BLOG: Democrats Begin Faith-filled Convention

For all practical purposes, it resembled an interfaith worship service.  In a move designed to appeal to religious voters, the Democrats opened their convention in Denver last night with prayer, a gospel song, and a Torah recitation by a rabbi. A Catholic nun, Helen Prejean, author of Dead Men Walking discussed the death penalty, and Muslim women in headscarves also made appearances.  (You may recall that Obama received some criticism when his staff asked two Muslim women wearing headscarves not to stand behind him at an appearance.)

Overall, it appears that the Democrats are reaching toward a religious audience, with the idea of inclusion rather than exclusion.  However, they appear to be targeting the coveted evangelical constituency who is likely to vote for them.

There will also be four different “faith caucuses” held during the convention.

It is hard to think that solidly Republican evangelical voters will come out in favor of Obama, but this open embrace of faith may attract voters who are religious but concerned about the emergence of theocratic rhetoric on the right.  It will also open doors for religious voters who lean toward the left on issues such as the death penalty, health care, and social welfare programs.

It will also be interesting to see how the Republicans plan to upstage this demonstration of faith next week in Minneapolis.   One thing that is certain is that religion will continue to play a central role through the election in November.

OPINION: O’Connor’s 4th Circuit Ruling on City Council Prayer

It’s about the Kids, Stupid: A Review of The Future of Marriage by David Blankenhorn (Nicholas P. Miller)

In response to the articles by Professor David Crane and John Stevens regarding potential problems with a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, attorney Nicholas P. Miller has offered the following essay in which he responded to The Future of Marriage, by David Blankenhorn.  One of the bedrock principles of ReligiousLiberty.TV is to present opportunity for all thoughtful voices to be heard on the issue.  If you have a view on the issue, please respond via comment below or submit an essay for publication.

It’s About the Kids, Stupid

A Review of The Future of Marriage by David Blankenhorn

By Nicholas P. Miller, Esq.

David Blankenhorn, marriage and family policy advocate, is a Christian. He takes the Bible seriously. He just disagrees with what it says about homosexual practice. He thinks that principles of equality mean that practicing homosexuals should be treated with full acceptance and affirmation in America today. But he firmly opposes gay marriage. He does so for one fundamental reason: he believes strongly that “every child has a right to a mother and a father.”

A few years ago, this statement would have been considered a truism—so banal as to hardly be worth mentioning. This is no longer the case. Blankenhorn wants to re-direct the marriage debate to focus on children. Staffers for Bill Clinton in the ’92 election kept their team focused on the key campaign issue by coining the term “it’s about the economy, stupid.” Blankenhorn’s book argues that in the gay-marriage debate the key mantra should be—he uses the idea though not the phrase—“its about the kids, stupid.”

Blankenhorn’s book, The Future of Marriage, argues that the raising of kids by their parents stands as the core concern and reason for the societal institution of marriage. Many close, personal, even intimate relationships exist in society, but for some reason the marriage relationship has been singled out by society for special acknowledgement and protection. Blankenhorn uses history, sociology, and current empirical, scientific evidence to support an argument that the societal institution of marriage has as its core, public value the effective raising of children. He makes a strong case, using data from 35 countries, that in those countries where gay marriage is accepted, commitment to marriage and family as the proper context for raising children is significantly weaker than in those countries where only traditional marriage is allowed.

Blankenhorne’s book is a must read for all those that sense there is something important, even vital, for society in the traditional institution of marriage, but have trouble articulating that belief in other than religious or Biblical terms. Many people think that the definition of marriage as a man and a woman is purely or at least primarily a Biblically-based concept. They think—including even many Christians—that enshrining that model into law is akin to imposing spiritual values on non-believers. This, they argue, would violate America’s fundamental commitment to the separation of church and state.

Blankenhorne convincingly shows why this argument is wrong. He begins by revealing that marriage existed well prior to the Biblical culture of the Israelites, and that at very early point in the historical record it already served as a fundamental societal unit for the rearing of children. He demonstrates that while sexual activity existed in a number of different forms and ways in different societies, that marriage was a way that societies consistently elevated the role of women and protected the rearing of children. More than half a millennium before Moses wrote the Torah, Lipit-Ishtar, ruler of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley and promulgator of one of the world’s first legal codes, proclaimed, “I made the father support his children. I made the child support his father. I made the father stand by his children.” (48) Almost a quarter of Hammurabi’s 275 legal provisions in his famous Code—written centuries before Moses—are concerned with traditional marriage and family life.

