On the last day before the Senate went on summer break, Bill Frist ended a good pro-life record by endorsing more federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. One can only imagine his decision to have come as a result of the intense pressure of the pro-choice lobby and its allies. The conclusion drawn by Eric Cohen and William Kristol in the Weekly Standard is correct: “Senate majority leader Bill Frist did the wrong thing at the wrong time.”
However, Cohen and Kristol do not go far enough in their disapproval of Mr. Frist’s decision. Their article sets out further policy moves Mr. Frist should employ to make sure that this will not lead down the slippery slope toward a completely utilitarian medical philosophy that will include human cloning. They are profoundly naive in their assessment of the situation. Mr. Frist’s speech in the Senate sent the nation hurtling toward that situation and we are already approaching the end station rapidly. The New York Times bewailed the fact that the current bill as proposed does not allow “therapeutic cloning” yet, but is confident that Frist’s flip-flop will lead there eventually. This is the true horror of Mr. Frist’s decision.
Thus, Mr. Frist’s decision to endorse embryonic stem cell research is more than merely a “wrong decision.” It is a catastrophic decision for which he should be held accountable. Not only should President Bush hold good on his promise to veto the bill—it would be the first veto of his entire presidency—conscientious voters should remember to cross him off the list.
The decision shows that he does not understand what is truly at stake in opposing embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research is murder because it kills unborn babies. Compromise is not possible on this issue. By compromising on the issue, Mr. Frist showed that he is not worthy of a vote and that voters’ trust up till now was not justified.
Yes, this issue is that important. It’s a matter of life and death for millions of unborn babies who are currently in suspended animation in special freezers. Liberal media talk of “destroying” embryos or “cells” or “zygotes” or such like. They also talk about the “enormous hope” afforded by this new technology and then try to emotionally blackmail you into having compassion with the many peole that could be cured by therapies discovered through embryonic stem cell research.
Hogwash. That’s the argument used by Joseph Mengele and his Nazi henchmen: we can sacrifice these Untermenschen (‘inferior people’, with which the Nazis meant Jews, Roma, homosexuals, handicapped people) because their lives are not worth anything. They are expendable. Well, embryos are people too and we have as little right to sacrifice them for the greater good as we have to sacrifice any group of people deemed ‘inferior.’ Life begins at conception. Embryos are past that stage, ergo, they are people. Don’t fall for the liberal, utilitarian and tear-jerking arguments. And see Mr. Frist’s action for what it is: a sell-out to sin and to a crime against humanity. This is way more important than some will make you believe. Mr. Frist is unfit to be elected to any office until he confesses his sin and repents of it. This is very troubling indeed.
30 July 2005
26 July 2005
German Court Takes Custody Rights for Homeschooling
PADERBORN –
A court in the German city of Paderborn has temporarily taken away custody rights from two sets of parents. The parents refuse to send their children to public schools for religious reasons. The families are immigrants from Russia and members of a conservative Baptist church.
They belong to a group of eight families of whom 16 children do not attend school. The parents especially object to the manner in which public schools teach Biology (including comprehensive sex education and Darwinism) as well as to the very liberal Religion classes.
The court contends that the parents are hindering the children from “developing a personality appropriate for their age afforded by attending school.”
The parents homeschool their children until about age 10, but refuse to send to public school after that. Despite fines levied on them, they persist in their position. Custody of the children of two families has now been awarded to Childrens’ Services which have been charged by the court to make sure the children attend school in fall.
A spokesperson for the district of Detmold has confirmed that the parents have filed a request to start a private school. This request has been denied since the district judged that it was merely a thinly disguised form of homeschooling. “A living room is not a class room,” according to the spokesperson.
Homeschooling was outlawed in Germany in 1938 during Hitler’s Nazi regime but this prohibition has never been repealed. Nevertheless, approximately 500 children are currently being homeschooled in Germany.
Non-German Christians from around the world are encouraged to sign a petition online at www.solidrockfaith.com and send it to the German embassy in Washington D.C.
Source: Nederlands Dagblad / Christenkurier.de / www.solidrockfaith.com
translated and edited by : Michel van der Hoek
A court in the German city of Paderborn has temporarily taken away custody rights from two sets of parents. The parents refuse to send their children to public schools for religious reasons. The families are immigrants from Russia and members of a conservative Baptist church.
They belong to a group of eight families of whom 16 children do not attend school. The parents especially object to the manner in which public schools teach Biology (including comprehensive sex education and Darwinism) as well as to the very liberal Religion classes.
The court contends that the parents are hindering the children from “developing a personality appropriate for their age afforded by attending school.”
The parents homeschool their children until about age 10, but refuse to send to public school after that. Despite fines levied on them, they persist in their position. Custody of the children of two families has now been awarded to Childrens’ Services which have been charged by the court to make sure the children attend school in fall.
A spokesperson for the district of Detmold has confirmed that the parents have filed a request to start a private school. This request has been denied since the district judged that it was merely a thinly disguised form of homeschooling. “A living room is not a class room,” according to the spokesperson.
Homeschooling was outlawed in Germany in 1938 during Hitler’s Nazi regime but this prohibition has never been repealed. Nevertheless, approximately 500 children are currently being homeschooled in Germany.
Non-German Christians from around the world are encouraged to sign a petition online at www.solidrockfaith.com and send it to the German embassy in Washington D.C.
Source: Nederlands Dagblad / Christenkurier.de / www.solidrockfaith.com
translated and edited by : Michel van der Hoek
25 July 2005
Bush's Smart Supreme Court Pick
Confirmation hearings are still more than a month away, but the country is already abuzz with talk about Bush’s nominee for the Supreme Court. In the days after Justice O’Connor’s resignation, commentators rejected the possibility of an early nomination. They believed that the administration was afraid of a repeat of the Bork nomination when a long wait until confirmation gave liberals plenty of time to rake up the dirt against the nominee.
