Free Liberal Jesus

I just finished Tod Lindberg's book, The Political Teachings of Jesus. Tod is a research fellow at Hoover and an editor at Policy Review. In this work, he focuses on looking at the words of Jesus as they would be meant politically, separating out their religious context. He calls this the Jesusian teachings, as opposed to the Christian. He doesn't talk about how Jesus would feel about abortion and gay marriage and distrusts such analogies to today's hot button issues.

Jesusian teaching is about increasing freedom and equality for all. The main grist for his analysis is the Sermon on the Mount, from the Beatitudes to the Ancient Law to Self and Others to Judgement and the Golden Rule to the Narrow Path and the solid Foundation. His analysis of the Our Father is brilliant, especially when he discusses how "Our Daily Bread" is about making sure the entire community has the means to feed itself, not just the individual. In later chapters he analyzes the parables, scenes and saying of Jesus, the modern world and the place of miracles in the Jesusian movement (as well as the need for them in transforming the non-Jesusian world). His thesis here is that much of the modern world has adopted Jesusian ideals, however imperfectly, with a society based on the Golden Rule, freedom and equality.

It is compelling reading and I recommend it to believers and non-believers alike.

Of course, no reviewer ever ignores his own work in the same area, and I am not either. There are a few items Tod did not touch on that I do in my chapter on "Christian Humanism," which includes but goes beyond the Gospel texts, including philosphical reasoning and religious commentary as well. In my discourse on "Liberation Morality," I make the point, based on scripture, that moral teaching is not about pleasing God, but about making human life more livable. A perfect God does not have a stake in what is moral and what is not, morality is entirely about living the best life in this world. This allows a rethinking of teachings on homosexuality in light of findings that Gays and Lesbians are created that way, rather than being in any way disordered or diseased. I also re-examine the Crucifixion as a divine vision quest rather than a payment for human sin to satisfy an angry God. Both of these positions have profound implications on attempts to legislate morality and impose some higher standard on human behavior that I don't believe even God would recognize.

I also commend to you Carl Milsted's Holistic Politics, which is a free liberal reinterpretation of the Ancient Law in support of what could be considered free liberal ideas.

All three works provide a sound moral foundation for the work we do here, from what we support to our transpartisan approach.

God's Behind Gustav's Hitting New Orleans

At least that's what some prominent Dems seem to think:

Michael Moore (video)

Former DNC Chair, Don Fowler (video)

Needless to say, conservative politicos don't approve (h/t Hot Air, Weekly Standard)

Who is Sarah Palin?

I almost fell out of my chair eating dinner tonight when Brian Williams asked the question on air tonite. At least he said it and not someone in the Obama campaign.

If the GOP is smart, they will make tee-shirts and signs with the slogan "Sarah Who?!!" to make fun of that reaction at the convention. If they do, it will be one of those moments that live in history.

Who she turns out to be depends on the events of the next week. If Michael Huckabee turns on his organization to support her, she may well be the next Vice President of the United States - as well as the 45th President if McCain is true to his word and only runs for one term - or dies in office. This assumes that he learns to live with a Democratic Congress and offers a lot more compromise than the current occupant. This is not the time for gridlock.

Of course, if I were in the Bush White House, I would be very afraid of Sarah Palin as President. When she gets a full briefing on all that they did regarding the War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Liberation, she is likely to have some of them hauled away before the Statute of Limitations runs out on their crimes - although there may be no such limitation on war crimes - so they may really be sunk.

Unless she proves to be an empty shirt (notice I am being PC and did not say empty blouse or empty skirt - oops, I just did) - put in as a token and not a team member - then she will be the front runner in 2012 - even if the GOP loses (assuming the GOP actually survives a loss - since they are in serious trouble in congressional races).

If I were McCain, I would question whether winning is such a good idea. It is within the realm of possibility that the House and Senate may develop veto proof Democratic majorities - in which case they may just pass whatever they want and gut the Executive power. It has happened before post-Watergate and is likely to happen again.

Sarah Palin may end up running as the standard bearer of some new party in 2012. That is Sarah Who.

Hail Mary from the 10 Yard Line?

OK, I only got one of two VP major-party picks back in June. It appears that Romney was the runner up.

The selection of Sarah Palin has a desperate feel to it. Yes, she has an interesting background and personal story, but her resume is roughly as thin as Obama's. Perhaps -- oddly -- that's the point. Just as experienced as Obama, and a woman, somehow makes some sense. If the Ds are going to play identity politics, so will we, seems to be McCain's marker.

