Skip to content

Monthly Archives for October 2005

The Media’s Game

Yes, I’m hooked on the news again. I guess there are worse things to be addicted to, but the news is probably worse for my blood pressure than a lot of other things.

I generally check out MSNBC.com every morning. I’m trying to make the switch to Foxnews.com, but I go to MSNBC out of habit. And, their site is by far the prettiest of the news sites. It’s clean and well-organized, the text is usually displayed in an easy-to-read manner, and they have these little public stupidity polls that you can participate in and pick weird answers to mess with the results. Foxnews.com, on the other hand, has this annoying blue background that flashes before the content loads, and it’s just plain ugly. Fox does, however, have more “fair and balanced” reporting. And, they write more of their own stories, rather than just uploading crap from the AP.

Speaking of the Associated Press, today I pulled up my Excite! home page to check the news headlines, and seeing Bush had made his new Supreme Court nomination, I clicked on the msnbc story, and found, of course, an AP upload. This is the opening line: “President Bush, stung by the rejection of his first choice, nominated conservative judge Samuel Alito…”

Hold on for a moment. Stung? By rejection? Who said President Bush was stung? Did someone talk to Laura? Did Bush say somewhere that he was “stung?” Come on, give me a break! This is not news; this is not “the 5 W’s.” This is a total fabrication – but, I think most people are too mindless to notice, and the AP writers know that. Again, they are creating public opinion, by their constant use of these fabrication thrown in to each and every news story they publish. I wonder if the AP would even accept a piece that just stuck to facts. This isn’t news reporting, this is creative writing.

I think it should be mandatory that Logic be taught to everyone at some point in high school so they could better recognize these little games that the AP plays (not that the other news services are any better). There should be a way to hold these people responsible for their fabrications. I guess I just have to start writing to the editor, several times a day, and just bug them to death.

Of course, after one or 2 e-mails, I’d probably be added to a spam list.

Bottom line, I don’t think Bush was too badly “stung” by the Miers thing. Frustrated, probably. But, after 5 years in the White House and 2 Presidential campaigns, I think it takes a bit more than this to “sting” him.

Written on 31 October 2005 by me under Random Thoughts with No Comments

Crisis? What Crisis?

Okay, so I stole the title from an old Supertramp album…

I started reading John Eldredge’s Waking the Dead. I had read the first chapter online some time ago and thought, “I want to read this!” So, I bought it, and it’s sat around for a few months. Finally – perhaps because I’m more “dead” now and really need it – I decided to pick it up. I’m only 2 chapters into it, but already I’m questioning his premise. In fact, I was questioning his premise before I began reading this book; however, he has set forth 3 propositions that really clarify what it is with which I have a problem.

Here are his propositions in a nutshell:

  1. Things are not what they seem.
  2. Some struggle, quest or battle is under way, and may even be hanging in the balance.
  3. In this desperate hour, we have a crucial role to play.

I do appreciate his discussion on the importance of myth; I believe very much that myth can express “the deep truths of life.” However, myths can also express human needs and desires, which may not be so true. Now, as to his propositions, I can accept the first, that things are not always what they seem. I have referred to The Matrix on many, many occasions to make that very point. I also believe in point number 2, to a point; there is a spiritual war being waged. However, the sense of immediacy that he builds into this proposition concerns me a bit; more on this in a moment.

It’s point #3 that concerns me the most: that we have a crucial part to play. He references Neo of The Matrix, Frodo of Lord of the Rings and other great mythic heroes, claiming that these myths speak directly to us, the meaning being that you and I are each called to fulfill some great quest. Many of us would like to think so. It’s nice to dream that we are special, that we are the ones who can be “the One” save the world, to carry the ring to Mount Doom. But, is this true?

Perhaps Eldredge is writing to people with no sense of vision, and is trying to inspire them. Perhaps – and then I can see his point. But, I see danger in this approach, because I know people who live for this sense of immediacy, where everything is the battle of the century, there’s a demon behind every bush, and the Christian life is all about doing big things for God.

I think this kind of thinking is unfair, dangerous, and contributing to the flakiness of the church. It seems like “fast food” theology: there’s nothing boring or mundane, no planning or preparation, just hot, fast and now. I’m sorry, but life isn’t like that, and it’s not fair to lead people to believe that it is. What about the long, long periods of time between God’s communications with Abraham? We don’t know for sure, but it seems to me that Abraham went on for several years at a time without any major revelation from God; he just lived in faith, holding on what what he had received. Has anything changed today? Is God more in a rush now? Is Heaven in a panic? Somehow, I don’t think so.