The question for conservatives (and for liberals no less, of course) is whether John Roberts, currently a federal judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals, is the right pick. Wary of all the supposedly conservative judges appointed by Republican presidents over the past couple of decades, conservative politicians and columnists have warned that no chances can be taken. We do not want another Justice Souter, their warning is. Souter looked like a conservative, walked like a conservative, talked like a conservative, but unfortunately rules according to the desires of the lunatic left-wing.
Thus, some wariness is appropriate. Some on both sides of the political spectrum have already declared Roberts the wrong pick. NARAL Pro Choice has—not surprisingly—sounded the alarm about Roberts in view of his well-documented pro-life views. Ann Coulter recently rejected Roberts as an other “Souter in Roberts’ Clothing” because of his lack of documented views. So, which of the two is it?
Strictly speaking, Coulter is probably right. On the particular question of abortion, Roberts has no personal view on the books (though there is a document from when he was defending Reagan policy, which does not reflect his personal views). But I do not think we need to follow the vitriol of Ms. Coulter; partly because she does not look at the evidence properly.
Shannen Coffin of the National Review has a better perspective. He realizes that, unless a foolproof crystal ball is invented before September, the best way to predict Roberts’ rulings is to assess his character and method on the bench. In his article, Coffin points out that Mr. Roberts’ record indicates more than a mere inclination to follow the clear letter of the law. In interpreting the law as it relates to cases before him, he is certainly not devoid of emotion or even humor. But when it comes to deciding the case, he has only one standard: what does common sense tell us about the interpretation and meaning of the law?
That means that he does not invent meaning on the spot. He looks only at what the law says in the visible ink, not the invisible ink seen only by left-wing loonies. Roberts’ most illustrative decision was issued only last week. In this case, he dissented from the majority which ruled a search of a car’s trunk unconstitutional, since they followed the driver’s reasoning that the police should first have investigated his claim that the car belonged to his girlfriend, rather than assume the car was stolen.
Roberts was sharply sarcastic of the majority in his opinion: “Sometimes a car being driven by an unlicensed driver, with no registration and stolen tags, really does belong to the driver’s friend, and sometimes dogs do eat homework, but in neither case is it reasonable to insist on checking out the story before taking other appropriate action.” In other words, there was nothing unreasonable about the police officers’ assumption that the man was up to no good and that the trunk of the car needed to be searched.
This bodes well for Mr. Roberts. We will not be able to find out his exact stance on all topics. If he is smart—as he has proven himself to be—he won’t answer the question Ted Kennedy is certain to ask: “Will you reverse Roe v. Wade?” Senator Kennedy will grit his squirrel teeth, knowing that Roberts’ wife is an active pro-life lawyer (who works for Feminists for Life). But even though Kennedy is on the record of saying that for judges’ wives to be pro-life “ought to be out of bounds”, he is not allowed to use it against Mr. Roberts. Stick that where the sun don’t shine, Kennedy!
I am confident that President Bush has picked the right guy and it is an astonishingly smart pick. No-one in his right mind can help but like the man and his record. There are no certainties in this life and Justice Roberts may well, on occasion, rule with the liberals. But his record shows that he will only do so when the Republicans are plainly wrong in the matter. (Let’s not declare the Republicans infallible, please.) As for the rest, he promises to interpret the law by looking at what it says, not what the cross-dressing, gender-bending, neo-Marxist academics of the elite left believe it ought to have said. That’s good enough for me.
The question for conservatives (and for liberals no less, of course) is whether John Roberts, currently a federal judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals, is the right pick. Wary of all the supposedly conservative judges appointed by Republican presidents over the past couple of decades, conservative politicians and columnists have warned that no chances can be taken. We do not want another Justice Souter, their warning is. Souter looked like a conservative, walked like a conservative, talked like a conservative, but unfortunately rules according to the desires of the lunatic left-wing.
Thus, some wariness is appropriate. Some on both sides of the political spectrum have already declared Roberts the wrong pick. NARAL Pro Choice has—not surprisingly—sounded the alarm about Roberts in view of his well-documented pro-life views. Ann Coulter recently rejected Roberts as an other “Souter in Roberts’ Clothing” because of his lack of documented views. So, which of the two is it?
Strictly speaking, Coulter is probably right. On the particular question of abortion, Roberts has no personal view on the books (though there is a document from when he was defending Reagan policy, which does not reflect his personal views). But I do not think we need to follow the vitriol of Ms. Coulter; partly because she does not look at the evidence properly.
Shannen Coffin of the National Review has a better perspective. He realizes that, unless a foolproof crystal ball is invented before September, the best way to predict Roberts’ rulings is to assess his character and method on the bench. In his article, Coffin points out that Mr. Roberts’ record indicates more than a mere inclination to follow the clear letter of the law. In interpreting the law as it relates to cases before him, he is certainly not devoid of emotion or even humor. But when it comes to deciding the case, he has only one standard: what does common sense tell us about the interpretation and meaning of the law?
That means that he does not invent meaning on the spot. He looks only at what the law says in the visible ink, not the invisible ink seen only by left-wing loonies. Roberts’ most illustrative decision was issued only last week. In this case, he dissented from the majority which ruled a search of a car’s trunk unconstitutional, since they followed the driver’s reasoning that the police should first have investigated his claim that the car belonged to his girlfriend, rather than assume the car was stolen.