But she's unknown to most of America, designed to appeal to the Soccer Mom/NASCAR Dad set in Middle America. Hunter/fisher, mother, ethical reformer. I get that. Romney was just too rich to run with McCain...both living in a world of privilege that few will ever know. Palin is "real." She firms up the conservative base, even takes it to another level, given her gender.

Still, the desperation of using such an incredibly transparent tactic is surprising. It feels like a 60-yard Hail Mary when a quick post pattern seemed more appropriate.

Might work, might not.

The Rs and Ds have outdone themselves in stooping to theater over substance this go 'round. Hope we won't pay TOO high a price for the next four years. They are making it very easy for millions to vote Barr or Nader.

-RC

Lincoln's Legacy

Recently, I took part in a symposium about Abraham Lincoln and his legacy. The group that organized the symposium was the Center for the American Experiment a free market think tank based in Minnesota. A few dozen conservative and free market leaders including Grover Norquist and yours truly took part in the discussion. Check out the symposium here.

Needless to say, there is a diversity of opinion on Lincoln's legacy. My take tilts towards the negative based on questions of the relative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist">necessity of the Civil War and his abuse of habeas corpus. Check it out.

Stopping Pork: The Final Frontier

Whether you like John McCain or not, he has undoubtedly been one of Congress's undisputed leaders in fighting Congressional pork-barrel spending. Recently, Jonah Goldberg who will be coming to Albuquerque for a breakfast and book signing hosted by the Rio Grande Foundation, wrote about how Sen. McCain could capitalize on his leadership against pork-barrel spending as a means of getting elected to the White House.

As Goldberg points out, Alaska is one of the most significant recipients of federal "pork" projects. What Goldberg doesn't mention is that New Mexico actually gets more money out of Washington than even Alaska (according to the Tax Foundation). Maybe we can get Mr. Goldberg to write an article about the porky behavior of New Mexico's elected leaders?

It will also be interesting to see if McCain can make his anti-pork efforts an issue in the campaign. So far, it doesn't seem to be a prominent issue.

How Hillary Wins

What does Hillary want? To be president. How to do it? The surest way to make this happen is to get John McCain elected president.

If Barack gets elected and does well (in the political sense), it will be eight years before Hillary has her chance. If Barack gets elected and does poorly, a Mark Sanford Republican can win in 2012, pushing Hillary's coronation back 8 - 12 years.

Her best hope is to get a shot in four years by helping elect John McCain. Her supporters apparently may begin this effort in the next several days.

For the rest of us, we benefit from continued nastiness between the major candidates. A growing cynicism about the circus of politics could eventually lead to eye-opening realizations of the inherent limitations of government to run our lives.

/KDR

Obama - Biden

The choice has been made. I'll take that crow with ketchup.

The Main Stream Media was right after all, it was Biden. He brings national security to the table as well as Catholicism. He also has enough of a spine to effectively argue with any Bishop who tries to deny him communion for his defense of abortion rights - at last I hope he does. Kerry was a disaster in that regard, chalking it up to pluralism - how wishy washy. Protecting fetal rights in law sounds good until you analyze who would be sent to jail and what effect that would have on society and on women and girls. One can agree that 1. abortion is wrong and 2. criminal action to stop it is misguided. Most Americans actually believe that, because by and large it makes sense and is why I favor economic incentives to carry the child to term and provide families with kids with a middle class lifestyle, all with as little direct government involvement as possible.

And the two shall be one flesh...

is an oft quoted defense of traditional marriage. However, it is the second half of the quote. It begins with "A man will leave his family and cling to his wife...."

This particular quotation can be gender neutral without loss of meaning. A woman can leave her family for her husband or a man for his husband.

This is the point of marriage and why arguments that families who have members living together can call the relationship a marriage ring hollow. The point of marriage is two-fold. First, it is the unification of two families before God in the creation of a new unit. I get her relatives, she gets mine. Any kids born or adopted are members of both. The other is the separation, as Jesus said, of both parties from their respective families.