Now, think back to all of those myths and great inspirational tales. We see glimpses of important times, focusing on the important people. Was Frodo wasting time all those years before he was given the ring? Then, when Frodo and Sam were off to Mount Doom, Rosie stayed behind to work in the pub. What was her great calling? Apparently, to be stable, and be there for Sam when he returned. What about all of the unnamed characters in any story you know of? What of the years before, and the years after? Can everyone be Neo?

The answer is obviously, “no.” It is insane to think that big or dramatic or any adjectives that we think are important are really that important. What about “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone (Romans 12:18)? What if that is the essence of your calling? What if your calling is to be a great husband, father and employee? What if the most important, spiritually significant thing you do in your whole life is to teach your children? What if the greatest spiritual battle you face is to love your neighbor?

This is the normal, Christian life, people! You don’t get to save the world (if you recall, that’s been done)! Consider this:

And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, and joyfully giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. (Colossians 1:10-12)

Whoa, that sounds kind of boring after all that talk of Frodo and Neo. Perhaps. The power of myth can speak to us of universal truths – it can also lie to us, making us think that only the Neos and Frodos are significant, or that we have to live in constant state of crisis. Maybe the real mythic truth is revealed in the story of the tortoise and the hare.

I’ll continue to read Eldredge’s book and see where he goes with this point. Maybe if he can wake me from the dead, I’ll come back some day and delete this post – or at least come back and say that I was wrong. We’ll see. But, for now, I don’t see any major crisis; my plan is just to try to remain faithful with what I’ve got.

Written on 31 October 2005 by me under Eldredge, Spiritual stuff with 2 Comments

The Harriet Miers Episode

(and what it revealed about the Republican Party)

In my opinion (of course, this really goes without saying – what else would I write here?), the whole Harriet Miers episode, more than anything else, exposed the hypocrisy and imperialistic tendencies of the ultra-conservatives that seem to control the Republican Party, or at least the Republicans in Washington. For the first time that I can recall, I actually agree with Harry Reid when he said that “the radical right wing of the Republican Party killed” Harriet Miers’ chances to be confirmed for the Supreme Court.

We’ll have to wait and see who Bush’s next pick is – I can only hope that he remains true to his principles and doesn’t allow the power-base to make the pick for him.

Within moments of the nomination, conservative leaders were yelling and screaming that Harriet Miers was unqualified to serve as a Supreme Court Justice, and continued to demand her to withdraw. The only basis for the contention that she was unqualified was that they didn’t know her, and weren’t confident that she would be the ultra-conservative judge that they wanted. How could they know she was unqualified? She didn’t even have a hearing. I think it interesting that we heard very little from the Left, except support from Harry Reid. They knew just as little about her as the Right, and had to assume that she was as conservative as Bush. Still, they took a “wait and see” mentality; it was the Right that drove her to withdraw.

Let’s back up a bit: The qualifications for being a Supreme Court Judge are pretty loose. You don’t have to have been a judge of any type in the past, and you don’t even have to be a lawyer. The President can nominate someone he feels would be a good SC Judge, and Congress is to give their “advice & consent.” So, far, she seemed perfectly qualified.

Recall just a few weeks back when Roberts was nominated? The liberals were rattling their swords, and the conservatives were saying, “shame on you, let the man have his hearing.” It seems that the only thing that changed was that Miers was an unknown. The Republicans in Congress apparently are not committed to the process – they are, as liberals are fond of pointing out – just committed to the radical right agenda. In my mind, that’s hypocrisy. If you are going to be committed to the process, it has to be regardless of who the nominee is. Throwing political weight around to stack the deck – and in effect take the real nominating power away from the President – just degrades the process.

Now, I want a good, strict contstructionist judge as much as anyone else. I would have liked to have seen Miers go through the confirmation hearings, and see what she had to say. She may have been confirmed, she might not have been. We may have found out that she’s a complete flake. But, that’s the way the process is supposed to work. At this point, I think it’s safe to say that the process is not working.

