It took a jazz trio to help me understand Justice Sunday II.
Earlier today as I was driving home from the airport, digesting the events of the night before, when I slipped The Bad Plus’ “These Are The Vistas” into my CD player. One of my favorite tracks on the CD is a cover of Nirvana’s “Smell’s Like Teen Spirit”, a remarkable reinterpretation that retains the intensity of the original while adding an underlying tinge of melancholy.
I remembered hearing that what made the trio’s version different from a standard cover by a rock band was not just the instruments they used but that they started with the sheet music rather than a sound recording. Starting with the original text allowed them the freedom to pick and choose which musical themes to highlight and which to mute.
That’s when it hit me that JS2 was doing something very similar. The event was a blend of religion and politics that is both comparable to the model historically found in the “black church”* and yet strikingly different. As the Bishop Harry Jackson told blogger Trey Jackson in a taped interview**, black congregations have always received political views from behind the pulpit. Politics and the black church have become almost inseparable and have been the impetus for many of the most beneficial changes in our country. As Florida state Representative Arthenia Joyner, a Tampa Democrat, claims, "Every historical movement in this country is rooted in black churches."
Why then does it feel so strange when white evangelicals bring politics into the church?
Part of the reason is that we have bought into the sacred/secular dichotomy, believing that while Christians should be involved in the political process and should let our religious beliefs influence our views, it is a primarily secular activity that is subordinate to the Gospel. (Black evangelicals, in contrast, tend to see such activity – especially standing against injustice – as an indispensable part of proclaiming the Gospel.)
Another reason is that unlike in the black community, we believe that pastors should have a limited political role. In his book “In, But Not Of", Hugh Hewitt has a chapter titled “Either a Player or a Pastor Be – But You Can’t Be Both” in which he advises would-be pastors to stay out of the political arena. Hewitt notes that because they often lack the requisite experience or credentials that, “A preacher has next to zero credibility on any issue of politics or public policy outside his own congregation.” Black leaders, however, would likely argue that their own congregations are precisely the ones that need to be influenced. And it is hard to dispute the fact that white evangelicals are often more concerned with gaining political influence or establishing credibility outside the church than they are with educating their own congregations.
This is one of the primary reasons that so many people – including me – initially misunderstood the purpose of JS2. The event was broadcast into 79 million households in 50 states and was shown live via satellite in many churches across the country. It is doubtful, though, that too many non-evangelicals would bother to watch the telecast. Measured on the criteria of gaining political influence or establishing credibility outside the church, the event would likely be a dismal failure. But the event wasn’t designed to influence the mythical “moderate middle” of “undecided voters”; it was designed as a sermon for the choir.
The basic model for the event was not unlike what could be found in many black churches for the past forty years. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine that the JS2 would have attracted as much criticism had it been comprised of predominantly black church leaders. What exactly accounts for that hesitancy to criticize politics in black congregation? The fact that most black voters still side with the Democratic Party – the home of the most outspoken critics of the mingling of religion and politics – obviously causes many of the critics to hold their tongues. But more importantly, the critics, particularly those on the left, who think that religious people should stay out of politics don’t take the black churches seriously. They know they can tolerate conservative black congregations speaking out against such issues as homosexual marriage because they know that it will have little real impact. Black voters, after all, hold almost no national political influence outside the Democratic Party.
White evangelicals, on the other hand, pose a considerable threat. If we were to actually mobilize our congregations en masse then the political influence that such a monolith could bring to bear on the political scene and on a particular political party would be daunting. (This is not to say that evangelicals – whether white, black, or any other color – should use the church for political purposes. But we do need to reconsider the way in which we might use political means to carry out the functions of the Gospel, task such as protecting the poor and vulnerable from injustice. )
For many evangelicals, Justice Sunday II was a familiar song reinterpreted in an unfamiliar way. Some of the notes were in harmony with the Gospel, others were discordant, and a few merely fell flat. But we need to do more than just dismiss the event completely or to embrace it uncritically. We need to develop a more comprehensive, biblically-informed theology of politics within the church. Most importantly, we need to be consistent in determining what is acceptable for the entire body of evangelical believers rather than having standards for “white churches” that differ from those of “black churches.” Even when we may not be able to agree politically, we should never be divided by the color bar.
* It is an unfortunate historical reality that a self-imposed segregation continues to separate the American church along color lines. My use of the term “black church” is meant only to reflect this reality and should not be used as an inference that I endorse or condone such separation. I pray, like all Christians should, that someday our church will not be able to be divided along racial lines.
** Hopefully, Trey will soon have clips of the interview with this extraordinary pastor.
1
I think that this was largely a misguided idea. Such an unprecedented gathering of "big-name" Christians and it was centered (no matter what the reason) on politics.
Better such a gathering should become a regular event for the purpose of reiterating Christ's message for the body, encouraging the making of disciples and support of the Church far and wide, and deep, passionate prayer.
A good grounding in the ways of Christ would go a very long way in helping Christians understand their role in society.
posted on 08.16.2005 6:37 AM2
If it were evangelicals preaching to evangelicals, your point would be more valid, although I understand you are speaking generally to the aim of JS2. But politicians and those preaching a different gospel stood behind the pulpit.
If it was a sermon intended for the choir, then why did we not have a prophet of the living God deliver that sermon? Instead, it was a political message aimed at a political base that happens to be white evangelicals.
3
Joe said: (W)e do need to reconsider the way in which we might use political means to carry out the functions of the Gospel, task such as protecting the poor and vulnerable from injustice.
You are making a distinction between using political means for Gospel ends and using religious means for political ends, but the Left cannot see the difference. I think that's because politics is the religion of the Left; it is their hope of salvation. It follows then, that they instinctively perceive Christianity as a competing religion, which is why they oppose us at every turn.
posted on 08.16.2005 8:03 AM4
I don't blame some evangelicals for looking to Jesse Jackson as a model....after all I think he did actually win one election once (Washington DC) which is more than we can say for Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.
On the other hand Jackson has never won a national election or even a serious nomination in his party. Do black churches mix politics with religion? I have gone to black churches even less than regular churches but my guess is that their mixture of politics and religion is a function solely of the fact that support for the Democratic party in black communities is nearly universal (over 70%, sometimes even 90%). On issues where there is likely to be significant disagreement (such as a local mayors race) I suspect black pastors may downplay religion.
Yes black churches were on the forefront of fighting real injustice but this was because injustice was being directed at the black community. In a different way nearly all Churches stepped up after 9/11 which was an injustice directed against the US.
What evangelicals should note, however, is that many blacks take their preachers with a grain of salt. A character like Al Sharpton puts on a great show BUT many do not follow him blindly. Unlike most white communities, black America is one place that values public speaking and rhetoric. However you should note that the black speaker has been lampooned many, many times by blacks. Especially the image of the crass, attention seeking, influence hungry preacher in the expensive suit always ready with a rhyming arguments that do not stand up to logical analysis. While blacks may respect preachers they also look at them with critical eyes and do not follow them blindly. In fact, from what little I know of black churches (I apologize for speaking so much on a subject I have little direct knowledge of), the competition and politics inside of them can be brutal. If you want to rise to the top of a black church the road is as challenging as if you want to be on top in the world of music or sports. There's nothing wrong with a preacher who also plays baseball, but he has to know how to catch! If evangelicals want to enter politics they are subject to the same criticisms as everyone else. I suspect this pining for the mix of politics in black churches is a case of the grass looking greener on the other side.
posted on 08.16.2005 8:35 AM5
Jim Gilbert's quote: You are making a distinction between using political means for Gospel ends and using religious means for political ends, but the Left cannot see the difference. I think that's because politics is the religion of the Left; it is their hope of salvation. It follows then, that they instinctively perceive Christianity as a competing religion, which is why they oppose us at every turn.