Not only did traditional marriage exist prior to the Hebrew culture, but it also existed, and exists, pervasively outside Judeo/Christian cultures. Indeed, Blankenhorne argues that marriage, traditional marriage between a man and a woman, is a universal concept or rule. Virtually all cultures and societies have had this concept of marriage, and the concept has almost invariably involved the care of children by their biological parents. In a fascinating cross-cultural analysis he shows how certain obscure groups within certain societies, the Nayars in southwest India, the Nuer in eastern Africa, have for limited periods of time under extreme pressures modified the traditional arrangement. But these exceptions are generally very limited, often short-lived, and are the exceptions that prove the universal rule. They are recognized as exceptions because the rule is so pervasive, both through time and across societies and cultures.

The Bible certainly supports the notion of the traditional family unit, with spouses in a mutual relationship of love and care, with roles of support and care for their children. But the Bible itself, which did not begin to be written until after the 15th century BC, did not originate the traditional family unit. Certainly, arguments for the family are not limited to the Bible. On the contrary, cultures, societies and civilizations through time have seen the importance of the family unit to children and to society. What most societies have seen through instinct and experience, we in our modern age have demonstrated through scientific studies.

Blankenhorne cites leading family scholar, David Popenoe, as summarizing the evidence this way: “Few propositions have more empirical support in the social sciences than this one: Compared to all other family forms, families headed by married, biological parents are best for children.” (123) Everything from educational outcomes to mental health to cognitive development to social stability to avoidance of risky social and sexual behaviors to educational and employment success is positively affected by a child living with his or her own mother and father.[1] Another leading family expert put it this way, “research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage . . . Thus, it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support children’s development.” (123)

Blankenhorne shows that commitment to marriage as an institution suffers in a society that accepts gay marriage or even civil unions. In perhaps the most compelling part of the book, he shows that the statistical support for marriage and child-rearing in the context of marriage is significantly weaker in countries that accept either gay marriage or same sex unions. He reports the results of the International Social Survey Programme that reported responses in 35 countries to a wide range of questions on marriage and family life. Almost without exception, countries that had same-sex marriage viewed marriage as less important generally, and less important to raising children in particular, than countries with only traditional marriage. In countries that allowed gay marriage, only 21.5% of those surveyed believed that “Married people are happier,” versus 43.5% of those in countries with only traditional marriage. Similarly, in gay-marriage countries, only 37.8% of respondents believed that “People who want children should marry,” whereas 60.3% of respondents in traditional-marriage countries thought so.

Blankenhorne acknowledges that this study shows correlation rather than cause, but to him correlation is very important. The attack on the traditional family-child rearing unit is multi-pronged. Teasing out what elements are responsible for what amount of decline is not necessary to know that all correlated variables, insofar as reasonably possible, should be avoided and minimized. He is convinced, through the testimony of both family and anti-family advocates alike, that those on both sides of the discussion see gay marriage as weakening the commitment to marriage generally and traditional forms of child-rearing in particular. He is willing to sacrifice what he views as the lesser good of marital equality for gays, for the greater good of healthier, happier, more successful children.

Blankenhorn’s book has gaps in it. He relies perhaps too heavily on expert assertions that biological parents provide the best environment for child rearing. He could have discussed some of the data presented in the underlying studies that he cites. He also does not explain why he is willing to accept less-than-ideal, stop gap measures such as step-parenting and adoptions, but not parenting by two parents in a committed gay relationship. His oversight here is somewhat surprising, as his earlier book, Fatherless America, has been termed the “bible of the Fatherhood movement.” There are plenty of studies showing the importance to the health and welfare of a child of the influence and involvement of parents of both genders.[2]

For instance, an Australian study showed that children from traditional-marriage households outperform children from unmarried heterosexual households, and that children from both forms of heterosexual households outperformed the children living in homosexual households.[3]

Similarly, a recent study found that teenagers living with their two

biological parents have significantly improved mental health and academic achievement, and significantly lower rates of serious behavioral problems at school, compared to teenagers living in single parent households or “blended families.” This study was sponsored by the Urban Institute, which has published material in favor of same-sex marriage, but frankly concludes that “the most favorable outcomes we observe are for teenagers living with their biological parents who are married to each other.”[4]

The American Psychological Association’s Review of General Psychology, recently contained an article that concludes that there is overwhelming evidence that the love of mothers and fathers differs in significant ways, and that the receipt of both kinds of love is very beneficial to children.[5]

Also, Blankenhorn does not really explain why opposing gay marriage rises to the level of a moral imperative. In an imperfect world, we accept all sorts of arrangements for child rearing that are less than ideal. Given that some children are orphans, and many are raised by poor, single parents, why should society in principle object to the alternative of an affluent, stable household of two mothers or two fathers raising children? Absent from Blankenhorn’s book is a discussion of morality. Indeed, the words “moral” or “morality” do not appear in the index. Perhaps this is to escape the labeling of the book as a religious argument. But ultimately any argument about opposition to gay marriage, and the prevention of adoption by gay couples, that hopes to be successful must involve a discussion of morality.

