The radical left wing that dominates US media is crying blue murder over president Bush's announcement that he will veto any bill that would allow for federal money to go into embryonic stem cell research. Eleanor Clift of Newsweek on May 28 blasted the “Christian right” for imposing their wrongheaded religious views on perfectly reasonable science. Another case of the church persecuting those who stand for reason.
And yet, her article abounds with nothing but utilitarian arguments about why it would be a shame to let all those useful embryos go to waste. They’re just lying around. If we don’t use them now, they’ll get thrown away when they get past their “best before” date. Or how about this one: adopting embryos is way too difficult because the bureaucracy is huge.
Sound like convincing arguments to just go ahead and use these embryos where they can be useful? Heck no! If we had been talking about nothing but a piece of technology, some plant material or minerals, that would be a different matter. But we are talking about human babies here. That’s right: embryos = human being. No amount of twisting words and fudging the terms will get away from the SCIENTIFIC FACT that embryos are human beings. Every last one of these embryos is a baby.
“So why is there such a low success rate in turning these embryos into babies?” opponents may ask. When they ask this question they want us to believe that this ‘proves’ that embryos are in fact NOT human beings or babies. But that is completely faulty logic. Aren’t there other reasons for this high rate of failure? Such as the deplorable conditions under which the embryos are being stored?
After all, the loony liberals are complaining that if conservative Christians were consistent, they would be against in vitro fertilization. Apparently, Christians are not, they reason. Aaaaaargh! But Christians ARE against in vitro and always have been. In vitro fertilization is a wicked technology because it creates so many excess babies that are left to rot and die in cryo-vats. How about this outrage of the century! First they assert a lie and then use the lie to prove the inconsistency of their opponents. Please!
Embryonic stem cell research is equally wicked science. It is a crime against humanity and I really don’t know why it has not been declared a felony yet. As long as we keep talking about human beings as mere “tissue,” we cannot call ourselves civilized.
25 May 2005
Dutch Education Secretary Ridiculed by Evolutionists
It is heartening to see that my home country, generally considered to be the cesspool of liberal thought, can produce politicians like Mrs. Van der Hoeven, the Dutch Education Secretary. She suggested recently that public schools look at the errors and inconsistencies of Evolutionary Theory. She mentioned Intelligent Design (ID) as an interesting alternative.
Immediately, scientists and politicians from all parties—except conservative Christians—started ridiculing her. It is interesting to note that, whereas in America there would have been calls to sack and sue the secretary for incompetence, abuse of power and violation of the First Amendment, in the Netherlands there is only derision. The substance of the disapproval is the same, though: proponents of Darwin's theory, both in parliament and in academia, dismissed any debate as irrelevant and unnecessary, indeed, as non-existent.
The majority of scientists believe that Evolutionary Theory has been conclusively proved and that, therefore, there is no debate. Intelligent Design is rejected as a thinly veiled version of Christian theology. Parliamentarians complained that Secretary Van der Hoeven was trying to include material fit for a Religion classroom into a Science classroom. The two are mutually exclusive, they contend. Mrs. Van der Hoeven responded that her opponents ruled out debate a priori without giving proof of their reasoning. Only a handful of Christian MPs were willing to stand up and defend the secretary. One member said, “I believe that a greater leap of faith is required to accept [Evolutionary Theory] than to believe in God.”
Do we need more evidence that liberal atheists have stacked the deck in favor of junk science? Do they even have any shred of a capacity to logical thought left, since they argue that God is irrelevant simply because they do not believe in Him?
Immediately, scientists and politicians from all parties—except conservative Christians—started ridiculing her. It is interesting to note that, whereas in America there would have been calls to sack and sue the secretary for incompetence, abuse of power and violation of the First Amendment, in the Netherlands there is only derision. The substance of the disapproval is the same, though: proponents of Darwin's theory, both in parliament and in academia, dismissed any debate as irrelevant and unnecessary, indeed, as non-existent.
The majority of scientists believe that Evolutionary Theory has been conclusively proved and that, therefore, there is no debate. Intelligent Design is rejected as a thinly veiled version of Christian theology. Parliamentarians complained that Secretary Van der Hoeven was trying to include material fit for a Religion classroom into a Science classroom. The two are mutually exclusive, they contend. Mrs. Van der Hoeven responded that her opponents ruled out debate a priori without giving proof of their reasoning. Only a handful of Christian MPs were willing to stand up and defend the secretary. One member said, “I believe that a greater leap of faith is required to accept [Evolutionary Theory] than to believe in God.”