Jim, wow, this is a profound statement. I read it and did a double take...you are exactly right!
***
Joe: Great post. Your suggestion that "white" churches have a struggle with the sacred/secular dichotomy is the key issue.
Christ teaches us to take up our cross. This is not a part time proposition...it is a lifestyle. And, when Christ and his cross become your lifestyle, then you tend to get active when the business of the Gospel is at hand—politically, socially, locally—you tend to get active.
6
We do need a biblical theology of politics within the church. But first we need a substantivie biblical theology of being the church. I don't think the Christian Right has such a theology or (theologies) any more.
posted on 08.16.2005 9:17 AM7
Joe,
Thanks! This was excellent event coverage, and this latest post has given me a lot to think about. I hope you had fun in the sunny South.
posted on 08.16.2005 10:57 AM8
The problem with mixing religion and politics too much is where it ultimately leads. Either religion or politics can be divisive enough alone. When combined, they can be an exceptionally dangerous combination.
So the challenge is to act on your religious convictions without cramming your religion down others' throats.
posted on 08.16.2005 12:12 PM9
I still stand convicted that a thorough education in Christ will set a much better foundation for the decision making processes of daily life. Yes, specific education may still be required, but if you know what Christ ahs to say about human life, and you are taught to think like a Berean, no one has to tell you the answer to the question of embryonic stem cell usage, abortion or if these issues should take precedence over the impact a candidate will have on your finances.
Plus, I wish we could say "the American church" or "The Mexican church", going by location rather than the color of the people who gather inside that particular body.
Imagine a Bible where instead of the book of Romans, we instead had the book of "Blacks", and instead of Ephesians we'd have "Whites".
Would anybody of a different skin color think that those books had anything to do with them?
posted on 08.16.2005 12:49 PM10
Why then does it feel so strange when white evangelicals bring politics into the church?Part of the reason is that we have bought into the sacred/secular dichotomy, believing that while Christians should be involved in the political process and should let our religious beliefs influence our views, it is a primarily secular activity that is subordinate to the Gospel. (Black evangelicals, in contrast, tend to see such activity – especially standing against injustice – as an indispensable part of proclaiming the Gospel.)
First of all, the reason black preachers receive more approval when they involve themselves in politics is simply because of the history of black Americans in our country. Did white Evangelical Christians in the United States experience slavery and segregation and prejudice, of which elements still last to this day?" Do they have comparable injustices and suffering in their history? At least in this country? For most Evangelicals I think not. So when a black preacher speaks about injustice, he is respected simply because has more experience and moral authority on the subject of injustice than most Evangelical preachers. It's not about race, it's about experience. Did anyone criticize Pope John Paul when he involved himself in the politics of his native country of Poland?
It's the background of first-hand experience with prejudice and suppression of the freedom of religion that counts. And Evangelicals simply don't have that experience. The Supreme court has not limited your own personal right to practice your religion in any way.
Part of the sacred/secular dichotomy that you have bought into but do not seem to realize, is the notion that secularism is both a religion in and of itself and that it is a religion in competition with, and therefore an enemy of, Christianity. This is how secular ideas are being treated by Evangelicals are they not?
What is not acknowledged, or even understood perhaps, are the ways in which secular principles has protected and even encouraged Christianity in this country. The founding fathers of our country clearly understood this. It's unfortunate that so many Christians don't read their writings anymore. Otherwise Evangelicals might be more cautious in the way that they are proceeding.
Some of their goals, such as to protect unborn children, are laudable, others, such as the Christian Homosexual Agenda, are not. Either way, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. They seem intent on marching merrily down that road. I do not think that most Christians want to see the Church become State. But it is in that direction that they are pushing in order to achieve their objectives. But what happens if they achieve all goals? Where does it stop? It's not just other American's civil liberties you are trampling on in this quest. It's your own liberty as well. Most especially the freedom to practice your religion as you see fit, rather than having others decide that for you. God may have granted you these rights, but it is secular practices and ideas that protect those rights. You get rid of them at your own peril.
posted on 08.16.2005 1:08 PM11
Patrick:A minor nit:
So when a black preacher speaks about injustice, he is respected simply because has more experience and moral authority on the subject of injustice than most Evangelical preachers.I think this should read that he is respected simply because he is perceived to have more experience and moral authority. Doubtless, in many cases he does, but this isn't universally true.
What is not acknowledged, or even understood perhaps, are the ways in which secular principles [have] protected and even encouraged Christianity in this country.Agreed, wholeheartedly. I've long argued that the US remains among the most devout Western nations precisely because of its strict separation of religion and government, rather than in spite of it, as many religion-in-government proponents would argue. And I'm far from the first to have this thought. Count Madison among them.
The founding fathers of our country clearly understood this.I'm not so sure they understood it as such, and they were far from unanimous on the matter. However, they did know very keenly that where religion and government mix, it is generally to the detriment of both; and most of them had seen firsthand what can happen when the state uses the church for a bully pulpit, or when the church gets to use the power of the state to bend people to its will. Neither are pretty.
I agree, however, that many modern evangelicals seem to have forgotten these lessons, if they ever knew them at all. They also forget that while they are probably the most vocal minority, they're still a minority. The largest religious group in the US remains the Catholics (24.5% of Americans, and 32% of Christians), and if anything that number should go up as more people from hispanic cultures emigrate to the US. Last I checked, there isn't much love between most Catholics and self-described evangelicals. The next-largest group is the Baptists (16.3% of total, 21.4% of Christians), some of whom seem to consider themselves evangelicals, but not enough to put them anywhere near majority standing. The groupings drop precipitously after that.
So if these evangelicals got their way, and got a more "Christian-influenced" government, at least at the state level, what they'd most likely wind up with is pockets of Catholic and Baptist "rule." That may seem like a better alternative to them than the current secularism, but I doubt they'd be very happy with either.
ome of their goals, such as to protect unborn children, are laudableMitigated to some extent by their apathy toward already-born children. (Seriously, think of how many evangelicals you see prominently stumping for improved health care and education for underprivileged children, and compare this to how many you see stumping for criminalization of abortion and birth control.)
In a similar vein, what strikes me as ironic about events like JS and JSII is that they purport to rail against "judicial activism," when in fact what they want is something entirely different. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, they want judicial impotence. That is, they don't want justices to be able to override what the majority wants, even when that does run counter to the Constitution.
But the cynic in me says it's worse than that. What they really want is to replace what they perceive as anti-religion activist judges with pro-religion activist judges. In other words, they specifically want activist judges on the bench; just activists with whom they agree.
posted on 08.16.2005 1:41 PM12
tgirsch, you said: The problem with mixing religion and politics too much is where it ultimately leads. Either religion or politics can be divisive enough alone. When combined, they can be an exceptionally dangerous combination.