Our society is confused about the status of morality in relation to law. Often people say, “you cannot legislate morality.” But we do, all the time. Laws against murder, theft, and public nudity all involve implementation of moral principles. These have to do with civic morality, right and wrong that directly and primarily impacts others. What the state should not involve itself in is morality that is primarily religious, such as acts or conduct that primarily involves our relation to God, e.g., prayers, religious rites, days of worship, etc. So the fundamental question becomes is the question of homosexuality and gay marriage a question of civil or religious morality?

Despite not framing his discussion in these terms, Blankenhorn provides materials and data that strongly support the view that gay marriage involves questions of civic morality. The universal nature of traditional marriage, the importance of biological parents to both conception and child-rearing, the importance of both genders to the raising and formation of healthy children, and the weakening of marriage and family in those countries where gay marriage is accepted all provide support for the notion that the state has a civil moral interest in affirming traditional marriage and preventing gay marriage. To make the argument more complete, one would need to venture into the world of the dynamics and results of the gay relationship.

Government statistics have shown that gay persons are between at least five to ten (depending on gender and relationship status) more likely to experience domestic violence with their partners than heterosexuals.[6] Rates of domestic violence among lesbian relationships approach fifty percent in a number of studies.[7] It is well known that the rate of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases is far higher in the gay community.[8] The sexual practices of that community are far riskier and associated with, among other negatives, higher rates of eating disorders, depression and suicide.[9] Indeed, according to the International Journal of Epidemiology, participants in the gay lifestyle lose an estimated 8 to 20 years in lifespan.[10]

Institutionalizing gay marriage would not only weaken traditional marriage and family, as Blankenhorn demonstrates, it would also provide legitimacy and affirmation to that lifestyle in the eyes of children. More people would be raised in gay households, and children in public schools would be educated that such a lifestyle was an acceptable, viable alternative lifestyle. Studies have shown that children raised in gay-led households suffer from higher levels of gender disorientation, and that girls engage earlier in sexually risky and promiscuous behavior.[11] It is not just unwise, but wrong, to knowingly place children where they face these sorts of increased risks to their health and welfare.

Several thousand years of nearly universal experience has shown that traditional marriage, with all its flaws and shortcomings, is a very good way of raising children. Gay marriage has nearly a zero track record in this regard. The scant evidence that does exist is troubling. Given the instabilities and pathologies associated with gay relationships, whatever their sources, should we bet our society’s future—our childrens’ future—on gay families providing an equally good child-rearing environment?

Some will argue that these pathologies and instabilities are caused, in some part, by societal discrimination. These arguments overlook the fact that in our coastal cities, where the gay population is the greatest, acceptance of the gay lifestyle has been widespread for many years now. But still the troubling tendencies detailed above persist. At the least, it would seem wise to let gay relationships go through a period of time with some sort of civil union, to see if they can provide a track record of stability and reliability, before we bestow on them the honor of carrying out society’s most delicate and important task—the raising of our children. Because fundamentally, it is not about equality, or sameness, or self-actualization, or self-affirmation, or self-respect, or self-anything, rather, it’s about the kids, stupid.

——————————————————————————–

[1] In support of these claims, Blankenhorne cites to the research brief by Kristin Anderson Moore et al., Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do About It? (Washington, D.C.: Child Trends, Research Brief, June 2002), pp. 1-2.

[2] A number of such studies are collected at www.childtrends.org.

[3] Sarantakos, Sotirios, Children in Three Contexts: Family, Education & Social Development, 21 Children Australia No. 3, 1995 (finding that children of married heterosexual couples do significantly better in a broad range of academic areas than children of unmarried heterosexual couples. And that the children of married and unmarried heterosexual couples significantly outperform children raised by homosexual couples).

[4] Sandi Nelson, Rebecca L. Clark, Gregory Acts, “Beyond the Two-Parent Family: How Teenagers Fare in Cohabitating Couple and Blended Families,” www.urbaninstitute.org (finding that teenagers living with their two biological parents have significantly improved mental health and academic achievement and significantly lower rates of serious behavioral problems at school compared to teenagers living in single parent households or blended families. This study was sponsored by the Urban Institute which has published material in favor of gay marriage, but frankly concludes that “The most favorable outcomes we observe are for teenagers living with their biological parents who are married to each other.”)