Do we need more evidence that liberal atheists have stacked the deck in favor of junk science? Do they even have any shred of a capacity to logical thought left, since they argue that God is irrelevant simply because they do not believe in Him?
Senate Should Tolerate the Filibuster
Both sides in the filibuster debate have done nothing but spout misinformation. That includes telling only that part of the truth that furthers their argument.
The Star Tribune’s editorial on Sunday, May 22, is equally one-sided in its defence of the filibuster as a “right.” That is Democratic partisan nonsense and also plain wrong. There is no “right” to filibuster. Senators have simply used this and other sabotage tactics when it seemed expedient to them. Now they put a feather in its cap and call it a “right.”
Yet the Republicans have engaged in no smaller sins. When they make it seem that only Democrats have used the filibuster to block judicial nominees, they are, well, lying. Of course, they are technically correct when they say that the Republicans were never successful in filibustering judicial nominees. But let’s not mince words: both parties have tried every sabotage tactic on the book to frustrate the hopes of judicial nominees.
From a purely democratic point of view, the filibuster is a hateful monster. It allows the minority to frustrate the plans of the majority, in clear violation of the voters’ will. None of the current minority’s reasons to justify the filibuster have any philosophical merit. It is undemocratic and no legal document grants anyone the right to filibuster. It merely exists by the coincidence of tradition.
Nevertheless, Republican senators would do well to let the filibuster stand, even if they have to do it while grinding their teeth. The fact that voters are limited to only two parties--parties that are both getting more and more extreme--is a serious hindrance to true democracy. Despite the many shades of gray in voters’ opinions, only these two parties matter politically. Thus, any majority in Congress will almost necessarily be slim and the minority sizeable. Unless the political system were reformed to include more checks and balances and water down the power of the majority party, ending the filibuster will cause a de facto one-party dictatorship.
It is a catch 22 because both keeping and scrapping the filibuster are undemocratic. But Republicans should not gloat over the short-term benefits of the “constitutional option.” The Democrats will take their revenge when next they are in the majority and, using the same strategy, impose on the country a host of life-time judges who, in their turn, will rule against each and every issue conservatives stand for.
I agree that there are serious cracks in the system, but I had rather hang around for a better plan to fix them because the “nuclear option” will at the very least deepen the partisan rift and at worst start a dangerous meltdown of the federal government. Faced with that prospect, I’ll be content to grind my teeth at Democratic incivility.
Yes, this is a reversal of an earlier standpoint. But I'd rather have wisdom late, than not at all.
17 May 2005
British Memo on Iraq Changes Everything
When it comes to the Iraq War I have always been clear: nobody likes war but pacifism is not an option because there will always be bad guys who do not believe in peace. Turning the other cheek only goes so far. At some point, you run out of cheeks. Thus, I have been giving president George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt, knowing that Sadam Hussain had a track record. And while it is good to have a healthy interest in politics, so that politicians remain accountable, it is impossible in any indirect democracy like the United States to demand to be involved in every step of every policy decision. To some extent you have to trust the government as the appointed experts doing things for the common good.
However, politicians remain accountable and when enough information becomes available, you are entitled, in fact, obligated to judge their work. The recently published “Downing Street Memo,” a document leaked from the British government, changes my stance on the Iraq War and my opinion about the Bush government. In this posting, I will not only explain how a religious conservative, who endorsed Bush’ reelection in November, can come to be an opponent of the president, but also why it is a moral imperative for a conscientious, Bible-believing Christian to condemn the president’s handling of the matter.
The case for war on Iraq was never a great one and yet I never made a secret of it that I was cautiously in favor of taking Sadam out. The risks that regime posed, according to the evidence presented by the Bush government, were too great to be ignored. The problems I had with the anti-War crowd were mainly the following two:
First, they argued that the matter should be handled through the UN. I have no inherent dislike of the UN or international bodies. In fact, I am fairly critical of the disdain many Republicans have shown toward the UN. The nomination of John Bolton, an outspoken UN hater, troubles me greatly and I deeply disapprove of it. It is a sign that the anti-UN wing within the Republican party has a lot of leverage in the White House.