You clearly see religion and politics as separate subsets in life, whereas the worldview Joe constantly promotes (and it is mine too) is that all of life is "religious," i.e., spiritual. Politics is inherently religious, as are education and business, two other subjects we're often told should not be mixed with religion. But my paradigm says they cannot be UNmixed. If God is Creator of all, then His rule must permeate all. God's rule, however, should not be confused with church rule (more accurately called ecclesiocracy than theocracy), which definitely should remain a separate jurisdiction from civil government.
In other words they are separately functioning spheres, but each is accountable to God. Thus the church has a right to "prophesy" truth to civil rulers, just as civil government has the right enforce the law, both within their legitimate authority. (Obviously I believe that authority derives from Scripture.)
Furthermore, since church officers and civil rulers continue to enjoy individual rights, church officers can vote and civil servants can go to church. And while Scripture does not prohibit a citizen from holding office in both spheres--e.g., a mayor who's also a Presbyterian elder--the matter does get sticky when loyalties are divided, or worse, when duties conflict.
Of course all that doesn't bother the Left when Jesse runs, but just let Ted Haggard declare his candidacy and howls of "theocracy" will surely follow.
In your longer comment to Patrick, you referred to: (Evangelicals') apathy toward already-born children. (Seriously, think of how many evangelicals you see prominently stumping for improved health care and education for underprivileged children, and compare this to how many you see stumping for criminalization of abortion and birth control.)
In this regard you seem to know as little about us as Boonton admits to knowing about "black" churches. Evangelicals are in the very forefront of adoption and adoption assistance services. But just because we do not see civil government as the proper provider of "improved health care and education for underprivileged children" does not mean we are callous in this regard.
And for the record it is Roman Catholics who oppose birth control, while Evangelicals want to criminalize abortifacients such as RU-486, which we consider an instrument of homicide, not birth control. Please don't spin your terms.
Joe speaks with such high regard for you, Tom, that I know you aren't merely taking potshots. I only wish that the fruit of Evangelicals' compassion were obvious enough to you to be beyond question. Alas, this little comment box won't accommodate that desire. But Providence can. (Cue soft music in background.)
13
I should add that the church also has a right to "prophesy" truth to citizens willing to listen, including the morality or immorality of politicians' positions and party platforms. If that turns a pulpit into a bully pulpit, so be it. Free speech rules.
The secularist answer to this has been to politicize virtually all of life and then declare that religious people should stay out of politics. Easy solution. Leaves Shirley MacClaine free to hang out on her limb, and Ted Kennedy to deal with "political" matters, i.e., anything to do with practical living. New Agers and the Political Left thus become symbiotic partners, which is why I think they align themselves.
posted on 08.16.2005 3:15 PM14
First of all, the reason black preachers receive more approval when they involve themselves in politics is simply because of the history of black Americans in our country. Did white Evangelical Christians in the United States experience slavery and segregation and prejudice, of which elements still last to this day?" Do they have comparable injustices and suffering in their history? At least in this country? For most Evangelicals I think not. So when a black preacher speaks about injustice, he is respected simply because has more experience and moral authority on the subject of injustice than most Evangelical preachers. It's not about race, it's about experience. Did anyone criticize Pope John Paul when he involved himself in the politics of his native country of Poland?
A great point. Plus when some conservatives try to equate the estate tax or the Ten Commandments brouhaha with actual tyranny the effect is to make them look silly and sheltered.
Part of the sacred/secular dichotomy that you have bought into but do not seem to realize, is the notion that secularism is both a religion in and of itself and that it is a religion in competition with, and therefore an enemy of, Christianity. This is how secular ideas are being treated by Evangelicals are they not?
It is? What are its tenants? What are its doctrines? Are there orthodox secularists? Different sects of secularists?
Some of their goals, such as to protect unborn children, are laudable, others, such as the Christian Homosexual Agenda, are not.
Is this different from the Homosexual Agenda(tm)?
Evangelicals are in the very forefront of adoption and adoption assistance services. But just because we do not see civil government as the proper provider of "improved health care and education for underprivileged children" does not mean we are callous in this regard.
So Evangelicals cannot support, say, a single payer healthcare system such as is found in most European countries and Canada? Are British evangelicals who do not support changing their system over to the American system heretics? I suppose you have scripture references to support this as well? Or are you just saying it is ok to be evangelical AND have a more Ayn Randian view of health economics?
posted on 08.16.2005 3:49 PM15
I have a bit of a problem with the white evangelical concept of justice: it's just as narrow as their concept of the Gospel, and as influenced by the hellbound world system as their current methods of evangelism.
The Gospel preached by Jesus and the Apostles was not the limited "good news" of personal salvation, although salvation is an integral part of the Gospel. Jesus preached, taught and demonstrated the Kingdom of God -- the ever-increasing manifestation of God's rule on earth through His sons (begotten and adopted). He did not depend on logic and rhetoric to persuade people of the correctness of His propositions -- He depended on the Spirit of God working with Him to demonstrate God's approval of the message.
The Apostles, trained and commissioned by their Master to go into all the world and preach the (same) good news, did exactly that -- and used the same methods. They addressed health care by the most direct means possible -- the power of the Holy Spirit.
There would be no need, if the Church actually believed, preached and practiced the Gospel, for a debate on health care. "Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church....."
posted on 08.16.2005 3:51 PM16
Tgirsch
Hey, I speak with high regard too. I think you crossed a line you didn't want to cross:
Giving them the benefit of the doubt, they want judicial impotence. That is, they don't want justices to be able to override what the majority wants, even when that does run counter to the Constitution.No, not just evangelicals, but conservatives (and good ole T Jefferson) do not want the constitution "turned into a blank sheet of paper by construction". Kelo is a good case in point on takings. Or the ruling that allowed the Commerce Clause to stop states from legalizing medical marijuana. The Constitution, and its amendments, say what they say. When in doubt, there are ways to find out what the authors of a particular section were trying to accomplish. The Constitution is not a "living document" in the sense that anyone can interpret in any year in anyway they see fit. The Constitution is living because it can be amended by a legislative process by representatives elected by the citizens. It should not be amended by the courts. However, it has been interesting to listen to the left scream over Kelo and medical marijuana - now that judicial activism has gored their bull.
Mitigated to some extent by their apathy toward already-born children. (Seriously, think of how many evangelicals you see prominently stumping for improved health care and education for underprivileged children, and compare this to how many you see stumping for criminalization of abortion and birth control.)Christians, including evangelicals, dig deep and do deep in providing social services to the poor, etc. That conservatives do not believe that government, especially the federal government (farther from the problem) is the best provider of services, does not indicate the much. If you returned the tax dollars spent on social services to the tax payers, I would bet dollars to donuts that a GREAT DEAL MORE, per capita, would return from Christians, including evangelicals, to NGO poverty and child service programs by donation than from secular America. And a much greater percentage of the dollars spent would get to the needy (rather than eaten in bureauacracy). Christians have always been first in these lines.
However, I know you and I agree that there are things that will help make abortion go away - probably faster than repealing Roe. [see this article by pro-life lawyer KURT ENTSMINGER; Pregnancy centers' higher value]. That is simply because there is an almost perfect 50/50 split between people who believe abortion is wrong except in the typical life of mother, rape and incest cases; and those that do not. The repeal of Roe will add more heat, and not light, to this issue. New York and California alone account for 400,000 abortions a year - and Roe going away will not lead to abortion being illegal in those states.