[5] Ronald P. and Veneziano, Robert A., “The Importance of Father Love: History and Contemporary Evidence,” 5 Review of General Psychology, Volume 5(4), December 2001: 382–405, http://academic.uofs.edu/student/sitoskis2/fatherlove.html. This and other material on negative outcomes associated with children being raised in non-traditional households is discussed by James Standish in “Equality and Matrimony,” Liberty, Sept/Oct 2004.

[6]“Gay Domestic Violence Finally Measured,” Journal of the Family Research Institute, Vol. 16, No. 8, Dec. 2001, at http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_12.html

[7] Several such studies are discussed in Janice Ristock, No More Secrets: Violence in Lesbian Relationships (New York: Routledge, 2002), 10-12.

[8] Homosexuals contract syphilis at up to 10 times the rate of heterosexuals C. M. Hutchinson et al., “Characteristics of Patients with Syphilis Attending Baltimore STD Clinics,” Archives of Internal Medicine 151 (1991): 511-516; incidence of gonorrhea are estimated to be 3.7 times higher among homosexual males than heterosexual males. Vincelette et al., “Predicators of Chlamydial Infection and Gonorrhea among Patients Seen by Private Practitioners,” Canadian Medical Association Journal 144 (1995): 713-721); They experience dramatically increased incidence of HIV/AIDS. For example, according to AVERT, an international HIV/AIDS charity, in Australia “A history of male homosexual contact was reported in more than 85% of newly acquired HIV infection diagnosed in 1997 to 2001 http://www.avert.org/ausstatg.htm.

[9] Articles supporting these statements can be found in Sexually Transmitted Infections and other scientific journals described at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/

2007/09/070913132930.htm.

[10] (Robert S. Hogg et al., “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997)).

[11] For the discussion of an article relating to this in the American Sociological Review, see http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html.

Namibia: Divine Right and ‘Moron’ (namibian.com.na)

This is a fascinating article about the relationship between church and state in Namibia. 

http://www.namibian.com.na/2008/July/letters/08193A2750.html

EXCERPTS:

Churches were major driving forces in getting Namibia’s independence on the formal international agenda through resistive courage, a record that worldwide is, unfortunately, neither consistent nor unblemished; they do support the wrong side sometimes! But in Namibia’s case they did well and the political elements owe a considerable debt.

Now that the “struggle” is over, apartheid has gone and the new order is entrenched, political elements realise a rising tide of criticism is flowing and is being pumped by the engine of religion fuelled by social/ethical conscience, glued together by faith! God, all versions, has a good track record of survival under duress; in a world of increasing unfairness and division, whatever theocratic mantra dominates, religion and other fundamental beliefs are gaining support.

…

Their allegiances are likely to shift towards the spiritual; congregations (and other civil society groupings) that have power and are beginning to exert it.

On the other hand religion has also entered a rocky road as it forsakes God for mammon; recent criticism of the “world preacher class” buying private jets and excessive lifestyles indicates there are black sheep in the flock.

Locally several cases of the “very religious” being caught with their hands in the till big-time, have emerged! Hypocrisy flavoured with violent intent is also far from new as is the intent to monopolise the truth by imposing ignorance upon their flock.

…

Kings no longer have the power of Divine Right and through this the right to treat their kingdom as a personal playground! So it was quite interesting to note that a regional leader seems intent on restoring the power of Divine Right; probably in a similar phase of his rule of his predecessor who said “never in a thousand years”.

It was also interesting that one of Namibia’s more youthful politicos is reportedly recommending this separation be negated by having a “Ministry Of Religions Of Namibia” (Moron).

Visions of denomination desks, desks for transubstantiation, virgin birth and reincarnation, a religious electoral commission, praying licences and a levy on donations loomed; and lots of jobs.

However I fear the spiritual society would be literally “up in arms”.

VIDEO CLIP: Compulsion in religion and the freedom to disbelieve

Dr. Ravi Zacharias speaks out in support of religious freedom and against attempts to create theocracy.  He also tells a couple of very interesting stories about religious freedom in other countries.  It was recorded at a recent event at the Atlanta Civic Center and you might also recognize the event MC.  Ravi Zacharias answers a tough question about religious freedom- specifically the freedom to disbelieve- in other countries. From the DVD titled “Is America Really Christian.”