However, when the Iraq crisis was building, we already knew that the UN was itself embroiled in various internal crises. The track record of the UN in dealing with international situations was not merely imperfect, it was downright unbelievable. The UN are in a state of disorganization without any clear leadership and beset by many corruption scandals, including a case of bribery related to the Iraq Oil-for-Food program. All the UN do is talk. The Iraq matter had already been discussed ad nauseam. Thus, the demand, at the time, to insist on more UN involvement was little more than a demand to wait for the verdict of the high school debating club to render its verdict. And then to demand to wait for a rematch. I still think that the president’s claim, that the UN showed itself to be irrelevant by its lack of action is not an unfair characterization of the problems within the UN.
Second, the anti-War protesters argued that there was no legal basis for war. This is a more meaty problem, since the government is bound by the Constitution and other national and international regulations regarding the declaration of war. No government should declare war lightly. But the opponents of the war were never able to convince me that the supposed offences against the legal precepts were grave enough to warrant ignoring the evil of Sadam’s regime. In fact, they made themselves ridiculous by insisting that war is always the wrong choice. By claiming such a patently non-sensical point, they ceased to be taken seriously by me and many other moderates.
In a sense, the Republican silence on the recent “Downing Street Memo” shows the depth of the partisan perversion within that party. Conservatives are pretending that the memo does not exist, and few US media have even commented on it. Indeed, what few comments have been elicited from officials in London and Washington were mere mumbles to the effect that it had no significance.
In my opinion, that memo changes everything. I ran into news about the memo in a New York Times article by Paul Krugman, a columnist I consider to be thoroughly detestible and hateful. I still would not give a dime for his article because he cannot write two sentences without spewing hate and contempt for conservatives, but the link he provided to the memo was more important.
The memo, dated to July 23, 2002, proves that the Bush government was already decided on going to war against Iraq and was merely debating how to arrange it. It flatly contradicts a number of claims by Bush and White House officials that all avenues of approach were still open. Furthermore, the memo also proves that the Bush government already had preliminary plans for the attack on Iraq. The memo also shows that the head of British Intelligence at the very least was suspicious of the quality of pre-war intelligence on Iraq. The man, Sir Richard Dearlove, believed that the US government was manufacturing evidence to favor the war policy. Finally, it also proves that the post-war situation was not a great priority with the Bush administration. And it also seems to prove that Mr Blair is indeed what his opponents in Britain have always labeled him: George Bush’ lapdog because what little input the British Prime Minister provided during the recorded meeting was limited to making suggestions as to how the weaknesses in Mr Bush’ approach might be fixed.
The issues resulting from the publication of the Downing Street Memo are too important to be ignored by Congress. I support Congressman Conyers (D-MI) in his attempt to convince the House Judiciary Committee to investigate the matter. Congress must investigate. I also think that, if proved accurate, the allegations of the memo are serious enough to impeach and convict president Bush and his advisors Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell on charges of fraud, conducting an illegal war and abuse of executive power.
This is a tough claim to make since I am thoroughly opposed to the liberal agenda of the Democratic Party. Right now national politics are taken up by the filibuster issue and you know where I stand on that matter. However, I have come to believe that George W. Bush has broken the law and does not have the right to be president of the United States. If we as orthodox Christians want to take the idea of moral absolutes seriously, we have to consider God’s judgment of this matter. I do not think we can afford to find excuses for the president’s behavior and make strategic arguments about the importance of a conservative force to counteract the so-called ungodly policies of liberals. Wrong is wrong, whether it wears an elephant or a donkey button on its lapel. We must insist on this standard or the standard has no meaning.
However, politicians remain accountable and when enough information becomes available, you are entitled, in fact, obligated to judge their work. The recently published “Downing Street Memo,” a document leaked from the British government, changes my stance on the Iraq War and my opinion about the Bush government. In this posting, I will not only explain how a religious conservative, who endorsed Bush’ reelection in November, can come to be an opponent of the president, but also why it is a moral imperative for a conscientious, Bible-believing Christian to condemn the president’s handling of the matter.