Rather than operate as the founding fathers intended (I am committed to the concept of “original intent”), the process has become a tool of the power-mongers. I have said this before, I think the current two-party system has outlived its usefulness. It has become stale; I think the life has all but evaporated out of both parties. All that is left is the “sludge” power-base of each party. The parties no longer function as they should, and as a result government itself is not functioning as it should.

There seems to be a principle that whenever something good grows to have too much power, it ceases to be an agent of good, and becomes, for lack of a better word, a monster. Labor unions are a good example – I am all for collective bargaining, but the unions have now become too powerful, and many now exist simply for self-preservation and power. We need to look seriously at the Republican Party and evaluate whether or not it is serving the purpose for which it was intended.

I personally think that it’s time to break the power-base of the Republican Party. I am tired of the outsiders, like Dobson, as well as many of the insiders. I think we should vote them out, and start fresh. I am not suggesting that people vote Democrat, as I think they have even more problems than the Republicans. I am merely saying they need some new blood; conservatives who are committed to the Country first, and the Party second.

This would be a good time to do it – the Democratic Party has no vision whatsoever (their prime agenda appears to be “hate Bush”), and it’s clear that aside from the entertainment industry and the media (wait… aren’t they the same?), the majority of people tend to share a more-or-less conservative vision of America. Let’s raise up some statesmen (whoa… when’s the last time you heard that word?) who are truly committed to America (and not the radical right or the gun lobby).

I personally think that Bush did a pretty cool thing by nominating Miers. He dared to think independently, which I think infuriated the radical right more than who it was that he chose. Besides demonstrating a desire to not be controlled by the radical right, his nomination of Miers also confirmed that he truly is not motivated by public opinion. I would have thought that public opinion – inspired, of course, by the media – would have been in support of this move. However, it seems that the media is not just slanted to the left; the media on both sides appears to be tied to the power-base and is hesitant to support independent thinking.

It will be interesting to see who the next nominee is, and how the “powers” react.

Written on 27 October 2005 by me under Politics/Current Events with No Comments

John Kerry: Keeping the Entertainment Value in Politics

It’s obvious every time the man opens his mouth, that John Kerry hasn’t a clue. I don’t know how in the world he got as far in life as he did in politics, but it seems pretty obvious that his “15 minutes” are over – obvious to everyone but him, that is.

I’ve heard rumors that he still has some plans for another Presidential bid, not that he’d even get minimal support from his own party. Actually, it would be kind of fun to see Kerry and Hillary against each other in the primaries – very, very much fun, in fact. Politics has, for the moment, pretty much lost its entertainment value, and we do need to get that back. What is politics for, anyway, unless we can be entertained by it?

One of these days I’ll let you in on my theory about what the real Democrats are up to. By real Democrats, I mean the ones who really have the power, and the brains. If you’re wondering who that might be, I’ll give you a clue: it’s not Howard Dean, or Nancy Pelosi, or any past writer for Saturday Night Live.

I also have a theory about why liberals and conservatives very rarely really communicate. Have you ever noticed that they talk past each other, with neither side seeming to understand what the other side is saying? If they could communicate, then something might get accomplished. But, as I think about it … perhaps the miscommunication is what keeps us safe. Perhaps we don’t want politicians accomplishing anything – that could be dangerous. It’s the Tower of Babel principle …

So, on second thought, perhaps I should keep my theories to myself.

Written on 26 October 2005 by me under Politics/Current Events with No Comments

African Rhythms

One of the first things I think about when I think of Africa is the rhythms – the drums, the dancing, and all that other National Geographic stuff. I was not disappointed by my visit to Ghana – although what I heard, as far as worship music goes, was not necessarily what I expected, not that I had any specific expectations. I am sure there are more varied styles than what I heard, but my visit was limited to a few places in Tema, and one church in the Central (coastal) Region.

Gospel SingersOne of the first things that struck me was the obvious impact of Western Gospel music. The first church we visited had a gospel choir, backed up by what was – from my brief experience – a pretty standard worship band setup, consisting of a drum kit, congas, a portable electric keyboard and bass guitar, all playing at a pretty high volume. The music was a melding of Gospel, jazz & funk, played over African rhythms, and was all pretty up-tempo. In fact, even their slow songs were up-tempo, and they often wouldn’t stop to change songs, they’d just go from one to the other. They wouldn’t even stop to change drummers – something I had not seen before, but saw a couple of times in Ghana. I don’t know who would initiate the change, but on 2 or 3 occasions I would see a guy walk up to the drummer in mid-song. Without losing a beat, the drummer would stand and pass off the sticks to the new guy.