Dr. Zacharias was born in India in 1946 and immigrated to Canada with his family twenty years later.  While pursuing a career in business management, his interest in theology grew; subsequently, he pursued this study during his undergraduate education.  He received his Masters of Divinity from Trinity International University in Deerfield, Illinois.  Well-versed in the disciplines of comparative religions, cults, and philosophy, he held the chair of Evangelism and Contemporary Thought at Alliance Theological Seminary for three and a half years.  Mr. Zacharias has been honored by the conferring of a Doctor of Divinity degree both from Houghton College, NY, and from Tyndale College and Seminary, Toronto, and a Doctor of Laws degree from Asbury College in Kentucky.  He is presently Visiting Lecturer at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University in Oxford, England.

See more at http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Watch.aspx

Ron Paul – “Something Big Is Happening” (CampaignForLiberty.com)

Regardless of what you might think about former presidential candidate and Congressman Ron Paul, the following is worth taking a few minutes time to read.  This is from http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=115#more-115

The following statement is written by Congressman Paul about what he believes is a pending financial disaster. He will introduce this statement as a special order and insert it into the Congressional Record next week. It reads as follows:

I have, for the past 35 years, expressed my grave concern for the future of America. The course we have taken over the past century has threatened our liberties, security and prosperity. In spite of these long-held concerns, I have days—growing more frequent all the time—when I’m convinced the time is now upon us that some Big Events are about to occur. These fast-approaching events will not go unnoticed. They will affect all of us. They will not be limited to just some areas of our country. The world economy and political system will share in the chaos about to be unleashed.

Though the world has long suffered from the senselessness of wars that should have been avoided, my greatest fear is that the course on which we find ourselves will bring even greater conflict and economic suffering to the innocent people of the world—unless we quickly change our ways.

America, with her traditions of free markets and property rights, led the way toward great wealth and progress throughout the world as well as at home. Since we have lost our confidence in the principles of liberty, self reliance, hard work and frugality, and instead took on empire building, financed through inflation and debt, all this has changed. This is indeed frightening and an historic event.

The problem we face is not new in history. Authoritarianism has been around a long time. For centuries, inflation and debt have been used by tyrants to hold power, promote aggression, and provide “bread and circuses” for the people. The notion that a country can afford “guns and butter” with no significant penalty existed even before the 1960s when it became a popular slogan. It was then, though, we were told the Vietnam War and a massive expansion of the welfare state were not problems. The seventies proved that assumption wrong.

Today things are different from even ancient times or the 1970s. There is something to the argument that we are now a global economy. The world has more people and is more integrated due to modern technology, communications, and travel. If modern technology had been used to promote the ideas of liberty, free markets, sound money and trade, it would have ushered in a new golden age—a globalism we could accept.

Instead, the wealth and freedom we now enjoy are shrinking and rest upon a fragile philosophic infrastructure. It is not unlike the levies and bridges in our own country that our system of war and welfare has caused us to ignore.

I’m fearful that my concerns have been legitimate and may even be worse than I first thought. They are now at our doorstep. Time is short for making a course correction before this grand experiment in liberty goes into deep hibernation.

There are reasons to believe this coming crisis is different and bigger than the world has ever experienced. Instead of using globalism in a positive fashion, it’s been used to globalize all of the mistakes of the politicians, bureaucrats and central bankers.

Being an unchallenged sole superpower was never accepted by us with a sense of humility and respect. Our arrogance and aggressiveness have been used to promote a world empire backed by the most powerful army of history. This type of globalist intervention creates problems for all citizens of the world and fails to contribute to the well-being of the world’s populations. Just think how our personal liberties have been trashed here at home in the last decade.

The financial crisis, still in its early stages, is apparent to everyone: gasoline prices over $4 a gallon; skyrocketing education and medical-care costs; the collapse of the housing bubble; the bursting of the NASDAQ bubble; stockmarkets plunging; unemployment rising;, massive underemployment; excessive government debt; and unmanageable personal debt. Little doubt exists as to whether we’ll get stagflation. The question that will soon be asked is: When will the stagflation become an inflationary depression?

There are various reasons that the world economy has been globalized and the problems we face are worldwide. We cannot understand what we’re facing without understanding fiat money and the long-developing dollar bubble.

There were several stages. From the inception of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 to 1933, the Central Bank established itself as the official dollar manager. By 1933, Americans could no longer own gold, thus removing restraint on the Federal Reserve to inflate for war and welfare.

By 1945, further restraints were removed by creating the Bretton-Woods Monetary System making the dollar the reserve currency of the world. This system lasted up until 1971. During the period between 1945 and 1971, some restraints on the Fed remained in place. Foreigners, but not Americans, could convert dollars to gold at $35 an ounce. Due to the excessive dollars being created, that system came to an end in 1971.