The case for war on Iraq was never a great one and yet I never made a secret of it that I was cautiously in favor of taking Sadam out. The risks that regime posed, according to the evidence presented by the Bush government, were too great to be ignored. The problems I had with the anti-War crowd were mainly the following two:
First, they argued that the matter should be handled through the UN. I have no inherent dislike of the UN or international bodies. In fact, I am fairly critical of the disdain many Republicans have shown toward the UN. The nomination of John Bolton, an outspoken UN hater, troubles me greatly and I deeply disapprove of it. It is a sign that the anti-UN wing within the Republican party has a lot of leverage in the White House.
However, when the Iraq crisis was building, we already knew that the UN was itself embroiled in various internal crises. The track record of the UN in dealing with international situations was not merely imperfect, it was downright unbelievable. The UN are in a state of disorganization without any clear leadership and beset by many corruption scandals, including a case of bribery related to the Iraq Oil-for-Food program. All the UN do is talk. The Iraq matter had already been discussed ad nauseam. Thus, the demand, at the time, to insist on more UN involvement was little more than a demand to wait for the verdict of the high school debating club to render its verdict. And then to demand to wait for a rematch. I still think that the president’s claim, that the UN showed itself to be irrelevant by its lack of action is not an unfair characterization of the problems within the UN.
Second, the anti-War protesters argued that there was no legal basis for war. This is a more meaty problem, since the government is bound by the Constitution and other national and international regulations regarding the declaration of war. No government should declare war lightly. But the opponents of the war were never able to convince me that the supposed offences against the legal precepts were grave enough to warrant ignoring the evil of Sadam’s regime. In fact, they made themselves ridiculous by insisting that war is always the wrong choice. By claiming such a patently non-sensical point, they ceased to be taken seriously by me and many other moderates.
In a sense, the Republican silence on the recent “Downing Street Memo” shows the depth of the partisan perversion within that party. Conservatives are pretending that the memo does not exist, and few US media have even commented on it. Indeed, what few comments have been elicited from officials in London and Washington were mere mumbles to the effect that it had no significance.
In my opinion, that memo changes everything. I ran into news about the memo in a New York Times article by Paul Krugman, a columnist I consider to be thoroughly detestible and hateful. I still would not give a dime for his article because he cannot write two sentences without spewing hate and contempt for conservatives, but the link he provided to the memo was more important.
The memo, dated to July 23, 2002, proves that the Bush government was already decided on going to war against Iraq and was merely debating how to arrange it. It flatly contradicts a number of claims by Bush and White House officials that all avenues of approach were still open. Furthermore, the memo also proves that the Bush government already had preliminary plans for the attack on Iraq. The memo also shows that the head of British Intelligence at the very least was suspicious of the quality of pre-war intelligence on Iraq. The man, Sir Richard Dearlove, believed that the US government was manufacturing evidence to favor the war policy. Finally, it also proves that the post-war situation was not a great priority with the Bush administration. And it also seems to prove that Mr Blair is indeed what his opponents in Britain have always labeled him: George Bush’ lapdog because what little input the British Prime Minister provided during the recorded meeting was limited to making suggestions as to how the weaknesses in Mr Bush’ approach might be fixed.
The issues resulting from the publication of the Downing Street Memo are too important to be ignored by Congress. I support Congressman Conyers (D-MI) in his attempt to convince the House Judiciary Committee to investigate the matter. Congress must investigate. I also think that, if proved accurate, the allegations of the memo are serious enough to impeach and convict president Bush and his advisors Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell on charges of fraud, conducting an illegal war and abuse of executive power.
This is a tough claim to make since I am thoroughly opposed to the liberal agenda of the Democratic Party. Right now national politics are taken up by the filibuster issue and you know where I stand on that matter. However, I have come to believe that George W. Bush has broken the law and does not have the right to be president of the United States. If we as orthodox Christians want to take the idea of moral absolutes seriously, we have to consider God’s judgment of this matter. I do not think we can afford to find excuses for the president’s behavior and make strategic arguments about the importance of a conservative force to counteract the so-called ungodly policies of liberals. Wrong is wrong, whether it wears an elephant or a donkey button on its lapel. We must insist on this standard or the standard has no meaning.