When someone is married, their spouse has the right to use and disposal of all of their property, including their bodies upon death or their medical treatment if incapacitated. Families lose that right - as it should be. There is no need for family members to marry eachother to gaurantee that right, since it is already there. If and when medical decisionmaking is required for my mother, my siblings and I can do it without any additional ritual, unless my mother finds love at age 80, in which case her spouse has that right. My brother, on the other hand, had to go through tremendous amounts of paperwork (hopefully he actually did so) so that his partner rather than my mother has the say as to the distribution of his assets and medical care. What is missing is the ability to acknowledge this with a marriage through the joining of both families before God. Hopefully that day will come soon because it is good for the families.

Marriage is not so much about sex as familial politics. There is no reason for families with gays not to have their unifications recognized by their churches. (I so happens that both my brother and his husband are both Catholic, so their would be no mixed marriage problem). The church owes us recognition of their joining as much as it owes it to them, since they (hopefully) have done the legal footwork to shut us out in favor of each other.

Embarrassing Video of Nancy Pelosi

Along with 7 other newly released Jan Helfeld videos, Nancy Pelosi's interview gives insight into the mental and philosophical weaknesses of America's great leaders.

View the YouTube channel: http://youtube.com/janhelfeld

The videos speak for themselves!

/KDR

Amtrak Ridership at "Record" Levels, More Subsidies Needed

News stories this week cited the fact that Amtrak ridership has risen significantly in recent months in response to high gas prices. In a free market, a record number of riders would mean record profits (or at least increased profits), but Amtrak is America's state-owned, socialist rail system (government ownership of the means of production, in this case a railroad), so profits are not even a consideration. In fact, Illinois Senator Richard Durbin has used increased ridership to argue that more taxpayer dollars should be funneled into the rail system, in part to purchase more train cars.

As the story points out, however, rail advocates shouldn't get too excited about the railroad's so-called "success": Even though Amtrak ridership last month increased 14 percent compared to July 2007, the railroad provides less than 1 percent of all trips made nationwide, as car and air travel reign. Air and rail rely far less on subsidies on a per passenger mile basis.

This one-percent is at a relatively high cost to taxpayers of more than $1 billion per year. The Southwest Chief, which runs through New Mexico is one of Amtrak's most heavily-subsidized routes operating at a cost to taxpayers of $236 per passenger.

Biden Shows Obama is Post-Racial

Right?

How else can you explain the fact that Obama picks a guy who said this, and this, and this?

The choice of Biden is especially ironic since it was Biden's "clean/articulate" remark about Obama that killed his candidacy. If I remember correctly (how many years long has this campaign been now?).

I guess Obama is just a forgiving guy. But can he forgive the "7-11/Indian" remark? Is he like Jesus, able to forgive sins against other people?

Prognostication Scorecard

I'm not a great handicapper, but I'm not bad, either.

I basically picked Biden here.

I'll stick with the Strangelove/Romney call.

Heaven, help us.

-RC

On "Pay Grades"

In some circles, Barack Obama's statement that he takes the view when human life actually begins and should be protected is above his "pay grade" has been lampooned.

Ouch!

I say "ouch" because that's my view, too.

The otherwise thoughtful Peggy Noonan rhetorically asks: "To put it another way, with conception something begins. What do you think it is? A car? A 1948 Buick?"

OK, I'll answer, Ms. Noonan: Conception begins a potential human life. When that potential human life deserves to be treated with the full rights of an actual human life is beyond my pay grade, too. No, it's not a car, not a 1948 Buick. Are these serious questions, Ms. Noonan, or mere rhetorical flourishes?

Obama demonstrated with this statement a sense of humility, a quality that I value in myself, others, and most especially politicians. Perhaps Ms. Noonan does not. Perhaps she admires those (zealots?) who believe they have all the answers. Good for them, I say, but I am disinclined to vote for someone who posits the perfection of their opinions. Scary!

I do, however, respect the pro-life view. I would say to those that believe that abortion is murder, this:

Is it not obvious that the pre-born are different than the born? If you wish to convince us that the pre-born should have full human rights, please do your best to convince those of us who don't. While I agree with you that Roe v. Wade was inappropriately decided, is it not obvious that the horse is out of the barn? Getting full rights for the pre-born will require you to convince a broader number of people of your position. Snide swipes at open-minded pro-choicers seems to alienate more than persuade.

Noonan goes on to take a swipe at "parsing" on complex issues. I for one had to fight the urge to eyeroll. It seems obvious that complex, complicated issues sometimes require some reflection.

Life, sad to say, is not a comic book.

-RC

Should the Church Perform Gay Marriages?

