It may not be too over-the-top to suggest that the push for Same-Sex Marriage is one of a number of trends moving toward an end of marriage. See this summary. For our previous (spirited) discussions of same-sex marriage see this post, and this follow-up.
The Barna Group is reporting that relatively few people who read The Da Vinci Code change their minds about their religious beliefs. Rather, people seem to reaffirm their prior opinions.
31/05: Christianity in America
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
The Church Herald of the RCA recently noted a Barna Group conducted survey on certain American religious practices.
(From the Church Herald) UNITED STATES
Survey: More Americans Reading Bible Weekly
A survey shows the percentage of Americans who say they regularly read the Bible continues to increase. The survey, conducted by the Barna Group, found that 47 percent of respondents said they open the Bible on a weekly basis, up from just 31 percent in 1995 and 40 percent six years ago. The survey also polled respondents on six other "religious behaviors" including church attendance and attending small groups like Bible studies. Forty-seven percent said they attend church on a weekly basis, up from 37 percent a decade ago, while 23 percent said they attend small group functions affiliated with church. Twenty-seven percent of those asked said that they volunteer through church, while 24 percent said that they attend Sunday school, up from 17 percent in 1996.
. . .
The Barna report was based on data taken from 1,003 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone in January. The Barna Group is a private, for-profit corporation in Ventura, California, that conducts research on spiritual development. (RNS)
Copyright © 2006 The Church Herald. All rights reserved.
4500 60th Street SE • Grand Rapids, MI 49512 • 616-698-7071
(cont.)
(From the Church Herald) UNITED STATES
Survey: More Americans Reading Bible Weekly
A survey shows the percentage of Americans who say they regularly read the Bible continues to increase. The survey, conducted by the Barna Group, found that 47 percent of respondents said they open the Bible on a weekly basis, up from just 31 percent in 1995 and 40 percent six years ago. The survey also polled respondents on six other "religious behaviors" including church attendance and attending small groups like Bible studies. Forty-seven percent said they attend church on a weekly basis, up from 37 percent a decade ago, while 23 percent said they attend small group functions affiliated with church. Twenty-seven percent of those asked said that they volunteer through church, while 24 percent said that they attend Sunday school, up from 17 percent in 1996.
. . .
The Barna report was based on data taken from 1,003 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone in January. The Barna Group is a private, for-profit corporation in Ventura, California, that conducts research on spiritual development. (RNS)
Copyright © 2006 The Church Herald. All rights reserved.
4500 60th Street SE • Grand Rapids, MI 49512 • 616-698-7071
(cont.)
Category: General
Posted by: an okie gardener
As you may know, I am becoming a Cardinal George Pell fan. Here is a link to an interview with him on EWTN. The interview is number 12 on the list. The list also includes interviews with Michael Medved, Peggy Noonan, Rick Santorum and others.
30/05: A Bloody Anniversary
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Jihad Watch commemorates the fall of Constantinople to the Turks; the day one of the bastions of Christianity fell to the Muslims. Since I could not find a permalink to the particular article, I have copied it into the extended section below.
30/05: The 3 R's to Save the Planet
Category: Environment
Posted by: an okie gardener
In the early 80s I drove twice-weekly from near Princeton, New Jersey, up to Kearny, on the Jersey side near the Meadowlands. I usually took the Jersey Turnpike until the Kearny exit. For this country boy, the site of the landfill affected me every time I saw it. Huge! Mountainous! Growing! Acres of trash being compacted by heavy machinery and picked over by seagulls. It did not take much imagination to envision a day when the landfills just for the New York City metro area would cover more area than a west Texas county to a depth of over a hundred feet. We can't keep doing this sort of thing forever.
I think it a Christian duty to promote and to practice the Three R's: reduce, reuse, and recycle. Even little steps count. Our grocery store sacks into smaller-sized plastic bags. I reduce the number of bags by requesting no bags for milk jugs, sacks of potatoes, etc. that I can carry just as easily, or perhaps more easily, without the bag. We reuse the bags by using them as trash can liners in the bathrooms (reducing another purchase), and by giving them to a fellow-church member who uses them to clean up after her dog when she walks him. A small step, but small steps add up. I have a box in the corner of my office for white paper to take to recycling. No hardship. Just the cultivation of a certain habit.
Looking at our wasteful culture, it is tough to believe that we are the descendants of people who practiced "A penny saved is a penny earned," and "Use it up, wear it out, make it do."