Roberts was sharply sarcastic of the majority in his opinion: “Sometimes a car being driven by an unlicensed driver, with no registration and stolen tags, really does belong to the driver’s friend, and sometimes dogs do eat homework, but in neither case is it reasonable to insist on checking out the story before taking other appropriate action.” In other words, there was nothing unreasonable about the police officers’ assumption that the man was up to no good and that the trunk of the car needed to be searched.
This bodes well for Mr. Roberts. We will not be able to find out his exact stance on all topics. If he is smart—as he has proven himself to be—he won’t answer the question Ted Kennedy is certain to ask: “Will you reverse Roe v. Wade?” Senator Kennedy will grit his squirrel teeth, knowing that Roberts’ wife is an active pro-life lawyer (who works for Feminists for Life). But even though Kennedy is on the record of saying that for judges’ wives to be pro-life “ought to be out of bounds”, he is not allowed to use it against Mr. Roberts. Stick that where the sun don’t shine, Kennedy!
I am confident that President Bush has picked the right guy and it is an astonishingly smart pick. No-one in his right mind can help but like the man and his record. There are no certainties in this life and Justice Roberts may well, on occasion, rule with the liberals. But his record shows that he will only do so when the Republicans are plainly wrong in the matter. (Let’s not declare the Republicans infallible, please.) As for the rest, he promises to interpret the law by looking at what it says, not what the cross-dressing, gender-bending, neo-Marxist academics of the elite left believe it ought to have said. That’s good enough for me.
21 July 2005
Again Bombs in London
And again London is rocked by terrorist attacks. During the afternoon, three bombs exploded on subway trains and one on a bus, paralleling the attacks on July 7. But the similarity did not go all the way because all four bombs failed to explode fully. Police say that only the detonators exploded without igniting any possible explosives. Yet all the signs seem to point to a link to the same organization that carried out the attacks on July 7, since even the backpacks used to carry the bombs are identical to those of the earlier attack. Let us hope that British law enforcement will be able to act as quickly on these attacks as on the previous ones and nab the terrorists who are responsible.
Rove-Gate and the Scrambling Media
The case surrounding Karl Rove and the CIA leak has all the appearances of a storm in a tea cup. When word first started to trickle into the news media that the secret source of Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller was none other than White House Advisor Karl Rove, the feeding frenzy soon began.
What was most disheartening about the whole affair was that it was (and is) all so predictable. Leftist media outlets, the New York Times leading the way, accused Karl Rove of breaking the law and called for his resignation. Conservative commentators defended Mr. Rove merely on principle without going into the case at all.
The New York Times had it right when they wrote, “[T]his isn’t just about Mr. Rove” (July 15). And yet, would that the New York Times had been able to show the same kind of wisdom as professed by the National Review, which declared openly that the jury is still out on the question whether Karl Rove broke the law (July 14). Instead, the Times complained that the whole affair was about Bush and his broken policies.
But then again, they are right: this isn’t just about Mr. Rove. It’s also about Judith Miller and the Times’s thirst for revenge. Because when Judith Miller was sentenced to a stint in prison for contempt of court, her employer immediately turned around and went for the jugular. According to the New York Times, it was Mr. Rove’s evil genius who plotted the whole affair. Mr. Rove leaked to Ms. Miller something to leak for which she could then be forced into an awkward position.
Now they want Rove’s job. Paul Krugman, never short of venom, avowed that Karl Rove is a criminal and belongs in jail. In an editorial on July 13, the newspaper put out a complicated argument in which they tried to reconcile the irreconcileable. The first is that Judith Miller, their jailed reporter, did the right thing to protect her source’s identity (presumably Karl Rove). The second that Karl Rove did not have the right to leak this kind of things to the press because, well, no reason really, except that they can’t stand Karl Rove having any rights, because, well, he’s a conservative toad, and, well, you get the picture.
But Mr. Rove has not broken any laws and morally he also seems to be in the clear. All the accusations that claimed he had somehow engineered the affair as part of a political plot seem now, with the hindsight of a few weeks, to have been dreamed up at the New York Times headquarters, with many of the major news media jumping on the bandwagon. “Didn’t the president promise to fire leakers?” they all asked, implying that the president was breaking his word by not axing Rove. In fact, the president remained resolved to display a close relationship with Rove. The special prosecutor who is investigating the CIA leak also announced explicitly that Karl Rove is not being investigated. Thus, even the cautious statements by conservative news outlets such as the National Review are unnecessary because, I repeat: Rove is not being investigated.
Let us not pretend that Karl Rove is not a slippery guy. As an advisor to the president, he has not exactly succeeded in making Bush seem wise. A host of policies, especially in the war on Iraq, policies that conservative Christians could not in their right minds subscribe to, are frequently being endorsed by the president. Rove ought to have given better advice. But that is hardly a cause for dismissal. But one can hope.
What was most disheartening about the whole affair was that it was (and is) all so predictable. Leftist media outlets, the New York Times leading the way, accused Karl Rove of breaking the law and called for his resignation. Conservative commentators defended Mr. Rove merely on principle without going into the case at all.
The New York Times had it right when they wrote, “[T]his isn’t just about Mr. Rove” (July 15). And yet, would that the New York Times had been able to show the same kind of wisdom as professed by the National Review, which declared openly that the jury is still out on the question whether Karl Rove broke the law (July 14). Instead, the Times complained that the whole affair was about Bush and his broken policies.
But then again, they are right: this isn’t just about Mr. Rove. It’s also about Judith Miller and the Times’s thirst for revenge. Because when Judith Miller was sentenced to a stint in prison for contempt of court, her employer immediately turned around and went for the jugular. According to the New York Times, it was Mr. Rove’s evil genius who plotted the whole affair. Mr. Rove leaked to Ms. Miller something to leak for which she could then be forced into an awkward position.
