from National Review Online :
Romney for President
By the Editors
Many conservatives are finding it difficult to pick a presidential candidate. Each of the men running for the Republican nomination has strengths, and none has everything — all the traits, all the positions — we are looking for. Equally conservative analysts can reach, and have reached, different judgments in this matter. There are fine conservatives supporting each of these Republicans.
Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest. While he has not talked much about the importance of resisting ethnic balkanization — none of the major candidates has — he supports enforcing the immigration laws and opposes amnesty. Those are important steps in the right direction.
Uniting the conservative coalition is not enough to win a presidential election, but it is a prerequisite for building on that coalition. Rudolph Giuliani did extraordinary work as mayor of New York and was inspirational on 9/11. But he and Mike Huckabee would pull apart the coalition from opposite ends: Giuliani alienating the social conservatives, and Huckabee the economic (and foreign-policy) conservatives. A Republican party that abandoned either limited government or moral standards would be much diminished in the service it could give the country.
Two other major candidates would be able to keep the coalition together, but have drawbacks of their own. John McCain is not as conservative as Romney. He sponsored and still champions a campaign-finance law that impinged on fundamental rights of political speech; he voted against the Bush tax cuts; he supported this year’s amnesty bill, although he now says he understands the need to control the border before doing anything else.
Despite all that and more, he is a hero with a record that is far more good than bad. He has been a strong and farsighted supporter of the Iraq War, and, in a trying political season for him, he has preserved and even enhanced his reputation for dignity and seriousness. There would be worse nominees for the GOP (see above). But McCain ran an ineffectual campaign for most of the year and is still paying for it.
Fred Thompson is as conservative as Romney, and has distinguished himself with serious proposals on Social Security, immigration, and defense. But Thompson has never run any large enterprise — and he has not run his campaign well, either. Conservatives were excited this spring to hear that he might enter the race, but have been disappointed by the reality. He has been fading in crucial early states. He has not yet passed the threshold test of establishing for voters that he truly wants to be president.
Romney is an intelligent, articulate, and accomplished former businessman and governor. At a time when voters yearn for competence and have soured on Washington because too often the Bush administration has not demonstrated it, Romney offers proven executive skill. He has demonstrated it in everything he has done in his professional life, and his tightly organized, disciplined campaign is no exception. He himself has shown impressive focus and energy.
It is true that he has less foreign-policy experience than Thompson and (especially) McCain, but he has more executive experience than both. Since almost all of the candidates have the same foreign-policy principles, what matters most is which candidate has the skills to execute that vision.
Reminder, this is the text of a National Review Online editorial.
Like any Republican, he would have an uphill climb next fall. But he would be able to offer a persuasive outsider’s critique of Washington. His conservative accomplishments as governor showed that he can work with, and resist, a Democratic legislature. He knows that not every feature of the health-care plan he enacted in Massachusetts should be replicated nationally, but he can also speak with more authority than any of the other Republican candidates about this pressing issue. He would also have credibility on the economy, given his success as a businessman and a manager of the Olympics.
Some conservatives question his sincerity. It is true that he has reversed some of his positions. But we should be careful not to overstate how much he has changed. In 1994, when he tried to unseat Ted Kennedy, he ran against higher taxes and government-run health care, and for school choice, a balanced budget amendment, welfare reform, and “tougher measures to stop illegal immigration.” He was no Rockefeller Republican even then.
We believe that Romney is a natural ally of social conservatives. He speaks often about the toll of fatherlessness in this country. He may not have thought deeply about the political dimensions of social issues until, as governor, he was confronted with the cutting edge of social liberalism. No other Republican governor had to deal with both human cloning and court-imposed same-sex marriage. He was on the right side of both issues, and those battles seem to have made him see the stakes of a broad range of public-policy issues more clearly. He will work to put abortion on a path to extinction. Whatever the process by which he got to where he is on marriage, judges, and life, we’re glad he is now on our side — and we trust him to stay there.
He still has some convincing to do with other conservatives. Romney has been plagued by the sense that his is a passionless, paint-by-the-numbers conservatism. If he is to win the nomination, he will have to show more of the kind of emotion and resolve he demonstrated in his College Station “Faith in America” speech.
For some people, Romney’s Mormonism is still a barrier. But we are not electing a pastor. The notion that he will somehow be controlled by Salt Lake City or engaged in evangelism for his church is outlandish. He deserves to be judged on his considerable merits as a potential president. As he argued in his College Station speech, his faith informs his values, which he has demonstrated in both the private and public sectors. In none of these cases have any specific doctrines of his church affected the quality of his leadership. Romney is an exemplary family man and a patriot whose character matches the high office to which he aspires.
More than the other primary candidates, Romney has President Bush’s virtues and avoids his flaws. His moral positions, and his instincts on taxes and foreign policy, are the same. But he is less inclined to federal activism, less tolerant of overspending, better able to defend conservative positions in debate, and more likely to demand performance from his subordinates. A winning combination, by our lights. In this most fluid and unpredictable Republican field, we vote for Mitt Romney.