22 April 2005
In the Nuclear Winter of the Filibuster
The Republicans have put the nomination of two judges on the agenda again, even though the previous Congress filibustered their nomination. It is the first move in a complicated chess game that Republicans have warned will lead them to change Senate rules, unless Democrats back down on the filibuster.
Naturally, Democrats are outraged. They argue that it is the dictatorship of the biggest bully, When the game does not go their way, Republicans change the rules, Democrats say. The underlying argument is that the filibuster is not illegal, in fact, that it is a purposely designed part of the system of checks and balances, intended to prevent the majority party to rule by decree. Every senator has the constitutional right to speak, even if it be ad nauseam to the rest of the Senate. Tough toenails, is the Democratic response to that objection. The law is the law.
Technically speaking, the Democrats are right. Limiting debate without the required sixty senators to end it is a violation of the rules as they stand. But ethically and morally, Republicans have every right to be outraged at the Democratic use of the filibuster. The concept of “filibustering” in the Senate was not designed by the Founding Fathers, nor any other statesman. The filibuster came into being when political debate degenerated into political sabotage. To talk of the filibuster as a constitutional device is nothing but propaganda. I have written about this before.
The question is, will the Republicans have the guts to change Senate rules? Vice-president Dick Cheney has already indicated he will cast the tie-breaking vote if the Senate votes 50-50 on the question. But Democrats have already warned that they will shut down government if the rules are changed. That would mean, no legislation of any kind would get passed, with severe consequences for all branches of public service. No salaries of federal employees would get paid and federal services and agencies such as US Mail would shut down.
The Democrats are banking on the likelihood that the Republicans will find that perspective too worrying. A handful of Republican senators have already said that the “nuclear option” as the Democrats disparagingly call the proposal to end the filibuster is too much for them, and they will vote against it. The Democrats are probably right. Their assessment, that the voters will hold Republicans—and not Democrats—responsible for the mess that would ensue, is probably correct. It is an illusion to think that the Republican electorate is made up largely of highly-principled conservative Christians. In the chaos, it will probably become clear that business interests and lobbyists’ money do most of the talking.
Thus, I believe that, even though I support ending the filibuster, it will not come to that. Nevertheless, the dispute has highlighted how wide the fallout would reach if the partisan Civil War did come to a head. New York Times columnist David Brooks yesterday analyzed the situation correctly, when he noted the main wedge separating red from blue America: Roe v. Wade. Until the liberal tyranny from the judicial benches is undone, there can be no normality in US politics.
Naturally, Democrats are outraged. They argue that it is the dictatorship of the biggest bully, When the game does not go their way, Republicans change the rules, Democrats say. The underlying argument is that the filibuster is not illegal, in fact, that it is a purposely designed part of the system of checks and balances, intended to prevent the majority party to rule by decree. Every senator has the constitutional right to speak, even if it be ad nauseam to the rest of the Senate. Tough toenails, is the Democratic response to that objection. The law is the law.
Technically speaking, the Democrats are right. Limiting debate without the required sixty senators to end it is a violation of the rules as they stand. But ethically and morally, Republicans have every right to be outraged at the Democratic use of the filibuster. The concept of “filibustering” in the Senate was not designed by the Founding Fathers, nor any other statesman. The filibuster came into being when political debate degenerated into political sabotage. To talk of the filibuster as a constitutional device is nothing but propaganda. I have written about this before.
The question is, will the Republicans have the guts to change Senate rules? Vice-president Dick Cheney has already indicated he will cast the tie-breaking vote if the Senate votes 50-50 on the question. But Democrats have already warned that they will shut down government if the rules are changed. That would mean, no legislation of any kind would get passed, with severe consequences for all branches of public service. No salaries of federal employees would get paid and federal services and agencies such as US Mail would shut down.
The Democrats are banking on the likelihood that the Republicans will find that perspective too worrying. A handful of Republican senators have already said that the “nuclear option” as the Democrats disparagingly call the proposal to end the filibuster is too much for them, and they will vote against it. The Democrats are probably right. Their assessment, that the voters will hold Republicans—and not Democrats—responsible for the mess that would ensue, is probably correct. It is an illusion to think that the Republican electorate is made up largely of highly-principled conservative Christians. In the chaos, it will probably become clear that business interests and lobbyists’ money do most of the talking.