If we want abortion to go, we have to educate people, and enable them, to make it UNCHOSEN. That implies sex education (and birth control education), including abstinance, at the high school level. [You are right, conservative Christians WOULD fight most of this]. It implies ethical education in the schools on the whole issue of killing (and not just fetuses) [secular folk would fight this]. It implies making sure that mothers have the medical, social and emotional support they need to carry to term instead of aborting. Whether that is done as an outpouring of Churches and individuals through NGO's, or as a government program, is really irrelevant to me.
All of this will not be supported by everyone (but all of it must be done); but if people really want abortion to go away they must realize that morals must be felt and believed, and not just legislated, to be effective deterrents to sin.
posted on 08.16.2005 4:25 PM17
Jim:
But my paradigm says they cannot be UNmixed.See, but this underscores the pickle I'm talking about. In your worldview, there's no room for "you do things your way, and I'll do them mine" type of compromises. Anyone who does not share your worldview simply cannot be compromised with. Ultimately, they must be converted to your view or eliminated.
Thus the church has a right to "prophesy" truth to civil rulers, just as civil government has the right enforce the law, both within their legitimate authority.That's reasonable enough, but this seems to contradict what you say above. And you start to hit a conflict of interest when the church "prophesy" is given some special legal weight by the supposedly-civil authority. Which seems to be what JS supporters ultimately want. Some seem to be willing to tolerate freedom of religion, just so long as their religion is widely recognized and advocted as the "preferred" one.
[Threadjack]
Evangelicals are in the very forefront of adoption and adoption assistance services. But just because we do not see civil government as the proper provider of "improved health care and education for underprivileged children" does not mean we are callous in this regard.What has adoption assistance got to do with health care? There are millions of American children without sufficient (or often any) health care, none of whom were aborted. And I'm not saying that evangelicals don't care about this, or that they don't do anything about it. What I am saying is that you don't see them making anywhere near the fuss over this that they do over things like abortion and icky sodomites and so forth. It may be on the priority list, but from all outward appearances, it doesn't appear to be very high on the list. Perceived injustice towards unborn children seems to be of far greater importance to evangelicals that injustice towards children who are already here. If the government isn't the appropriate way to fix this problem, then evangelicals should be loudly proclaiming what the right way actually is. But I rarely if ever hear that. Instead they seem far more interested in gays and abortions. That's all I'm saying.
(And the gay thing, really puzzles me. Are gays really a more pressing problem than childhood poverty?)
And for the record it is Roman Catholics who oppose birth control, while Evangelicals want to criminalize abortifacients such as RU-486, which we consider an instrument of homicide, not birth control. Please don't spin your terms.#1, I didn't mean to suggest that only evangelicals oppose birth control, or even that all of them do.
#2, it's more accurate to say that the Roman Catholic Church opposes birth control; most American Catholics ignore this teaching of their church.
#3, Many Christians, including Baptists, for example, consider most methods of birth control to be abortifacents, including the pill and IUDs. (Baptists, in fact, even reject abstinence as a method of birth control; within marriage, failure to act on your God-given sexual urges is tantamout to denying God's will.) The only acceptable methods of birth control, to baptists, are condoms, diaphragms, cremes, sterilization (which is odd, because I don't see how this doesn't also deny God's will -- if God didn't want you to reproduce, wouldn't He naturally make you sterile?), and the widely-reviled "rhythm method." The point stands that Christians in general and evangelicals (and, yes, strict Catholics and Baptists) in particular are likely to oppose even mainstream methods of birth control such as the pill.
Joe speaks with such high regard for you, Tom, that I know you aren't merely taking potshots.Well, maybe a little. :) We all have our weak moments. That said, though, I will point out logical and ethical inconsistencies where I see them, and expect no less from others here when they view my arguments.
I only wish that the fruit of Evangelicals' compassion were obvious enough to you to be beyond question.Me, too, actually. But this actually brings up another problem of the tight coupling of religion and politics: by associating themselves too much with the Republican party, neutral observers tend to conflate evangelical Christianity and Republicanism, and start to associate some of the decidedly un-Christian policies of the GOP (wars of choice, economic policies which primarily benefit the wealthy, capital punishment, etc.) with evangelical Christianity itself.
[/Threadjack]
Sorry for the threadjack there.
posted on 08.16.2005 4:26 PM18
I should add that the church also has a right to "prophesy" truth to citizens willing to listen, including the morality or immorality of politicians' positions and party platforms. If that turns a pulpit into a bully pulpit, so be it. Free speech rules.That's certainly allowable within reason. Churches can (and should) rail against policies which they find abhorrent. But they cross a line when they specifically rail for or against a particular party or candidate.
They cross an even bigger line when they rail against issues selectively to favor one candidate over another, as the Catholic Church did to Kerry in 2004. They made a huge fuss about the fact that he's pro-choice, while the Church is pro-life, but said nothing at all about the fact that the Church opposes capital punishment, which Kerry also opposes, and Bush supports. The Church would have been far more credible to rail against both of those perceived injustices, instead of focusing on one to the exclusion of the other.
The secularist answer to this has been to politicize virtually all of life and then declare that religious people should stay out of politics.I disagree with this assessment, and in fact I think you've got it exactly backward. It is the Christians who have tried to inject Christianity into politics and object when anyone cries foul. Witness the "In God We Trust" and "Under God" incidents of the 1950's, or the more recent Ten Commandments display flaps. Nobody can seriously argue that any of these things were non-political until secularists somehow decided to politicize them.
For another contemporary example, look at science education. The ID movement is not an example of secularists trying to politicize education to remove God from it; it's an example of (primarily, but not exclusively) evangelicals trying to politicize education to insert God into it. The Discovery Institute is a political organization, and it is so for a reason. They cannot advance ID through legitimate scientific channels, so they're using politics, PR, and marketing to circumvent those channels entirely.
Now I'm sure you can probably think of some examples where it has worked the other way, but this is beside the point. The point is that it's not exclusively secularists using politics to do away with religion. (And if it were, I'd have to say they've been doing a piss-poor job of it.)
posted on 08.16.2005 4:35 PM19
Tgirsch
The ID movement is not an example of secularists trying to politicize education to remove God from it; it's an example of (primarily, but not exclusively) evangelicals trying to politicize education to insert God into it. The Discovery Institute is a political organization, and it is so for a reason. They cannot advance ID through legitimate scientific channels, so they're using politics, PR, and marketing to circumvent those channels entirely.I think you are generally right here; but the Discovery Institute is not particularly the problem. The opposed teaching ID in Pennsylvania schools; and have generally only sought to keep Darwinism and neo-Darwinism from being taught as "done deal" and "beyond a doubt" mechanisms for explaining evolution. From Discovery Institute Opposes Proposed PA Bill on Intelligent Design :
. . . intelligent design is a relatively new theory, and it is important to allow scientific discussion of the theory to proceed unhampered by political or legal disputes. In our judgment, attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively. We therefore do not think it is appropriate to mandate the theory of intelligent design in public schools . . . we encourage you to make clear to teachers and school districts that they have the right to inform students about scientific criticisms of Darwinian theory as well as the evidence supporting Darwinian theoryMichael Behe is on record as believing in common descent; and as to Darwinian explanations being proven:
"This is why scientists call universal common descent the "fact of evolution". As explained in the introduction, none of the predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred; nevertheless, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether Darwinism, Lamarckism (i.e. inheritance of acquired characaters), or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change" -- Douglas Theobold, =29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.(posted at Talk Origins).There is plenty of politicing to go around on this subject (hence your view of Discovery Institute's view) posted on 08.16.2005 5:15 PM
20
JCHFleetguy:
No, not just evangelicals, but conservatives (and good ole T Jefferson) do not want the constitution "turned into a blank sheet of paper by construction".Well, to an extent this is true, to an extent, not so much. People tend to bend and warp the Constitution irrespective of their particular slant. Scalia is regarded to be as Constitutionally conservative as they come, but just read some of his pained rulings sometimes when a straight reading of the Constitution and its amendments clashes with his personal preferences.