Michael Binder writes, “Acceptance of gays will only come when the Church doors are opened to them for marriage.” Perhaps, but should the Church open its doors to gay marriage. How about these similar ideas:

1. “Acceptance of sluts will only come when the Church sanctifies one night stands.”
   
2. “Acceptance of crack dealers will only come when the Church doors are opened for crack parties.”
   
3. “Acceptance of polygamy will only come when the Church doors are opened to them for marriage.”
   

What is different about these statements? Answer: the Biblical case is stronger for them than for gay marriage!

The Bible has plenty of bad things to say about sleeping around. If a married woman slept around, it was a death penalty offense. The same held for a teenage girl still living with her parents, or the daughter of a priest at any time. But outside these cases, harlotry was legal, though certainly not celebrated. Solomon, as a demonstration of his wisdom, adjudicated a dispute between two harlots. He did not have them arrested.

As for crack, there is no mandate for a drug war in the Bible. The Bible does condemn drunkenness (and gluttony), but it also celebrates alcoholic beverages: vineyards and wine are a recurring theme in the Bible. Other mind-altering drugs get little to no mention, so crack might be permissible by default. (But not if it causes one to fall into sin!)

Polygamy was legal under Biblical Law. It comes up frequently. Jesus did deprecate the practice as suboptimal, but he also deprecated getting rich, collecting debts, and punishing criminals.

I am not suggesting that the Church sanctify one night stands, host crack parties, or reinstitute polygamy. I am simply saying that doing these things is arguably less bad than hosting gay marriages. Homosexuality was a death penalty offense [Leviticus 20:13]. Politically incorrect but true. The language was unambiguous, and it was not about pederasty or rape. Both participants were to be killed upon discovery. For the Church to sanctify such relationships is to either call the Bible a set of fairy tales or claim the Church knows better than God.

One can make a Biblical case for repealing sodomy laws and even for state sanctioned gay marriage. Enforcement of the ban on homosexuality was limited to the Holy Land. The Israelites never received a mandate for worldwide jihad to enforce The Law on the rest of the world. The Holy Land was to be an example for the world.

Likewise Christians are tasked to be a holy people, to be examples for the societies in which they live. The Bible provides no mandate for Christians to force everyone to live up to Christian standards. The Bible says repeatedly that Christianity is not for everyone! Follow the link for relevant scriptures. Unfortunately, Christians have often overlooked these passages, and tried to ram Christianity down the throats of those not Called, resulting in witch burnings, inquisitions, blue laws and drug wars. Conversely, when in a position of weakness the Christians have dumbed down the meaning of “Christian” in order to get those not Called into the church doors. This is why we have a plethora of saint’s days that are actually papered-over pagan holidays.

According to Paul, the correct response by Christians for homosexuality – at least for those who have joined the Church and then gone back to homosexuality – is shunning. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul condemns that church for retaining a member who is sleeping with his father’s wife – a sin listed in Leviticus 20:11, two verses away from the verse on homosexuality. Paul tells the Corinthians to expel the sinner and to never associate with him, to shun. Paul mentions no resort to violence or law enforcement even though this too was a death penalty offense.

The state represents everyone. It has no business shunning unless someone has committed an offense against another member of society. The Church does not represent everyone; it represents Christians only. It should be allowed to set its standards for membership, even if those standards are politically incorrect.

The First Amendment calls for separation of Church and State, not Church and Religion.

Lets Drill Our Way to Lower Taxes

My former colleague at the National Taxpayers Union, Andrew Moylan, had an excellent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal recently which discussed yet another often-overlooked reason to open new areas to domestic drilling: a gusher of tax revenues.

As has been made abundantly clear in New Mexico during this special session, this state relies heavily on oil and gas revenues for tax revenues. We're not alone. The federal government also collects billions of dollars annually from oil and gas and, as Moylan points out:

The potential federal revenue from Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) oil development is $191 billion over 30 years -- roughly $18.36 per barrel, based on projections of recoverable reserves. Applying that formula to the 107 billion-plus barrels of recoverable oil that federal agencies estimate is in ANWR, the nearby National Petroleum Reserve and offshore tells us that sensible drilling could yield nearly $2 trillion in overall revenue over 30 years, or an average of about $65.5 billion per year.

Additional domestic oil and gas drilling is already a "win, win." As Moylan concludes, "More supply, lower gas prices, greater energy security, and lower taxes. What are we waiting for?"

