Thursday, March 31, 2005
The Sexual Dynamic of Political Commentary
My wife is moderately conservative, but was largely disinterested in politics until she had the questionable fortune of meeting me. Since then, I've dragged her down into the muck with my bad habits (blogging, reading the National Review, advocating limited government, etc.). Now my nefarious works have born fruit. Last night, as she drove home from work, my wife listened to the Hugh Hewitt show on the radio, which featured columnist Mark Steyn. Although I take a back seat no one in my admiration for Steyn's piercing analysis and sharp wit, never before have I entered my own home and, upon encountering my spouse, described Mr. Steyn as "such a hottie". Then again, I have only read Steyn and not listened to his "sultry British accent".
Although one might be inclined to be jealous of any political commentator who might so excite one's wife, I count myself fortunate to be married to a woman who can get animated over political punditry.
Although one might be inclined to be jealous of any political commentator who might so excite one's wife, I count myself fortunate to be married to a woman who can get animated over political punditry.
Hating Fat People
Megan McArtle is unusually mean-spirited in her suggestions for dealing with America's growing obesity problem:
Make discrimination against the overweight not only legal, but mandatory
Encourage health and life insurance companies to jack up their premiums. Make seats in public accomodations, from stadiums to subways, physically impossible for the obese to fit in. Force airlines to charge them for an extra seat.
Also, get their peers to be mean to them. It's no coincidence that the subcultures in which fat is most stigmatised--the white upper middle class ones--are also the ones in which obesity is least prevalent. Don't pay for public health announcements; pay sitcoms to make cruel jokes at the expense of overweight characters, who should all be written as lazy and stupid. Any scenes involving food should show the overweight characters as revolting gluttons, with food running out of their mouths and down their shirts as the other people in the room watch in stunned horror.
Nasty, nasty, nasty. My wife is pleasantly curvy, can work out hard, eat 800 calories a day, and not lose a pound because of a hormonal condition. She's always felt bad about her body, and until we met (at age 27), no one ever told her that she is beautiful. I would hate to live in the society that McArtle is describing.
Anyway, McArtle's response is hardly a libertarian one.
Make discrimination against the overweight not only legal, but mandatory
Encourage health and life insurance companies to jack up their premiums. Make seats in public accomodations, from stadiums to subways, physically impossible for the obese to fit in. Force airlines to charge them for an extra seat.
Also, get their peers to be mean to them. It's no coincidence that the subcultures in which fat is most stigmatised--the white upper middle class ones--are also the ones in which obesity is least prevalent. Don't pay for public health announcements; pay sitcoms to make cruel jokes at the expense of overweight characters, who should all be written as lazy and stupid. Any scenes involving food should show the overweight characters as revolting gluttons, with food running out of their mouths and down their shirts as the other people in the room watch in stunned horror.
Nasty, nasty, nasty. My wife is pleasantly curvy, can work out hard, eat 800 calories a day, and not lose a pound because of a hormonal condition. She's always felt bad about her body, and until we met (at age 27), no one ever told her that she is beautiful. I would hate to live in the society that McArtle is describing.
Anyway, McArtle's response is hardly a libertarian one.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Social Justice
At Connexion:
Yes, John Wesley did say that he "knew no holiness but social..."And what exactly does that mean? Our modern desire for social justice leads us to conclude (too quickly I suppose) that John Wesley meant "social justice." Of course, Wesley was committed to ministry with the poor. He saw that many people were being excluded from economic benefits. The Methodist movement was focused on the downtrodden from the very beginning, even before Wesley's evangelical conversion experience at Aldersgate.
I'm definately no fan of the left wing of our denomination, but they do have one thing down pat: care and concern for the downtrodden of society. In between antiwar protests and abortion advocacy, they build homeless shelters and food banks. My impression is that, in general, we conservatives are more likely to focus inwardly, at building better facilities for our congregations, than we are to obey God's numerous commands to provide for the poor and the helpless. If God has truly transformed us, we ought to be doing better.
Anyway, God makes it pretty clear that it isn't optional:
41"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;
42for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;
43I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'
44"Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'
45"Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'
46"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
UPDATE: Rev-Ed has related thoughts here.
Yes, John Wesley did say that he "knew no holiness but social..."And what exactly does that mean? Our modern desire for social justice leads us to conclude (too quickly I suppose) that John Wesley meant "social justice." Of course, Wesley was committed to ministry with the poor. He saw that many people were being excluded from economic benefits. The Methodist movement was focused on the downtrodden from the very beginning, even before Wesley's evangelical conversion experience at Aldersgate.
I'm definately no fan of the left wing of our denomination, but they do have one thing down pat: care and concern for the downtrodden of society. In between antiwar protests and abortion advocacy, they build homeless shelters and food banks. My impression is that, in general, we conservatives are more likely to focus inwardly, at building better facilities for our congregations, than we are to obey God's numerous commands to provide for the poor and the helpless. If God has truly transformed us, we ought to be doing better.
Anyway, God makes it pretty clear that it isn't optional:
41"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;
42for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;
43I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'
44"Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'
45"Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'
46"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
UPDATE: Rev-Ed has related thoughts here.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Bible Banned from Jury Room
Hit and Run has a post up about the Colorado Supreme Court decision overturning a murder conviction because jurors consulted the Bible during their penalty deliberations..
Monday, March 28, 2005
I Frighten Small Children
And I consider it to be a mark of pride:
Most became Libertarians because they have some social quirk that disallows them from participation in normal society — picture excessive drug use, Dungeons and Dragons play or fascination with the word “metrosexual,” for instance. They are strange. You can’t take them home to your parents, unless, of course, your parents are members of some druid cult. They frighten small children.
Via Joe Carter.
Most became Libertarians because they have some social quirk that disallows them from participation in normal society — picture excessive drug use, Dungeons and Dragons play or fascination with the word “metrosexual,” for instance. They are strange. You can’t take them home to your parents, unless, of course, your parents are members of some druid cult. They frighten small children.
Via Joe Carter.
Methodists and Baptists Together
Jeff has an interesting post up about spiritual communion between United Methodists and Baptists:
The UMC has always seemed like a weird denomination to me. The church in the town I grew up in was very good and it showed in the people who went there. The church in the town I went to college in was very poor and a major bastion of theological liberalism. Wherever I go, Methodism seems to follow this spotty pattern. Some churches are great, others are horrible, but they are all Methodists despite the fact that I can't find anything to link the two groups together other than a name.
[snip]
Fortunately there are some Methodists who unofficially commune with Baptists like me. A Methodist from a conservative church moves into a town with a liberal Methodist church. They usually leave the liberal church soon after and often end up attending the Baptist church down the road instead. I know their hearts are still Methodist, but their butts belong to Baptist pews for the moment. ;)
I know exactly what he means. The UMC is a big tent, and I'm inclined to think that it's too big. Last week, I spent three days at Moonbat Theological Seminary competing for scholarships (they've offered me 75%) and I heard students and professors espousing universal salvation, pantheism, and salvation by works. It isn't a school of Christian theology, but unitarian theology, or even just comparative religion. Needless to say, I'm going to Asbury, which is offering me no money at all. My soul is not for sale.
UPDATE: I would add another note. Having married a Baptist, I can attest that Baptists are great kissers.
The UMC has always seemed like a weird denomination to me. The church in the town I grew up in was very good and it showed in the people who went there. The church in the town I went to college in was very poor and a major bastion of theological liberalism. Wherever I go, Methodism seems to follow this spotty pattern. Some churches are great, others are horrible, but they are all Methodists despite the fact that I can't find anything to link the two groups together other than a name.
[snip]
Fortunately there are some Methodists who unofficially commune with Baptists like me. A Methodist from a conservative church moves into a town with a liberal Methodist church. They usually leave the liberal church soon after and often end up attending the Baptist church down the road instead. I know their hearts are still Methodist, but their butts belong to Baptist pews for the moment. ;)
I know exactly what he means. The UMC is a big tent, and I'm inclined to think that it's too big. Last week, I spent three days at Moonbat Theological Seminary competing for scholarships (they've offered me 75%) and I heard students and professors espousing universal salvation, pantheism, and salvation by works. It isn't a school of Christian theology, but unitarian theology, or even just comparative religion. Needless to say, I'm going to Asbury, which is offering me no money at all. My soul is not for sale.
UPDATE: I would add another note. Having married a Baptist, I can attest that Baptists are great kissers.
Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup
Here's the week in review of the Methodist blogosphere:
Dave Warnock blogged about Easter baptisms in Texas, his new external DVD drive, experimenting with contact lenses, the recent PyCon convention, a church excommunicating Microsoft, and a variety of technical issues which are incomprehensible to me.
James Gibson wrote about the triumph of Easter, the ELCA moving toward full communion with the UMC, the divine election of clergy, a congregation abandoning its church rather than accept a heretical bishop, and ponders his departure from the mainline church.
Beth Quick blogged about a series of sermons based on Jesus' seven last words, the resurrection from a liberal perspective, and learning from George W. Bush.
David of ConXian wrote about praying the daily office.
Donald Sensing blogged about reflections on Easter, and on Terri Schiavo here, here, here, and here. Many blogs (including Instapundit) are linking to this post in particular. He wrote about the social dynamic of the US military, turning the tide in Iraq.
Brian of The Faithful Skeptic wrote about the church community in the postmodern age here and here.
Pen of Gutless Pacifist the difference between Christmas and Easter, the Terri Schiavo contraversy, and American democracy as displayed by the TV show American Idol.
Richard Hall examined the resurrection from a Monty Python perspective, reflected on Good Friday, and the Terri Schiavo case.
Gavin Richardson talked about what life would be like without the resurrection, Easter, alternative youth worship, admits to being a lumberjack, but insists that it's okay (no mention of women's underwear, though), and a holistic approach to youth ministry.
Jordon Cooper blogged about hating John Wesley and Jesus in Auschwitz and has a powerful post about Jesus dying in our place.
John Wilks wrote about the dying tradition of Maundy Thursday and the challenge of sanctification.
Wes Magruder blogged about meeting a local king in Cameroon and counting your blessings.
Jonathon Norman wrote about war and peace from a Methodist perspective and a recent peace vigil.
Scandal of Particularity blogged about the art of reading Scripture.
Greg Hanson asked "What will you do with Jesus?"
Table 16 wrote about the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and Terri Shiavo.
Jay Voorhees presented a photo montage from his son (just keep scrolling) wrote about Terri Schiavo.
On Web Parish, Michel wrote about finding God in the music of Bach and the adventure of Holy Week.
Shane Raynor blogged about mainline churches redefining themselves, Methodist teens getting involved in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, an Indiana pastor facing sexual harassment charges, and limitations in reaching out to youth.
Valterri Mujunen wrote about the mystery of communion.
Ken Carter blogged about the 'he descended into hell' statement in the Apostle's Creed and the humble love of Christ.
John Stephens wrote about Easter youth experiences. Just keep scrolling.
Matthew Johnson (does he/she have a name?) blogged about the baptism of his daughter.
Theresa Coleman wrote about an emotional experience on Maundy Thursday and engages in catblogging.
Mike Fitzpatrick blogged about the Final Four tournament in college basketball, maybish Christianity, Jesus saying 'I thirst' from the cross, the 30-hour famine event for his church's youth, and ranking Cleveland's football franchise.
Jay Huff pondered the majesty of sleep.
Gerry Phelps wrote about Terri Schiavo here, here, here, here, and here. Gerry also marked the anniversary of his incarceration.
Chris Arveson blogged about spiritual paralysis.
Do you know of a blog that should be added to the MBWR? Leave a note in the comments.
Dave Warnock blogged about Easter baptisms in Texas, his new external DVD drive, experimenting with contact lenses, the recent PyCon convention, a church excommunicating Microsoft, and a variety of technical issues which are incomprehensible to me.
James Gibson wrote about the triumph of Easter, the ELCA moving toward full communion with the UMC, the divine election of clergy, a congregation abandoning its church rather than accept a heretical bishop, and ponders his departure from the mainline church.
Beth Quick blogged about a series of sermons based on Jesus' seven last words, the resurrection from a liberal perspective, and learning from George W. Bush.
David of ConXian wrote about praying the daily office.