The Constitution, and its amendments, say what they say. When in doubt, there are ways to find out what the authors of a particular section were trying to accomplish.As to the former, maybe; as to the latter, not really. Appeals to "original intent" invariably wind up turning into historical fishing expeditions. The problem comes in when you have difficult-to-decipher passages, like the second amendment (and I say that as a generally pro-gun-rights guy), or when you have practices which aren't explicitly prohibited but have the same or similar effect as a prohibited practice (as with many church/state provisions). Still another problem, even subtler and more difficult, is when constitutional clauses come into conflict.
An example of this last is when, for example, an employer fires an employee because of his expressed political views. Which takes precedence? The individual freedom of speech, or the employer's freedom of association? Strict constructionism would dictate that the employer's free association takes precedence, because these rights are presumed to be protected only from government infringement. But most people, including most conservatives, take the opposite view of such a case.
Bottom line, these issues are not so cut and dry as you make them out to be, and the judiciary must play a role in this. To leave these decisions to legislative and executive bodies is to succumb to the tyranny of the majority.
[The Constitution] should not be amended by the courts.And my argument is that for the most part, it hasn't been. There are, of course, exceptions.
Oh, and by the way: Under a strict reading of the Constitution, the Kelo ruling went the correct way, even if not for the correct reasons. The fifth amendment says that when land is taken for public use, just compensation must be given. It says nothing at all about whether land can be taken for non-public use, or what must happen when it is. Any inference that non-public-use takings are prohibited have been read (or, if you prefer, "amended") into the Constitution by previous courts. So :p :)
Christians, including evangelicals, dig deep and do deep in providing social services to the poor, etc. That conservatives do not believe that government, especially the federal government (farther from the problem) is the best provider of services, does not indicate the much.Well, see these two statements help illuminate a problem. For better or for worse, evangelical Christians have allowed themselves to be tightly coupled, at least in the court of public opinion, with "conservative" politics. To an outside observer, there's virtually no such thing as a "liberal evangelical." Six months ago, I had no idea who Jim Wallis even was. This is precisely why the temptation to over-politicize religious movements should be resisted, in my opinion.
If you returned the tax dollars spent on social services to the tax payers, I would bet dollars to donuts that a GREAT DEAL MORE, per capita, would return from Christians, including evangelicals, to NGO poverty and child service programs by donation than from secular America.I don't doubt it (and at least one study confirms it), in large part because of the explicit religious affiliations of many such charities. But I'd bet you dollars to donuts that these donations, in total, wouldn't come close to replacing the government programs that were gutted.
Christians have always been first in these lines.Not according to that study, which says that which particular religion you are doesn't correspond to giving, only that you are religious in general. Admittedly, the study seems to ignore the majority of Americans, focusing instead on the devoutly religious and not-at-all religious, so that may skew the results quite a bit.
It implies ethical education in the schools on the whole issue of killing (and not just fetuses) [secular folk would fight this].I'm not so sure they would. It's been my experience that, at least in America, secularists are more likely to be anti-violence than Christians. (Ironically, in fact, conservative Christians tend to be the most pro-war, pro-capital punishment people I meet.) Admittedly, many secularists would object to including fetuses in the killing-is-usually-wrong thing.
Whether that is done as an outpouring of Churches and individuals through NGO's, or as a government program, is really irrelevant to me.Churches (or other private organizations) could be doing this right now, and they aren't. This tells me that if the government isn't going to do it, nobody will.
All of this will not be supported by everyone (but all of it must be done); but if people really want abortion to go away they must realize that morals must be felt and believed, and not just legislated, to be effective deterrents to sin.Again, we mostly agree here. Although we probably have somewhat different definitions of "morals." Nonetheless, there are in fact many effective ways to limit abortion, and criminalization isn't high on the list. On this, at least, we seem to agree. posted on 08.16.2005 5:23 PM
21
[The Discovery Institute] opposed teaching ID in Pennsylvania schoolsThanks, I did not know that. However, that doesn't change the fact that they are primarily a political/PR organization, or that they embrace Philip Johnson's "wedge" strategy. From the cynic's perpsective, this might even explain their opposition to the PA law: starting with too wide of a "wedge" would be counterproductive, and at this time, ID is too wide a wedge. Better to just start with casting doubt on evolution.
(It should be noted that I bring some baggage from another thread concerning the Discovery Institute; the fact that their list of fellows is dominated by people with political and PR backgrounds, and doesn't contain even a single biologist, makes me very suspicious of their credibility.)
There is plenty of politicing to go around on this subjectWell, true enough, but they started it. :) Seriously, once the issue got politicized (primarily by the Discovery Institute), opponents had to get political or lose. Those were the only two options. posted on 08.16.2005 5:35 PM
22
The above is to say that the Discovery Institute is to blame insofar as they were instrumental in opening the pandora's box of politicizing ID in the first place. There's some irony in them decrying its politicization now.
posted on 08.16.2005 5:37 PM23
tgirsh, you cannot "insert" God into education when He is already there. Paradigms again. Education is not apolitical to begin with.
You said earlier: In your worldview, there's no room for "you do things your way, and I'll do them mine" type of compromises. Anyone who does not share your worldview simply cannot be compromised with. Ultimately, they must be converted to your view or eliminated.
Quite the contrary, that very Old Testament made it clear that Israel (our ethical pattern) was to allow non-Jewish freedom of religious expression, short of breaking civil laws, such as throwing babies into fires to placate Molech. It was not secularist tolerance but Christian sensibilities that laid a foundation for religious tolerance in early America, as "doing unto others" in keeping with Christ's command was very important to a people who had fled the religious persecution of England.
I'd love to answer the rest, but I've got a supper date with my four-year old daughter. Tom, you probably could familiarize yourself much better with the positions I advocate, and most of which you misunderstand, by regularly attending your local Presbyterian (PCA) church for awhile. ;->
posted on 08.16.2005 5:41 PM24
"It was not secularist tolerance but Christian sensibilities that laid a foundation for religious tolerance in early America, as "doing unto others" in keeping with Christ's command was very important to a people who had fled the religious persecution of England."
Yup. Secularism grew from Christianity. But apparently its thought of as the bastard child.