Down is Up?

Lew Rockwell believes the current economic downturn is "good news."

His analysis is pretty right on from where I sit. Artificially induced economic bubbles burst. It's helpful when this happens to, first, not repeat the dysfunction, that is, don't re-inflate and re-regulate the conditions prior to the bubble bursting. Instead, seek means to avoid future bubbles.

To call the current economic jitters "good," though, seems tin-eared. The economic "patient" is sick, it needs to heal, which takes time. More of the same government "solutions" are indeed contra-indicated, and tend to exacerbate and extend the sickness.

Two million foreclosures is not "good," as I see it. It's an excellent way to alienate the foreclosed and those on the edge of foreclosure.

-RC

A Prediction - Obama/Clark

By the time this is read, it might be overcome by events.

My prediction is that Obama will pick General Wesley Clark as his running mate. I say this because Wednesday nite at the Democratic Convention will be devoted to national security. Because Clark has not already been announced as a speaker, it is likely that he will speak in the Vice Presidential slot.

This is going to piss off the brass, as Clark was hardly one of the go along to get along officers they love so much. Since retirement, he has publicly opposed the neocon agenda of activism in the Middle East, enacted largely to give the military a post-Cold War mission. His selection will telegraph the probable defense policy, leading to a new peace dividend after Iraq has been released from occupation and al Quada rooted out of Afghanisan and Western Pakistan. There will likely be fewer brass hats to go around in a few short years, which scares the careerists to no end.

This might also put Virginia back out of play, except for the fact that much of the military votes in Florida or some other home state. Of course, if Webb is the nominee instead Virginia will be strengthened for Obama.

Clark on the ticket will certainly make it interesting. It will certainly keep Obama safe from right wing nut jobs, as they will think twice before making Wes Clark the Commander in Chief. He knows where the bodies are buried and he might dig them up in the top spot. Hopefully he will be given a free hand to undo all that Cheney did. John Kerry's biggest mistake was not putting him on the ticket in 04. He would have cleaned Cheney's clock in the VP debate. He will certainly outclass either Romney or Huckabee, or anyone else the GOP has to offer. (Fair disclosure, this could be wishful thinking on my part, as I was a Clark supporter in 04 - does it show?).

Why the Church is so Focused on Abortion, et al

The battle over birth control, abortion and stem cell research is about more than just sex or the life of the blastocyst or fetus. While these are important issues, the reason the Church feels such a stake in this battle is that it says a lot about the very nature of the human soul.

The Church is wed to the idea that life begins at fertilization. This is a fairly recent development, as classical metaphysics, indeed Thomas Aquinas himself, taught that the soul was imparted at a later, sometimes much later, time. Aquinas thought that when the fetus began to move, there was proof that a soul was present. The Anglican Communion posits that implantation or gastrulation is the marker for ensoulment - a position that actually makes sense because before gastrulation human-bestial hybrids still develop. One can assume that God does not impart a soul to such hybrids, or that he adds an additional soul when twinning occurs, but this comes under the heading of making God do tricks to justify the Popes take on biology. This does not work as a matter of natural law reasoning.

This is a minor point of debate which impacts whether the Church is credible on birth control and stem cell research (which, as I have said before, it isn't - the Church's authoritative position would be strengthened if it would concede the biological point and move on). However, it only scratches the surface of the deeper question.

The deeper question, which scares the Hell out of the bishops, is whether people believe in a soul at all. If there is no soul at the front end then there is also no soul on the back end. If the soul is not cause it cannot be immortal. Without immortality with God, why bother with God at all, or with any of the Sacraments of the Church. They simply can't concede the point.

The soul has to be causative, even before the child develops the capacity for rational thought. The alternative is either no soul at all or a soul that is developmental - meaning one that grows out of experience and language rather than something that drives the organism. The sticky part is that neuroscience seems to show no "ghost in the machine." The soul, if it exists (and again, I believe it does) is totally integrated with the brain. This need not cause difficulty, as the brain and the cells which give rise to it, are totally involved in the development of the embryo after gastrulation - however they are not involved before it because before gastrulation the cells are not differentiated.

Like I said above, the Church would win by conceding the point on fertilization. Sometimes admitting when you are wrong actually increases credibility. Not doing so is generally regarded outside of the hierarchist world as being faulty reasoning.

Why is this an issue for this board? Because if the Church abandonned hubris, it could more effectively engage in civil debate. It also shows why it is hard for the Church to do such to date.

