The sooner Congress decides to outlaw the sabotage practice known as “filibustering” the better. Personally I think that the Founding Fathers were having a bad day when they forgot to prohibit it. The filibuster is a deeply undemocratic tool that has never been used for anything but obstructing the will of the majority of the people. Now, don’t get me wrong, minorities should not be robbed of their rights. But there is no justification for claiming special rights for minorities. The Declaration of Independence talks about “all men [being] created equal”, not about some minorities being so special as to warrant extra rights, because otherwise it would be unfair.
Yet that is the position of the Democrats. They have been denouncing the so-called “nuclear option” as more evidence of the fact that Republicans are just power hungry and want to lord it over the poor little Democrats. I could not disagree more. Democracy is Greek for “rule by the people.” The majority of people voted for Republicans so that they have the mandate to make decisions. The Democrats’ misuse of Congressional debating procedures is unconstitutional and unethical and should be prohibited.
But wait. That does not solve everything. I am not a Republican and while I happen to side with the Republican proposal on this topic, I do not support the Republican party. I am quite wary about the hypocrisy that is manifesting itself among Republicans (and Democrats). Scrapping the filibuster would tip the balance to the Republicans. It would be foolish to deny that. It would be in line with the election results but does have certain risks.
So, what is the problem? The problem is the two-party system. Since everything in US politics is binary, the result in Congress is that one of two parties will always be in charge. If there were ever a third party with enough clout to keep either party from 50% influence, the filibuster would become unnecessary to prevent the dictatorship of the majority. That would mean pretty large changes in the US election system. Right now all other parties apart from the Republicans and Democrats are completely meaningless. That is something I worry about, since I support neither party. So, let’s start retiring some of those Republicans and Democrats and replace them with third-party candidates. Let’s build up a true conservative party that is not in the pocket of big businesses and special interests but finds its true basis in Scripture and the Constitution.
(That, by the way, is not an endorsement of the Constitution Party, with whom I also have certain quarrels.)
14 April 2005
13 April 2005
New Ambassador to that Institution that Doesn’t Exist
I suppose it’s not a promising start to a conservative blog if the first couple of messages just rail against Republicans. Well, see my previous posting. The thing is, this Bolton guy doesn’t merely look bad in the liberal media portrayals, this guy is a loonie. Of course, his embarrassment must be enormous. Before he was nominated for this high-profile government post, he was free to say whatever many protectionists really do think (that the UN is an unnecessary super-government). Now it is coming back to haunt him. I don’t know whether he is qualified for the job in the mere technical sense (i.e. does he have the right diploma’s and job experience). But I can tell you now that the guy is not qualified for this job. If you are on record as saying that you can remove the top floors of the UN building without anyone noticing the difference, that doesn’t sound like you take the UN very seriously.
It is another very disappointing decision by George W. Bush. I am really not a great fan of him as a president. He’s probably a nice enough guy in person but there are a number of policies that I really can’t agree with. What ever possessed him to nominate John Bolton for the UN ambassadorship? Are there really no other Colin Powells out there, people who don’t necessarily have to be perfect but who at least aren’t complete fruitcakes?
It is another very disappointing decision by George W. Bush. I am really not a great fan of him as a president. He’s probably a nice enough guy in person but there are a number of policies that I really can’t agree with. What ever possessed him to nominate John Bolton for the UN ambassadorship? Are there really no other Colin Powells out there, people who don’t necessarily have to be perfect but who at least aren’t complete fruitcakes?
Tom De Lay Should Resign as Majority Leader
Well, call me a liberal then, if you have to. Even if I am really a conservative, I am by no means a Republican. Many in the US confuse the two terms. And don’t think that Mr. De Lay is not conservative enough for me. I simply think that his conduct is, shall we say, less than entirely ethical. Even for appearances’ sake, he should have stepped down as majority leader long ago. I do not believe all the allegations Democrats are lodging against him, but, for goodness sake, he is an embarrassment for conservatives. Don’t confuse my politics with this man’s practices, please.
12 April 2005
A Calvinist's View of the Papacy
So, what are we to make of the recently deceased pope? Even among Roman Catholics there is considerable disagreement about John Paul II and his achievements. Most liberals, both Catholics and non-believers, always reviled him as a backward fossil who was out of touch with reality. Yet many nominal Catholics in Europe—those who barely make it to church once a year—mourned him as one of the greatest popes the church ever had, a view shared by many conservative Catholics around the world.
Pope John Paul II was honest and consistent. Once he had made up his mind he would not waver. He did not change direction with the wind. He was consistent in everything, sometimes to minute details that nevertheless could affect important public pronouncements. John Paul II condemned war as an outworking of sin and as inherently evil, but he did not reject it as morally repugnant by definition. He believed that any country has the right to defend itself and use military means if all other avenues were exhausted. As a result, he was known to be against the Iraq war, a fact often cited by anti-war protesters. But he condoned the US intervention in Afghanistan without having to compromise his principles because that war was justified: it was in direct reaction to a military attack and thus counted as self-defence.
He was a fierce promotor of environmental protection and criticized the false notion, still held by many American conservatives, that capitalism is the most effective economic system ensuring freedom and equality. One can hardly accuse the pope of having been a communist, since he saw its evils firsthand in his native Poland. He was simply smart enough to see that economic policy can only do so much to make man happy.