In full, from National Review Online :
Romney for President
By the Editors
Many conservatives are finding it difficult to pick a presidential candidate. Each of the men running for the Republican nomination has strengths, and none has everything — all the traits, all the positions — we are looking for. Equally conservative analysts can reach, and have reached, different judgments in this matter. There are fine conservatives supporting each of these Republicans.
Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest. While he has not talked much about the importance of resisting ethnic balkanization — none of the major candidates has — he supports enforcing the immigration laws and opposes amnesty. Those are important steps in the right direction.
Uniting the conservative coalition is not enough to win a presidential election, but it is a prerequisite for building on that coalition. Rudolph Giuliani did extraordinary work as mayor of New York and was inspirational on 9/11. But he and Mike Huckabee would pull apart the coalition from opposite ends: Giuliani alienating the social conservatives, and Huckabee the economic (and foreign-policy) conservatives. A Republican party that abandoned either limited government or moral standards would be much diminished in the service it could give the country.
Two other major candidates would be able to keep the coalition together, but have drawbacks of their own. John McCain is not as conservative as Romney. He sponsored and still champions a campaign-finance law that impinged on fundamental rights of political speech; he voted against the Bush tax cuts; he supported this year’s amnesty bill, although he now says he understands the need to control the border before doing anything else.
Despite all that and more, he is a hero with a record that is far more good than bad. He has been a strong and farsighted supporter of the Iraq War, and, in a trying political season for him, he has preserved and even enhanced his reputation for dignity and seriousness. There would be worse nominees for the GOP (see above). But McCain ran an ineffectual campaign for most of the year and is still paying for it.
Fred Thompson is as conservative as Romney, and has distinguished himself with serious proposals on Social Security, immigration, and defense. But Thompson has never run any large enterprise — and he has not run his campaign well, either. Conservatives were excited this spring to hear that he might enter the race, but have been disappointed by the reality. He has been fading in crucial early states. He has not yet passed the threshold test of establishing for voters that he truly wants to be president.
Romney is an intelligent, articulate, and accomplished former businessman and governor. At a time when voters yearn for competence and have soured on Washington because too often the Bush administration has not demonstrated it, Romney offers proven executive skill. He has demonstrated it in everything he has done in his professional life, and his tightly organized, disciplined campaign is no exception. He himself has shown impressive focus and energy.
It is true that he has less foreign-policy experience than Thompson and (especially) McCain, but he has more executive experience than both. Since almost all of the candidates have the same foreign-policy principles, what matters most is which candidate has the skills to execute that vision.
Reminder, this is the text of a National Review Online editorial.
Like any Republican, he would have an uphill climb next fall. But he would be able to offer a persuasive outsider’s critique of Washington. His conservative accomplishments as governor showed that he can work with, and resist, a Democratic legislature. He knows that not every feature of the health-care plan he enacted in Massachusetts should be replicated nationally, but he can also speak with more authority than any of the other Republican candidates about this pressing issue. He would also have credibility on the economy, given his success as a businessman and a manager of the Olympics.
Some conservatives question his sincerity. It is true that he has reversed some of his positions. But we should be careful not to overstate how much he has changed. In 1994, when he tried to unseat Ted Kennedy, he ran against higher taxes and government-run health care, and for school choice, a balanced budget amendment, welfare reform, and “tougher measures to stop illegal immigration.” He was no Rockefeller Republican even then.
We believe that Romney is a natural ally of social conservatives. He speaks often about the toll of fatherlessness in this country. He may not have thought deeply about the political dimensions of social issues until, as governor, he was confronted with the cutting edge of social liberalism. No other Republican governor had to deal with both human cloning and court-imposed same-sex marriage. He was on the right side of both issues, and those battles seem to have made him see the stakes of a broad range of public-policy issues more clearly. He will work to put abortion on a path to extinction. Whatever the process by which he got to where he is on marriage, judges, and life, we’re glad he is now on our side — and we trust him to stay there.
He still has some convincing to do with other conservatives. Romney has been plagued by the sense that his is a passionless, paint-by-the-numbers conservatism. If he is to win the nomination, he will have to show more of the kind of emotion and resolve he demonstrated in his College Station “Faith in America” speech.
For some people, Romney’s Mormonism is still a barrier. But we are not electing a pastor. The notion that he will somehow be controlled by Salt Lake City or engaged in evangelism for his church is outlandish. He deserves to be judged on his considerable merits as a potential president. As he argued in his College Station speech, his faith informs his values, which he has demonstrated in both the private and public sectors. In none of these cases have any specific doctrines of his church affected the quality of his leadership. Romney is an exemplary family man and a patriot whose character matches the high office to which he aspires.
More than the other primary candidates, Romney has President Bush’s virtues and avoids his flaws. His moral positions, and his instincts on taxes and foreign policy, are the same. But he is less inclined to federal activism, less tolerant of overspending, better able to defend conservative positions in debate, and more likely to demand performance from his subordinates. A winning combination, by our lights. In this most fluid and unpredictable Republican field, we vote for Mitt Romney.