I think it a Christian duty to promote and to practice the Three R's: reduce, reuse, and recycle. Even little steps count. Our grocery store sacks into smaller-sized plastic bags. I reduce the number of bags by requesting no bags for milk jugs, sacks of potatoes, etc. that I can carry just as easily, or perhaps more easily, without the bag. We reuse the bags by using them as trash can liners in the bathrooms (reducing another purchase), and by giving them to a fellow-church member who uses them to clean up after her dog when she walks him. A small step, but small steps add up. I have a box in the corner of my office for white paper to take to recycling. No hardship. Just the cultivation of a certain habit.
Looking at our wasteful culture, it is tough to believe that we are the descendants of people who practiced "A penny saved is a penny earned," and "Use it up, wear it out, make it do."
Category: US in Iraq.archive
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
The purpose of Memorial Day is to take a collective, national pause to consider and celebrate those brave dead who gave their “last full measure of devotion…so that this nation [might] not perish from the earth.”
In that vein, Victor Davis Hanson’s Memorial Day analytical tribute, “Looking Back to Iraq: A War to be Proud of,” is a must read.
What went right?
Hanson asserts:
1. Saddam is gone and that is good. A malevolent actor is no longer atop one of the most potentially powerful states in the world, roiling an already turbulent and troublesome region, held in check only through a leaky sanctions regime, which was dependent upon European resolve, Russian morality and Chinese altruism.
2. US action gave Iraq an honest opportunity for democracy.
3. The fight with Islamism in Iraq has shed moral clarity on the vital war with Islamic extremism.
Manifest reasons why we didn’t go to war (Hanson enumerates):
1. Cheap gasoline.
2. Halliburton.
3. Imperialism (some of the President’s strongest critics call for more troops—not less, and it is clear that no one in the USA wants us to stay in Iraq one minute more than necessary).
Hanson touches on the debate over casus belli. He does well to remind us that the pre-war case for action was not mono-causal—but laced with multiple motives. One of my colleagues wrote critically, before the fighting commenced, that President Bush seemed unable to articulate one clear reason for war; he bemoaned the Bush approach of multiple rationales, seeing such variety as a signal that the case was not well made.
However, I believed then and now that criticism of that nature was misplaced. I have criticized the President for the exact opposite mistake: President Bush relied too heavily on WMD as a casus belli. There were myriad imperatives why Saddam’s removal was crucial: the shaky sanctions regime; the fact that we were flying combat missions (and taking hostile fire) over Iraq every day; our presence in Saudi Arabia, a result of the ongoing “state of war” with Iraq, was highly offensive to the Muslim world; and, most importantly, the Middle East is a bad neighborhood with a lot of bad guys and the presence of Saddam exacerbated that precarious balance between threatening and less-threatening entities. Every day Saddam was in power made the United States and the world less safe. Transforming Iraq would be a watershed moment in remaking the Middle East.
Notwithstanding, President Bush, Tony Blair and Colin Powell pinned the case for war on WMD. Why did they do it? It was a sure thing. In the words of George Tenant, it was a “slam dunk.” We know now that the slam dunk was the sure thing that wasn’t.
Almost immediately, even before the full realization that there would be no smoking WMD, the Bush administration began to emphasize the other reasons for toppling Saddam and building a democratic government in Iraq friendly to the United States, which continues to bring criticism from various quarters.
Fluid rationales for wars are not unprecedented in American history. Oftentimes Presidents have had trouble articulating our real reasons for making war. James K. Polk’s War Message to Congress asking for a declaration of hostilities against Mexico is perhaps the most infamous. President Polk charged the Mexicans with rudeness to an American diplomat, primarily, and, as an after thought, an unprovoked attack on American forces (after Polk had moved General Zachary Taylor and company into a position finally so provocative that it engendered an attack).
What Polk could not bring himself to say was this: the United States needed the Great Southwest for our experiment in liberty. Polk was clearly under the spell of “Manifest Destiny” (although you will not find that term in the Message or any of his public utterances; the familiar terms comes from a contemporary Democratic newspaper editor).
Sometimes the unvarnished truth is impossible to articulate. Polk knew what Washington, Jefferson and Jackson had known from the very beginning of the American Republic: to reach our full potential as an emerging nation dedicated to a system of self government, we needed a transcontinental “empire for liberty” fueled by a robust economy and westward-moving culture.