The Shuffle - photo by Fred AllenAnother feature of their worship was the dancing; the women all did the same little shuffle – very low key, but still very much into the beat. They’d do their little shuffle back and forth, then occasionally start doing a “conga line,” weaving up and down the aisles. The men, at least in a church setting, tended to be less demonstrative.

At the YWAM base, worship was a tad more Western. I recognized several Vineyard and other songs I knew, and was surprised to even hear a couple of songs that had been written by people I knew. Now, that makes it seem like a small world. However, even though they were songs that I knew, they were all done with an African rhythm, which was really great to hear. I wished that I could have brought some of the rhythms home with me (I do have some video clips) but they’re a bit more complicated than a standard 4/4 Vineyard beat, and beyond my djembe abilities. One of the YWAM students was one of the best bass players I think I’ve heard – he would do some funk riffs that were just amazing.

At the YWAM base, the guys were not at all hesitant to join in the dancing, and also showed far less restraint than the women. Actually, it didn’t take much for the guys to break into a dance – just a simple rhythm on a djembe, and they’d be in a circle having a blast. Now, I’ve seen guys dance over here, but nothing like this.

Often, worship at YWAM would be led by Diana Akiwumi, who it turns out, is one of Ghana’s more well-known Gospel singers. I recently found an article about her in one of the on-line Ghana newspapers.

As I mentioned in a prior post, we spent 4 nights in an inner-city mission church, where English was more of a second language. Worship here was also a bit less Western, although they had the same basic worship band setup. The music, however, had a different feel – it’s hard to explain, but it had kind of a ska feel, only at a much faster tempo than I’m used to. The women here did the same little shuffle dance that we saw in the first church.

Mission church worship bandOh, it was also all very loud. Apparently it’s better if it’s loud – even if it distorts. And, as it turns out, the guests are usually placed right in front of one of the speakers, I suppose to make sure we can really get the full effect. It was sometimes a bit hard to take. Another surprising thing was that everyone seemed to have an ample supply of wireless microphones. Having batteries die and swapping mics was not an unusual occurrence.

We also spent a couple of days in the Central Region, at a little leadership conference. The conference was being held at a borrowed church, without the benefit of a sound system, or worship band. Worship here was done in what appeared to be a common style to those in attendance, representating several different churches. Worship was sung in something other than English, in kind of a singing chant, with no real rhythm that I could discern. While I didn’t understand what they were singing, I did appreciate the spirit of worship that existed, as well as just being able to experience some other form of worship than that which we saw in Tema.

As you might expect, returning to the States and my home church was a kind of reverse culture-shock. It struck me how self-conscious the worship band was, working so hard to achieve some kind of “smooth” presentation. At the same time, the whole worship experience seemed, for lack of a better word, constipated. This is not to say that worship in Ghana does not have an element of self-consciousness, because it does – it’s just in a completely different way, that I could deal with because it was new. However, I am still having a very hard time with our church’s self-conscious worship, to the point where I have a hard time sitting through it – I just can’t seem to get past the worship band. Maybe I’ll just have to spend more time watching my videos of Ghana.

Written on 25 October 2005 by me under The Ghana Experience with 3 Comments

The Dumbing Down of the Church

I ran across a great article the other day by William Willimon on the CT site, titled This Culture is Overrated. The article isn’t so much about our culture as it is about the shortcomings of today’s preaching, as it tries to be “relevant” to contemporary culture. Actually, he is dealing with the “modern” culture, but the point made could also apply to any of the current post-modernish sub-cultures. A quote:

But this way of preaching fails to do justice to the rather imperialistic claims of Scripture. The Bible doesn’t want to speak to the modern world; the Bible wants to convert the modern world.

He also addresses one of my pet peeves – the dumbing down of the church, sermons in particular. Willimon says, “There is no way I can crank the gospel down to the level where any American can walk in off the street and know what it is all about within fifteen minutes. ” However, that’s what most pastors that I hear try to do. Needless to say, most of us who have been Christians for more than 15 minutes are bored senseless, and the man off the street sees Christianity as a kindergarten-like religion. Bottom line, if a pastor expects me to sit and listen to him for 45 minutes, he’d better have something to say.