Thus, I believe that, even though I support ending the filibuster, it will not come to that. Nevertheless, the dispute has highlighted how wide the fallout would reach if the partisan Civil War did come to a head. New York Times columnist David Brooks yesterday analyzed the situation correctly, when he noted the main wedge separating red from blue America: Roe v. Wade. Until the liberal tyranny from the judicial benches is undone, there can be no normality in US politics.
21 April 2005
Spain to Legalize Gay Marriage
After the Netherlands and Belgium, Spain is set to become the third country in the world where gays and lesbians will be allowed to marry (source: BBC News). The Lower Chamber in Spain’s parliament approved a bill today that would make this happen. The Upper Chamber is not likely to block it. An unprecedented roar erupted from the public balcony when the bill was approved. “A historic day for Spain,” the numerous gay activists exclaimed.
A historic day indeed. But it will be a black page in Spain’s history books. Gay activists had campaigned hard to get this bill approved. The main reason for passing it? According to the gay activists, Spain needs to award gay people these special rights in order to move Spain from a conservative Mediterranean culture to a progressive European society, that is, to make it more in line with the rest of Europe.
But there are only two other countries in Europe where gay marriage is legal and they are not exactly the most important ones either. It is just another example of gay activists giving phoney reasons for claiming special rights and being just a little bit more equal than other people.
There are rumblings in other countries, too. Sweden is already notoriously pro-gay, as is Denmark, which recognizes gay partnerships. And last year, Great Britain worked on passing a bill on civil unions as well. Pro Family groups in that country have been campaigning hard to explain to the British public that the civil union bill would create gay marriage in all but name. It would award, like the Spanish bill, special privileges to a group of people, solely on the basis of their sexual preferences.
In other words, two non-gay men or non-lesbian women who share property or a house together for other reasons—because they are long-time elderly friends sharing rent, or a disabled mother and her daughter who takes care of her—would not get any of the privileges and benefits that gays and lesbians do get. Despite the fact that there are only a few gay couples who would benefit. If you are not gay, you just don’t qualify.
A historic day indeed. But it will be a black page in Spain’s history books. Gay activists had campaigned hard to get this bill approved. The main reason for passing it? According to the gay activists, Spain needs to award gay people these special rights in order to move Spain from a conservative Mediterranean culture to a progressive European society, that is, to make it more in line with the rest of Europe.
But there are only two other countries in Europe where gay marriage is legal and they are not exactly the most important ones either. It is just another example of gay activists giving phoney reasons for claiming special rights and being just a little bit more equal than other people.
There are rumblings in other countries, too. Sweden is already notoriously pro-gay, as is Denmark, which recognizes gay partnerships. And last year, Great Britain worked on passing a bill on civil unions as well. Pro Family groups in that country have been campaigning hard to explain to the British public that the civil union bill would create gay marriage in all but name. It would award, like the Spanish bill, special privileges to a group of people, solely on the basis of their sexual preferences.
In other words, two non-gay men or non-lesbian women who share property or a house together for other reasons—because they are long-time elderly friends sharing rent, or a disabled mother and her daughter who takes care of her—would not get any of the privileges and benefits that gays and lesbians do get. Despite the fact that there are only a few gay couples who would benefit. If you are not gay, you just don’t qualify.
20 April 2005
A Protestant’s Response to the Election of Benedict XVI
It would be easy to say, as a protestant, that the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to be the next pope, leaves me completely disinterested. It would also be a complete lie. And for all those protestants who scoff at the media hype about it, here’s news for you: it matters for protestants who is pope.
The sad thing is that in the dechristianized West, your average heathen neighbor cannot tell the difference between Christians and Mormons, or Christians and Muslims, and certainly not between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Read the liberal media and you should realize that everyone who talks about Jesus is automatically labeled an evangelical and if you ever mention anything contrary to one of the New Age creeds
you are sure to be called a right wing extremist or be compared to a member of Al Qaeda.
In other words, most ignorant liberals (not necessarily a tautology) will consider the pope the universal representative of Christianity. What the pope says or does, reflects on all Christians, even protestants. It is the weakness of the schismatic nature of protestantism that there is no unified ambassador on earth. But then I guess, protestants believe in that one Ambassador, Jesus Christ, Someone the RC church has sort of lost sight of when Mary and the saints (please do not start a rockband with that name) started crowding Him out.