Donald Sensing blogged about reflections on Easter, and on Terri Schiavo here, here, here, and here. Many blogs (including Instapundit) are linking to this post in particular. He wrote about the social dynamic of the US military, turning the tide in Iraq.
Brian of The Faithful Skeptic wrote about the church community in the postmodern age here and here.
Pen of Gutless Pacifist the difference between Christmas and Easter, the Terri Schiavo contraversy, and American democracy as displayed by the TV show American Idol.
Richard Hall examined the resurrection from a Monty Python perspective, reflected on Good Friday, and the Terri Schiavo case.
Gavin Richardson talked about what life would be like without the resurrection, Easter, alternative youth worship, admits to being a lumberjack, but insists that it's okay (no mention of women's underwear, though), and a holistic approach to youth ministry.
Jordon Cooper blogged about hating John Wesley and Jesus in Auschwitz and has a powerful post about Jesus dying in our place.
John Wilks wrote about the dying tradition of Maundy Thursday and the challenge of sanctification.
Wes Magruder blogged about meeting a local king in Cameroon and counting your blessings.
Jonathon Norman wrote about war and peace from a Methodist perspective and a recent peace vigil.
Scandal of Particularity blogged about the art of reading Scripture.
Greg Hanson asked "What will you do with Jesus?"
Table 16 wrote about the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and Terri Shiavo.
Jay Voorhees presented a photo montage from his son (just keep scrolling) wrote about Terri Schiavo.
On Web Parish, Michel wrote about finding God in the music of Bach and the adventure of Holy Week.
Shane Raynor blogged about mainline churches redefining themselves, Methodist teens getting involved in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, an Indiana pastor facing sexual harassment charges, and limitations in reaching out to youth.
Valterri Mujunen wrote about the mystery of communion.
Ken Carter blogged about the 'he descended into hell' statement in the Apostle's Creed and the humble love of Christ.
John Stephens wrote about Easter youth experiences. Just keep scrolling.
Matthew Johnson (does he/she have a name?) blogged about the baptism of his daughter.
Theresa Coleman wrote about an emotional experience on Maundy Thursday and engages in catblogging.
Mike Fitzpatrick blogged about the Final Four tournament in college basketball, maybish Christianity, Jesus saying 'I thirst' from the cross, the 30-hour famine event for his church's youth, and ranking Cleveland's football franchise.
Jay Huff pondered the majesty of sleep.
Gerry Phelps wrote about Terri Schiavo here, here, here, here, and here. Gerry also marked the anniversary of his incarceration.
Chris Arveson blogged about spiritual paralysis.
Do you know of a blog that should be added to the MBWR? Leave a note in the comments.
Sunday, March 27, 2005
A Letter to the President
XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
Jacksonville, FL 32XXX
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C., 20500
Dear Mr. President,
I was recently browsing through the U.S. Constitution, and I noticed that the 10th Amendment states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
This amendment made me curious, so I searched the document for any mention of education. It turns out that nowhere in the Constitution do the states delegate to the federal government the right or power to fund or regulate education. Therefore the U.S. Department of Education is unconstitutional.
I'm sure that this was a simple oversight on your part. Please eliminate the U.S. Department of Education at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
John
Saturday, March 26, 2005
The ESV Translation
I don't speak Greek and Hebrew (yet), so I can only depend on other people's knowledge of Bible translations, which has led me to rely on the New American Standard Bible.
But Peter Bogert (the best Christian blogger that no one has heard of) has a good post up advocating the English Standard Version.
But Peter Bogert (the best Christian blogger that no one has heard of) has a good post up advocating the English Standard Version.
Friday, March 25, 2005
ELCA/UMC Union
Via James Gibson, ELCA moves closer to full communion with UMC
DALLAS -- The Conference of Bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) advised its church to commit to "interim Eucharistic sharing" with the United Methodist Church, in a meeting here, March 3-7. According to an ELCA news release, it is a step that may lead to a full-communion agreement between the two churches sometime in the future.
[Snip]
A possible next step for the two churches would be to enter into a relationship of full communion, which would allow ordained ministers from one church to serve in the other, and such an agreement promotes sharing of resources and ministries throughout the churches.
The whole article is here.
Thanks, but no thanks. The UMC should be allying with more theologically sound denominations such as the Southern Baptists and joining the National Association of Evangelicals. The fact that the ECLA is 'in communion' with the anti-Semitic PCUSA says all that you need to know about this proposal.
DALLAS -- The Conference of Bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) advised its church to commit to "interim Eucharistic sharing" with the United Methodist Church, in a meeting here, March 3-7. According to an ELCA news release, it is a step that may lead to a full-communion agreement between the two churches sometime in the future.
[Snip]
A possible next step for the two churches would be to enter into a relationship of full communion, which would allow ordained ministers from one church to serve in the other, and such an agreement promotes sharing of resources and ministries throughout the churches.
The whole article is here.
Thanks, but no thanks. The UMC should be allying with more theologically sound denominations such as the Southern Baptists and joining the National Association of Evangelicals. The fact that the ECLA is 'in communion' with the anti-Semitic PCUSA says all that you need to know about this proposal.
Hijacking the Reformation
I am definately the voice of ignorance here, so I ask that commenters illuminate me regarding this post, since I only have a vague understanding of what I'm writing here.
It strikes me that Calvinists can be a tad possessive of the Protestant Reformation. There are such obvious signs, such as renaming Calvinism "Reformed Theology" or "Reformation Theology", as though other thinkers such as Luther or Jacob Harmensen (Arminus) were minor figures at best.
Coming from a Wesleyan/Arminian perspective, I find this phenomenon disturbing. Less disturbing, but still odd, is the passion that 'Reformed' Christians have for Calvinism. I mean, I identify as a Christian and as an evangelical, but I don't get all whooped up over Arminianism. I certainly haven't started a blog alliance for Arminian bloggers. The focus of Calvinists to self-identify strongly as Calvinists is mystifying.
Readers, am I on the right track here? Let me know.
It strikes me that Calvinists can be a tad possessive of the Protestant Reformation. There are such obvious signs, such as renaming Calvinism "Reformed Theology" or "Reformation Theology", as though other thinkers such as Luther or Jacob Harmensen (Arminus) were minor figures at best.
Coming from a Wesleyan/Arminian perspective, I find this phenomenon disturbing. Less disturbing, but still odd, is the passion that 'Reformed' Christians have for Calvinism. I mean, I identify as a Christian and as an evangelical, but I don't get all whooped up over Arminianism. I certainly haven't started a blog alliance for Arminian bloggers. The focus of Calvinists to self-identify strongly as Calvinists is mystifying.
Readers, am I on the right track here? Let me know.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
A Different Terri Schiavo Perspective
From Attention Span, regarding his first love from Kindergarden, who spent 22 years in a coma before dying:
I often wonder what my friend was going through in those 22 years. Would she have preferred death? Should it matter if she did? Is it God's decision to take life or ours? I pray that God was able to do some incredible things for her during that time. I am positive he did not desert her.
A friend asked me about the Terri Schiavo case. He wanted to know why people wanted her to be starved to death, or why they wanted her dead, period. My best guess is that we see ourselves in the face of the less fortunate. In our limited understanding, all we see is a body driven by very little mind. We see that someone like Terri is not in control of anything; she is at the mercy of others. When many people see themselves in that situation, their reaction is fear. They fear living in a debilitated state. They fear not having control. They fear it so much that death seems preferable. And what an interesting choice that becomes for the non-believer. They would rather take the uncertainty of death over the observed certainty of living a life out of their control. Isn't that an amazing statement about the incredibly strong drive of self? But if a decision to remove a feeding tube becomes a personal fight to be able to retain control of one's life, it ceases to be about life itself. . . only about self. [emphasis added]
I've long found it odd that euthanasia is such a polarized conservative/liberal issue. I suppose that we cannot legalize it without the ugly ramifications that we see in the Netherlands, and other countries. But I am very sympathetic to the permanently severely disabled, such as complete paralegics, who might wish to end their lives. Without a doubt, if I were paralyzed from the neck down, without reasonable hope of recovery, or otherwise inflicted with an unameliorable disability such as Schiavo's, I would want to die, rather than simply exist without living. The total certaintly that many moral conservatives have on this issue -- the complete incomprehension of the opposing argument -- is baffling.
All of which is not to take any position on the Terri Schiavo case. As Bill Hobbs put it:
I have not written about the Terri Schiavo case because it is too complex, too multilayered, and too steeped in unknown or unknowable facts for me - indeed for most people - to have a fully informed opinion.
I don't know - and neither do you - if Michael Schiavo is trying to murder his wife or trying to fulfill her stated wishes for just such a scenario. I don't know what Terri Schiavo would want - and neither do you - because she didn't tell us via a living will. We have only the word of her husband who assures us that his wife once said she wouldn't want to be kept alive this way, and we have her parents, who love their daughter and desire only to care for her.
I do know that the Congress did the wrong thing, intervened where it had no Constitutional right, and solved nothing. [Hat tip: Instapundit]
Or better put, to follow the advice of Eugene Volokh: "I know nothing about the Schiavo matter, and despite that have no opinion."
I often wonder what my friend was going through in those 22 years. Would she have preferred death? Should it matter if she did? Is it God's decision to take life or ours? I pray that God was able to do some incredible things for her during that time. I am positive he did not desert her.
A friend asked me about the Terri Schiavo case. He wanted to know why people wanted her to be starved to death, or why they wanted her dead, period. My best guess is that we see ourselves in the face of the less fortunate. In our limited understanding, all we see is a body driven by very little mind. We see that someone like Terri is not in control of anything; she is at the mercy of others. When many people see themselves in that situation, their reaction is fear. They fear living in a debilitated state. They fear not having control. They fear it so much that death seems preferable. And what an interesting choice that becomes for the non-believer. They would rather take the uncertainty of death over the observed certainty of living a life out of their control. Isn't that an amazing statement about the incredibly strong drive of self? But if a decision to remove a feeding tube becomes a personal fight to be able to retain control of one's life, it ceases to be about life itself. . . only about self. [emphasis added]
I've long found it odd that euthanasia is such a polarized conservative/liberal issue. I suppose that we cannot legalize it without the ugly ramifications that we see in the Netherlands, and other countries. But I am very sympathetic to the permanently severely disabled, such as complete paralegics, who might wish to end their lives. Without a doubt, if I were paralyzed from the neck down, without reasonable hope of recovery, or otherwise inflicted with an unameliorable disability such as Schiavo's, I would want to die, rather than simply exist without living. The total certaintly that many moral conservatives have on this issue -- the complete incomprehension of the opposing argument -- is baffling.
All of which is not to take any position on the Terri Schiavo case. As Bill Hobbs put it:
I have not written about the Terri Schiavo case because it is too complex, too multilayered, and too steeped in unknown or unknowable facts for me - indeed for most people - to have a fully informed opinion.
I don't know - and neither do you - if Michael Schiavo is trying to murder his wife or trying to fulfill her stated wishes for just such a scenario. I don't know what Terri Schiavo would want - and neither do you - because she didn't tell us via a living will. We have only the word of her husband who assures us that his wife once said she wouldn't want to be kept alive this way, and we have her parents, who love their daughter and desire only to care for her.
I do know that the Congress did the wrong thing, intervened where it had no Constitutional right, and solved nothing. [Hat tip: Instapundit]
Or better put, to follow the advice of Eugene Volokh: "I know nothing about the Schiavo matter, and despite that have no opinion."
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Interview: Ronald Kelly (Worldwide Church of God)
As I've mentioned before, I've long held a fascination with the history of the Worldwide Church of God. So I've arranged an interview via e-mail with Ronald Kelly, an official of that denomination. Here are the results of that interview:
1. What is the purpose of the Worldwide Church of God?
Our purpose is expressed in our mission statement:
Living and Sharing the Gospel.
We seek to fulfill our mission by:
Building healthy, Christ-centered congregations that are sanctuaries of worship, friendship, and nurturing pastoral care.
Providing sound biblical teaching through congregations, media, and personal outreach in relevant, meaningful forms for people of diverse backgrounds and ages.
Expressing the love of God to all through the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.
Equipping people for Christian service so that the gospel can be known, understood, and experienced.
Sharing in the work of the gospel with the broader Christian community, acknowledging that we can learn from one another and the Christ’s love goes beyond denominational boundaries.
