07/09/2006: Al Mohler, in his latest blog, reflects on Peter Berkowitz’s assessment of the direction of the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), and its implications for Christians.
Berkowitz, from a legal standpoint, is right on the money. SCOTUS, since the 1960s–arguably before then–has been moving in the direction of individual freedoms with respect to issues tied to sexuality. The decisions regarding contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut), abortion (Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, Planned Parenthood v. Akron Ohio, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey), and homosexuality (Lawrence v. Texas) seem to follow a consistent pattern, irrespective of the other quagmires they create.
Berkowitz also points out [correctly] that SCOTUS is prepared to legalize gay marriage. The arguments against it–from a pure legal standpoint–are weak. The argument advanced by many conservatives–we cannot have gay marriage because heterosexual marriage is a long-engrained historical institution of civilization–carries no weight. (The same, after all, could be said for slavery.)
I’m not trying to defend gay marriage–from a Biblical standpoint, I’m against it–but if you toss the Judeo-Christian foundation out the window, which we have, then anything goes.
In his assessment of Berkowitz, Mohler has this to say:
At this point the Christian worldview offers a much-needed corrective. The Bible grounds human freedom not in a sweeping claim of human autonomy, but in the fact that human beings are made in the image of God. Thus, the biblical concept of freedom comes with limits set from the very beginning by our Creator. We are not given the right, as Anthony Kennedy so sweepingly expressed, to define our own concept of existence “and of the mystery of human life.”
Peter Berkowitz’s analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the culture’s commitment to an ever-expanding understanding of freedom should help Christians to think seriously about the true nature of freedom and its limitations. His article will certainly inform the way we understand today’s cultural conflicts over issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage–but it should also serve as a catalyst for how we should understand a Christian description of human freedom. As this article makes clear, we now face two rival visions of human freedom and its meaning. The future of our culture depends upon which vision shapes the policies of the future.
Sadly, this is where Mohler is right, but futile.
Fact is, even conservative Christians are not on the same page with respect to the Scriptures, human freedom, and government’s role in our lives.
I tend to be more libertarian–I want all states completely out of the marriage licensing racket altogether, and want issues such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research to be taken away from the federal government and resolved by citizens in the several states.
On the other hand, many conservative Christians–such as Mohler and D. James Kennedy–probably differ with me on that matter, preferring a strong federal government with respect to these issues.
I tend to look at federal government as too large and bloated and a continuous usurper of our freedoms: if all these issues must be resolved at the federal level, then relying on five SCOTUS votes leaves us with tenuous freedoms indeed. On the other hand, many conservative Christians look to federal government to resolve the great issues of the day.
I guess the larger question is this: Is the Church prepared to address these issues among Her own ranks?
I’d be interested to know what Dr. Mohler has to say to that effect.
Captain Ed Weighs in on John Edwards’ Campaign
07/09/2006: I’ve always considered John Edwards a snake-oil salesman. He is a slick ambulance chaser who sweet-talked his way into one Senate term in 1998. He ran on the Kerry ticket, but he had no chance of winning re-election to the Senate.
Today, Captain Ed had this to say regarding Johnny:
The good Captain also took aim at Edwards’ rantings on poverty, which is a classic neocommie class warfare. Captain Ed points out Census Bureau statistics to refute Edwards. I decided to show more years.
This yields the following results:
Using these numbers, we would have to conclude that Reagan was the most compassionate President since 1968, with Clinton a close second. Nixon-Ford would also receive high marks, while Dubya and Carter are tied at +1%, and Bush 41 is the least compassionate of the bunch.
That is not to say that Carter did not care about the poor; in fact, his work for Habitat for Humanity shows otherwise. Nor is this to say that Clinton was more compassionate than Carter.
Clinton was the recipient of great timing while Bush 41 and Carter inherited recessions. I would also make the case that Bush 41 did an exceptional job during the recession of 1990-1991, in that he held the line on spending. That created a fertile ground for the recovery of the 1990s.
Reagan’s pro-growth policies were also revolutionary, as he was the first President to challenge the Keynesian paradigm. He was successful.
Dubya, on the other hand, inherited what should have been Great Depression II. Given that the stock markets lost $8 trillion in equity in the dot-com bust, coupled with the aftermath of 9/11–and we managed not to slide into a severe recession or depression–we can credit Bush for doing something right. With the exception of his spending record, he has done an otherwise decent job.
To illustrate the effect of timing, I’ll list the Presidential records chronologically:
Notice that the Nixon-Ford administration was followed by a rise in the poverty rate. Some of that was beyond Carter’s control. In fact, in Reagan’s first term, the poverty rate went up two tenths a percentage, then started a strong downward trend that continued until he left office.
Then, Bush was left with the recession that was also more cyclical than anything else. The poverty rate increased substantially during that time, but the economy was already in recovery when Clinton took office in 1994. To Clinton’s credit, he did little rock the boat, and embraced some prudent policies by expanding free trade. However, the dot-com bubble expanded and started bursting in 2000.
Bush 43, in turn, inherited a stock market that was already in freefall, and 9/11 would hit eight months into his first term. The tax cuts have helped, and the economy has otherwise recovered from the brink of a severe recession.
However, the high deficits are putting too much downward pressure on the dollar, and this has forced Bernanke to use open market activities to raise interest rates in order to stave off inflation.
Ergo, the verdict on Dubya is pending.
At any rate, the statistics clearly show that Edwards has little ammunition in his neo-Marxist class warfare campaign.
He is in fact demonstrating the woeful lack of substance that limited him to one Senate term and the bottom half of a failed Presidential ticket.