Now they want Rove’s job. Paul Krugman, never short of venom, avowed that Karl Rove is a criminal and belongs in jail. In an editorial on July 13, the newspaper put out a complicated argument in which they tried to reconcile the irreconcileable. The first is that Judith Miller, their jailed reporter, did the right thing to protect her source’s identity (presumably Karl Rove). The second that Karl Rove did not have the right to leak this kind of things to the press because, well, no reason really, except that they can’t stand Karl Rove having any rights, because, well, he’s a conservative toad, and, well, you get the picture.
But Mr. Rove has not broken any laws and morally he also seems to be in the clear. All the accusations that claimed he had somehow engineered the affair as part of a political plot seem now, with the hindsight of a few weeks, to have been dreamed up at the New York Times headquarters, with many of the major news media jumping on the bandwagon. “Didn’t the president promise to fire leakers?” they all asked, implying that the president was breaking his word by not axing Rove. In fact, the president remained resolved to display a close relationship with Rove. The special prosecutor who is investigating the CIA leak also announced explicitly that Karl Rove is not being investigated. Thus, even the cautious statements by conservative news outlets such as the National Review are unnecessary because, I repeat: Rove is not being investigated.
Let us not pretend that Karl Rove is not a slippery guy. As an advisor to the president, he has not exactly succeeded in making Bush seem wise. A host of policies, especially in the war on Iraq, policies that conservative Christians could not in their right minds subscribe to, are frequently being endorsed by the president. Rove ought to have given better advice. But that is hardly a cause for dismissal. But one can hope.
08 July 2005
Bombs in London
After the terror attacks in the US in 2001 and the Madrid bombs in 2004, now London, too has its 9/11. Who could do such a thing? But we know that: Osama bin Laden and his thugs. The sooner they are found, judged and executed, the better. But, of course, there’s more to be done than find individual terrorists. We also need to educate, both at home and abroad, so that we can show our determination to remain true to good and to reject evil. That in itself won’t solve the problem, but it should be the basis for sending troops to catch those whose faces are on our wanted posters.
In the meantime, London is not frightened by these attacks. Stiff upper lip and all that.
In the meantime, London is not frightened by these attacks. Stiff upper lip and all that.
06 July 2005
When Clinton Lied...
You do not have to be a Bush hater to be against the Iraq War. But it does seem to help, judging from the bumper stickers. One in particular springs to mind: ‘When Clinton lied, no-one died.’ It’s a cute little rhyme that must give no end of satisfaction to the Bush hating crowd. It’s so smart-alecky that it must contain a deeper, more profound truth.
President Bush did lie. The Downing Street Memo proves that he did, though many conservative commentators dismiss the memo as a left-wing conspiracy that has no validity. Unfortunately, it is an authentic British government document and it proves a lot (see my log entry for 17 May). Congress should investigate the extent and the nature of the president’s lies and act accordingly.
But that is only one part of the equation. People almost certainly died as a result of Bush’s lies, the notion that nobody died when Clinton lied is decidedly an unproven statement. Such a statement can only come from the mouth of someone who has crossed “sexual morality” off his list of priorities. After all, the claim is that Clinton’s sexual misconduct in the White House did not hinder him in his job as president. Perhaps not, though one wonders. However, a comment made on CNN this week highlighted the enormous damage Mr Clinton caused the nation.
When discussing teen culture and their supposedly improving sexual mores, Atoosa Rubenstein, the editor of Seventeen magazine, remarked that the encouraging statistics are accompanied by a growing stoic attitude to sexual adventures. After all, Rubenstein reminded the CNN interviewer, this is the generation of teenagers who had in the president of the United States a powerful role model teaching them that some sex isn’t sex, that it doesn’t matter anyway, that you can always try to lie your way out and when you get caught nothing bad happens anyway.
Presented to us in this light, the failure to remove Clinton from power appears a much greater error than it did at the time. At the time, the excuse was, of course, that the affair was private and did not impact the country. Now it seems that many more teens have become much more hardened in their immature stubbornness to defy adult wisdom. As a result, though the statsistics appear to show improvement in awareness of sexual morality, at the same time, they show the clear effects of a moral change in the minds of the next generation of Americans.
Suddenly, that little rhyme is no longer funny because we can see that it is not true. But for any Bush hating, Clinton worshiping liberal there is always the satisfaction of knowing that no-one will ever be able to prove how many teenagers were led by Clinton’s example to engage in unsafe or unwanted sex, or how many of them contracted venereal diseases, had abortions or were driven into potentially deadly despair as a result of the “unintended consequences” of Clinton’s lies.
So, don’t give me that “When Clinton lied, nobody died” nonsense. It ain’t true, and it ain’t funny.
President Bush did lie. The Downing Street Memo proves that he did, though many conservative commentators dismiss the memo as a left-wing conspiracy that has no validity. Unfortunately, it is an authentic British government document and it proves a lot (see my log entry for 17 May). Congress should investigate the extent and the nature of the president’s lies and act accordingly.
But that is only one part of the equation. People almost certainly died as a result of Bush’s lies, the notion that nobody died when Clinton lied is decidedly an unproven statement. Such a statement can only come from the mouth of someone who has crossed “sexual morality” off his list of priorities. After all, the claim is that Clinton’s sexual misconduct in the White House did not hinder him in his job as president. Perhaps not, though one wonders. However, a comment made on CNN this week highlighted the enormous damage Mr Clinton caused the nation.