2. Taking into account changes in membership figures in recent years, what is the future of the WCG?
As a result of correcting doctrinal errors, WCG membership has fallen from a high of close to 150,000 to a current 64,000. Although this might seem discouraging to some, the current membership forms a solid core of dedicated Christians who have embraced the love and grace of Jesus Christ with great joy. As a result of the journey our members have taken, we hope they will be able to reach out to those who do not yet have a personal relationship with Jesus. Many of our congregations are experiencing growth after nearly a decade of declining numbers. We hold leadership training classes for members to understand how to reach their unchurched family, neighbors, coworkers and friends. We do not feel the great God who stepped into our denomination, guiding us to correct doctrinal error, did so to abandon us, but to use us as a small, but effective tool in the greater body of Christ.
3. If the WCG was founded upon several doctrinal falsehoods, why should members remain, rather than go to other churches and denominations?
What God has done in the fellowship of the Worldwide Church of God is unprecedented in modern Church History. We do not know of another group, fellowship, sect or cultish movement that has been willing to challenge the doctrines, administration and traditions it has historically embraced. This transformation has been an inspiration to hundreds of Christian leaders in many different denominations and to scores of thousands of individual Christians who have rejoiced with us in the changes that have been made.
If the WCG were to dissolve or be absorbed into other churches and denominations, the example would be lost in obscurity. Many Christian leaders have come along side us, accepted into the Christian community of believers and have encourage us to “stay to course.” As one commented, “Your example to the Christian community is too powerful, don’t come down off the wall!” (Reference to Nehemiah’s reconstruction of the walls of Jerusalem).
4. What does the WCG teach its children about Herbert Armstrong and his role in the history of the denomination?
Herbert Armstrong was the founder of the movement that became known as the Worldwide Church of God. Mr. Armstrong began a radio broadcast in 1934 that eventually was heard around the world. By the late 1960s, the media emphasis shifted to television and The World Tomorrow program became one of the most viewed religious programs in America.
Throughout the years, especially after WW II, the movement experienced explosive growth as radio listeners and television viewers and Plain Truth readers sought local congregations where they could worship together.
Thus the connection to Herbert Armstrong as the founder of the movement cannot and should not be denied.
However, after his death in 1986, many of the denominational leaders began to realize that some of the teachings, in fact some of the central teachings that Herbert Armstrong taught, were neither biblically or historically accurate. Mr. Armstrong had never been trained in theological studies and did not have the background to adequately evaluate some areas of theological study. For example the WCG did not accept the doctrine of the Trinity – a central and core belief of the historic, orthodox church. He rather taught that God was a family consisting of two persons, the Father and the Son, but that the Holy Spirit was not a person in the triune Godhead, but the power through which the Father and Son worked. After lengthy and intense studies, many of the church leadership understood the error this teaching and embraced the Trinitarian position. This caused some church leaders to defect and to form derivative or splinter movements of their own.
A second major challenge was a study and subsequent rejection of a major WCG teaching that the United States, The British Commonwealth and some nations of Northwest Europe were to be identified as the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel. Herbert Armstrong felt it was his calling to preach that doctrine and a related prophetic warning to these modern nations. Thus the media ministry of the denomination tended to focus on interpretation of world events in the light of perceived biblical prophetic scriptures. Church leaders, again after careful examination, concluded that these interpretations were neither biblically nor historically accurate and the WCG no longer teaches these erroneous beliefs.
Herbert Armstrong was sincere in his beliefs. But we feel he taught a flawed theology and that he incorrectly interpreted biblical prophecy.
One of his key instructions for many years was, “Don’t believe me, believe the Bible.” And he challenged church leaders, “You must always have the courage to admit error when you are proved wrong.” Beginning in the early 1990s, church leaders did just that. We cannot and should not divorce ourselves from Herbert Armstrong. That is simply not possible. But we can openly discuss the current teachings of the denomination along side the historic teachings and show why changes were necessary, admit error, and move into the future with positive conviction.
5. In your understanding, is salvation possible outside of the WCG?
Absolutely. While years ago the WCG operated under a “one, true church” misconception, the current WCG actively participates with many different denominations in active joint fellowship. We are now a part of the evangelical community and share a common bond with many congregations in areas where we have local churches. We believe, as stated in how we fulfill our mission, that Christ’s love goes beyond denominational boundaries. Perhaps because of our past, in fact, we joyfully understand how God has worked through the greater body of Christ and its many denominations for hundreds of years.
6. Why does the WCG celebrate traditional Israelite holiday such as the Feast of Tabernacles?
This is another tradition that the WCG no longer holds. From the early 1930s until the early 1990s, the Worldwide Church of God held convictions that Old Covenant laws were obligatory for New Testament Christians. Thus the church observed the 7th day Sabbath, kept the holy day festivals of ancient Israel, observed the food laws of clean and unclean meats and a variety of other Old Testament regulations.
Part of the doctrinal transformation of the Worldwide Church of God, was coming to an understanding that the church today lives under a New Covenant inaugurated by Jesus Christ. The legalism and rules of the Old Covenant are not binding on New Testament Christians. It is our belief that the New Covenant does not demand specified “holy” times such as Sabbaths and Holy Days. Our local congregations are free to worship on Saturday or Sunday. A majority of our congregations now hold weekly worship services on Sunday and practically none of them continues to observe the Jewish festival seasons. Rather they observe Christmas in honor of Christ’s birth and celebrate Easter to commemorate the resurrection. All of our congregations hold periodic Lord’s Supper services with the bread and cup of communion.
7. What relationship does the WCG maintain with splinter Armstrongist churches like the Global Church of God and the Philadelphia Church of God?
Sadly, it can be documented that there are now well more than 100 splinter organizations that derive from the Worldwide Church of God, or that are splits of splits of groups that broke off from the WCG. It is impossible to keep up with each and every movement that springs into existence. For example, the Global Church of God no longer even exists.
The current WCG has simply chosen to accept our place in the greater body of Christ and we do not judge those who have broken off from us. Neither do we condone their erroneous beliefs and maintenance of Armstrongism.
Personal friendships and fellowship certainly take place among members of various splinter groups. But there is no official contact or interaction between the WCG and any of the various derivative fellowships.
8. What ecumenical relationship does the WCG maintain with the United Methodist Church?
As noted above in this piece, the Worldwide Church of God is an active evangelical denomination that subscribes to the central and core beliefs of mainstream and evangelical churches. In addition, our denominational leadership interacts with a variety of denominational leaders varying from informal lunches and discussions to formal participation in activities and projects. Certainly we consider the United Methodist Church an important part of the historic Christian faith, especially in American history and as brothers and sisters in Christ. There has been no officially established relationship with the United Methodist Church, however our prayer is that United Methodists accept and welcome us into the greater fellowship of the body of Jesus Christ.
1. What is the purpose of the Worldwide Church of God?
Our purpose is expressed in our mission statement:
Living and Sharing the Gospel.
We seek to fulfill our mission by:
Building healthy, Christ-centered congregations that are sanctuaries of worship, friendship, and nurturing pastoral care.
Providing sound biblical teaching through congregations, media, and personal outreach in relevant, meaningful forms for people of diverse backgrounds and ages.
Expressing the love of God to all through the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.
Equipping people for Christian service so that the gospel can be known, understood, and experienced.
Sharing in the work of the gospel with the broader Christian community, acknowledging that we can learn from one another and the Christ’s love goes beyond denominational boundaries.
2. Taking into account changes in membership figures in recent years, what is the future of the WCG?
As a result of correcting doctrinal errors, WCG membership has fallen from a high of close to 150,000 to a current 64,000. Although this might seem discouraging to some, the current membership forms a solid core of dedicated Christians who have embraced the love and grace of Jesus Christ with great joy. As a result of the journey our members have taken, we hope they will be able to reach out to those who do not yet have a personal relationship with Jesus. Many of our congregations are experiencing growth after nearly a decade of declining numbers. We hold leadership training classes for members to understand how to reach their unchurched family, neighbors, coworkers and friends. We do not feel the great God who stepped into our denomination, guiding us to correct doctrinal error, did so to abandon us, but to use us as a small, but effective tool in the greater body of Christ.
3. If the WCG was founded upon several doctrinal falsehoods, why should members remain, rather than go to other churches and denominations?
What God has done in the fellowship of the Worldwide Church of God is unprecedented in modern Church History. We do not know of another group, fellowship, sect or cultish movement that has been willing to challenge the doctrines, administration and traditions it has historically embraced. This transformation has been an inspiration to hundreds of Christian leaders in many different denominations and to scores of thousands of individual Christians who have rejoiced with us in the changes that have been made.
If the WCG were to dissolve or be absorbed into other churches and denominations, the example would be lost in obscurity. Many Christian leaders have come along side us, accepted into the Christian community of believers and have encourage us to “stay to course.” As one commented, “Your example to the Christian community is too powerful, don’t come down off the wall!” (Reference to Nehemiah’s reconstruction of the walls of Jerusalem).
4. What does the WCG teach its children about Herbert Armstrong and his role in the history of the denomination?
Herbert Armstrong was the founder of the movement that became known as the Worldwide Church of God. Mr. Armstrong began a radio broadcast in 1934 that eventually was heard around the world. By the late 1960s, the media emphasis shifted to television and The World Tomorrow program became one of the most viewed religious programs in America.
Throughout the years, especially after WW II, the movement experienced explosive growth as radio listeners and television viewers and Plain Truth readers sought local congregations where they could worship together.
Thus the connection to Herbert Armstrong as the founder of the movement cannot and should not be denied.
However, after his death in 1986, many of the denominational leaders began to realize that some of the teachings, in fact some of the central teachings that Herbert Armstrong taught, were neither biblically or historically accurate. Mr. Armstrong had never been trained in theological studies and did not have the background to adequately evaluate some areas of theological study. For example the WCG did not accept the doctrine of the Trinity – a central and core belief of the historic, orthodox church. He rather taught that God was a family consisting of two persons, the Father and the Son, but that the Holy Spirit was not a person in the triune Godhead, but the power through which the Father and Son worked. After lengthy and intense studies, many of the church leadership understood the error this teaching and embraced the Trinitarian position. This caused some church leaders to defect and to form derivative or splinter movements of their own.
A second major challenge was a study and subsequent rejection of a major WCG teaching that the United States, The British Commonwealth and some nations of Northwest Europe were to be identified as the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel. Herbert Armstrong felt it was his calling to preach that doctrine and a related prophetic warning to these modern nations. Thus the media ministry of the denomination tended to focus on interpretation of world events in the light of perceived biblical prophetic scriptures. Church leaders, again after careful examination, concluded that these interpretations were neither biblically nor historically accurate and the WCG no longer teaches these erroneous beliefs.
Herbert Armstrong was sincere in his beliefs. But we feel he taught a flawed theology and that he incorrectly interpreted biblical prophecy.
One of his key instructions for many years was, “Don’t believe me, believe the Bible.” And he challenged church leaders, “You must always have the courage to admit error when you are proved wrong.” Beginning in the early 1990s, church leaders did just that. We cannot and should not divorce ourselves from Herbert Armstrong. That is simply not possible. But we can openly discuss the current teachings of the denomination along side the historic teachings and show why changes were necessary, admit error, and move into the future with positive conviction.
5. In your understanding, is salvation possible outside of the WCG?
Absolutely. While years ago the WCG operated under a “one, true church” misconception, the current WCG actively participates with many different denominations in active joint fellowship. We are now a part of the evangelical community and share a common bond with many congregations in areas where we have local churches. We believe, as stated in how we fulfill our mission, that Christ’s love goes beyond denominational boundaries. Perhaps because of our past, in fact, we joyfully understand how God has worked through the greater body of Christ and its many denominations for hundreds of years.
6. Why does the WCG celebrate traditional Israelite holiday such as the Feast of Tabernacles?
This is another tradition that the WCG no longer holds. From the early 1930s until the early 1990s, the Worldwide Church of God held convictions that Old Covenant laws were obligatory for New Testament Christians. Thus the church observed the 7th day Sabbath, kept the holy day festivals of ancient Israel, observed the food laws of clean and unclean meats and a variety of other Old Testament regulations.