25
Patrick, no secularism is not the child of Christianity; it was born--at least in America--as rebellion against the historical faith, aided by the importation of Enlightenment thinking by the Unitarians and Congregationalists who captured Harvard's religion chair in 1803.
posted on 08.16.2005 9:39 PM26
Tgirsch,
I think if you look closely at the famous Kansas debate you will find out that it was all about allowing Darwinism to be criticized, and not about teaching ID per se. In Kansas too, they didnt need Discovery to drive any politics - they had had a creation science curriculum kicked. I think in most cases (which is why I agreed with you) ID issues were pushed in schools by Christians who thought ID was a friend (it really isn't)
One thing I have found out in this debate is that you cannot trust ANYTHING that ANYBODY says about ANYTHING on the other side. You have to do original research. For instance, here is the the list of Fellows at the Discovery Institutes Center for Science and Culture (the ID wing). Some notables (all PhD's unless noted): Michael Behe, Biochemistry (LeHigh site, PubMed articles: enter search for Behe MJ); Stephen Meyer, Phil of science (that is what this is about) with undergrads in Physics (along with chemistry basis of evolution in biology) and geology; Paul Chien, Biology, Prof at Univ of SF; Jonathan Wells, Molecular and Cell Biology. Also: Demski, Mathematics; Gonzalez, Astronomy. That is just in the Senior Fellows. The hard scientists in the fellows: Bohlin, Biology; Bradley, Material Sciences; Kaita, Nuclear Physics; Kenyon, Biology; Forrest Mims(read this guy's bio); Schaeffer, Chemical Physics; Thaxton, Physical Chemistry w/post-doctoral wk in Molecular Biology.
The Discovery Institute helps fund ISCID which is the real science organization. Their fellows and an interesting thread on Coupled Mutations and Quantization of Functionality . Is this enough to realize some of these folk do know what the scientific method is; and didn't get their science out of Genesis.
Do not misunderstand me: I do not really think God will be found under a microscope; but I also haven't seen what these scientists think they have seen. The science will tell.
posted on 08.17.2005 1:49 AM27
Tgirsch,
A couple of points:
But I'd bet you dollars to donuts that these donations, in total, wouldn't come close to replacing the government programs that were gutted.Well of course you wouldn't have to replace them all - less waste on bureacracy. Remember, government programs are relatively new - especially federal ones. I have more faith in Americans stepping to the plate than you - despite having been trained to 60 years to have the government do their charity for them. I doubt enough people have enough faith to test this though.
Although we probably have somewhat different definitions of "morals."I doubt it actually; but this was a general statement on "legislating morality" and not a statement on a particular morality. Prohibiition and marijuana use were actually in my brain most. posted on 08.17.2005 2:02 AM
28
I think you are generally right here; but the Discovery Institute is not particularly the problem. The opposed teaching ID in Pennsylvania schools; and have generally only sought to keep Darwinism and neo-Darwinism from being taught as "done deal" and "beyond a doubt" mechanisms for explaining evolution. From Discovery Institute Opposes Proposed PA Bill on Intelligent Design :
Ironically ID advocates have talked their way out of this argument. They insist ID is a secular scientific theory (which is why they never fail to mention that the Designer of their theory need not necessarily be a diety). No one seriously advocates 'Darwinism' as a done deal or beyond doubt, it is advocated as the general consensus of the scientific community just as Einstein's Theory of Relativity is also part of that general consensus. There are numerous cranks with alternative theories and angry claims of persecution by the mainstream scientific community but the proper forum for their alternative theories is the scientific community, not grade schools or High Schools. Einstein didn't modify Newton's theories by going to the High School textbooks first, he went to the scientific community.
I think if you look closely at the famous Kansas debate you will find out that it was all about allowing Darwinism to be criticized, and not about teaching ID per se. In Kansas too, they didnt need Discovery to drive any politics - they had had a creation science curriculum kicked. I think in most cases (which is why I agreed with you) ID issues were pushed in schools by Christians who thought ID was a friend (it really isn't)
Really? Before the debate it was a crime to criticize Darwin in Kansas? How about Einstein? If I criticize him in Kansas will I be fined or go to jail because there's yet to be a debate about 'allowing Einstein to be criticized'?
The Constitution is living because it can be amended by a legislative process by representatives elected by the citizens. It should not be amended by the courts. However, it has been interesting to listen to the left scream over Kelo and medical marijuana - now that judicial activism has gored their bull.
Wait, I thought the right was screaming over Kelo? Regardless whether either of these rulings are 'judicial activism' is hardly clear. When a state or local gov't decides to take land for a 'public use' who makes the decision to do that? Elected officials make that decision. If Kelo had gone the other way the Court would have been restricting the power of the voters to elect officials to use the takings power to improve their neighborhoods. Likewise with medical marijuana. Who made the law that marijuana is illegal? Elected officials, that's who. If we take Schlafely seriously, legislatures could have ignored these rulings if they had gone the other way. Elected officials could declare they still had the power to take private land for 'public use' and John Ashcroft could declare that he would still arrest people using 'medical marijuana'.
I don't like the Kelo decision but I can appreciate its reasoning. The Constitution simply says private property taken for public use must be paid for with just compensation. Kelo didn't change that. What Kelo did address, though, was the fact that these days a lot of 'public use' seems ill thought out and designed more to benefit private interests (such as developers) rather than the traditional 'public uses' like roads, parks, etc. However some 'private use' has public aspects to it. For example, large shopping malls or even the World Trade Center was built in the fuzzy zone between private and public. Is it that unreasonable that the court ruled that voters shall decide on acceptable uses while the courts would limit themselves to simply making sure property owners receive just compensation?
The Constitution is living because some of it has purposefully been kept vague and unclear in order for it to be interpreted in light of a changing society. The prohibition on 'cruel and unusual punishment' is a case in point. The Tenth is another good case where it basically says the states and the people have rights above and beyond what was enumerated in the Constitution itself.
posted on 08.17.2005 9:43 AM29
Jim:
you cannot "insert" God into education when He is already there.He may be there implicitly, but that's not good enough. Some people want him there explicitly.
It was not secularist tolerance but Christian sensibilities that laid a foundation for religious tolerance in early America, as "doing unto others" in keeping with Christ's command was very important to a people who had fled the religious persecution of England.That a bit, umm, revisionist, but whatever.
Tom, you probably could familiarize yourself much better with the positions I advocate, and most of which you misunderstand, by regularly attending your local Presbyterian (PCA) church for awhile.I graduated from, and studied religion at, a Presbyterian college. My most influential religion professor was Dr. Lawrence Sinclair, a practicing Presbyterian minister.
Then again, they're the wrong kind of Presbyterians (PC-USA). :)
JCHFleetguy:
I think if you look closely at the famous Kansas debate you will find out that it was all about allowing Darwinism to be criticized, and not about teaching ID per se.Yes, but for what purpose? The same reason they want ID taught. Let's not be naive about their true motives here.
You have to do original research. For instance, here is the the list of Fellows at the Discovery Institutes Center for Science and Culture (the ID wing).Actually, I did do my own research, but only looked as far as the DI's fellows, not the subsidiary ICSC, thanks. I sit corrected.
Is this enough to realize some of these folk do know what the scientific method isYeah, that's an improvement. Now if we could just get them to figure out what an argument from ignorance is... ;)
Well of course you wouldn't have to replace them all - less waste on bureacracy.No, I disagree. While you would have less "waste on bureaucracy," you'd also have less actual service. Unless you think private charities would be able provide the same medical care to 47 million women and children that are currently covered by Medicaid. And that's just one program (albeit one of the larger ones).
Remember, government programs are relatively new - especially federal ones. I have more faith in Americans stepping to the plate than youWhat you're forgetting is why these government programs were created in the first place: it wasn't because the government was bored one day, and decided "let's spend a zillion dollars on bureaucracy-laden service programs!"; it was because there was a genuine public need that the private sector was not meeting.