Jeanne Dixon, Russia v. Georgia, China, the CIA and Global Warming

There is a book by Jeannie Dixon where she predicted a Chinese migration into Russia. Given the current demographic reality, with the bulk of the Chinese population concentrated on their coast, this seems nutty.

Given the possibility of global warming and the current conflict between Russia and Georgia, her premonition deserves a second look.

It is hoped that the CIA is looking into what would happen if sea levels rose and the price of gasoline began to rise again. Global warming may be off the table at EPA, it should not be at CIA. Both energy prices and rising sea levels may drive the majority of the Chinese population away from the coast and the Chinese military west in search of oil, which is conveniently located in Siberia. Global warming and changing weather patterns could water the Gobi, or at least force the kind of technological development which makes drinking water more available in the Russian Steppe.

Due to the value of the resources contested in any Sino-Russian conflict, nuclear weapons won't be used - at least not strategic ones. This makes analysis of Russian v. Chinese conventional capabilities over the coming years essential. As we learned in Korea, China has the advantage of numbers, even after the one-child policy has been in effect for a generation. As those pampered pets need gas for their cars they may go west to get it. Picking on the Georgians, or even pushing back against Georgean militants, is one thing. Fighting a surging China, whether in war or in illegal immigration, is another (as we know with our southern border).

Sex, Birth Control and Gay Marriage

The 40th Anniversary of Humanae Vitae has brought in its share of apologia, among them Russell Shaw's piece in the Arlington Catholic Herald. There are two main themes that most cite. One is the equation of blastocysts with fetuses and the implication that stem cell research and birth control constitute an act of murder. The other is the usual handwringing about the separation of the generative and unitive purposes of sex when artificial birth control is used.

Both are problematic.

Scientifically and morally, there is evidence to show that Paul VI and John Paul II were just plain wrong. Until gastrulation, which occurs after implantation, twinning can occur (a moral objection to the gestationalists) and hybrids continue to develop (proving that a blastocyst may not actually be a human in some cases if bestiality was involved in the conception). 40 years ago, the Pope's scientific and theological advisors told him as much and were disregarded. In ethics class, this is called vincible ignorance and does not excuse the evil it causes.

Married Catholics also provided advice to the Pope on this issue and were also ignored, as they supported artificial birth control. As a married Catholic myself, the idea of taking advice about sex from confirmed celebates strikes me as a bit odd. As one who is approaching middle age and whose wife is approaching menopause, I find the assertion that sex without the possibility of procreation to be less than worthy to be personally insulting. The argument ad aburdo arising from this position is that I should divorce my wife and find a twenty year old for more procreation. That may work in some fundamentalist Mormon sects, but it is hardly Catholic.

The increase in sexual permissiveness since Humanae Vitae, which Shaw notes, has nothing to do with Humanae Vitae, since the encyclical was directed at married Catholics, not singles or gays and lesbians. Some of it comes from the liberalization of divorce laws, which left a lot of formerly marrieds in search of casual sex. Casual sex among the young has more to do with their increased economic power and the rise in collegiate and coeducational education than any teaching about married sexuality. Gay liberation has nothing to do with separating marital sex from creation. There has not been any increase in the incidence of homosexuality. What has increased is the tolerance of it and this is a good thing. Studies show that even young conservatives are more sexually tolerant than their traditionalist parents, which is why the hierarchy is so afraid. Their prejudices are going to die off when they do.

A separate piece that I read recently and cannot seem to locate made the outlandish assumption that gay marriage is wrong because it cannot reflect the relationship between Christ and the Church, which is also compared to the marriage covenant. This argument is almost circular, as originally the comparison between Jesus and the Church with marriage was used as a teaching tool. Comparing marriage back again is to turn the entire exercise into a tautology. There is also a problem with considering marriage in this way, since it clearly puts the female in a subordinate position.

Wives are no longer considered the property of their husbands, so the analogy breaks down - as it should anyway. In the Last Discourse, which was written after the Pauline Epistles, Jesus states that he no longer considers the Apostles (and the Church) as servants but as friends and brothers. This is an entirely different covenant than the marriage covenant described by Paul or by pseudo-Paul in Ephesians and Collosians.

Gay marriage is headed toward legal and constitutional acceptance in the not too distant future and the unraveling of the Republican Party will prevent any constitutional amendment in reaction to an almost certain overturning of gay marriage bans under equal protection grounds.