Part of the doctrinal transformation of the Worldwide Church of God, was coming to an understanding that the church today lives under a New Covenant inaugurated by Jesus Christ. The legalism and rules of the Old Covenant are not binding on New Testament Christians. It is our belief that the New Covenant does not demand specified “holy” times such as Sabbaths and Holy Days. Our local congregations are free to worship on Saturday or Sunday. A majority of our congregations now hold weekly worship services on Sunday and practically none of them continues to observe the Jewish festival seasons. Rather they observe Christmas in honor of Christ’s birth and celebrate Easter to commemorate the resurrection. All of our congregations hold periodic Lord’s Supper services with the bread and cup of communion.
7. What relationship does the WCG maintain with splinter Armstrongist churches like the Global Church of God and the Philadelphia Church of God?
Sadly, it can be documented that there are now well more than 100 splinter organizations that derive from the Worldwide Church of God, or that are splits of splits of groups that broke off from the WCG. It is impossible to keep up with each and every movement that springs into existence. For example, the Global Church of God no longer even exists.
The current WCG has simply chosen to accept our place in the greater body of Christ and we do not judge those who have broken off from us. Neither do we condone their erroneous beliefs and maintenance of Armstrongism.
Personal friendships and fellowship certainly take place among members of various splinter groups. But there is no official contact or interaction between the WCG and any of the various derivative fellowships.
8. What ecumenical relationship does the WCG maintain with the United Methodist Church?
As noted above in this piece, the Worldwide Church of God is an active evangelical denomination that subscribes to the central and core beliefs of mainstream and evangelical churches. In addition, our denominational leadership interacts with a variety of denominational leaders varying from informal lunches and discussions to formal participation in activities and projects. Certainly we consider the United Methodist Church an important part of the historic Christian faith, especially in American history and as brothers and sisters in Christ. There has been no officially established relationship with the United Methodist Church, however our prayer is that United Methodists accept and welcome us into the greater fellowship of the body of Jesus Christ.
A Statist Vice Rises from My Gizzard
An anarcho-capitalist that I once new coined the term 'statist vice' -- a law that a libertarian would pass, even though it infringes on personal liberty. Such a law has been passed in Contra Costa, California, and thank heavens for it!
Hat tip: Catallarchy.
Hat tip: Catallarchy.
Monday, March 21, 2005
Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup
Here's the week in review in the Methodist blogosphere:
Dave Warnock blogged about changes in Technorati, leading multiple worship services in one day, addresses the purpose of the Cruxifiction, Visual Liturgy software, the vision of the Methodist Church in Britain, the popularity of his blog, the Blogdom of God, and doctrinal changes in the UK Evangelical Alliance.
James Gibson wrote about Rowan William's views on abortion, homosexuality issues in the ECUSA, the future of evangelicism, a sermon distinguishing physical death and spiritual death, and truth in worship.
Beth Quick wrote about online liturgical resources.
ConXian wrote about praying with the Order of Saint Luke, Green Evangelicals, and the views of economist Paul Krugman.
Donald Sensing blogged about declining European demographics, the kidnapping and release of the son of an Iraqi general, problems using Blogger, a British soldier winning the Victoria Cross, baffoonery at the Associated Press, the Terri Schiavo case, judicial tyranny, and the future of US national defense.
Pen of Gutless Pacifist wrote about the Terri Schiavo case, moral crusading, the Benny Hinn scandal, using pop culture to teach religion, Biblical dieting, and confusing Jesus and the USA.
Grandma Jean blogged about the Terri Schiavo case.
Richard Hall wrote about the rift between the secular and religious Left, a new Star Wars Bible study, and the Dafur disaster.
Gavin Richardson blogged about a prayer vigil marking the two-year anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War, intergenerational communication breakdowns, and watching Bibleman.
Jordan Cooper wrote about the Jordan River drying up and a new magazine for Canadian Christians.
John Wilks blogged about tithing statistics, the Americanization of Christianity, and a District conference.
St. Phransus wrote about a prayer vigil at his church regarding the Iraq War.
Scandal of Peculiarity wrote about racial diversity on the TV show The West Wing and announces the birth of a child.
Greg Hanson skipped his seminary course on plumbing.
Jay Voorhees marked the passing of youth.
On Web Parish, Michel pondered baptismal music, and Abson Joseph finds strength in God during times of vulnerability.
Shane Raynor commented on a new study Bible for teen girls, on the Terri Schiavo case here and here, the President's faith-bases initiatives, Christian boycotts for social justice, and the moral issues underpinning government budgets.
Valtteri Mujunen pondered theological differences between Charles and John Wesley.
Joel Furhmann blogged about the Terri Schiavo case.
Do you know of a blog that should be added to the MBWR? Leave a note in the comments.
CORRECTION: I mistakenly referrred to the blogger of 42 as Andrew Warnock. His name is Dave Warnock. I have corrected the error above.
Dave Warnock blogged about changes in Technorati, leading multiple worship services in one day, addresses the purpose of the Cruxifiction, Visual Liturgy software, the vision of the Methodist Church in Britain, the popularity of his blog, the Blogdom of God, and doctrinal changes in the UK Evangelical Alliance.
James Gibson wrote about Rowan William's views on abortion, homosexuality issues in the ECUSA, the future of evangelicism, a sermon distinguishing physical death and spiritual death, and truth in worship.
Beth Quick wrote about online liturgical resources.
ConXian wrote about praying with the Order of Saint Luke, Green Evangelicals, and the views of economist Paul Krugman.
Donald Sensing blogged about declining European demographics, the kidnapping and release of the son of an Iraqi general, problems using Blogger, a British soldier winning the Victoria Cross, baffoonery at the Associated Press, the Terri Schiavo case, judicial tyranny, and the future of US national defense.
Pen of Gutless Pacifist wrote about the Terri Schiavo case, moral crusading, the Benny Hinn scandal, using pop culture to teach religion, Biblical dieting, and confusing Jesus and the USA.
Grandma Jean blogged about the Terri Schiavo case.
Richard Hall wrote about the rift between the secular and religious Left, a new Star Wars Bible study, and the Dafur disaster.
Gavin Richardson blogged about a prayer vigil marking the two-year anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War, intergenerational communication breakdowns, and watching Bibleman.
Jordan Cooper wrote about the Jordan River drying up and a new magazine for Canadian Christians.
John Wilks blogged about tithing statistics, the Americanization of Christianity, and a District conference.
St. Phransus wrote about a prayer vigil at his church regarding the Iraq War.
Scandal of Peculiarity wrote about racial diversity on the TV show The West Wing and announces the birth of a child.
Greg Hanson skipped his seminary course on plumbing.
Jay Voorhees marked the passing of youth.
On Web Parish, Michel pondered baptismal music, and Abson Joseph finds strength in God during times of vulnerability.
Shane Raynor commented on a new study Bible for teen girls, on the Terri Schiavo case here and here, the President's faith-bases initiatives, Christian boycotts for social justice, and the moral issues underpinning government budgets.
Valtteri Mujunen pondered theological differences between Charles and John Wesley.
Joel Furhmann blogged about the Terri Schiavo case.
Do you know of a blog that should be added to the MBWR? Leave a note in the comments.
CORRECTION: I mistakenly referrred to the blogger of 42 as Andrew Warnock. His name is Dave Warnock. I have corrected the error above.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Meditations on the Beauty of O'Hare Airport
Truly, there a few greater joys than being stuck in an airport indefinately. Let us turn to the wisdom of British philosopher Douglas Adams on the subject:
It can hardly be a coincidence that no language on Earth has ever produced the expression "as pretty as an airport".
Airports are ugly. Some are very ugly. Some attain a degree of ugliness that can only be the result of a special effort. This ugliness arises because airports are full of people who are tired, cross, and have just discovered that their luggage has landed in Murmansk (Murmansk airport is the only known exception to this otherwise infallible rule), and architects have on the whole tried to reflect this in their designs.
They have sought to highlight the tiredness and crossness motif with brutal shapes and nerve jangling colours, to make effortless the business of separating the traveller for ever from his or her luggage or loved ones, to confuse the traveller with arrows that appear to point at the windows, distant tie racks, or the current position of Ursa Minor in the night sky, and wherever possible to expose the plumbing on the grounds that it is functional, and conceal the location of the departure gates, presumably on the grounds that they are not.
It can hardly be a coincidence that no language on Earth has ever produced the expression "as pretty as an airport".
Airports are ugly. Some are very ugly. Some attain a degree of ugliness that can only be the result of a special effort. This ugliness arises because airports are full of people who are tired, cross, and have just discovered that their luggage has landed in Murmansk (Murmansk airport is the only known exception to this otherwise infallible rule), and architects have on the whole tried to reflect this in their designs.
They have sought to highlight the tiredness and crossness motif with brutal shapes and nerve jangling colours, to make effortless the business of separating the traveller for ever from his or her luggage or loved ones, to confuse the traveller with arrows that appear to point at the windows, distant tie racks, or the current position of Ursa Minor in the night sky, and wherever possible to expose the plumbing on the grounds that it is functional, and conceal the location of the departure gates, presumably on the grounds that they are not.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
My First Fisking!
MSM smear jobs against the blogosphere are a dime a dozen, and fiskings of them are about $0.11 a dozen. I thought carefully before choosing to fisk the Florida Times-Union's pathetic hatchet job against bloggers, because it almost seemed too easy, but I suppose as a Jacksonville blogger, I should clean up my own geographic corner of the MSM.
Let's start, shall we?
A recent study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project reveals that Internet blog readership has increased dramatically in the past year.
Twenty-seven percent of Internet users are reading blogs, according to the report, re- presenting a whopping 58 percent increase from 2003. Just 62 percent of surveyed Internet users said they don't know exactly what a blog is.
Those numbers raise an eyebrow. Trends that increase by 58 percent in one year are not to be ignored.
I tracked down this Pew study here. It's a pity that the online Times-Union didn't bother to link to it. Journalists, pay attention. In the blogosphere, we call this 'evidence'.
Blogs, for the uninitiated, are Web logs, essentially forms of Internet diaries that range from the day-to-day journals of average lonely hearts to the political rantings and ravings of hotheads and those who interact with them on their blog sites.
There are definately many journals of lonely hearts and political rantings and ravings from hotheads. But the Times-Union presents this as the entire range. Does the blogosphere not include such lofty figures as law professors, inumerable college professors, and even a host of journalists?
They differ from old-fashioned Web sites in that they disseminate information quickly and without oversight. Some of them masquerade as established think tanks.
And do not prominent news organizations, such as CNN and FoxNews rush out stories onto the Internet? And precisely which blogs 'masquerade as established think tanks'? Care to name a few, or better, link to a few?
As for lack of oversight, there are thousands of readers who fact-check their favorite bloggers, and bloggers also fact check each other. Here are a few posts of prominent bloggers retracting posts when they have been corrected.
Thus, there is a lot of strange information out there in blog-land. It is a universe still occupied by the relatively young and male user, although that will no doubt change as the medium becomes more familiar.
There are no rules in blog-land. There is no code of ethics or signing of oaths before one becomes an official blogger. Just sign up and start ranting.
Apparently there are no standards of ethics in 'professional' journalism, either. Just use poorly forged National Guard documents to push a story, or accuse US soldiers of assassinating journalists without any basis in fact. As with all information sources, MSM or blogosphere, caveat emptor.
The information found on political or consumer-related blogs can be subsidized by an unseen sponsor. Blogs can look as though they were created by Joe Blow, when they're actually a guerrilla marketing tool of Joe Giant Conglomerate Inc.
Who? Do you have any evidence of bloggers being run by unseen sponsors? Name names.
As anyone who has tried to do family genealogy research on the Web knows, there is a lot of bad information out there. The only rules in Webville are those governing http, html and other computer coding protocols. No one rules taste or truth.
There is one rule: "We'll fact check your %&*!" If a blogger makes baseless accusations, as you have done, a swarm of other bloggers will call him on it. And he'd better act quickly, or his reputation will sink, and so will his traffic.
And while we're on the topic, what precisely, prevents the Times-Union from printing false or misleading information? What makes the Times-Union a more reliable source of information, than, say, Instapundit or Little Green Footballs, if it can't or won't link to its sources directly? Any information institution which uses 'anonymous sources' on a regular basis has no basis to complain.