When discussing teen culture and their supposedly improving sexual mores, Atoosa Rubenstein, the editor of Seventeen magazine, remarked that the encouraging statistics are accompanied by a growing stoic attitude to sexual adventures. After all, Rubenstein reminded the CNN interviewer, this is the generation of teenagers who had in the president of the United States a powerful role model teaching them that some sex isn’t sex, that it doesn’t matter anyway, that you can always try to lie your way out and when you get caught nothing bad happens anyway.
Presented to us in this light, the failure to remove Clinton from power appears a much greater error than it did at the time. At the time, the excuse was, of course, that the affair was private and did not impact the country. Now it seems that many more teens have become much more hardened in their immature stubbornness to defy adult wisdom. As a result, though the statsistics appear to show improvement in awareness of sexual morality, at the same time, they show the clear effects of a moral change in the minds of the next generation of Americans.
Suddenly, that little rhyme is no longer funny because we can see that it is not true. But for any Bush hating, Clinton worshiping liberal there is always the satisfaction of knowing that no-one will ever be able to prove how many teenagers were led by Clinton’s example to engage in unsafe or unwanted sex, or how many of them contracted venereal diseases, had abortions or were driven into potentially deadly despair as a result of the “unintended consequences” of Clinton’s lies.
So, don’t give me that “When Clinton lied, nobody died” nonsense. It ain’t true, and it ain’t funny.
05 July 2005
The Legacy of Justice O’Connor and What Comes Next
The feeding frenzy has started. Although it is a different justice than the one everyone had been expecting to resign, the clouds are nevertheless gathering as predicted. With Sandra Day O’Connor’s announcement that she will be retiring from the United States Supreme Court, the whole country shudders at what will come next, because president Bush will have to nominate a successor. No candidate will be acceptable to everyone and loud protests, both in Congress and on the streets, are a certainty.
Sandra Day O’Connor’s legacy is a mottled one. No conservative liked her, since she often ruled against clear constitutional principles. Her support of Roe v. Wade, reaffirmed in a 1992 ruling, marked her off as a key disappointment to the conservatives who supported her. Appointed in 1981 by Ronald Reagan, and the first woman on the Supreme Court, Justice O’Connor was expected to infuse some conservative soundness into the court. Instead, she proved to be the continuous swing vote. Lawyers soon realized that the key to winning a case in front of that panel, was ignoring the other eight justices and instead winning over Sandra Day O’Connor.
In that sense, the comment in the New York Times, that Sandra Day O’Connor was sometimes called the most powerful person in America, is spot on. Since the Supreme Court has become the final arbiter in all of the hotly contested cultural issues, its rulings have attained enormous influence in the country. Justice O’Connor’s deciding vote on nearly all these issues has hugely magnified her importance in shaping the political climate of the country.
Considering the current make-up of the Supreme Court, it is imperative that president Bush nominate a sound conservative judge to replace Justice O’Connor. At the moment, the court is more or less balanced between a number of irresponsibly liberal judges and some conservatives of varying degrees of rationality, with O’Connor tipping the balance on all important issues. Her replacement will upon inauguration tip that balance one way or the other.
It is quite true that potential justices should not be asked questions about potential future rulings. That is not fair to anyone, since without a crystal ball they cannot predict the exact legal parameters of any future case. However, there should definitely be a number of litmus tests: pro-life issues and church-state relations are the two prime areas of concern. The Senate should only approve justices who not only disagree with but are fervently critical of the travesty known as Roe v. Wade. In the same way, only those justices should be confirmed who are willing to stop the erosion of the rights of Christians (the only religion against which the courts are issuing discriminatory rulings).
I am thus unabashedly calling for a conservative judge. This country does not need liberal judges. They have already imposed their tyranny in many places, illegally imposing same sex ‘marriage’ on the citizens of Massachussetts and striking down perfectly constitutional laws that would have protected the unborn from barbaric abortion techniques.
Nor do we need another swing vote like Sandra Day O’Connor, turning this way and that just as the wind blows. When she was once asked what her tombstone should read, she answered, “I hope it will just say, ‘Here lies a good judge.’” Unfortunately, she was a decidedly bad judge, with a brilliant mind she chose not to employ. Instead, she was often swayed by the emotions of a case, ignoring the legal arguments completely. We do not need that again.
The president should not bow to Ted Kennedy’s blackmail remarks which all but promised to take the country down the path to filibusters and the nuclear option. The chess game has started and the clock is ticking. Let’s not make any foolish moves or lose sight of the long-term effects.
Sandra Day O’Connor’s legacy is a mottled one. No conservative liked her, since she often ruled against clear constitutional principles. Her support of Roe v. Wade, reaffirmed in a 1992 ruling, marked her off as a key disappointment to the conservatives who supported her. Appointed in 1981 by Ronald Reagan, and the first woman on the Supreme Court, Justice O’Connor was expected to infuse some conservative soundness into the court. Instead, she proved to be the continuous swing vote. Lawyers soon realized that the key to winning a case in front of that panel, was ignoring the other eight justices and instead winning over Sandra Day O’Connor.
In that sense, the comment in the New York Times, that Sandra Day O’Connor was sometimes called the most powerful person in America, is spot on. Since the Supreme Court has become the final arbiter in all of the hotly contested cultural issues, its rulings have attained enormous influence in the country. Justice O’Connor’s deciding vote on nearly all these issues has hugely magnified her importance in shaping the political climate of the country.
Considering the current make-up of the Supreme Court, it is imperative that president Bush nominate a sound conservative judge to replace Justice O’Connor. At the moment, the court is more or less balanced between a number of irresponsibly liberal judges and some conservatives of varying degrees of rationality, with O’Connor tipping the balance on all important issues. Her replacement will upon inauguration tip that balance one way or the other.