Now, on listening to sermons: I’ve been going to church my whole life, I can read, and I can study the Bible. I really don’t need a sermon, and according to the Apostle Paul, “mature” Christians shouldn’t expect to be spoon-fed, yet we’ve been conditioned to think that it’s “our job.” That’s the only reason that I can think of why people keep coming back… they must think they have to, in order to be a Christian. Don’t people read the Bible?

Concerning any contemporary culture, Willimon is right: it’s temporal. Culture has a fairly short shelf-life, especially today. The Gospel, however, is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. So, let’s get back to preaching it.

Written on 21 October 2005 by me under Random Thoughts with No Comments

Doesn’t Anyone Study the Bible Anymore?

Last week I went to two different Christian bookstores to look for a commentary on the Gospel of John. I already have more study Bibles, commentaries and systematic theologies than I know what to do with, but I’ve never used a book-specific commentary. So, I went to one small, dying, independent store, and one large chain store.

I was shocked at what I found. You might already know what I am going to say and think, “so?” But, I don’t go into Christian bookstores that much anymore so I had forgotten the state of Christian publishing – or, should I say, Christian marketing. Or, perhaps what I saw really indicated the state of Christian reading.

First, the largest book section of both stores was “Christian Fiction.” Now, I’ve read some Christian fiction, but not much. Most of it I avoid like the plague, because, basically, it’s just plain bad. What I really hate is when they have to stick in some odd, unnatural reference to God to qualify it as “Christian.” I’m sorry, but if you can’t even make Christianity sound normal, there’s a problem somewhere. I mean, if Grisham can do it, these other people should be able to.

There were also large sections of self-help books, categorized under “Christian Living,” “Men’s Issues,” and so on. There are Christian Diet books, Christian Finance books, and all kinds of other books I wouldn’t buy. The best books are always found in the “Pastors’ Helps” and “Theology” sections, if you can find them. Both stores had large selections of Bibles, in all shapes, sizes, and of course, themes (why is a Men’s Bible different from a Women’s Bible?), as well a plethora of Bible covers (including the must-have Purpose-Driven Life Bible cover), Bible bookmarks and other Bible paraphernalia.

I did actually find the commentaries in both stores after wandering around a bit – in one store I wandered a lot, because I kept thinking that they just had to have more Bible study materials somewhere (I was wrong…). I did find some of what were called Bible Studies, which were really poorly done fill-in-the-blank books, obviously meant to let people believe that they were actually studying the Bible. There were also dozens of topical Bible Studies. These do not actually study the Bible – they study topics, like “forgiveness” and “kindness,” and use Bible references to make their point. That’s not my definition of a Bible Study; that’s a study using the Bible as a reference. In my mind, there’s a difference.

Both stores did carry one or two of the same one-volume commentaries that I already owned, and a couple of book-specific commentary series. However, they were quite incomplete, with, sadly to say, no “John’s.” I stood there, looking at the poorly stocked shelves – in this section, the books were all spread out to make it seem like they actually had a lot to choose from – and wondered, “doesn’t anyone actually study the Bible anymore?”

I didn’t really think I needed another commentary on John anyway, so I wasn’t that disappointed from that standpoint. I was, however, just disappointed in what I found on the shelves.

But, it wasn’t a total loss, as I bought the latest Frank Peretti novel at a good discount. It’s not that bad…

Written on 16 October 2005 by me under Church with No Comments

Separation Anxiety

A look at the mythological
Constitutional Separation of Church and State

I use the word “mythological” to refer to the phrase “Constitutional Separation of Church and State,” because over the years it has taken on mythical dimensions, representing often vague ideologies based on half-truths, rumors and ignorance. It is bandied about as if it was the very foundation of the United States, by those who know – or should know – better. However, many Americans are unaware of the true origins and history of “the Separation,” and this bugs me enough that I am writing about it. My pain is your gain, so to speak.

First, everyone should know that the phrase, “Separation of Church and State” does not appear in the First Amendment to the Constitution, or anywhere else in the Constitution, for that matter. The good old First Amendment says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.“

The first 10 words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” is what’s known as the “Establishment Clause.” The following phrase, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” is the “Free Exercise” clause. Note that this applies only to laws passed by Congress. It doesn’t apply to having the 10 Commandments posted in a courtroom, or to a cross on a city-owned memorial in San Diego. It doesn’t apply to school prayer, or teaching Intelligent Design as one theory of origins. It doesn’t mean that Congress itself can’t open in prayer – it just can’t make any laws that either establishes, or limits, religion.