We'll never see effective laws governing what people post in cyberspace. That's never going to happen in the First Amendment country we live in and has been tough to implement even in a totalitarian place like China where, according Radio Free Asia, Chinese Web police are not suppressing political debate or dissent.
Well, don't loose hope. The FEC is working on it, on your behalf.
Even attempts to cajole bloggers into adopting journalistic principles of accountability and fairness are toothless. Bloggers can't be fired. By nature, these independent roamers of cyberspace are never going to be corralled into a rule- or ethics- based system. They're no more controllable than the friendly debate between barflies sharing a pitcher of beer.
Blog readers will corral irresponsible bloggers. If a blogger is exposed for being dishonest, the whole blogosphere will know promptly, which is quite different from the way the MSM rallied around CBS's forged documents, or protected Eason Jordan from his lies for weeks.
"Buyer beware" is the only code that will ever rule the land of blog.
The Internet is a fast river of information, both good and bad. Blogs will always tend to fall into the latter category.
As I said, the information purveyor should beware of all sources, whether it's The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal fabricating hit pieces out of whole cloth, the MSM distorting the news to sway elections, or deliberately endangering the lives of Iraqi bloggers.
The media is a fast river of information, both good and bad. Hack reporters scared that they will now be routinely exposed as liars tend to fall into the latter category.
Let's start, shall we?
A recent study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project reveals that Internet blog readership has increased dramatically in the past year.
Twenty-seven percent of Internet users are reading blogs, according to the report, re- presenting a whopping 58 percent increase from 2003. Just 62 percent of surveyed Internet users said they don't know exactly what a blog is.
Those numbers raise an eyebrow. Trends that increase by 58 percent in one year are not to be ignored.
I tracked down this Pew study here. It's a pity that the online Times-Union didn't bother to link to it. Journalists, pay attention. In the blogosphere, we call this 'evidence'.
Blogs, for the uninitiated, are Web logs, essentially forms of Internet diaries that range from the day-to-day journals of average lonely hearts to the political rantings and ravings of hotheads and those who interact with them on their blog sites.
There are definately many journals of lonely hearts and political rantings and ravings from hotheads. But the Times-Union presents this as the entire range. Does the blogosphere not include such lofty figures as law professors, inumerable college professors, and even a host of journalists?
They differ from old-fashioned Web sites in that they disseminate information quickly and without oversight. Some of them masquerade as established think tanks.
And do not prominent news organizations, such as CNN and FoxNews rush out stories onto the Internet? And precisely which blogs 'masquerade as established think tanks'? Care to name a few, or better, link to a few?
As for lack of oversight, there are thousands of readers who fact-check their favorite bloggers, and bloggers also fact check each other. Here are a few posts of prominent bloggers retracting posts when they have been corrected.
Thus, there is a lot of strange information out there in blog-land. It is a universe still occupied by the relatively young and male user, although that will no doubt change as the medium becomes more familiar.
There are no rules in blog-land. There is no code of ethics or signing of oaths before one becomes an official blogger. Just sign up and start ranting.
Apparently there are no standards of ethics in 'professional' journalism, either. Just use poorly forged National Guard documents to push a story, or accuse US soldiers of assassinating journalists without any basis in fact. As with all information sources, MSM or blogosphere, caveat emptor.
The information found on political or consumer-related blogs can be subsidized by an unseen sponsor. Blogs can look as though they were created by Joe Blow, when they're actually a guerrilla marketing tool of Joe Giant Conglomerate Inc.
Who? Do you have any evidence of bloggers being run by unseen sponsors? Name names.
As anyone who has tried to do family genealogy research on the Web knows, there is a lot of bad information out there. The only rules in Webville are those governing http, html and other computer coding protocols. No one rules taste or truth.
There is one rule: "We'll fact check your %&*!" If a blogger makes baseless accusations, as you have done, a swarm of other bloggers will call him on it. And he'd better act quickly, or his reputation will sink, and so will his traffic.
And while we're on the topic, what precisely, prevents the Times-Union from printing false or misleading information? What makes the Times-Union a more reliable source of information, than, say, Instapundit or Little Green Footballs, if it can't or won't link to its sources directly? Any information institution which uses 'anonymous sources' on a regular basis has no basis to complain.
We'll never see effective laws governing what people post in cyberspace. That's never going to happen in the First Amendment country we live in and has been tough to implement even in a totalitarian place like China where, according Radio Free Asia, Chinese Web police are not suppressing political debate or dissent.
Well, don't loose hope. The FEC is working on it, on your behalf.
Even attempts to cajole bloggers into adopting journalistic principles of accountability and fairness are toothless. Bloggers can't be fired. By nature, these independent roamers of cyberspace are never going to be corralled into a rule- or ethics- based system. They're no more controllable than the friendly debate between barflies sharing a pitcher of beer.
Blog readers will corral irresponsible bloggers. If a blogger is exposed for being dishonest, the whole blogosphere will know promptly, which is quite different from the way the MSM rallied around CBS's forged documents, or protected Eason Jordan from his lies for weeks.
"Buyer beware" is the only code that will ever rule the land of blog.
The Internet is a fast river of information, both good and bad. Blogs will always tend to fall into the latter category.
As I said, the information purveyor should beware of all sources, whether it's The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal fabricating hit pieces out of whole cloth, the MSM distorting the news to sway elections, or deliberately endangering the lives of Iraqi bloggers.
The media is a fast river of information, both good and bad. Hack reporters scared that they will now be routinely exposed as liars tend to fall into the latter category.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Are You Safe?
If you anything care about the safety of your family, you will pay close attention to Jeff's advice.
Methodist Blogs Weekly Round-Up
Here's the week in review in the Methodist blogosphere:
David Warnock blogged about the recent Bill Moyers call to retake Jesus, privacy concerns with AOL instant messaging, the Commission for Africa report, and the ideal computer for kids and teens, among many other topics. Mr. Warnock was rather prolific last week.
James Gibson wrote about the irony of Asia, Africa, and South America sending missionaries to North America, the refusal of some Anglican priests to take communion with pro-homosexuality priests, and the departure of an Episcopal Church in Kansas from the Episcopal Church USA.
Beth Quick wrote about the aforementioned Bill Moyers article and a conference on bringing peace to the world through Jesus Christ.
Donald Sensing blogged about police use of force, the decision of a union to exclude military reservists from their parking lot, new firearms for the military, impressions on the freedom of the press, and the reason why a British RAF aircraft crashed in Iraq.
Pen of Gutless Pacifist asked readers why they frequent his blog and wrote about the church shooting in Wisconsin.
Grandma Jean compared the National Council of Churches and the Sanhedrin.
Richard Hall blogged about infant mortality in the abortion debate, the aforementioned communion contraversy in the Anglican Church, interpreting John 14:6, the Commission for Africa Report, bemoans problems with Technorati, and wrote about fair trade issues.
Gavin Richardson wrote about the death of Stan Grenz, Beanie Babies in Iraq, learning from Henri Nouwen, comparing Hotel Rwanda and The Passion, and the high infant mortality rate in Memphis.
Jordan Cooper wrote about a new video about landmines and asks for prayers for a certain church member.
The Methodist argues that the key to church growth is providing for the needs of the community.
John Wilks blogged about the difficulty in finding time to rest as a pastor.
Wes Magruder wrote about the organization of a church government at his mission church in Cameroon.
St. Phransus wrote about the death of Stan Grenz, the publication of his book, and admits that he is not just evil, but eeveel.
Scandal of Peculiarity wrote about a book called The Gospel According to America and a progressive alternative to the Alpha course.
Greg Hanson wrote about following God's lead, dealing with massive volumes of e-mail, and procrastinating during your faith journey.
Table 16 ponders opportunity cost when emphasizing worship services or small groups and about going beyond being a causal Christian, to being a true disciple of Jesus Christ.
Jay Vorhees introduces blogger Jennifer Freeman and learns about the benefits of dog therapy.
At Web Parish, Gary Webb wrote about being on God's threshing floor and J.D. Walt wrote grace as a transformation, rather than a transaction.
Shane Raynor wrote about problems in President Bush's faith-based initiatives, a UMC statement against the proposed White House budget, the end of the Taco Bell boycott, and e-mail from an evangelical pastor featured on PBS.
Do you know of a blog that should be added to the Weekly Round-Up? Leave a note in the comments.
David Warnock blogged about the recent Bill Moyers call to retake Jesus, privacy concerns with AOL instant messaging, the Commission for Africa report, and the ideal computer for kids and teens, among many other topics. Mr. Warnock was rather prolific last week.
James Gibson wrote about the irony of Asia, Africa, and South America sending missionaries to North America, the refusal of some Anglican priests to take communion with pro-homosexuality priests, and the departure of an Episcopal Church in Kansas from the Episcopal Church USA.
Beth Quick wrote about the aforementioned Bill Moyers article and a conference on bringing peace to the world through Jesus Christ.
Donald Sensing blogged about police use of force, the decision of a union to exclude military reservists from their parking lot, new firearms for the military, impressions on the freedom of the press, and the reason why a British RAF aircraft crashed in Iraq.
Pen of Gutless Pacifist asked readers why they frequent his blog and wrote about the church shooting in Wisconsin.
Grandma Jean compared the National Council of Churches and the Sanhedrin.
Richard Hall blogged about infant mortality in the abortion debate, the aforementioned communion contraversy in the Anglican Church, interpreting John 14:6, the Commission for Africa Report, bemoans problems with Technorati, and wrote about fair trade issues.
Gavin Richardson wrote about the death of Stan Grenz, Beanie Babies in Iraq, learning from Henri Nouwen, comparing Hotel Rwanda and The Passion, and the high infant mortality rate in Memphis.
Jordan Cooper wrote about a new video about landmines and asks for prayers for a certain church member.
The Methodist argues that the key to church growth is providing for the needs of the community.
John Wilks blogged about the difficulty in finding time to rest as a pastor.
Wes Magruder wrote about the organization of a church government at his mission church in Cameroon.
St. Phransus wrote about the death of Stan Grenz, the publication of his book, and admits that he is not just evil, but eeveel.
Scandal of Peculiarity wrote about a book called The Gospel According to America and a progressive alternative to the Alpha course.
Greg Hanson wrote about following God's lead, dealing with massive volumes of e-mail, and procrastinating during your faith journey.
Table 16 ponders opportunity cost when emphasizing worship services or small groups and about going beyond being a causal Christian, to being a true disciple of Jesus Christ.
Jay Vorhees introduces blogger Jennifer Freeman and learns about the benefits of dog therapy.
At Web Parish, Gary Webb wrote about being on God's threshing floor and J.D. Walt wrote grace as a transformation, rather than a transaction.
Shane Raynor wrote about problems in President Bush's faith-based initiatives, a UMC statement against the proposed White House budget, the end of the Taco Bell boycott, and e-mail from an evangelical pastor featured on PBS.
Do you know of a blog that should be added to the Weekly Round-Up? Leave a note in the comments.
Sunday, March 13, 2005
I'm a Generous Blogger
As you can tell from my stats, I run one of the most popular blogs in the English-speaking world. In between appearances on MSNBC, C-SPAN, and my weekly syndicated column, I make an effort to promote the art and science of blogging. One of my favorite activities in this vein is to find obscure, quality blogs that no one has ever heard of, and promote them. Of course, I do so out of pure altruism.
Of late, I discovered a blog run by a certain law professor in Knoxville, Tennessee. He addresses a variety of fields: politics, law, and even puppy recipes. This 'Glenn Reynolds' -- assuming that he's not blogging pseudonymously -- demonstrates a modicum of talent and might become a familiar face in the blogosphere someday.
So I popped off this e-mail to him to let him know that I had noticed the quality of his work and would be sending him some of my vast audience of faithful (if not slavish) readers:
To: pundit@instapundit.com
From: locustsandhoney2005@yahoo.com
RE: link offer
Dear Glenn-
Being a high-ranking blogger – in fact, resting at the top of the Ecosystem -- I amuse myself by looking down at struggling young bloggers like yourself desperately seeking attention and hits. Now not all life is merciless cackling at the less fortunate, so from time to time, I link to bloggers whom I think might be rising stars in the blogosphere. This ‘Instapundit’ site that you have is of some potential quality – a diamond in the rough if you will. As a courtesy, I am blogrolling your site temporarily, in order to send some traffic your way. I might even link to your posts from time to time. Courtesy, of course, suggests that you reciprocate – that’s blogging etiquette, by the way. Of course, all of your readers probably read my blog already, but you know – the forms of courtesy should be followed.