It is quite true that potential justices should not be asked questions about potential future rulings. That is not fair to anyone, since without a crystal ball they cannot predict the exact legal parameters of any future case. However, there should definitely be a number of litmus tests: pro-life issues and church-state relations are the two prime areas of concern. The Senate should only approve justices who not only disagree with but are fervently critical of the travesty known as Roe v. Wade. In the same way, only those justices should be confirmed who are willing to stop the erosion of the rights of Christians (the only religion against which the courts are issuing discriminatory rulings).
I am thus unabashedly calling for a conservative judge. This country does not need liberal judges. They have already imposed their tyranny in many places, illegally imposing same sex ‘marriage’ on the citizens of Massachussetts and striking down perfectly constitutional laws that would have protected the unborn from barbaric abortion techniques.
Nor do we need another swing vote like Sandra Day O’Connor, turning this way and that just as the wind blows. When she was once asked what her tombstone should read, she answered, “I hope it will just say, ‘Here lies a good judge.’” Unfortunately, she was a decidedly bad judge, with a brilliant mind she chose not to employ. Instead, she was often swayed by the emotions of a case, ignoring the legal arguments completely. We do not need that again.
The president should not bow to Ted Kennedy’s blackmail remarks which all but promised to take the country down the path to filibusters and the nuclear option. The chess game has started and the clock is ticking. Let’s not make any foolish moves or lose sight of the long-term effects.
30 June 2005
Spain and Canada legalize Gay 'Marriage'
In what almost seems like a coordinated attack, both Spain and Canada have given the final legal push in overhauling their respective countries’ marriage laws. Canada’s House of Commons approved Bill C-38 on June 28, a decision that is still subject to approval by the Canadian Senate. And though the Senate is widely expected to confirm the bill, making gay marriage in Canada a virtual certainty, Spain by-passed the Canadians in a surprisingly easy vote a day later. Since Spain’s parliamentary vote is not subject to further political scrutiny, gay marriage became a reality as soon as the official vote was recorded. The Spanish law comes into effect on the day the parliamentary bulletin is published, by the beginning of next week.
These are troubling developments. We must be clear about the fact that gay people should not have the right to marry. The very word “marriage” means “life-long, monogamous union of one man and one woman.” No two men or two women can enter into such a union since they are lacking some of the prerequisites. The state has legitimate reasons to support the institution of marriage with special financial and social privileges, since only such relationships can produce and protect the foundation of society: the traditional family.
Such statements are not mere homophobia, though gay rights activists do not tire of accusing conservatives of it. In their eyes, gay people can only be loved if they are supported in all that they do. That is a ridiculous notion. The secular state should not have any laws that disadvantages private citizens—be they gay or straight—in what I would call “neutral situations.” These neutral situations include legal and financial affairs related to private property and medical next-of-kin rights. Even coercive legislation—such as the anti-sodomy laws struck down by the Supreme Court last year —has no legitimate basis in law or any Christian doctrine of the state.
Legislating morality can only go so far and should always be written in terms of general rights and common sense. The current attacks on traditional morality does not come from individual sexual or non-sexual practices by gay people, but rather from infiltrations and intimidation by organized groups of gays of public institutes, such as public schools, political parties and the court system. In this way, what in Christian terms are private sins and aberrances become public dangers. It is, therefore, on that level that politicians should engage the threat, by legislating common sense morality to protect those who are vulnerable, e.g. by keeping gay rights activism out of schools and setting general decency standards. After all, gay groups charge that they are unfairly singled out for discrimination, an allegation that would be bolstered by special anti-gay laws, such as anti-sodomy laws.
In the same way, the state does not have a duty to codify special rights for gays in non-neutral situations. Christians should have the right under secular law and do have the duty under God’s Law to tell gays that we disapprove of their lifestyle and that we believe it is harmful to them and those around them, without showing disrespect to individual gays. Since gay people, as a result of their confusion over their own sexual identity, cannot pattern healthy sexual identities to children, it should be clear that they should not be allowed to adopt children.
But that is exactly the kind of right now awarded in Spain and Canada. The Netherlands restricted adoption rights for gay couples from abroad, fearing that international adoption agencies would blacklist the country and so deprive also heterosexual couples of adoption from abroad. However, Spain has no such restrictions. It will be interesting to see whether gay rights activists in the Netherlands will now also push for lifting of the restrictions there.
One final note on the Spanish and Canadian votes is that both countries approved gay ‘marriage’ with rather large opposition. The Canadians voted 158 against 133, while the Spanish vote was 187 to 147. Both votes indicate that conservatives in both countries—including a strong Roman Catholic opposition in Spain—have enough clout to remain hopeful, unlike the Netherlands, where opposition to gay ‘marriage’ is minimal. Let us take lessons from these examples.
These are troubling developments. We must be clear about the fact that gay people should not have the right to marry. The very word “marriage” means “life-long, monogamous union of one man and one woman.” No two men or two women can enter into such a union since they are lacking some of the prerequisites. The state has legitimate reasons to support the institution of marriage with special financial and social privileges, since only such relationships can produce and protect the foundation of society: the traditional family.
Such statements are not mere homophobia, though gay rights activists do not tire of accusing conservatives of it. In their eyes, gay people can only be loved if they are supported in all that they do. That is a ridiculous notion. The secular state should not have any laws that disadvantages private citizens—be they gay or straight—in what I would call “neutral situations.” These neutral situations include legal and financial affairs related to private property and medical next-of-kin rights. Even coercive legislation—such as the anti-sodomy laws struck down by the Supreme Court last year —has no legitimate basis in law or any Christian doctrine of the state.