Now, in 1868, the 14th Amendment was added. While essentially dealing with “equal rights” (it’s a post-Civil War amendment), it also included what is now known as the Incorporation Doctrine:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; …”

So, what this essentially says is that no state can limit rights granted by the U.S. Constitution (only the courts, apparently, can do this). Again, nothing about offering prayers, displaying religious symbols, or anything of that nature. (It did, however, change the entire dynamic of the United States, giving the Federal Government, including the Supreme Court, way more power than I believe the original framers intended. This possibly was the first big move away from Original Intent, and has been the basis for many decisions resulting in a steady loss of states’ rights.)

Down the Slippery Slope

The phrase “separation between church and state” was first used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Assoc., in which he so characterized the effect of the First Amendment. The Baptists feared the establishment of a National Church (and of course, feared it would not be Baptist). It is interesting to note that at the time, there were States who recognized official State churches, and Jefferson didn’t address that. Of course, this was back during the time when States actually had rights, before the 14th Amendment.

In 1947, nearly 150 years later, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black quoted Jefferson in his opinion on Everson v Board of Education, in which he graced us with his own interpretation of the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court, since that time, has continued to build upon arguably defective reasoning to the point that the “wall of separation” has indeed grown to mythical proportions. More recently, Justice Souter opined that “government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion,” a very questionable interpretation of the original intent.

There is a concept in common law (not, mind you, civil law) known as stare decisis, “to stand by things decided.” Essentially this means that prior decisions, known as “case law,” becomes the new foundation upon which all new decisions are based, essentially supplanting the Constitution. Stare decisis is, then, in tension with the concepts that the S.C. has the power to interpret the Constitution, and the Congress has the power to legislate. Since the Warren Court, stare decisis has played a major role in the Supreme Court’s decision-making, leading to the accurate assessment that the Supreme Court now “legislates from the bench.” The S.C. has essentially left the original intent of the Constitution on the shelf, and has gone gleefully skiing down the slippery slope of bad case law.

Ay, there’s the rub. The mythical separation of church and state is not – in any of it’s current definitions – a concept which was in the minds of the framers of the Constitions and the Bill of Rights. Rather, it has been very recent Supreme Court justices who have abandoned any notion of original intent and have created this legal myth – which seems more closely in tune with Marxist thought than with our Founding Fathers – with which we now have to contend.

Written on 14 October 2005 by me under Politics/Current Events with 2 Comments

The ACL Who??

All my life I’ve heard about the American Civil Liberties Union, those champions of our Constitutional rights, whose stated goal is to “defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person … by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” It sounds great; I wish it was true.

Most non-liberals will probably tell you that the ACLU is an ultra-liberal, anti-Christian, power-hungry group whose real goal is to force everyone in the USA to live like the ACLU wants us to live. I think there’s a very good reason to believe that this is not far from the truth. I don’t know why, but I just assumed that the ACLU started out with good, upstanding goals and over the years has morphed into the strange group that currently exists. I was quite surprised to find out that they started out as possibly even more extreme than they are today.

According to Wikipedia, my trusted source of information (it’s open-source, so it must be true!), the ACLU was formed in 1917, having its roots in an organization formed to protest US involvement in World War I, and provided legal aid to those being prosecuted under the Espionage and Sedition Acts. A nobel beginning, indeed.

One of the ACLU’s most celebrated founders was Roger Nash Baldwin, who held both socialist and anarchist ideas. His marriage vows included the line, “the present institution of marriage among us is a grim mockery of essential freedom…” Sounds like a great start for a marriage. It’s no surprise, then, that the ACLU has recently defended polygamists, child pornographers, and other wonderful pillars of society.

Oh, here’s another quote by Baldwin:

“I am for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately the abolishing of the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”

And he called the orgainzation the American Civil Liberties Union?

The ACLU today is really keen on the Separation of Church and State, which as we all know is not even in the Constitution (more on this another time). They have interpreted the “Separation of Church and State” to mean “we shall not mention God at all, in any public place.” You’d think, if this was what the founding fathers meant by, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .” they wouldn’t have put “In God We Trust” on our money. But then, common sense is not a characteristic of the ACLU.