Even now the “manifest” truth of that need is hard to articulate, defend and rationalize, but in our hearts we all seem to understand that the Southwest was necessary to our survival and success. Would any of us give it back? We are limited by language and idealism. Our need for pure motives is one of the conundrums of politics in the United States, wherein vital national interests must be tempered with just war doctrine and an acutely American sense of fair play.
In that vein, Victor Davis Hanson’s Memorial Day analytical tribute, “Looking Back to Iraq: A War to be Proud of,” is a must read.
What went right?
Hanson asserts:
1. Saddam is gone and that is good. A malevolent actor is no longer atop one of the most potentially powerful states in the world, roiling an already turbulent and troublesome region, held in check only through a leaky sanctions regime, which was dependent upon European resolve, Russian morality and Chinese altruism.
2. US action gave Iraq an honest opportunity for democracy.
3. The fight with Islamism in Iraq has shed moral clarity on the vital war with Islamic extremism.
Manifest reasons why we didn’t go to war (Hanson enumerates):
1. Cheap gasoline.
2. Halliburton.
3. Imperialism (some of the President’s strongest critics call for more troops—not less, and it is clear that no one in the USA wants us to stay in Iraq one minute more than necessary).
Hanson touches on the debate over casus belli. He does well to remind us that the pre-war case for action was not mono-causal—but laced with multiple motives. One of my colleagues wrote critically, before the fighting commenced, that President Bush seemed unable to articulate one clear reason for war; he bemoaned the Bush approach of multiple rationales, seeing such variety as a signal that the case was not well made.
However, I believed then and now that criticism of that nature was misplaced. I have criticized the President for the exact opposite mistake: President Bush relied too heavily on WMD as a casus belli. There were myriad imperatives why Saddam’s removal was crucial: the shaky sanctions regime; the fact that we were flying combat missions (and taking hostile fire) over Iraq every day; our presence in Saudi Arabia, a result of the ongoing “state of war” with Iraq, was highly offensive to the Muslim world; and, most importantly, the Middle East is a bad neighborhood with a lot of bad guys and the presence of Saddam exacerbated that precarious balance between threatening and less-threatening entities. Every day Saddam was in power made the United States and the world less safe. Transforming Iraq would be a watershed moment in remaking the Middle East.
Notwithstanding, President Bush, Tony Blair and Colin Powell pinned the case for war on WMD. Why did they do it? It was a sure thing. In the words of George Tenant, it was a “slam dunk.” We know now that the slam dunk was the sure thing that wasn’t.
Almost immediately, even before the full realization that there would be no smoking WMD, the Bush administration began to emphasize the other reasons for toppling Saddam and building a democratic government in Iraq friendly to the United States, which continues to bring criticism from various quarters.
Fluid rationales for wars are not unprecedented in American history. Oftentimes Presidents have had trouble articulating our real reasons for making war. James K. Polk’s War Message to Congress asking for a declaration of hostilities against Mexico is perhaps the most infamous. President Polk charged the Mexicans with rudeness to an American diplomat, primarily, and, as an after thought, an unprovoked attack on American forces (after Polk had moved General Zachary Taylor and company into a position finally so provocative that it engendered an attack).
What Polk could not bring himself to say was this: the United States needed the Great Southwest for our experiment in liberty. Polk was clearly under the spell of “Manifest Destiny” (although you will not find that term in the Message or any of his public utterances; the familiar terms comes from a contemporary Democratic newspaper editor).
Sometimes the unvarnished truth is impossible to articulate. Polk knew what Washington, Jefferson and Jackson had known from the very beginning of the American Republic: to reach our full potential as an emerging nation dedicated to a system of self government, we needed a transcontinental “empire for liberty” fueled by a robust economy and westward-moving culture.
Even now the “manifest” truth of that need is hard to articulate, defend and rationalize, but in our hearts we all seem to understand that the Southwest was necessary to our survival and success. Would any of us give it back? We are limited by language and idealism. Our need for pure motives is one of the conundrums of politics in the United States, wherein vital national interests must be tempered with just war doctrine and an acutely American sense of fair play.
28/05: Bush and the Judiciary
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
On Friday, noting that the President had a great week, I mentioned the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh as a circuit court judge. A Washington Post article today recaps the confirmation but does not indicate the bipartisan support Kavanaugh garnered. It turns out that a friend of the Bosque Boys played a role in this confirmation debate as a signatory to a letter (one of twenty-five Yale Law "aluminaries") to the Judiciary committee leadership. (Click here for the PDF, which was released by DOJ.)