So, what is a protestant to make of Pope Benedict XVI? As far as I can tell, he is a clone of John Paul II. He has somewhat less charisma and more of a German accent but, apart from that, it seems John Paul II is ruling from beyond the grave. That means a strong conservative voice on social issues but also, unfortunately, unflinching on the RC superstitions, i.e. Mary as a fourth person in the Trinity, purgatory and indulgences, praying to a pantheon of saints and worshiping the bread-god in the eucharist. Another toughy. Let’s just pray that the new pope will focus on the former and down-play the latter, at least in the public arena. Because if he is seen as a strong, principled Christian, his example may yet be a PR opportunity for the gospel. After all, the Holy Spirit does not need human perfection to effect grace and faith. Even the pope can be saved.
The sad thing is that in the dechristianized West, your average heathen neighbor cannot tell the difference between Christians and Mormons, or Christians and Muslims, and certainly not between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Read the liberal media and you should realize that everyone who talks about Jesus is automatically labeled an evangelical and if you ever mention anything contrary to one of the New Age creeds
—“We believe in a woman’s right to abort her baby because she cannot face changing diapers. We believe in the right of any human to marry any other creature regardless of race, religion, gender, species or number. We believe in creating life for spare parts and ending it for spare parts. So help us the Universal Energy into which we hope to be dissolved when our bodies die.”—
you are sure to be called a right wing extremist or be compared to a member of Al Qaeda.
In other words, most ignorant liberals (not necessarily a tautology) will consider the pope the universal representative of Christianity. What the pope says or does, reflects on all Christians, even protestants. It is the weakness of the schismatic nature of protestantism that there is no unified ambassador on earth. But then I guess, protestants believe in that one Ambassador, Jesus Christ, Someone the RC church has sort of lost sight of when Mary and the saints (please do not start a rockband with that name) started crowding Him out.
So, what is a protestant to make of Pope Benedict XVI? As far as I can tell, he is a clone of John Paul II. He has somewhat less charisma and more of a German accent but, apart from that, it seems John Paul II is ruling from beyond the grave. That means a strong conservative voice on social issues but also, unfortunately, unflinching on the RC superstitions, i.e. Mary as a fourth person in the Trinity, purgatory and indulgences, praying to a pantheon of saints and worshiping the bread-god in the eucharist. Another toughy. Let’s just pray that the new pope will focus on the former and down-play the latter, at least in the public arena. Because if he is seen as a strong, principled Christian, his example may yet be a PR opportunity for the gospel. After all, the Holy Spirit does not need human perfection to effect grace and faith. Even the pope can be saved.
15 April 2005
Dutch Secretary Labels Prostitution ‘Fitting Employment’
Dutch parliamentarians are struggling with some unforeseen consequences of the legalization of prostitution in their country. The lower chamber debated on Wednesday, April 13 with Labor Secretary Mr. De Geus about his assessment that prostitution cannot be dismissed as unfitting employment in all circumstances.
Under the Dutch welfare system, the unemployed can only continue receiving benefits if they are registered with a government employment agency and actively participate in finding a job. The government also has guidelines to link vacancies to jobseekers’ qualifications. Under those guidelines, refusing a job considered a fitting match to one’s qualifications results in a benefit cut.
However, with the legalization of prostitution, the government employment agencies were forced to start registering vacancies in this branch. In a letter to parliament last month, Mr. De Geus reported his department’s assessment that there is no basis under current Dutch law to exempt prostitution from the government guidelines regarding fitting employment. While he remarked that the agencies are not actively recruiting jobless women for these vacancies, and are in fact encouraged to leave them “dormant” in their databases, the enforcement branch of the Department of Welfare and Labor is compelled to consider the question whether a job as prostitute may be fitting employment for certain people. The secretary suggested that “women who were formerly employed as prostitutes” might well fall into that category.
Even the Dutch parliament is unhappy with this situation but is faced with the consequences of its own actions. Many secular representatives are scrambling to find a compromise but legally there can be no exemption for prostitution as long as it is legal.