Legislating morality can only go so far and should always be written in terms of general rights and common sense. The current attacks on traditional morality does not come from individual sexual or non-sexual practices by gay people, but rather from infiltrations and intimidation by organized groups of gays of public institutes, such as public schools, political parties and the court system. In this way, what in Christian terms are private sins and aberrances become public dangers. It is, therefore, on that level that politicians should engage the threat, by legislating common sense morality to protect those who are vulnerable, e.g. by keeping gay rights activism out of schools and setting general decency standards. After all, gay groups charge that they are unfairly singled out for discrimination, an allegation that would be bolstered by special anti-gay laws, such as anti-sodomy laws.
In the same way, the state does not have a duty to codify special rights for gays in non-neutral situations. Christians should have the right under secular law and do have the duty under God’s Law to tell gays that we disapprove of their lifestyle and that we believe it is harmful to them and those around them, without showing disrespect to individual gays. Since gay people, as a result of their confusion over their own sexual identity, cannot pattern healthy sexual identities to children, it should be clear that they should not be allowed to adopt children.
But that is exactly the kind of right now awarded in Spain and Canada. The Netherlands restricted adoption rights for gay couples from abroad, fearing that international adoption agencies would blacklist the country and so deprive also heterosexual couples of adoption from abroad. However, Spain has no such restrictions. It will be interesting to see whether gay rights activists in the Netherlands will now also push for lifting of the restrictions there.
One final note on the Spanish and Canadian votes is that both countries approved gay ‘marriage’ with rather large opposition. The Canadians voted 158 against 133, while the Spanish vote was 187 to 147. Both votes indicate that conservatives in both countries—including a strong Roman Catholic opposition in Spain—have enough clout to remain hopeful, unlike the Netherlands, where opposition to gay ‘marriage’ is minimal. Let us take lessons from these examples.
13 June 2005
Rounding Up Marijuana Users
The recent Supreme Court decision on the use of medical marijuana was hailed as a great triumph in the war against drugs. Many conservatives have warned about the slippery slope of allowing marijuana in because we will end up with a Ralph Nader program that simply leaves drug use to the individual pothead. The Supreme Court sharply asserted the federal government’s power to prohibit illegal drugs, essentially overruling laws in 11 states that have allowed the medical use of marijuana.
I agree with the New York Times editorial (8 June) that one can only approach this ruling with mixed emotions but I do so for almost completely opposite reasons.
As a born Dutchman and conservative Christian I will be the last to advocate letting marijuana slip by. I have lived in a society where innocent children can walk down the street breathing in the fumes of marijuana smoke that wafts out of coffeeshops and downtown appartments. I have also seen up close what smoking marijuana does to the brain and the body—it’s not pretty. Marijuana is a dangerous and addictive drug and should always remain a controlled substance.
The claims by the opponents of medical marijuana are, however, completely ludicrous. They assert that state laws that allow the use of marijuana as a medication is the same as turning a blind eye to illegal drug dealers and would inevitably lead to the corruption of children and other innocents in society. This is complete nonsense. Also, the idea that there is no scientific evidence for the benefit of marijuana as a medical drug is wrong. The most one can claim is that the jury is still out on the possibility of positive effects of marijuana. British scientists are researching the idea that certain active ingredients in hemp plants could be extracted and prescribed in pill form.
The problem in this debate is that emotions ran so high that reason went out the window. No government should allow marijuana to be scrapped from the list of controlled substances and no-one should smoke marijuana—especially not mixed with regular tobacco, as is the custom among many drug addicts. But under the supervision of a doctor, marijuana may well have positive effects in addition to the negative effects. I believe that there may well be a class of citizens who, as a result of some grave illness, may need the freedom to weigh these positive and negative effects and request marijuana.
Of course, the Supreme Court decision was not about the question whether medical marijuana should be allowed. Instead, it was a dry legal argument about whether Congress had constitutional authority to trump state governments. The case was even restricted to a few specific arguments brought forward by two California plaintiffs. Thus, the decision speaks more about the court’s view of states’ rights and federal authority than about its view of drug laws.
This explains the response of liberal media like the New York Times which hailed the decision as a triumph for strong federal control, but deplored it at the same time because they see the danger of conservative judges abusing that federal control to “turn back the clock” and strip Americans of hard-won civil rights. At the same time, conservative responses are equally deplorable because they unfairly use the decision to claim that it is an important victory in the war against drugs. It is not. It adds no protection against illegal drugs and only disadvantages a number of people who are so ill that cannabis represents the same kind of relief that morphine does for others. Christians should have compassion for them and at least have the decency to give them the benefit of the doubt. Not an inch needs to be sacrificed in the war on drugs to accomplish that.
Bad show, I say.
I agree with the New York Times editorial (8 June) that one can only approach this ruling with mixed emotions but I do so for almost completely opposite reasons.
As a born Dutchman and conservative Christian I will be the last to advocate letting marijuana slip by. I have lived in a society where innocent children can walk down the street breathing in the fumes of marijuana smoke that wafts out of coffeeshops and downtown appartments. I have also seen up close what smoking marijuana does to the brain and the body—it’s not pretty. Marijuana is a dangerous and addictive drug and should always remain a controlled substance.
The claims by the opponents of medical marijuana are, however, completely ludicrous. They assert that state laws that allow the use of marijuana as a medication is the same as turning a blind eye to illegal drug dealers and would inevitably lead to the corruption of children and other innocents in society. This is complete nonsense. Also, the idea that there is no scientific evidence for the benefit of marijuana as a medical drug is wrong. The most one can claim is that the jury is still out on the possibility of positive effects of marijuana. British scientists are researching the idea that certain active ingredients in hemp plants could be extracted and prescribed in pill form.