This will be a hollow victory, however. True acceptance of gays will only come when the Church doors are opened to them for marriage. The condemnations of homosexuality found in Scriptures did not consider such relationships, as most homosexual men had wives as property as well, or practiced pederastry, which is detestable even among liberals (when Jesus taught about corrupting children and the preference for being thrown in the sea with a milstone around one's neck, this is what he was referring to). When Paul wrote his letters, he fully expected that the preaching of the gospel to the known world would result in the imminent return of Christ. We're still waiting. We now know more about human sexuality, including the formation of sexual preference and its innate nature. Very few are "turned gay" if any (although some may be initiated into cycles of pederastry, which is different). With this in mind, the kind of moral ideal Paul recommends would be served rather than harmed by the celebration of Gay Weddings. Doing so allows the preaching of that sexual ideal, rather than presuming that gays and lesbians are naturally promiscuous. We can't share that message, however, until we abandon the notion that homosexuality is somehow disordered. How are gays to trust us with the words of Eternal Life if we do not trust them when they tell us that they did not choose their homosexuality?

Finally, there is the key teaching about marriage itself. Marriages are made by the parties involved. The Priest is merely a witness for the community. God blesses all marriages entered into in a sacramental spirit, whether witnessed or not. The fruits of this have been demonstrated by gay couples modeling the love of Christ in care for their partners suffering with AIDS and other maladies. To deny this is to deny the work of the Holy Spirit, which according to Luke was said to be sin which is not forgiven.

Denver Cops Beat Man Silly

I'm sick of police who act like they're above the law and am going to blog about them here whenever possible starting now. Check out this footage from Denver.

"Fair Trade Coffee" Hurts the Poor

Lots of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade">do-gooders like to believe that "fair trade" is superior to genuine "free trade." As discussed on wikipedia, the term "fair trade" is:

An organized social movement and market-based approach to alleviating global poverty and promoting sustainability. The movement advocates the payment of a fair price as well as social and environmental standards in areas related to the production of a wide variety of goods. It focuses in particular on exports from developing countries to developed countries, most notably handicrafts, coffee, cocoa, sugar, tea, bananas, honey, cotton, wine, fresh fruit, and flowers.

The intent is to help raise living standards for those in poor countries. But does it work? A growing body of evidence says "no." This article from theChristian Science Monitor argues persuasively that "fair trade" actually harms the poor.

As the author points out:

If there were just 10 small coffee growers worldwide, the price per pound of beans would be astronomical, and many people would rush to become coffee farmers. The current market price is "low" by comparison because there are already so many growers competing. By paying more than the market price for coffee – the authentically fair price – fair traders send a signal to people in developing countries to join an already overcrowded field.

In doing so, they artificially lure them away from perusing better-paying jobs that would enrich the diversity of a developing country's economy. A caffeinated price means more growers, more land destruction, more dependency on a single cash crop. It's a subsidy that undercuts the very sustainability fair traders want to promote.

Unfortunately for the do-gooders, the best way to help inhabitants of third-world nations is genuine free trade. Also, helping to educate them on the benefits of trade and limited government would be helpful.

"Opposing" Oppositionalism

One model of thinking one encounters goes something like this: Establish a system of morality in your head, and consistently oppose anything and everything that is immoral. In philosophy-speak, it can be called absolutist deontologicalism.

Interestingly, it assumes that we can absolutely know what is moral and what isn't. Based on results, can we really make such a claim? Is it not obvious that human history (including our individual history) that we think and do things that prove to later be incorrect. We are inherently imperfect, so it stands to reason that we cannot know what "perfection" is, even in theory.

If so, then does it really make sense to oppose anything and everything what we believe is "immoral"? Sometimes, we're wrong about what is moral and immoral. Why make the effort to oppose everything and anything that doesn't fit neatly into our personal morality box?

Noted anarcho theorist Stephan Kinsella seems to adopt the absolutist deontologicalism approach when he says this:

But look, even if the minarchists are right that a minimal state is necessary or needful or justified--look, guys, isn't it pretty clear that so long as we have a state, it's gonna be abused... ? Used for mischief? It never ends... So it seems to me that even a minarchist ought to oppose the state, if only as a tactical, prophylactic measure...

Oppose all functions performed by the State, he seems to say, to be safe. States are corrupt and inherently corruptible.