Meanwhile, Christian representatives are warning of worse situations in the future. Rep. Tineke Huizinga and Ms. Yvette Lont, both members of the Christian party ChristenUnie, write in the Nederlands Dagblad that the legislation creates a trap for women who are currently trying to get out of prostitution. Registering with the government employment agency would only cause the agency to make the observation that they are qualified for their vacancies in prostitution. While no-one has as yet had their benefits cut under the Dutch rules, Rep. Huizinga and Ms. Lont note that authorities in Germany, where similar legislation was enacted, have done so with a 25 year-old schooled IT worker who refused to accept a job as prostitute. The fact that Mr. De Geus is ignorant of the true state of affairs in the world of prostitution is commendable in him as a private person, Huizinga and Lont write, but as Secretary he should know better.
While it is important not to engage in superficial assessments of the climate in liberal Holland, there is no denying that ignorance and a sharp decline in Christian values have made the country into a showcase for what happens when utilitarian pragmatism becomes the basis for morality. Perhaps the most difficult for conscientious Christians in the Netherlands is the fact that their battle for traditional values is somewhat invisible in the absence of active persecution of Christians and in a place where Satan does not fight openly under the banner of outright evil but deludes good but ignorant citizens in the disguise of New Morality. Let us remember to pray for those who are fighting and for those who are being deluded.
Sources: (for those who read Dutch)
http://www.volkskrant.nl/denhaag/1113368295894.html
http://www.refdag.nl/website/artikel.php?id=1210356
http://www.nd.nl/newsite/artikel.asp?id=60182
Under the Dutch welfare system, the unemployed can only continue receiving benefits if they are registered with a government employment agency and actively participate in finding a job. The government also has guidelines to link vacancies to jobseekers’ qualifications. Under those guidelines, refusing a job considered a fitting match to one’s qualifications results in a benefit cut.
However, with the legalization of prostitution, the government employment agencies were forced to start registering vacancies in this branch. In a letter to parliament last month, Mr. De Geus reported his department’s assessment that there is no basis under current Dutch law to exempt prostitution from the government guidelines regarding fitting employment. While he remarked that the agencies are not actively recruiting jobless women for these vacancies, and are in fact encouraged to leave them “dormant” in their databases, the enforcement branch of the Department of Welfare and Labor is compelled to consider the question whether a job as prostitute may be fitting employment for certain people. The secretary suggested that “women who were formerly employed as prostitutes” might well fall into that category.
Even the Dutch parliament is unhappy with this situation but is faced with the consequences of its own actions. Many secular representatives are scrambling to find a compromise but legally there can be no exemption for prostitution as long as it is legal.
Meanwhile, Christian representatives are warning of worse situations in the future. Rep. Tineke Huizinga and Ms. Yvette Lont, both members of the Christian party ChristenUnie, write in the Nederlands Dagblad that the legislation creates a trap for women who are currently trying to get out of prostitution. Registering with the government employment agency would only cause the agency to make the observation that they are qualified for their vacancies in prostitution. While no-one has as yet had their benefits cut under the Dutch rules, Rep. Huizinga and Ms. Lont note that authorities in Germany, where similar legislation was enacted, have done so with a 25 year-old schooled IT worker who refused to accept a job as prostitute. The fact that Mr. De Geus is ignorant of the true state of affairs in the world of prostitution is commendable in him as a private person, Huizinga and Lont write, but as Secretary he should know better.
While it is important not to engage in superficial assessments of the climate in liberal Holland, there is no denying that ignorance and a sharp decline in Christian values have made the country into a showcase for what happens when utilitarian pragmatism becomes the basis for morality. Perhaps the most difficult for conscientious Christians in the Netherlands is the fact that their battle for traditional values is somewhat invisible in the absence of active persecution of Christians and in a place where Satan does not fight openly under the banner of outright evil but deludes good but ignorant citizens in the disguise of New Morality. Let us remember to pray for those who are fighting and for those who are being deluded.
Sources: (for those who read Dutch)
http://www.volkskrant.nl/denhaag/1113368295894.html
http://www.refdag.nl/website/artikel.php?id=1210356
http://www.nd.nl/newsite/artikel.asp?id=60182
14 April 2005
Nuclear Option A Good Thing
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.)
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.)
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