The letter begins:
"We are a bipartisan group who were classmates with Brett Kavanaugh at Yale Law School in the Class of 1990. Many of us have kept in touch with him ever since and value his friendship greatly. We write in support of his confirmation to the United Slates Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit."
and later this:
"Many of us disagree—occasionally strongly—with policy views Mr. Kavanaugh holds. But those disagreements do not diminish our conviction that Mr. Kavanaugh is a fair-minded and reasonable man who would, as ajudge, interpret and apply the law fairly. Based on our years of knowing Mr. Kavanaugh, we are firmly convinced that his allegiance as a federal judge would be only to the Constitution and laws of the United States and not to anypartisan interests."
Two points on this:
1) If I ever decide to go to law school, remind me to go to Yale. Those guys have supreme confidence in their institution to produce movers and shakers, and they stick together. They seem to have the great ability to put politics aside and support service and competence. Well done.
2) Kudos to the President, who continues to put highly qualified conservative judges before the Senate. Kudos to his staff and the DOJ (Harriet Miers deserves a little belated recognition as well) for finding candidates so eminently qualified that the hackneyed partisan criticism (e.g., Ted Kennedy, a Harvard man, called Kavanaugh a "political operative" and the "youngest, least experienced and most partisan appointee to the court in decades") eventually withers in the face of their white-hot credentials, superior training, judicial temperments and fine intellects.
The letter begins:
"We are a bipartisan group who were classmates with Brett Kavanaugh at Yale Law School in the Class of 1990. Many of us have kept in touch with him ever since and value his friendship greatly. We write in support of his confirmation to the United Slates Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit."
and later this:
"Many of us disagree—occasionally strongly—with policy views Mr. Kavanaugh holds. But those disagreements do not diminish our conviction that Mr. Kavanaugh is a fair-minded and reasonable man who would, as ajudge, interpret and apply the law fairly. Based on our years of knowing Mr. Kavanaugh, we are firmly convinced that his allegiance as a federal judge would be only to the Constitution and laws of the United States and not to anypartisan interests."
Two points on this:
1) If I ever decide to go to law school, remind me to go to Yale. Those guys have supreme confidence in their institution to produce movers and shakers, and they stick together. They seem to have the great ability to put politics aside and support service and competence. Well done.
2) Kudos to the President, who continues to put highly qualified conservative judges before the Senate. Kudos to his staff and the DOJ (Harriet Miers deserves a little belated recognition as well) for finding candidates so eminently qualified that the hackneyed partisan criticism (e.g., Ted Kennedy, a Harvard man, called Kavanaugh a "political operative" and the "youngest, least experienced and most partisan appointee to the court in decades") eventually withers in the face of their white-hot credentials, superior training, judicial temperments and fine intellects.
Okie Gardener and I have been having a pretty interesting discussion in re his post, "Sex, Marriage and Same-Sex Marriage" in the comments section. So much so, I decided to extract the comments section and feature it as a free-standing post. I encourage you to read the original post in its entirety, and the acompanying article in its entirety; the discussion below begins with the premise that the institiution of marriage rests on three goods: procreation, fidelity and permanence.
A Waco Farmer wrote:
In re the "three goods:"
I understand that your central argument for marriage is protecting children, but we still believe in, as you note, marriage for heterosexual couples who do not/cannot procreate. Those barren unions are still allowed and seen as a positive good. How is that different from letting homosexual couples who will not procreate marry one another and enjoy the benefits available to opposite-sex couples without children?
an okie gardener wrote:
The short answer it that I encourage you to read the entire paper. The brief answer is that what is at issue is the definition of marriage. When one defines marriage as between a man and a woman, then procreation is the natural result of their union. The exceptions, barren couples, do not change the definition, but are simply an unfullfillment of the general case. Same sex unions are by definition barren, not by accident.
A Waco Farmer wrote:
I will read the paper, but my question is this: why cannot homosexual marriages be another exception? Again, staying with barren couples. Even if we know a man and a woman will not have children before they marry, we still see plenty of good reasons to encourage them to marry and offer them the same protections as a fruitful couple.
What makes the case of same-sex couples different?
A Waco Farmer wrote[continued]:
Okay. I'm back. I read the paper. I will probably go back and read it again.
Here is my summary:
1. In answer to my above question: the RCA does not recognize same-sex marriage because a rational reading of scripture, nature and tradition testifies against it.