As with the church and state issue, the ACLU seems to specialize in warping and stretching the various amendments to fit their agenda, such as stretching the 4th Amendment to imply a “right to privacy,” then stretching that to include the right to an abortion. They may be wackos, but they are not to be “misunderestimated.”

As mentioned earlier, they currently support the right to be a pornographer, the right to be addicted to heroin, and the right to bigamy. They do, however, interpret the 2nd Amendment rather narrowly, saying it is “primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government,” a quote from the ACLU’s website. (So, apparently individuals can only be armed if they are in groups, fighting the Federal government.) Evidently, to the ACLU, not all Constitutional Rights are created equal.

I admit I was wrong in my perceptions of the ACLU. I had come to view them as liberal extremists; however, they may actually be anarchists just masquerading as liberals. Whatever their philosophy and motivation, it is clear that their goal is something other than protecting our Constitutional rights.

I hear that there is a new book out, called The ACLU vs. America. I haven’t read it, but it may be worth checking out.

Written on 12 October 2005 by me under Politics/Current Events with No Comments

Freedom of Stupidity or When Freedoms Collide

If you haven’t heard about this, a female passenger flying from LAX to Portland on Tuesday was “excused” from the plane at a stop in Reno for wearing an obscene t-shirt. She is now claiming her 1st Amendment rights have been violated. The NY Times has quoted an ACLU lawyer as saying her t-shirt was protected under the Constitution. I’ll have to remember that the next time my wife wants to throw away one of my favorite old t-shirts.

When I first heard this story, I wondered why it was that the only time Oregon is ever in the news is when a wacko is involved? I was glad to find out that the woman was not an Oregonian – she is actually a Washington resident. Whew! At least we don’t have to claim her. (If you question my use of the word “wacko” here, just listen to an interview with Ms. Heasley…)

But, this is the deal: Is every stupid thing we say or do protected by the First Amendment? It would seem so.

Now, Oregon is a different story, as the Oregon Constitution states, “No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write or print freely on any subject whatever.” Last week the OR Supreme Court extended that to include obscene acts, as long as they are “expressive. ” So, we have yet another Oregon “wacko” story. So far, this isn’t U.S Constitutional issue. However, Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide law is. But, let’s try to forget Oregon’s problems for the time being.

One of the problems with some libertarians and liberals (and, yes, even some conservatives) is that they tend to be myopic. Failing to look at an issue holistically, they see the issue in its isolated, out-of-context form, where it’s easier to take extremist, absolutist (and often absurdist) positions. Certainly, you can look at the issue of freedom, of which I am a very strong proponent, and take a position that your freedoms are absolute, and guaranteed by the Constitution (or even by God). You could – and you’d be wrong. But, under the Constitution, you do have an absolute right to be wrong.

This is one of the great things about America: you have the right to be completely and utterly wrong, and to be completely and utterly wrong as loud as you want to be. Unless…

Unless your rights collide with another individual’s rights. Oops…, didn’t think that far ahead. What happens when your inalienable rights cross paths with someone else’s conflicting inalienable rights? Who, then, has the right of way (get it? That was a pun.)

Somewhere along the way, we need to realize that our inherent, inalienable rights are not absolute. (By the way, the words “inherent” and “inalienable” are from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, and these rights include, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Someday I’ll write about how theologically ridiculous this is.)

The Bill of Rights does not talk about “inherent and inalienable” rights – it specifically grants rights on the Consitution’s own authority. Have you ever read the First Amendment? It’s really quite simple:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So simple, and the cause of so much litigation. The concept of a Bill of Rights was in itself fairly controversial; if the founding fathers had ever imagined what people would do to it, I doubt it ever would have been ratified. Common sense (that is, the most basic, elementary thinking of which nearly everyone should be capable) should tell us that there are times when our rights have to give way to others’ rights.

Consider, for a moment, the free exercise of religion. If your religion involved human sacrifice, your rights are limited. You have freedom of speech, but try yelling, “bomb!” on an airplane. Your rights end at the point where they interfere with someone else’s rights. In this case, Southwest Airlines has rights, to, which include deplaning someone wearing an obscene shirt – it’s in their terms of service.

So, Ms. Heasley, just get over it.

Written on 07 October 2005 by me under Random Thoughts with 1 Comment