That's one way to look at the world, but is it the only way? Kinsella's correct that States are corrupt and corruptible, but with only some very minor historical exceptions, we have States. Perhaps we need a State like the cancer patient needs chemotherapy – as a means to counter a greater dysfunction. Perhaps by introducing a small amount of poison, the overall mechanism functions better. Perhaps the day will come when no chemotherapy is necessary, but is today that day? That does not appear to be indicated.

Politics, I suggest, is a triage operation. The advocate proposes change that improves, with any luck guided by a sense of virtue and functionality. It need not be about "opposing" at all. And "opposing all" seems grandiose and overreaching.

Prioritizing is what we do all day long, that's how we reveal our preferences.

Opposing anything and everything that we find offensive (today, at least) seems above our pay grade. And a drag, actually.

-RC

What is happening in South Ossetia?

From the sound of media reports and Bush Administration rhetoric, Russia is a clear aggressor in its war against Georgia. This ">excellent article by Justin Raimondo disputes that assertion and debunks it rather effectively.

But even that video doesn't question why the US has unwisely chosen to bring the outdated NATO (originally organized to counteract the Soviet Union in Western Europe) to Russia's borders. As if expanding an outdated NATO were not dumb enough, the US should at least understand that a second Cold War with energy-rich Russia would not be in its own best interests.

Then again, it seems like American politicians have a knack for consistently making bad decisions when it comes to foreign policy. I'm not saying that Russia is completely innocent in this war, but it seems that at the very least the US should not have emboldened Georgia to attempt to take back its breakaway republic. Of course that would mean that there is a place on the globe free of US meddling...we simply can't have that.

Government Health Care

"Universal," government-mandated health care is under consideration around the nation (and will be pushed hard in a potential Obama Administration). Check out this video which illustrates in stark detail how health care might work if we put government in charge.

Backyard Nukes?

This is one scary link.

Nukes, for power or as weapons, changed everything, as I see it. If civil society allows them, I'm not at all sure we have a civil society. Justifying them goes to loopy places.

(HT Tyler Cowen)

-RC

Is Transit Really Green?

The conventional wisdom is that projects like the RailRunner and Mayor Marty's proposed trolley are inherently "green" because they get people out of their cars. While this is usually the case if a bus or train is full and automobiles contain only one passenger, this is not how the equation usually works.

In fact, Brad Templeton does an excellent analysis of various transit systems and compares them with automobiles of different sizes and occupancies and finds that construction of new transit systems and even the use of buses is not necessarily green, especially when compared with small cars and cars containing multiple passengers.

As he points out:

A full bus or trainload of people is more efficient than private cars, sometimes quite a bit more so. But transit systems never consist of nothing but full vehicles. They run most of their day with light loads. The above calculations came from figures citing the average city bus holding 9 passengers, and the average train (light or heavy) holds 22. If that seems low, remember that every packed train at rush hour tends to mean a near empty train returning down the track.

After all, how often do you see empty or out of service buses driving around town? The Rail Runner certainly isn't always full.

Templeton isn't the only one who is skeptical of the relative "green-ness" of transit. Randal O'Toole over at the Cato Institute argues in a recent research paper that rail transit doesn't save energy or reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Before we embark on massive new transit projects, we should carefully analyze whether or not these projects are really good for the environment.

Land of the Free or Evil Empire?

Once upon a time Rome was a republic, something of a model of good government for the time. But over time it degenerated into becoming an oppressive empire.

Could the same thing be happening to the United States? Mother Jones proves it has already happened. One in four of the world's prison inmates are in jail in this country! This is hideous! For those who value liberty this is a much bigger issue than tax rates, eminent domain, monetary policy etc.

No Respect for Huckabee

If you read the pundits, you would think that Mike Huckabee was never on the ballot in the GOP primary - even though he garnered the second highest number of delegates and dominated the primaries in the South - a key to the Republican base. Just sample the talking heads and writing keyboards. David Broder is among the most aggregious Huckabee ignorers. In his latest piece on the subject, Mike was not mentioned at all, although Romney was (even though Huckabee got more delegates and has no discernable base). Recent polls of Huckabee hounds show that his voters may do what Clinton voters threaten to do - stay home - and especially if Romney gets the VP nod. Broder can only shape the news so much. The reality is that Huckabee has to be on any short list. If he is ignored, there is an opening for Bob Barr in the South. Now wouldn't that make news.