But in other areas Pope John Paul II had more troubling views. Liberal secularist condemn his views of abortion, women’s rights (within and without the church), contraception, gays and AIDS. As a Calvinist, I disagree with many theological doctrines held by the Roman Catholic church. The heresies pointed out by Martin Luther, John Calvin and the other reformers are still adhered to by the largest Christian denomination in the world. The erroneous idea that Mary and the saints can somehow intercede for us with God, among the most damaging inventions of the medieval church, was strongly revived by John Paul II. The Roman Catholic church still holds to a number of such errors, such as the validity of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament, the idea that one is saved through faith and works, indulgences and purgatory, and transsubstantiation during the Eucharist. Any Protestant must be annoyed that the Roman Catholic church never repealed its 16th century pronouncement that all non-Catholics are going to hell. And, finally, the whole idea of a "pope", based on a misreading of Jesus’ charge to Peter, is something Calvinists shrug their shoulders at.
In other words, there is enough for Protestants to complain about. Some have called the pope the anti-Christ, echoing the words of the Westminster Confession. Similarly, the Heidelberg Catechism talks about the "papal mass" as a condemnable idolatry. But these documents always talk about the institution, never about individual people. While I heartily agree that the Roman Catholic church stopped being a faithful church somewhere during the High Middle Ages, that does not mean that there is no shred of Christ or the Gospel left within that denomination. Nor does it mean that all Catholics are condemned to hell, neither the ordinary believer nor those in orders.
The man Karol Woytiła was a sinner like everyone else. Yet he seems to have loved God and his neighbor to the best of his ability. As pope he did nothing special to deserve to be condemned to hell by any on this earth. That judgment is up to God. He was gentle and kind, a charismatic speaker and writer, intelligent, principled and a good leader. He was someone who heard, believed and taught a version of the Gospel infected by a millennium of Roman heresies. Considering the extent of the pollution, it is to the credit of God that His grace shone through even within the Roman Catholic church during the ponitificate of John Paul II. Just as no man is expected to grasp all of God’s truth completely, neither was the late pope. The errors he taught will be charged against him at the Judgment Seat but if he believed in Christ as his only Savior, then he, too, is now in glory.
Pope John Paul II was honest and consistent. Once he had made up his mind he would not waver. He did not change direction with the wind. He was consistent in everything, sometimes to minute details that nevertheless could affect important public pronouncements. John Paul II condemned war as an outworking of sin and as inherently evil, but he did not reject it as morally repugnant by definition. He believed that any country has the right to defend itself and use military means if all other avenues were exhausted. As a result, he was known to be against the Iraq war, a fact often cited by anti-war protesters. But he condoned the US intervention in Afghanistan without having to compromise his principles because that war was justified: it was in direct reaction to a military attack and thus counted as self-defence.
He was a fierce promotor of environmental protection and criticized the false notion, still held by many American conservatives, that capitalism is the most effective economic system ensuring freedom and equality. One can hardly accuse the pope of having been a communist, since he saw its evils firsthand in his native Poland. He was simply smart enough to see that economic policy can only do so much to make man happy.
But in other areas Pope John Paul II had more troubling views. Liberal secularist condemn his views of abortion, women’s rights (within and without the church), contraception, gays and AIDS. As a Calvinist, I disagree with many theological doctrines held by the Roman Catholic church. The heresies pointed out by Martin Luther, John Calvin and the other reformers are still adhered to by the largest Christian denomination in the world. The erroneous idea that Mary and the saints can somehow intercede for us with God, among the most damaging inventions of the medieval church, was strongly revived by John Paul II. The Roman Catholic church still holds to a number of such errors, such as the validity of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament, the idea that one is saved through faith and works, indulgences and purgatory, and transsubstantiation during the Eucharist. Any Protestant must be annoyed that the Roman Catholic church never repealed its 16th century pronouncement that all non-Catholics are going to hell. And, finally, the whole idea of a "pope", based on a misreading of Jesus’ charge to Peter, is something Calvinists shrug their shoulders at.
In other words, there is enough for Protestants to complain about. Some have called the pope the anti-Christ, echoing the words of the Westminster Confession. Similarly, the Heidelberg Catechism talks about the "papal mass" as a condemnable idolatry. But these documents always talk about the institution, never about individual people. While I heartily agree that the Roman Catholic church stopped being a faithful church somewhere during the High Middle Ages, that does not mean that there is no shred of Christ or the Gospel left within that denomination. Nor does it mean that all Catholics are condemned to hell, neither the ordinary believer nor those in orders.
The man Karol Woytiła was a sinner like everyone else. Yet he seems to have loved God and his neighbor to the best of his ability. As pope he did nothing special to deserve to be condemned to hell by any on this earth. That judgment is up to God. He was gentle and kind, a charismatic speaker and writer, intelligent, principled and a good leader. He was someone who heard, believed and taught a version of the Gospel infected by a millennium of Roman heresies. Considering the extent of the pollution, it is to the credit of God that His grace shone through even within the Roman Catholic church during the ponitificate of John Paul II. Just as no man is expected to grasp all of God’s truth completely, neither was the late pope. The errors he taught will be charged against him at the Judgment Seat but if he believed in Christ as his only Savior, then he, too, is now in glory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