Okay. I can accept that. In fact, from my own extremely inerudite theological perspective, I agree. Although I think there is a fundamental inconsistency in the position that places procreation as the sine qua non of marriage, and then favors birth control or allows barren marriages--but "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."
2. Redefining marriage: the RCA argument completely satisfies me in terms of why the RCA is not going to participate or condone same-sex marriages. It rests, as I said, on a rational interpretation of scripture, nature and church tradtion.
On the other hand, the argument against the civil recognition of same-sex marriages falls a bit flat for me. I will need to read it again, but so much of that section seems to admit how little influence the church has on the definition of marriage. Why is same-sex marriage different?
A Waco Farmer wrote:
In re the "three goods:"
I understand that your central argument for marriage is protecting children, but we still believe in, as you note, marriage for heterosexual couples who do not/cannot procreate. Those barren unions are still allowed and seen as a positive good. How is that different from letting homosexual couples who will not procreate marry one another and enjoy the benefits available to opposite-sex couples without children?
an okie gardener wrote:
The short answer it that I encourage you to read the entire paper. The brief answer is that what is at issue is the definition of marriage. When one defines marriage as between a man and a woman, then procreation is the natural result of their union. The exceptions, barren couples, do not change the definition, but are simply an unfullfillment of the general case. Same sex unions are by definition barren, not by accident.
A Waco Farmer wrote:
I will read the paper, but my question is this: why cannot homosexual marriages be another exception? Again, staying with barren couples. Even if we know a man and a woman will not have children before they marry, we still see plenty of good reasons to encourage them to marry and offer them the same protections as a fruitful couple.
What makes the case of same-sex couples different?
A Waco Farmer wrote[continued]:
Okay. I'm back. I read the paper. I will probably go back and read it again.
Here is my summary:
1. In answer to my above question: the RCA does not recognize same-sex marriage because a rational reading of scripture, nature and tradition testifies against it.
Okay. I can accept that. In fact, from my own extremely inerudite theological perspective, I agree. Although I think there is a fundamental inconsistency in the position that places procreation as the sine qua non of marriage, and then favors birth control or allows barren marriages--but "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."
2. Redefining marriage: the RCA argument completely satisfies me in terms of why the RCA is not going to participate or condone same-sex marriages. It rests, as I said, on a rational interpretation of scripture, nature and church tradtion.
On the other hand, the argument against the civil recognition of same-sex marriages falls a bit flat for me. I will need to read it again, but so much of that section seems to admit how little influence the church has on the definition of marriage. Why is same-sex marriage different?
26/05: More Media Bias
Well. Okie Gardener has swayed me. As long as we are charting bad journalism, check out this lead from the Washington Post (which I think generally does a pretty fair job of covering the war and the President):
"President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair once bestrode the globe as powerful leaders who spoke boldly of bringing democracy to the Middle East. Now, dragged down by popular discontent over their adventure in Iraq, both have reached the lowest point of their careers."
And it gets worse.
Talk about a wolf in sheep's clothing (news analysis/opinion put forth as a straight news story). If you listen to this fellow, Glenn Kesler, the sky is falling. He calls Bush a virtual lame duck.
For a lame duck, and I admit that the poll numbers are dismal, the President had a pretty good week: Hayden (the face of NSA domestic surveillance) confirmed at CIA by a good margin, Brett Kavanaugh (another conservative circuit court nominee) confirmed, and the President's stepping forward to the bully pulpit on immigration seemed to pay dividends in the Senate this week.
Leave the "seeing the world as I wish it was" to us bloggers, boys, and just report the news.
"President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair once bestrode the globe as powerful leaders who spoke boldly of bringing democracy to the Middle East. Now, dragged down by popular discontent over their adventure in Iraq, both have reached the lowest point of their careers."
And it gets worse.
Talk about a wolf in sheep's clothing (news analysis/opinion put forth as a straight news story). If you listen to this fellow, Glenn Kesler, the sky is falling. He calls Bush a virtual lame duck.
For a lame duck, and I admit that the poll numbers are dismal, the President had a pretty good week: Hayden (the face of NSA domestic surveillance) confirmed at CIA by a good margin, Brett Kavanaugh (another conservative circuit court nominee) confirmed, and the President's stepping forward to the bully pulpit on immigration seemed to pay dividends in the Senate this week.
Leave the "seeing the world as I wish it was" to us bloggers, boys, and just report the news.