Good luck on this blog of yours.
Best wishes,
John
So visit the lad's site. If he plays his cards right and stays on my good side, Glenn could prosper in the blogosphere.
Of late, I discovered a blog run by a certain law professor in Knoxville, Tennessee. He addresses a variety of fields: politics, law, and even puppy recipes. This 'Glenn Reynolds' -- assuming that he's not blogging pseudonymously -- demonstrates a modicum of talent and might become a familiar face in the blogosphere someday.
So I popped off this e-mail to him to let him know that I had noticed the quality of his work and would be sending him some of my vast audience of faithful (if not slavish) readers:
To: pundit@instapundit.com
From: locustsandhoney2005@yahoo.com
RE: link offer
Dear Glenn-
Being a high-ranking blogger – in fact, resting at the top of the Ecosystem -- I amuse myself by looking down at struggling young bloggers like yourself desperately seeking attention and hits. Now not all life is merciless cackling at the less fortunate, so from time to time, I link to bloggers whom I think might be rising stars in the blogosphere. This ‘Instapundit’ site that you have is of some potential quality – a diamond in the rough if you will. As a courtesy, I am blogrolling your site temporarily, in order to send some traffic your way. I might even link to your posts from time to time. Courtesy, of course, suggests that you reciprocate – that’s blogging etiquette, by the way. Of course, all of your readers probably read my blog already, but you know – the forms of courtesy should be followed.
Good luck on this blog of yours.
Best wishes,
John
So visit the lad's site. If he plays his cards right and stays on my good side, Glenn could prosper in the blogosphere.
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Mass Murder at Armstrongist Church
News reports say that a man walked into a meeting of an Armstrongist sect in a hotel in Wisconsin and shot seven people, then himself.
Friday, March 11, 2005
Welcome, Master!
The blogosphere has apparently been taken over – "conquered" if you will – by a master race of giant federal bureaucrats. It's difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive earth bloggers or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the bureaucrats will soon be here. And I for one welcome our new federal overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted blogging personality I could be helpful in rounding up malcontents to toil in their underground sugar caves.
-----------
For the uncultured among you, The Simpsons reference can be read in full here.
-----------
For the uncultured among you, The Simpsons reference can be read in full here.
Keep Your Church out of Politics
I'm participating in a comment thread over at WesleyBlog regarding a recent UMC statement against the Bush Administration's budget. It's a struggle to convince many of the liberal participants that the church is harmed whenever it takes stances on such subjective, partisan issues. It seems clear as day to the liberals that of course the evil Bush Administration is harming the poor, and therefore the UMC leadership is acting appropriately. They cannot grasp how other Methodists in good standing can disagree.
It's a freakin' federal budget! I mean, if were talking about something more concrete like abortion or strangling kittens, I'd be more sympathetic to the church stepping up to the microphone. But a federal budget is a vast, unwieldy beast filled with provisions for every program, and subtle changes in law as a consequence. It's too complex an document for anyone to assert that it is worthy of either God's pleasure or wrath.
Some of the commentors are noting that social justice is a core Methodist principle, firmly established in the Book of Discipline. Yes, this is true. But it does not automatically follow that concern for the poor=funding cuts bad. In fact, a good Christian and Methodist could argue that program cuts benefit the poor, and be fully compliant with the Wesleyan principles of social justice.
For the record, I'm glad that the UMC is a big tent. My own church benefits from having one conservative and one liberal pastor each. And we conservative Methodists benefit from reading liberal bloggers like Beth Quick and Pen. But if we're going to remain a big tent, then we have to stay focused on Kingdom work, and not on partisan politics.
UPDATE: Jeff chimes in with a compelling Biblical reference that really says all that needs to be said about churches getting bogged down in politics.
It's a freakin' federal budget! I mean, if were talking about something more concrete like abortion or strangling kittens, I'd be more sympathetic to the church stepping up to the microphone. But a federal budget is a vast, unwieldy beast filled with provisions for every program, and subtle changes in law as a consequence. It's too complex an document for anyone to assert that it is worthy of either God's pleasure or wrath.
Some of the commentors are noting that social justice is a core Methodist principle, firmly established in the Book of Discipline. Yes, this is true. But it does not automatically follow that concern for the poor=funding cuts bad. In fact, a good Christian and Methodist could argue that program cuts benefit the poor, and be fully compliant with the Wesleyan principles of social justice.
For the record, I'm glad that the UMC is a big tent. My own church benefits from having one conservative and one liberal pastor each. And we conservative Methodists benefit from reading liberal bloggers like Beth Quick and Pen. But if we're going to remain a big tent, then we have to stay focused on Kingdom work, and not on partisan politics.
UPDATE: Jeff chimes in with a compelling Biblical reference that really says all that needs to be said about churches getting bogged down in politics.
Libertarian Blackmail
Joe Carter is trying to find a rational Christian libertarian position on blackmail. I had never thought about this issue before, but he raises a number of interesting questions. Hypothetically, the libertarian, even the Christian libertarian, would find blackmail immoral but not illegal, as the release of information, regardless of the circumstances, would not constitute a harm.
I'm a simple minded person, not prone to great leaps of abstract thought, so I'll bypass the inner workings of this conundrum and say that libertarianism is not a suicide pact. If the libertarian solution to a problem is stark raving mad, let's not do it.
I'm a simple minded person, not prone to great leaps of abstract thought, so I'll bypass the inner workings of this conundrum and say that libertarianism is not a suicide pact. If the libertarian solution to a problem is stark raving mad, let's not do it.
Meta-Blogging Study
Kevin Drum has a summary of a fascinating study up on his blog. The study examines linking patterns in blogs, both Left and Right. Read it all, for it is good.
Hat tip: SarahK
Hat tip: SarahK
In Search of: Christians
Left2Right, a blog run by a host of liberal intellectuals which attempts to discern the mysteries of conservativism, has an unintentionally hilarious comment thread here, which studies those "exotic" creatures known as Christians. Join in their anthropological research!
One of the commentors left a link to his own blog, Voices of Reason, which is a dialog between secular and religious people. It's worth a visit.
One of the commentors left a link to his own blog, Voices of Reason, which is a dialog between secular and religious people. It's worth a visit.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Liberals Invent the Wheel. Next Project: Fire
I am amused at the recent spate of articles from liberal outlets about motherhood. They seem to regard the notion of a stay-at-home mom -- or for that matter, any woman who would like to bear children -- as some sort of curiosity. My wife is often greeted with shocked stares and dropped jaws whenever she mentions to certain friends or co-workers that she would like to be a stay-at-home mom in a few years, when we have children.
It is as though liberals have little grasp of history, such as when they see evangelical Christians as a threat to civilization, for we all know that the America of yesteryear was a shimmering utopia of secularism. Or when they assert that America is a despotic conqueror that has never done anything to advance the cause of freedom and justice. So, too, they regard our vision of a nuclear family where I work and my wife stays home and takes care of the kids as a freakish plan and a distortion of the human experience.
David Brooks, who serves as the travel guide to the Red States for the liberal readership of the New York Times, wrote a few months ago about the movement called 'natalism':
They are having three, four or more kids. Their personal identity is defined by parenthood. They are more spiritually, emotionally and physically invested in their homes than in any other sphere of life, having concluded that parenthood is the most enriching and elevating thing they can do. Very often they have sacrificed pleasures like sophisticated movies, restaurant dining and foreign travel, let alone competitive careers and disposable income, for the sake of their parental calling.
This column was a bit surprising, because what Brooks saw as a 'movement', I saw as 'normal'. It is the historical norm, for the U.S. and the world at large, for people to strive to build better lives for themselves and their families. It is historically atypical for people to swear off childrearing in favor of paying for season tickets to Broadway and annual trips to Paris-- or else, the present generations would not exist, right?
Hence the title of this post. So ungrounded in history is the knowledge base of the liberal establishment that it is prone to stand amazed or aghast at the simplest of concepts, such as motherhood.
It is as though liberals have little grasp of history, such as when they see evangelical Christians as a threat to civilization, for we all know that the America of yesteryear was a shimmering utopia of secularism. Or when they assert that America is a despotic conqueror that has never done anything to advance the cause of freedom and justice. So, too, they regard our vision of a nuclear family where I work and my wife stays home and takes care of the kids as a freakish plan and a distortion of the human experience.
David Brooks, who serves as the travel guide to the Red States for the liberal readership of the New York Times, wrote a few months ago about the movement called 'natalism':
They are having three, four or more kids. Their personal identity is defined by parenthood. They are more spiritually, emotionally and physically invested in their homes than in any other sphere of life, having concluded that parenthood is the most enriching and elevating thing they can do. Very often they have sacrificed pleasures like sophisticated movies, restaurant dining and foreign travel, let alone competitive careers and disposable income, for the sake of their parental calling.
This column was a bit surprising, because what Brooks saw as a 'movement', I saw as 'normal'. It is the historical norm, for the U.S. and the world at large, for people to strive to build better lives for themselves and their families. It is historically atypical for people to swear off childrearing in favor of paying for season tickets to Broadway and annual trips to Paris-- or else, the present generations would not exist, right?
Hence the title of this post. So ungrounded in history is the knowledge base of the liberal establishment that it is prone to stand amazed or aghast at the simplest of concepts, such as motherhood.
Blackfive is a Genius!
Months ago, Blackfive (aka The Paratrooper of Love) summoned his strategic wits to devise an exit strategy for Iraq and Afghanistan.
And now the White House has announced that it is adopting that very same strategy!
And now the White House has announced that it is adopting that very same strategy!
Ex-Convicts Voting, III
One of my favorite web magazines, Tech Central Station, has a new editorial by Doug Kern arguing that convicted felons should not have the right to vote. Kern argues that advocates of ex-cons voting are living in a "Misdemeanor Nation", where criminal behavior has no consequence, as opposed to a "Felony Nation", where miscreants are punished for their damage to society:
In Misdemeanor Nation, the vote is an inalienable right. You don't need virtue to vote. You don't need to obey the rules of society to vote. If you have a pulse and an eighteenth birthday, you get to vote.
I come from Felony Nation. I come from a place where the right to vote is a presumption that intolerable behavior can rebut.
In Felony Nation, we have these crazy things called "felonies." Here, felonies are crimes that are so severe that they irreversibly corrode the social fabric. Felonies create harm so profound that no jail or prison term can compensate for it.
You can tell that you're in Misdemeanor Nation when you hear glib talk about felons having "paid their debt to society." How does one account for that debt? What is the price of children seeing violence in their home? What is the interest rate on decent people being afraid to walk the streets at night? How does anyone pay back the cost of small business in troubled neighborhoods shutting down because the theft of expensive merchandise has become unbearable?
To be fair, many advocates of giving ex-felons the right to vote take the irrational approach that people are not responsible for their own behavior, and should therefore never be deprived of the right to vote. But as far as I am concerned, this is a red herring. Advocating the re-enfranchisement of ex-cons does not necessarily equal being soft on crime.
What I am saying is that once a person has completed his sentence, his civil rights should be restored. If that person has not been punished enough in the eyes of Mr. Kern, then the prisoner should have been incarcerated longer. If you don't like the idea of murderers and child molestors voting, then give them life sentences. But once a person has paid his debt to society, the he should stop paying.
Kern points out that the movement for re-enfranchisement is often just a cover for a host of other movements:
It's fair to point out that Felony Nation may have gone too far in declaring certain crimes to be felonies. The argument for the enfranchisement of felons often seems to be a proxy fight against mandatory felony sentencing for low-level drug users. It's political poison to suggest that possession of a smidgen of cocaine ought not to be a felony; the enfranchisement of felons is much more palatable. If we're creating too many felons through the drug laws, let's re-examine the drug laws, instead of demeaning the importance of felonies themselves.