The disconnect here concerns the perception of responsibility. Some people (like you, apparently) believe we have a duty/responsibility to help others, but believe that doing so should be completely voluntary. Others (like me) believe that we have every bit as much responsibility, collectively, to provide a social safety net, as we do to provide for, say, national defense or education, and that these things should be part of the cost of living in a civil society; that is, we should all be required to bear part of the cost, commensurate with our ability to do so. Still others (like most Libertarians I've met) feel that we have no responsibility to anyone other than ourselves.
posted on 08.17.2005 10:24 AM30
There will always be the line of what services need to be provided on a national level (defense for sure); at the state level; county, city, private, personal.
As a conservative I think that should be driven to the lowest level possible. I think liberals tend to go toward the highest. Gotta love politics.
And remember, medicare provides the money for health care - not the health care. Could the Medicare part of your social security taxes be paid to the states and let them decide the priorities for their state? Of course. Liberals might say that health care would then not be uniform across the United States. Might be a valid criticism.
Ain't it great!
posted on 08.17.2005 11:07 AM31
TGirsch:
Speaking of God's presence as implicit versus explicit is a bit insulting to Him, as it would be to you or me or any other person. If He is Creator and Owner of everything in the world, then He deserves honor in every arena, and I'm not sure how anyone can be shown honor that is not explicit.
By the way, on the subject of education, I'm not a fan of public schools, because I think they're a socialistic approach and as such are doomed ultimately to fail (partly to due sectarian squabbles such as this). Ditto on Social Security. I do not see any general responsibility on the part of civil government to children that parents or religious institutions should not first address, nor to the aged that adult children or religious institutions should not first address. As for the costs of private vs. public ed., I would dearly love to have my $5K per year in education taxes back to pay for my daughter's schooling. Seeing as she'll never darken the metal detecting door of a public school, I see it as taxation without representation.
For a fuller opinion, see my posts from June 10, June 16, and July 1.
posted on 08.17.2005 11:10 AM32
Boonton:
The Constitution is living because some of it has purposefully been kept vague and unclear in order for it to be interpreted in light of a changing society.This is exactly correct, but won't the "small-l libertarians society" revoke your membership card for saying this? :) Refusing to issue a blanket condemnation of Kelo probably would have resulted in suspension, but this will likely result in expulsion! ;) posted on 08.17.2005 11:15 AM
33
Jim:
If He is Creator and Owner of everything in the world, then He deserves honor in every arena, and I'm not sure how anyone can be shown honor that is not explicit.Well, the problem comes in when you start requiring people who don't believe that "He is Creator and Owner of everything" to bestow such honor, which is precisely what you do when you explicitly honor him in, say, public school classes. Basically, what you're arguing (and I'm a bit sympathetic) is that the establishment clause and the free exercise clause are incompatible, because for many Christians (and probably others), the free exercise of their faith compels them to establish their faith (or at least attempt to). Which brings us right back to the original argument I made. :)
Ultimately, in a pluralistic society where we have people of many faiths (and even the biggest of these is quite splintered), the only way we can get along for any length of time is to leave religion out of things like government, education, etc. What I advocate is government neutrality toward religion, and opposing both advancement/support of and hostility/opposition to religion in government.
I'm not a fan of public schools, because I think they're a socialistic approach and as such are doomed ultimately to failThat's fine, but how are we to ensure every American (or at least most of them) receives an education? Or are you arguing that we needn't worry about that, or that education for all isn't legitimately in the common good? Thomas Jefferson argued that democracy couldn't work without an educated electorate (and based on recent trends, I'm inclined to agree).
As for the costs of private vs. public ed., I would dearly love to have my $5K per year in education taxes back to pay for my daughter's schooling. Seeing as she'll never darken the metal detecting door of a public school, I see it as taxation without representation.Seems selfish and unChristian to me. Heck, I don't have any children. Do I get my money back too? And for that matter, I've never driven even one foot of I-69, so can I have my share of that back, too? And while we're at it, I oppose the Iraq war, so I guess I should get my share of that money back, too. You see where this leads.
Either education serves the public good, or it does not. If it does, then the public should help pay for it. Period. Just because I don't personally drive on I-69 doesn't mean I don't tangentially benefit from it being there. Similarly, just because I don't have children (and you don't have children in public school) doesn't mean that we don't benefit from the schools being there.
When private corporations look for locations to open new facilities, one of the first things they look at is the state of education in that area. If there's not a sufficiently educated population in the area, they'll look elsewhere. So there's a very real private-sector argument for public schooling.
Of course, our educational system would be much better off if people just let them teach legitimately rather than getting their collective panties in a twist every time something offends their political sensibilities.
posted on 08.17.2005 11:32 AM34
Patrick, no secularism is not the child of Christianity; it was born--at least in America--as rebellion against the historical faith, aided by the importation of Enlightenment thinking by the Unitarians and Congregationalists who captured Harvard's religion chair in 1803
That should be historical faiths, plural, not singular. America was never monolithic in it's practice of religion. And the protection of the plurality of those religions is one of great things that secularism has accomplished. It's too bad that "Justice Sunday" seeks to abolish this.
posted on 08.17.2005 12:50 PM35
Seeing as she'll never darken the metal detecting door of a public school, I see it as taxation without representation.
Hmmmm, perhaps you should reconsider the public schools. You might pick up from them that taxation without representation is resolved by you having the ability to vote (which I'm sure you do).
By the way, on the subject of education, I'm not a fan of public schools, because I think they're a socialistic approach and as such are doomed ultimately to fail (partly to due sectarian squabbles such as this).
I'm fine with most of the public schools. I personally think the whole 'the public schools are failing us' is a myth that cons both sides of the political spectrum (liberals like it since it can be used to argue for additional funding anywhere, any time. conservatives like it since it can be used to argue for their various voucher schemes). While the Kansas ID debate makes press the fact is the vast majority of public schools in this country are well run by locally elected gov'ts and most communities are happy with them. Not only that, we have had public education going in this country longer than Social Security and there's little evidence for some comming collapse of either.
As for the costs of private vs. public ed., I would dearly love to have my $5K per year in education taxes back to pay for my daughter's schooling.
Most public schools are funded by property taxes. Here in NJ property taxes are very high but even so $5K per year is still above average (I think). My inlaws pay $7500 a year but even then you have to assume 100% of the money goes to the public school and 0% goes to police, parks, and so on. Of course, though, I don't doubt for a second you'd love to have $5K back if you're only spending $2K per year!
posted on 08.17.2005 2:30 PM36
JCHFleetguy:
Could the Medicare part of your social security taxes be paid to the states and let them decide the priorities for their state? Of course.Except that nobody is arguing for this. The argument is generally that government (state/fed/whatever) shouldn't be in the "charity" business at all; and even people who'd support the state-level idea would argue that the federal government shouldn't collect the money only to "pass it back" to the states; but that the states should decide whether or not to collect/spend the money at all.
The larger problem with such things, however, is that there's got to be some federal base level to prevent a race to the bottom. The existence of medicaid, for example, doesn't prevent many states from having their own supplemental programs if they so choose. Here in Tennessee, we're in the process of gutting ours ("TennCare") -- highly controversial, because our Democratic governor made the decision to scrap it completely, after running on a platform based around saving TennCare. In so doing, he has effectively handed the state back over to Republican control next election (which, as a conservative, you will probably think is a good thing).
posted on 08.17.2005 3:46 PM37
Boonton:
I personally think the whole 'the public schools are failing us' is a myth that cons both sides of the political spectrumAmen. However, it's becoming something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. As increasing numbers of people start believing that myth, they become more and more disillusioned with the idea of funding public schools, and less inclined to actually do so. As schools (in some areas, at least) fall behind in funding, they really do start to decline.