It’s the post Bretton-Woods system that was responsible for globalizing inflation and markets and for generating a gigantic worldwide dollar bubble. That bubble is now bursting, and we’re seeing what it’s like to suffer the consequences of the many previous economic errors.

Ironically in these past 35 years, we have benefited from this very flawed system. Because the world accepted dollars as if they were gold, we only had to counterfeit more dollars, spend them overseas (indirectly encouraging our jobs to go overseas as well) and enjoy unearned prosperity. Those who took our dollars and gave us goods and services were only too anxious to loan those dollars back to us. This allowed us to export our inflation and delay the consequences we now are starting to see.

But it was never destined to last, and now we have to pay the piper. Our huge foreign debt must be paid or liquidated. Our entitlements are coming due just as the world has become more reluctant to hold dollars. The consequence of that decision is price inflation in this country—and that’s what we are witnessing today. Already price inflation overseas is even higher than here at home as a consequence of foreign central bank’s willingness to monetize our debt.

Printing dollars over long periods of time may not immediately push prices up–yet in time it always does. Now we’re seeing catch-up for past inflating of the monetary supply. As bad as it is today with $4 a gallon gasoline, this is just the beginning. It’s a gross distraction to hound away at “drill, drill, drill” as a solution to the dollar crisis and high gasoline prices. Its okay to let the market increase supplies and drill, but that issue is a gross distraction from the sins of deficits and Federal Reserve monetary shenanigans.

This bubble is different and bigger for another reason. The central banks of the world secretly collude to centrally plan the world economy. I’m convinced that agreements among central banks to “monetize” U.S. debt these past 15 years have existed, although secretly and out of the reach of any oversight of anyone—especially the U.S. Congress that doesn’t care, or just flat doesn’t understand. As this “gift” to us comes to an end, our problems worsen. The central banks and the various governments are very powerful, but eventually the markets overwhelm when the people who get stuck holding the bag (of bad dollars) catch on and spend the dollars into the economy with emotional zeal, thus igniting inflationary fever.

This time—since there are so many dollars and so many countries involved—the Fed has been able to “paper” over every approaching crisis for the past 15 years, especially with Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, which has allowed the bubble to become history’s greatest.

The mistakes made with excessive credit at artificially low rates are huge, and the market is demanding a correction. This involves excessive debt, misdirected investments, over-investments, and all the other problems caused by the government when spending the money they should never have had. Foreign militarism, welfare handouts and $80 trillion entitlement promises are all coming to an end. We don’t have the money or the wealth-creating capacity to catch up and care for all the needs that now exist because we rejected the market economy, sound money, self reliance and the principles of liberty.

Since the correction of all this misallocation of resources is necessary and must come, one can look for some good that may come as this “Big Event” unfolds.

There are two choices that people can make. The one choice that is unavailable to us is to limp along with the status quo and prop up the system with more debt, inflation and lies. That won’t happen.

One of the two choices, and the one chosen so often by government in the past is that of rejecting the principles of liberty and resorting to even bigger and more authoritarian government. Some argue that giving dictatorial powers to the President, just as we have allowed him to run the American empire, is what we should do. That’s the great danger, and in this post-911 atmosphere, too many Americans are seeking safety over freedom. We have lost too many of our personal liberties already. Real fear of economic collapse could prompt central planners to act to such a degree that the New Deal of the 30’s might look like Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence.

The more the government is allowed to do in taking over and running the economy, the deeper the depression gets and the longer it lasts. That was the story of the 30ss and the early 40s, and the same mistakes are likely to be made again if we do not wake up.

But the good news is that it need not be so bad if we do the right thing. I saw “Something Big” happening in the past 18 months on the campaign trail. I was encouraged that we are capable of waking up and doing the right thing. I have literally met thousands of high school and college kids who are quite willing to accept the challenge and responsibility of a free society and reject the cradle-to-grave welfare that is promised them by so many do-good politicians.

If more hear the message of liberty, more will join in this effort. The failure of our foreign policy, welfare system, and monetary policies and virtually all government solutions are so readily apparent, it doesn’t take that much convincing. But the positive message of how freedom works and why it’s possible is what is urgently needed.

One of the best parts of accepting self reliance in a free society is that true personal satisfaction with one’s own life can be achieved. This doesn’t happen when the government assumes the role of guardian, parent or provider, because it eliminates a sense of pride. But the real problem is the government can’t provide the safety and economic security that it claims. The so-called good that government claims it can deliver is always achieved at the expense of someone else’s freedom. It’s a failed system and the young people know it.