The problem in this debate is that emotions ran so high that reason went out the window. No government should allow marijuana to be scrapped from the list of controlled substances and no-one should smoke marijuana—especially not mixed with regular tobacco, as is the custom among many drug addicts. But under the supervision of a doctor, marijuana may well have positive effects in addition to the negative effects. I believe that there may well be a class of citizens who, as a result of some grave illness, may need the freedom to weigh these positive and negative effects and request marijuana.
Of course, the Supreme Court decision was not about the question whether medical marijuana should be allowed. Instead, it was a dry legal argument about whether Congress had constitutional authority to trump state governments. The case was even restricted to a few specific arguments brought forward by two California plaintiffs. Thus, the decision speaks more about the court’s view of states’ rights and federal authority than about its view of drug laws.
This explains the response of liberal media like the New York Times which hailed the decision as a triumph for strong federal control, but deplored it at the same time because they see the danger of conservative judges abusing that federal control to “turn back the clock” and strip Americans of hard-won civil rights. At the same time, conservative responses are equally deplorable because they unfairly use the decision to claim that it is an important victory in the war against drugs. It is not. It adds no protection against illegal drugs and only disadvantages a number of people who are so ill that cannabis represents the same kind of relief that morphine does for others. Christians should have compassion for them and at least have the decency to give them the benefit of the doubt. Not an inch needs to be sacrificed in the war on drugs to accomplish that.
Bad show, I say.
02 June 2005
The Legacy of “Deep Throat”
Although Washington Post reporters Woodward and Bernstein vowed not to divulge the identity of their inside source in what would become the Watergate scandal until that person had died, the man in question has gone public himself. What is particularly unseemly about the situation is that the man, former FBI deputy director Mark Felt, is in his nineties and has failing health and, apparently, diminished mental capacities. As a result, society’s discussion of his original motives in the Watergate scandal, is taking place while the man in question is not fully able to defend himself, though unfortunately still around to hear other people’s confused accounts.
This week Charles Colson, a former Nixon advisor who pleaded guilty in a case related to the Watergate scandal, issued a statement that there is no justification for any government official to leak classified information. Colson implied that the standards he himself failed to adhere to, for which he has done penance, applied equally to Mr Felt. In other words, if Mr Colson had to admit he broke the law, so should Mr Felt. On the whole, Christian and conservative commentators tend to be negative of Mr Felt’s actions. Many think that instead of the hero many in the liberal media have made him out to be, Mr Felt is nothing but a traitor and a criminal.
I do not agree with this assessment. Naturally, it is true to maintain that laws are there to be upheld and there is no arguing that Mr Felt broke the law when he talked to reporters about matters he was not allowed to share with the media. But at the same time we cannot dismiss the comments by Mr Woodward and Mr Bernstein that, at the time, corruption within the various government agencies was running amok. Mr Colson sternly reproved Mark Felt for not taking the evidence of the president’s wrongdoings to his boss or even to the president himself. Other commentators have suggested that the proper course of action would have led him to a grand jury where charges could have been filed against those involved in Watergate.
But in effect, these routes were not available. Mr Felt’s critics fail to appreciate the fact that he chose to inform the media because he considered the proper channels unsafe and unworkable. The whole reason for Mr Felt’s comparatively minor nudging of Woodward and Bernstein in the right direction was that the Nixon administration was corrupt.
We do not need to beatify Mr Felt. He himself was involved in certain improper FBI actions and was even convicted of authorizing unlawful searches—a crime for which president Reagan pardoned him. It is simplistic to hammer on moral absolutes in a case where there were only shades of evil. Mr Felt realized that the greater evil was the administration’s attempts to keep the matter under wraps. This secrecy was doing harm to the country. In my view, it would have done more harm than any actions by Mr Felt.
This week Charles Colson, a former Nixon advisor who pleaded guilty in a case related to the Watergate scandal, issued a statement that there is no justification for any government official to leak classified information. Colson implied that the standards he himself failed to adhere to, for which he has done penance, applied equally to Mr Felt. In other words, if Mr Colson had to admit he broke the law, so should Mr Felt. On the whole, Christian and conservative commentators tend to be negative of Mr Felt’s actions. Many think that instead of the hero many in the liberal media have made him out to be, Mr Felt is nothing but a traitor and a criminal.
I do not agree with this assessment. Naturally, it is true to maintain that laws are there to be upheld and there is no arguing that Mr Felt broke the law when he talked to reporters about matters he was not allowed to share with the media. But at the same time we cannot dismiss the comments by Mr Woodward and Mr Bernstein that, at the time, corruption within the various government agencies was running amok. Mr Colson sternly reproved Mark Felt for not taking the evidence of the president’s wrongdoings to his boss or even to the president himself. Other commentators have suggested that the proper course of action would have led him to a grand jury where charges could have been filed against those involved in Watergate.
But in effect, these routes were not available. Mr Felt’s critics fail to appreciate the fact that he chose to inform the media because he considered the proper channels unsafe and unworkable. The whole reason for Mr Felt’s comparatively minor nudging of Woodward and Bernstein in the right direction was that the Nixon administration was corrupt.
We do not need to beatify Mr Felt. He himself was involved in certain improper FBI actions and was even convicted of authorizing unlawful searches—a crime for which president Reagan pardoned him. It is simplistic to hammer on moral absolutes in a case where there were only shades of evil. Mr Felt realized that the greater evil was the administration’s attempts to keep the matter under wraps. This secrecy was doing harm to the country. In my view, it would have done more harm than any actions by Mr Felt.
30 May 2005
The Unconscionable Act of Donating Embryos
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.
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.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