Fair point. Certainly there are ulterior motives at work in this movement. As an advocate of both re-enfranchisement and drug legalization, I think that it's best not to mix these two ideas. We can look at the two issues separately. In the same spirit, I ask Mr. Kern that if he feels that criminals are not being sentenced firmly enough, or jails are too comfortable for prisoners, then he tackle those issues head-on, and not use re-enfranchisement as a proxy struggle.
In Misdemeanor Nation, the vote is an inalienable right. You don't need virtue to vote. You don't need to obey the rules of society to vote. If you have a pulse and an eighteenth birthday, you get to vote.
I come from Felony Nation. I come from a place where the right to vote is a presumption that intolerable behavior can rebut.
In Felony Nation, we have these crazy things called "felonies." Here, felonies are crimes that are so severe that they irreversibly corrode the social fabric. Felonies create harm so profound that no jail or prison term can compensate for it.
You can tell that you're in Misdemeanor Nation when you hear glib talk about felons having "paid their debt to society." How does one account for that debt? What is the price of children seeing violence in their home? What is the interest rate on decent people being afraid to walk the streets at night? How does anyone pay back the cost of small business in troubled neighborhoods shutting down because the theft of expensive merchandise has become unbearable?
To be fair, many advocates of giving ex-felons the right to vote take the irrational approach that people are not responsible for their own behavior, and should therefore never be deprived of the right to vote. But as far as I am concerned, this is a red herring. Advocating the re-enfranchisement of ex-cons does not necessarily equal being soft on crime.
What I am saying is that once a person has completed his sentence, his civil rights should be restored. If that person has not been punished enough in the eyes of Mr. Kern, then the prisoner should have been incarcerated longer. If you don't like the idea of murderers and child molestors voting, then give them life sentences. But once a person has paid his debt to society, the he should stop paying.
Kern points out that the movement for re-enfranchisement is often just a cover for a host of other movements:
It's fair to point out that Felony Nation may have gone too far in declaring certain crimes to be felonies. The argument for the enfranchisement of felons often seems to be a proxy fight against mandatory felony sentencing for low-level drug users. It's political poison to suggest that possession of a smidgen of cocaine ought not to be a felony; the enfranchisement of felons is much more palatable. If we're creating too many felons through the drug laws, let's re-examine the drug laws, instead of demeaning the importance of felonies themselves.
Fair point. Certainly there are ulterior motives at work in this movement. As an advocate of both re-enfranchisement and drug legalization, I think that it's best not to mix these two ideas. We can look at the two issues separately. In the same spirit, I ask Mr. Kern that if he feels that criminals are not being sentenced firmly enough, or jails are too comfortable for prisoners, then he tackle those issues head-on, and not use re-enfranchisement as a proxy struggle.
Emotive Libertarianism
Orin Kerr (via Puppy Blender) brings us an analysis of the emotional underpinnings of libertarianism from analyst Adrian Vermeule:
My central claim is that themechanisms underlying security panics have no necessary or inherent pro-securityvalence. The very same mechanisms are equally capable of producing libertarian panics: episodes in which aroused publics become irrationally convinced that justified securitymeasures represent unjustified attempts to curtail civil liberties. I will suggest that libertarian panics have been a regular occurrence in American history, and that we maybe living through one now, in the form of a widespread and thoroughly irrational, evenhysterical, reaction to small legal changes adopted after 9/11. Indeed, the tendency to diagnose the existence of a security panic can itself be symptomatic of a libertarian panic…
Social cascades may occur, such that a large number of individuals influence each other to hold exaggerated perceptions of security risks. Such cascades need not be the product of “panic” in any pejorative sense. Consider rational herding mechanisms, in which the early actions of a succession of individuals, each possessed of some private information, influence later individuals in the chain; even if all are rational, the whole chain may act erroneously if the first movers’ information was erroneous. Yet there are also irrational or quasi-rational mechanisms, such as “availability cascades” that spread highly salient, albeit misleading, anecdotes through social networks, producing biased and exaggerated perceptions of risk. Within decision making groups, mechanisms such as group polarization may skew risk perceptions even farther; highly salient or available fears will be amplified by group discussion…
It is not the author's main point, but libertarianism has long struck me as an emotive response -- often adopted in response to some ugly encounter with intrusive, thuggish government. Vermeule verifies this perspective. There are rational reasons for adopting libertarianism, but the root of the libertarian tree is fear. This fear is often justified (although Vermeule disputes this), but it is still an emotional response.
My central claim is that themechanisms underlying security panics have no necessary or inherent pro-securityvalence. The very same mechanisms are equally capable of producing libertarian panics: episodes in which aroused publics become irrationally convinced that justified securitymeasures represent unjustified attempts to curtail civil liberties. I will suggest that libertarian panics have been a regular occurrence in American history, and that we maybe living through one now, in the form of a widespread and thoroughly irrational, evenhysterical, reaction to small legal changes adopted after 9/11. Indeed, the tendency to diagnose the existence of a security panic can itself be symptomatic of a libertarian panic…
Social cascades may occur, such that a large number of individuals influence each other to hold exaggerated perceptions of security risks. Such cascades need not be the product of “panic” in any pejorative sense. Consider rational herding mechanisms, in which the early actions of a succession of individuals, each possessed of some private information, influence later individuals in the chain; even if all are rational, the whole chain may act erroneously if the first movers’ information was erroneous. Yet there are also irrational or quasi-rational mechanisms, such as “availability cascades” that spread highly salient, albeit misleading, anecdotes through social networks, producing biased and exaggerated perceptions of risk. Within decision making groups, mechanisms such as group polarization may skew risk perceptions even farther; highly salient or available fears will be amplified by group discussion…
It is not the author's main point, but libertarianism has long struck me as an emotive response -- often adopted in response to some ugly encounter with intrusive, thuggish government. Vermeule verifies this perspective. There are rational reasons for adopting libertarianism, but the root of the libertarian tree is fear. This fear is often justified (although Vermeule disputes this), but it is still an emotional response.
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Neolibertarianism
Via Michael Gene Hendrix, Dale Franks defines a revised libertarianism, adjusted to political realities. Here are its essential components:
When given a set of policy choices,
When given a set of policy choices,
- The choice that maximizes personal liberty is the best choice.
- The policy choice that offers the least amount of necessary government intervention or regulation is the best choice.
- The policy choice that provides rational, market-based incentives is the best choice.
In foreign policy, neolibertartianism would be characterized by,
- A policy of diplomacy that promotes consensual government and human rights and opposes dictatorship.
- A policy of using US military force solely at the discretion of the US, but only in circumstances where American interests are directly affected.
This approach is essentially moderate, hawkish libertarianism. It's quite common, and Glenn Reynolds and Stephen Green can be numbered among its adherents. We 'neolibertarians' are hamstrung by a lack of electoral opportunities, as the Republican Party has completely bought into the idea of Big Government, and the Libertarian Party is increasingly dominated by its extreme, anarchist wing. Unlike the latter, neolibertarians do not diefy freedom a la Ayn Rand. We see freedom as better, but not perfect. A sensible libertarianism, in touch with reality, is not utopianist.
Monday, March 07, 2005
Magazine Review: The Plain Truth
I'm the librarian at my church, and when I took up the task, I decided to order some magazine subscriptions. Entranced by the fascinating story of the transformation of the World Wide Church of God from a heretical cult to an orthodox, if wierd, Christian denomination, I ordered a year of The Plain Truth. It is an impressive magazine and is suitable for every Protestant church library.
The Plain Truth was started by WWCG founder Herbert W. Armstrong and was an important organ of that organization's dissemination of heretical thought. After the revolution within that denomination, The Plain Truth was spun off into an independent organization not directly controlled by the WWCG.
The magazine is confrontational in style, addressing Christian contraversies head-on, such as reparations for slavery, Christian voting, and homosexuality. It features many articles and editorials which attack legalism, which is probably a reflection of its Armstrongist origin (Armstrongism has a legalistic salvation).
The Plain Truth is an outstanding Christian magazine, and merits much higher circulation that it is getting. The first year is free. Your church should subscribe.
The Plain Truth was started by WWCG founder Herbert W. Armstrong and was an important organ of that organization's dissemination of heretical thought. After the revolution within that denomination, The Plain Truth was spun off into an independent organization not directly controlled by the WWCG.
The magazine is confrontational in style, addressing Christian contraversies head-on, such as reparations for slavery, Christian voting, and homosexuality. It features many articles and editorials which attack legalism, which is probably a reflection of its Armstrongist origin (Armstrongism has a legalistic salvation).
The Plain Truth is an outstanding Christian magazine, and merits much higher circulation that it is getting. The first year is free. Your church should subscribe.
Smearing Libertarianism
From The American Conservative:
Free spirits, the ambitious, ex-socialists, drug users, and sexual eccentrics often find an attractive political philosophy in libertarianism, the idea that individual freedom should be the sole rule of ethics and government. Libertarianism offers its believers a clear conscience to do things society presently restrains, like make more money, have more sex, or take more drugs.
Yawn. It's the same tired old smear of libertarianism that I've read dozens of times. As always, critics of libertarianism deliberately confuse libertarianism with libertinism. The latter is essentially a moral philosophy of hedonism -- if it feels good, do it. The former is exclusively a political philosophy which says that government shall not restrict the activites of consenting adults to do as they please with their own bodies and/or property.
It is quite possible to be politically libertarian and morally liberal or morally conservative. It's not an intellectual reach to be politically libertarian and a Christian, as I am. Libertarianism doesn't take a moral stance -- it simply determines what government may or may not do.
There are real, fair criticisms of libertarianism, particularly in its excesses. But Locke doesn't bother to focus on them. Pathetic.
Hat tip: Professor Bainbridge.
Free spirits, the ambitious, ex-socialists, drug users, and sexual eccentrics often find an attractive political philosophy in libertarianism, the idea that individual freedom should be the sole rule of ethics and government. Libertarianism offers its believers a clear conscience to do things society presently restrains, like make more money, have more sex, or take more drugs.
Yawn. It's the same tired old smear of libertarianism that I've read dozens of times. As always, critics of libertarianism deliberately confuse libertarianism with libertinism. The latter is essentially a moral philosophy of hedonism -- if it feels good, do it. The former is exclusively a political philosophy which says that government shall not restrict the activites of consenting adults to do as they please with their own bodies and/or property.
It is quite possible to be politically libertarian and morally liberal or morally conservative. It's not an intellectual reach to be politically libertarian and a Christian, as I am. Libertarianism doesn't take a moral stance -- it simply determines what government may or may not do.
There are real, fair criticisms of libertarianism, particularly in its excesses. But Locke doesn't bother to focus on them. Pathetic.
Hat tip: Professor Bainbridge.
Word of the Day: McNab
Defintion: (n) the process of innocent people being seriously screwed by crazy laws.
Hat tip: Instapundit.
Hat tip: Instapundit.
Ex-Convicts Voting, II
As I wrote last Saturday, I think that convicted felons who have completed their sentences should have the right to vote. Paul Mirengoff of Powerline directs us an e-mailer who responded to such proposals:
What's next? Will they insist on armed robbers obtaining gun permits or child molesters being allowed to become public school teachers.
This is a tired argument oft repeated against ex-convicts voting, and it's a false analogy. Letting child molestors teach school or bank robbers own guns would constitute a direct threat to public safety. Would someone explain to me how letting a person vote is a physical threat to the public?
What's next? Will they insist on armed robbers obtaining gun permits or child molesters being allowed to become public school teachers.
This is a tired argument oft repeated against ex-convicts voting, and it's a false analogy. Letting child molestors teach school or bank robbers own guns would constitute a direct threat to public safety. Would someone explain to me how letting a person vote is a physical threat to the public?
Methodist Blogs Weekly Round-Up
Here's what methodist bloggers were writing about this past week:
James Gibson argues that the American church disfunctionality derives from faulty governing structures that emphasize inward function, rather than outward relationship with the world. He also wrote about the fate of Christian leaders who become enraptured with political movements, rather than Kingdom work.
Beth Quick wrote about online devotional and liturgical resources.
Con Xian wrote about the busy life of a seminarian.
Donald Sensing wrote about how the military is changing its training to reflect experiences in the Iraq War, provides an update on his Marine son, blegs for camera advice, remembers his 25th wedding anniversary, and compares the Iraq War with the Battle of Iwo Jima.
The Faithful Skeptic wrote about how hard it is to blog when he's busy and sought clarity on the Social Security debate.