Restoring a free society doesn’t eliminate the need to get our house in order and to pay for the extravagant spending. But the pain would not be long-lasting if we did the right things, and best of all the empire would have to end for financial reasons. Our wars would stop, the attack on civil liberties would cease, and prosperity would return. The choices are clear: it shouldn’t be difficult, but the big event now unfolding gives us a great opportunity to reverse the tide and resume the truly great American Revolution started in 1776. Opportunity knocks in spite of the urgency and the dangers we face.

Let’s make “Something Big is Happening” be the discovery that freedom works and is popular and the big economic and political event we’re witnessing is a blessing in disguise.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=115#more-115

OPINION: Patrick J. Buchanan: The Wars of Religion Return (HumanEvents.com)

Conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan, in a column published by Human Events, explores the conflict between those who want to achieve “social peace” between people regardless of their beliefs and the “duty” to “make God’s Law man’s law.”

The full article is online at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27282&s=rcmp

Last week’s clash between Dr. James Dobson and Barack Obama is but the latest skirmish in a war that dates back to the time of Christ. At issue: What is Christian truth? Does the true Christian put social peace ahead of his duty to make God’s Law man’s law?

In a speech in June 2006, Obama, citing the Book of Leviticus, which declares homosexuality an abomination, noted that Leviticus also says the eating of shellfish is an abomination and condones slavery.

Moreover, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount is “a passage so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application.”

Read the rest at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27282&s=rcmp

Professor Steven Calabresi on Enforcing Morality (Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy)

In this essay published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Steven Calabresi, the George C. Dix Professor of Constitutional Law, Northwestern University School of Law, comments on Judge Robert Bork’s thought-provoking book, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, specifically focusing on governmental efforts to enforce morality.  Calabresi argues that there is a place in the government for legislating morality.

“This Essay explores that topic by seeking to shed additional light on two fundamental questions raised by Judge Bork’s book. First, what is the proper relationship between law, religion, and morality? Second, is it appropriate for the government to punish adult consensual conduct that does not directly harm other individuals, such as drug dealing and possession, prostitution, suicide, and for that matter professional boxing or dueling? I will address these two topics in turn.”

A short excerpt and then a link:

Legalizing drugs, prostitution, and assisted suicide could and probably would produce an explosion of such self-destructive behavior. After legalization, the government could itself encourage immoral behavior: (1) by selling drugs in state-owned, for-profit stores (the way some states continue to sell alcohol), (2) by running state-owned brothels to raise tax revenue, or (3) by encouraging elderly Medicare patients to consider assisted suicide to keep welfare costs down. Like it or not, the law teaches moral lessons, and people, especially in America, are quite prone to believe that what is legal is also moral.

 

Read the full essay (in PDF format) at http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol31_No2_Calabresionline.pdf

Thanks to Howard Friedman for posting a link to this piece on his blog at http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2008/06/recently-available-scholarly-article-of.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VIDEO: Increasing American Religious Comity (Pew Forum by way of Spectrum Magazine)

Thanks to Alexander Carpenter for finding this great video.   Click here to watch and review the analysis: http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2008/06/25/pew_video_increasing_american_religious_comity

Although a majority of Americans say religion is very important to them, nearly three-quarters of them say they believe that many faiths besides their own can lead to salvation, according to a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

—

Most Americans also have a non-dogmatic approach when it comes to interpreting the tenets of their own religion. For instance, more than two-thirds of adults affiliated with a religious tradition agree that there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their faith, a pattern that occurs in nearly all traditions. The exceptions are Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, 54% and 77% of whom, respectively, say there is only one true way to interpret the teachings of their religion.

Some Thoughts

This is an interesting statistic.  The question I have is whether or not this kind of thinking leads to a neutralization of religious belief.  Is it an effort to minimize differences in order to get along, and if so, does it lead to abandonment of one’s own distinct beliefs?

This could well be the difference between the pursuit of religious pluralism in the fruit salad metaphor where each faith is distinct and has its own flavor versus a smoothie where it all blends together and the net effect is that each part means less.  This includes the common elements of faith as well as the individual differentiated core elements of religious worship and thought, or those distinct practices that may require accommodation, whether this involves keeping a holy day or wearing religious clothing.

Part of celebrating religious freedom is the recognition that faiths can peacefully coexist even though they have mutually exclusive beliefs.  In other words, you do not have to agree with somebody else’s view of heaven or what it takes to get there in order to honor their religious commitment and their faith.  People should not feel pressured to agree that their beliefs are also correct if they do not share them, nor should they force their faith on others.