This problem is further complicated in many places (such as Memphis, where I live) by incompetent school boards. Ideally, they should be voted out, but it doesn't always work that way. But if an incompetent school board wasting money is a problem, what makes people think that an incompetent school board with nothing to waste is going to be any better?
Sorry, pet issue.
posted on 08.17.2005 3:51 PM38
FleetGuy
"[The Discovery Institute] opposed teaching ID in Pennsylvania schools"
For purely legal reasons. The Dover school board blew it because the pro-ID board members made a bunch of pro-religious statements, thus revealing their religious purpose EXPLICITLY. As a test case for the constitutionality of teaching "intelligent design" as an alternate "scientific theory" in science classrooms, the Dover case is a guaranteed LOSER.
That is why the Discovery Institute is distancing itself from the Dover case.
The funny thing is that what happened in Dover is virtually inevitable. You're never going to get all of America's fundamentalists to clam up and tell slick lies -- only like the more politically savvy Christians will be able to play that game for extended periods of time.
Politically savvy Christians like .... oh, I don't know ... no one around here that I can think of ...
posted on 08.17.2005 11:11 PM39
Amen. However, it's becoming something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. As increasing numbers of people start believing that myth, they become more and more disillusioned with the idea of funding public schools, and less inclined to actually do so. As schools (in some areas, at least) fall behind in funding, they really do start to decline.
If this happened then how come property taxes never seem to fall? Which towns are voting to drastically cut back on their schools?
Here's something I remember from when I was a kid. In the 80's a report was published called 'A Nation at Risk'. It basically said that the schools were so bad that if a foreign country was responsible for their shape it would be an act of war.
Let's pretend that the moment after that report was issued schools were instantly reformed (I know they weren't). The generation that suffered thru the BAD SCHOOL ERA that ended in '85 entered the workforce. Since '85 that generation created a huge economic boom in the 90's plus introduced a host of technological changes from the Internet, computers to CD's and cell phones. Changes that we take for granted today until one actually sees a movie from the 80's and we remember how much has changed in such a short period.
All this was done by a generation that was supposedly unable to read or do mathematics. If all these kids were harmed by bad schools where's the evidence? If you dig deeper you'll find that a lot of objective evidence for 'declining schools' is flawed. For example, the international comparison tests that are done where the US often ranks behind Korea & other nations? These tests are often not even completed by students taking them. Why? Because the students never see the results and the results have no impact on them. They spend their time studying for tests that do have an impact on them like the SAT. In other countries those tests are accompanied by prep rallies and other events to make them a source of national pride. Likewise the 'declining SAT scores' overlooks the fact that years ago only the top students took the SAT while now more than half of the population does. An apples to apples comparison would require looking at SAT scores from the top 1% in 1970 to the scores of the top 1% today.
I don't doubt for a second that there are bad schools but they tend to be in bad neighborhoods. It doesn't mean that its right to neglect them but it's false to conclude all or most schools are bad.
This problem is further complicated in many places (such as Memphis, where I live) by incompetent school boards. Ideally, they should be voted out, but it doesn't always work that way.
Indeed but an interesting question is why not? Not only do parents in Memphis have a lot at stake but others do as well. If Memphis aquires a reputation for bad schools property values will suffer which hurts residents without kids as well as businesses.
posted on 08.18.2005 11:54 AM40
Boonton:
If this happened then how come property taxes never seem to fall?There's this thing called "inflation." Perhaps you've heard of it. :)
Which towns are voting to drastically cut back on their schools?Well, here I should have been more specific. It's mainly larger cities, not small towns, where this is a big problem. And further, it's not so much that anybody's cutting anything, as it is that nobody wants to grow anything. The schools, especially in larger cities, are lucky to get by with an inflation-adjusted copy of last year's budget, irrespective of what needs come up.
It doesn't mean that its right to neglect them but it's false to conclude all or most schools are bad.I, for one, have never made that conclusion. I'm merely suggesting that as more people buy into the admittedly bogus "schools are failing" argument, the result will be that schools actually do start to fail. If you read anything more into that, you've read too much. :)
Anyway, I recommend Setting the Record Straight by Gerald W. Bracey as a good read concerning the purported failure of US schools; for us, it's like preaching to the choir, but some public school critics might learn something.
Indeed but an interesting question is why not?Because, unfortunately, Americans are collectively both ignorant of and apathetic about politics. They don't feel they have the power to change anything, or at least aren't willing to do what it takes. Essentially, it's for all the same reasons that we as a nation re-elected George W. Bush and then collectively wonder why things in Iraq are still going so poorly.
If Memphis aquires a reputation for bad schools property values will suffer which hurts residents without kids as well as businesses.All true, but instead of voting to change the guard, the people who care the most instead take the easy way out and flee to the suburbs, where the schools themselves are newer and the school boards are often much smaller and easier to control. Memphis in particular has this problem because Northern Mississippi is just a few minutes away, and Tennessee has no state or local income tax. So people live in Mississippi and work in Tennessee. TN has to pay for all the infrastructure to support the businesses where these people work, but gets virtually no revenue from any of these people. Meanwhile, these workers pay income tax to Mississippi which pays for most of their negligible infrastructure costs (just roads to get them from their homes to TN) and pay ridiculously low property taxes because the schools are about the only things those taxes have to pay for.
(This strikes me odd, however, because I'm willing to bet that for most, the MS income tax outweighs whatever reduction in property taxes they get; still, the schools there are generally better and, sad to say because it shouldn't matter, whiter.)
It's starting to catch up with parts of Northern MS, however: as those suburbs are growing, they're experiencing fiscal difficulties and are considering raising property taxes to account for it.
Sorry, sore subject for me. :)
posted on 08.18.2005 12:38 PM41
Just stepping in to add some clarification. The role of the black church has developed into the way you see it now specifically because of the institution of slavery. The church represented the only outlet blacks had for a political structure, a social institution and a community of faith. As slavery was abolished, this role continued because in many instances blacks were precluded from government, but yet still managed their communities primarily through the church and were informed of world events and organized through the church.
The civil rights movement was built on the backs of the black church and the churches pastor, because of the ability of the pastors to generate revenue from the people as opposed to white individuals who could black ball them and silence them if the spoke out on race.
So you have a different development structure between the 'black church' and the 'white church' were the former served as a multi-functional organization bridging faith, community, and politics, and the latter, not have the external influences concentrate more specifically on faith and politics of faith.
If any one wants a good book list on the black church email me at dellgines@yahoo.com and I will shoot you a couple references.
posted on 08.20.2005 3:46 PM42
I'd just like to point out, as a representative of the Evil, Godless Left, how accurate Jim Gilbert was when he said this:
You are making a distinction between using political means for Gospel ends and using religious means for political ends, but the Left cannot see the difference. I think that's because politics is the religion of the Left; it is their hope of salvation. It follows then, that they instinctively perceive Christianity as a competing religion, which is why they oppose us at every turn.
This is undeniably true because, as we all know, there are no Christians on the left. At least, not any real Christians. Some of them even swear and drink beer. posted on 08.20.2005 8:23 PM