On Freedom's Herald, James Gibson wrote about misunderstanding salvation, spiritual freedom and bondage and Anglican outreach to American Episcopal churches.
Pen at The Gutless Pacifist wrote about harassment of the BTK Killer's church, nudity in film, and the death penalty for juveniles.
Richard Hall wrote about the new Dr. Who series, examines the true meaning of blessings, the NYT article on faith bloggers, nudity in film, and gambling legislation in the House of Lords.
Jordan Cooper points to a Eugene Peterson interview on false spirituality and the purpose of his church.
John Wilks wrote about the journey of discipleship after conversion and about christian teens learning to feel compassion for the needy.
Wes Marguder has a fascinating post on the beauty of internal UMC politics.
Scandal of Particularity wrote about the final season of NYPD Blue and public lives vs. private lives from the Christian perspective.
Greg Hanson wrote about the proper role of judgementalism for the discerning Christian and inspirational e-mail spam.
At Asbury Seminary's Web Parish, Shawn Smith wrote about the loneliness of Christ. J.D. Walt wrote about the appropriateness of telling gory stories of human suffering during a worship service. Finally, Isaac Hopper expounded upon a powerful worship experience.
Shayne Raynor wrote about the NCC condeming evangelism under certain circumstances, churches getting rid of greeting times, bridging the gap between liberal and conservative Christians, UMC reactions to the Supreme Court's juvenile death penalty decision, and Methodists learning from non-denominational churches.
Do you know of a blog that should be added to the Weekly Round-Up? Leave a note in the comments.
James Gibson argues that the American church disfunctionality derives from faulty governing structures that emphasize inward function, rather than outward relationship with the world. He also wrote about the fate of Christian leaders who become enraptured with political movements, rather than Kingdom work.
Beth Quick wrote about online devotional and liturgical resources.
Con Xian wrote about the busy life of a seminarian.
Donald Sensing wrote about how the military is changing its training to reflect experiences in the Iraq War, provides an update on his Marine son, blegs for camera advice, remembers his 25th wedding anniversary, and compares the Iraq War with the Battle of Iwo Jima.
The Faithful Skeptic wrote about how hard it is to blog when he's busy and sought clarity on the Social Security debate.
On Freedom's Herald, James Gibson wrote about misunderstanding salvation, spiritual freedom and bondage and Anglican outreach to American Episcopal churches.
Pen at The Gutless Pacifist wrote about harassment of the BTK Killer's church, nudity in film, and the death penalty for juveniles.
Richard Hall wrote about the new Dr. Who series, examines the true meaning of blessings, the NYT article on faith bloggers, nudity in film, and gambling legislation in the House of Lords.
Jordan Cooper points to a Eugene Peterson interview on false spirituality and the purpose of his church.
John Wilks wrote about the journey of discipleship after conversion and about christian teens learning to feel compassion for the needy.
Wes Marguder has a fascinating post on the beauty of internal UMC politics.
Scandal of Particularity wrote about the final season of NYPD Blue and public lives vs. private lives from the Christian perspective.
Greg Hanson wrote about the proper role of judgementalism for the discerning Christian and inspirational e-mail spam.
At Asbury Seminary's Web Parish, Shawn Smith wrote about the loneliness of Christ. J.D. Walt wrote about the appropriateness of telling gory stories of human suffering during a worship service. Finally, Isaac Hopper expounded upon a powerful worship experience.
Shayne Raynor wrote about the NCC condeming evangelism under certain circumstances, churches getting rid of greeting times, bridging the gap between liberal and conservative Christians, UMC reactions to the Supreme Court's juvenile death penalty decision, and Methodists learning from non-denominational churches.
Do you know of a blog that should be added to the Weekly Round-Up? Leave a note in the comments.
Saturday, March 05, 2005
Ex-Convicts Voting
In many states, convicted felons, even those who have completed their sentences and parole, are not allowed to vote. The Democrats are rather exercised about restoring voting rights to ex-cons in swing states, where a few thousand votes can swing presidential elections. This movement, I suppose, says all that you need to know about how much importance moral values to the Democratic Party.
Now I, for one, happen to agree that ex-convicts should have the right to vote -- but for a different reason. If a person has 'paid his debt to society', as the saying goes, then that person should be restored to full citizenship, with all the rights and privilges thereof. If there is a still a need to punish that person, that person should never have been released from prison. Rather simple, eh? A person has either paid his debt, or not.
But as Jonah Goldberg pointed out a few months ago, Democrats are advancing a different, and flawed argument:
Across the country there's a growing push to let ex-cons regain the right to vote. I'm against it as a wholesale policy, although at the margins I think you can make a good case for some folks. But let's put aside the merits of the argument for a moment. The one indisputable fact is that the issue wouldn't be gaining any steam at all if there weren't so many ex-cons — mostly black — demanding it.
If you follow the debate on this issue, you'll notice that the very first point advocates for "re-enfranchising" convicted criminals make is that there are so many more ex-cons who are barred from voting today. They back it up with the fact that they are disproportionately black, as if that should make a big difference. Indeed, the concern has it exactly backwards: Instead of worrying that so many black felons can't vote, the black community should be worried that so many blacks are felons.
Even the effort to give the vote back to felons has it backwards. If it was a good idea to bar ex-cons from voting when there were few of them around, why should it be a bad idea when there are more of them? In other words, why would it be just or wise or no big deal to bar one ex-con from voting but unjust or unwise to bar one million ex-cons? Whatever the dangers are of allowing one former criminal to vote, they surely pale in comparison to the dangers of allowing millions of them to vote. A community can absorb one ex-con voter no problem, but 10,000 — or ten million — of them may be a different matter altogether. It's only when felons — what they call the "ex-offender community" in D.C. — became a class or potential voting bloc that this became a hot issue.
As Goldberg argues (even though he's against restoring the franchise), taking this legal action is either right or wrong on its own merits, regardless of which ethnic group or political party benefits the most from it, or whether we are talking about ten felons or ten million. Ex-cons tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic, which would not serve my side of the political spectrum, but it doesn't really matter. It's an issue of right and wrong, not which side will benefit.
Now I, for one, happen to agree that ex-convicts should have the right to vote -- but for a different reason. If a person has 'paid his debt to society', as the saying goes, then that person should be restored to full citizenship, with all the rights and privilges thereof. If there is a still a need to punish that person, that person should never have been released from prison. Rather simple, eh? A person has either paid his debt, or not.
But as Jonah Goldberg pointed out a few months ago, Democrats are advancing a different, and flawed argument:
Across the country there's a growing push to let ex-cons regain the right to vote. I'm against it as a wholesale policy, although at the margins I think you can make a good case for some folks. But let's put aside the merits of the argument for a moment. The one indisputable fact is that the issue wouldn't be gaining any steam at all if there weren't so many ex-cons — mostly black — demanding it.
If you follow the debate on this issue, you'll notice that the very first point advocates for "re-enfranchising" convicted criminals make is that there are so many more ex-cons who are barred from voting today. They back it up with the fact that they are disproportionately black, as if that should make a big difference. Indeed, the concern has it exactly backwards: Instead of worrying that so many black felons can't vote, the black community should be worried that so many blacks are felons.
Even the effort to give the vote back to felons has it backwards. If it was a good idea to bar ex-cons from voting when there were few of them around, why should it be a bad idea when there are more of them? In other words, why would it be just or wise or no big deal to bar one ex-con from voting but unjust or unwise to bar one million ex-cons? Whatever the dangers are of allowing one former criminal to vote, they surely pale in comparison to the dangers of allowing millions of them to vote. A community can absorb one ex-con voter no problem, but 10,000 — or ten million — of them may be a different matter altogether. It's only when felons — what they call the "ex-offender community" in D.C. — became a class or potential voting bloc that this became a hot issue.
As Goldberg argues (even though he's against restoring the franchise), taking this legal action is either right or wrong on its own merits, regardless of which ethnic group or political party benefits the most from it, or whether we are talking about ten felons or ten million. Ex-cons tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic, which would not serve my side of the political spectrum, but it doesn't really matter. It's an issue of right and wrong, not which side will benefit.
Charitable Giving, Ranked by Nation
Via Stones Cry Out we learn of the comments of noted liberal intellectual Bono regarding charitable giving in the United States:
[Bush needs to] clear up some confusion about America's basic beliefs. Americans are overtly devout. And yet Europeans, who inhabit a more secular world, give more per capita than Americans to what the Bible calls "the least of these" - the world's poor. The United States is in 22nd place, last in the class of donor nations. (Add private philanthropy and it's up to 15th.) Europeans see the discrepancy, and they smell hypocrisy.
Now if you are measuring charitable giving, then the only way to evaluate the generosity of nations is by charitable giving (i.e. not taxes). Only that which is freely given by private individuals and institutions without coercive measures can be defined as charitable giving. Otherwise, we'd be talking about charitable taking.
Well, according to The Economist, the U.S. is second only to Israel in charitable giving, ranked by percentage of GDP. As for Bono's numbers -- I can't find any documentation to support them.
[Bush needs to] clear up some confusion about America's basic beliefs. Americans are overtly devout. And yet Europeans, who inhabit a more secular world, give more per capita than Americans to what the Bible calls "the least of these" - the world's poor. The United States is in 22nd place, last in the class of donor nations. (Add private philanthropy and it's up to 15th.) Europeans see the discrepancy, and they smell hypocrisy.
Now if you are measuring charitable giving, then the only way to evaluate the generosity of nations is by charitable giving (i.e. not taxes). Only that which is freely given by private individuals and institutions without coercive measures can be defined as charitable giving. Otherwise, we'd be talking about charitable taking.
Well, according to The Economist, the U.S. is second only to Israel in charitable giving, ranked by percentage of GDP. As for Bono's numbers -- I can't find any documentation to support them.
Replacing Lent with 40 Days of Purpose
I'm no fan of Rick Warren, but before any more people complain about churches replacing Lent with 40 Days of Purpose, I'll ask them to kindly show me where in the Bible the God ordains, establishes, or even suggests the institution of Lent.
Not that I approve of such activity, I'm just saying that Lent is rooted in tradition, not the solid rock of Scriptural authority. That tradition may be valuable for spiritual renewal, but it isn't a sacrament ordered by God's Word.
Not that I approve of such activity, I'm just saying that Lent is rooted in tradition, not the solid rock of Scriptural authority. That tradition may be valuable for spiritual renewal, but it isn't a sacrament ordered by God's Word.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
WeddingBlogging
Jeff has a created a wedding blog to celebrate his upcoming nuptials. Congrats, Jeff.
And now, after fourteen months of marriage, I offer what advice I can on the art of marriage and weddings:
1. Make a habit of frequently nodding and saying "Uh-huh", because you will often find that your wife is talking to you. It's important that it looks like you're listening.
2. It is always a good time to tell your wife that you love her. Always.
3. Women do this laundry thing differently: whites, colors, warm, and cold. Four different loads, sixteen possible permutations. Learn them before you ruin three of Amy's sweaters in one week.
4. If your wife is not a morning person, do not attempt to convert her. Results will be painful (to you).
5. If possible, get a key to the chapel, in case the church custodian forgets to show up on the day of the wedding and let you in.
6. Remember that weird uncle that you met when you were five and haven't seen since? If you don't send him an invitation, he will be very upset with you, and so will your parents who will be scandalized by your insensitivity.
Write your own advice for Jeff in the comments.
And now, after fourteen months of marriage, I offer what advice I can on the art of marriage and weddings:
1. Make a habit of frequently nodding and saying "Uh-huh", because you will often find that your wife is talking to you. It's important that it looks like you're listening.
2. It is always a good time to tell your wife that you love her. Always.
3. Women do this laundry thing differently: whites, colors, warm, and cold. Four different loads, sixteen possible permutations. Learn them before you ruin three of Amy's sweaters in one week.
4. If your wife is not a morning person, do not attempt to convert her. Results will be painful (to you).
5. If possible, get a key to the chapel, in case the church custodian forgets to show up on the day of the wedding and let you in.
6. Remember that weird uncle that you met when you were five and haven't seen since? If you don't send him an invitation, he will be very upset with you, and so will your parents who will be scandalized by your insensitivity.
Write your own advice for Jeff in the comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