It takes a lot of work to maintain a welcoming environment in both law and practice for religious pluralism and diversity, but it is far better than the alternatives of neutralizing faith or favoring some beliefs over others.

Marriage Amendment: In California, your state constitutional rights are in the hands of your neighbors

There has been much discussion about the California ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriages from a moral / social / religious perspective, but not much about the concept of overturning court decisions by majority vote. 

Vikram David Amar at Findlaw writes in a post entitled, “The California Supreme Court’s Gay Marriage Opinion: The People of California Have the Power to Undo It By a Ballot Initiative Amending the State Constitution, But How Far Should That Power Extend?” and argues that the majority should have the abiltiy to change the California Constitution.

By definition, whatever the California people want the California constitution to be, it will be. In this regard, I might disagree a bit with Professor Dorf’s assertion that “California constitutional law [does not] embrace the view that minority rights turn on the majority’s willingness to recognize those rights.” In a very real sense, California constitutional law – and all constitutional law, for that matter – does embrace that exact view. As my brother and (sometimes)FindLaw colleague, Akhil Amar, has put the point: “In the end, individual [and minority group] rights in our system are, and should be, the products of ultimately majoritarian processes.” 

 

Columbia University School of Law Professor Michael Dorf, on his blog, MichaelDorf.com, writes a post entitled “California’s Majoritarian Difficulty“ and argues that this may cede too much power to the whim of the majority:

 

. . . the ease of amendment of the California Constitution should dramatically reduce the fear of judicial activism in California. If the Justices are terribly out of step with popular opinion as to the meaning of the state Constitution, the voters of the state can readily “overrule” the Justices. Thus, there is no real “counter-majoritarian difficulty” in California.

There does, however, appear to be a “majoritarian difficulty” in California. One of the purposes of having a constitution is to limit majoritarian decisions. Where a high court ruling is too difficult to change via constitutional amendment, the counter-majoritarian difficulty arises. But where the constitution can be amended as easily as a statute can be enacted, it effectively does not limit the majority, and thus we have the majoritarian difficulty.

Where, exactly, is the sweet spot between a Constitution that is too difficult to amend and one that is too easy to amend? That’s a hard question to answer in the abstract, although prima facie, a constitution that is impossible to amend (as the German Constitution purports to be on certain particulars) seems too difficult, whereas a constitution that can be amended by the ordinary legislative process (as the Israeli Basic laws can be) seems too easy. But much depends on context. A simple majority vote in the national or provincial legislatures is all that’s required to supersede a constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada under the Notwithstanding Clause, but a strong customary norm has made that power very difficult to invoke in practice.

http://www.michaeldorf.org/2008/05/californias-majoritarian-difficulty.html

The California Secretary of State has posted a study, including titles and results, about the history of California initiatives from 1912 to 2001 at http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/init_history.pdf

Among the proposed initiatives that made the ballot which would have amended the California Constitution,  some have relevance to the issues we discuss on ReligiousLiberty.TV.

One Day Rest in Seven (1914) (Rejected)
Requiring Bible in Schools (1926) (Rejected)
Sunday Closing Law (1930) (Rejected)
Taxing of School Property of Religious and Other Non-Profit Organizations (1958) (Rejected)
Subversive Activities (1962) (Rejected)
Terminal Illness – Assistance with Dying (1991) (Rejected)

Names of proposed amendments, including frequent initiatives on Bible reading in school, Sunday closing laws, and School Prayer,  and racial issues that arose earlier in the 1900s that did not make the ballot are not included in this list, and it is in no way comprehensive.  But they do illustrate some of the types of issues, aside from the routine tax, budget-type issues that Californians can decide. 

Some may argue that voters have a basic sense of fairness and goodwill and understanding of fundamental human rights, as traditionally expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, and would only sparingly use their votes to curtail the attempts by other to maintain or gain rights, and then only under the most dire of circumstances.

But in times of fear and uncertainty, when an advantage at the poll might lead to an advantage in the pocketbook or increase a sense of security or a desperately needed return to spiritual orthodoxy, all bets are off.

The power that Californians have to change the constitution must be applied with fear and trembling.  This process can be easily abused, and a quid pro quo among competing interests could even now be in the development stage. If the marriage amendment passes, will advocates then seek to undermine the property interests of churches or the rights of religious workers?  We know what is on the November 2008 ballot, but can only vaguely predict what we will see in 2009, 2010, and beyond.

For Californians and residents of other states that have a similar initiative process, your rights under your state’s constitution are in the hands of your neighbors. Treat them well.

 

Next Page »