The secularist movement, under the guise of not having other's views forced upon them, continue with their pursuit to remove the clause "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Don't you just love the irony?
Those who know me know I'm no fan of Justice Brennan. He is the poster child for abuse of power and we will never escape or recover from the harm he and the Warren Court did to this great nation. Yet even Brennan didn't have a problem with "under God" in the pledge. (463 U.S. 783, 818 (dissenting opinion)) This is important because Brennan in a dissenting opinion to a case that upheld religious activity had no problem with the clause. If Justice Brennan did not object to the clause, this issue isn't one of Christians forcing their view on secularists, but rather is one of secularists forcing their views on Christians.
As strange as this may sound, perhaps it's time for Christian society to force the issue. The legal test to see if an activity encroaches on the Establishment Clause is the Lemon test. An exception to the Lemon test is the longstanding tradition exception. We now have four generations that have the words under God in the pledge. It is very possible that the current Court would overrule Lemon and replace it with a less strict test.
Justice Kennedy is the crucial 5th vote in many issues on the current Court. He has stated dissatisfaction with Lemon (492 U.S. 573, 673 (dissenting opinion)) and likely represents the threshold of where a new test would lie. Although this new standard, if it were to be created, would not be as welcoming as I would like, it is still better than the current Lemon test.
The time has come for Christians to stand up for our beliefs. We're not forcing our opinions on secularists; rather it is they who force their beliefs on us. President Obama will reload the Court with liberal instrumentalists. If Christians are going to take the fight to secularists, now is the time.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Sunday, August 16, 2009
The Christian Split
Some people suggest that middle of the road voters are the key to winning the mid term election. That the country is so divided that the political parties must compromise on their core values to court the elusive independent voter in order to achieve victory.
I respectfully disagree.
The republicans have been losing Christian voters, and that is the group they need to win in order to win the next election. The following labels could use some improvement, but for lack of a better term I'll refer to Christians as Classical Christians and Resonance Christians. The Classical Christians are individuals like me who some would mistakenly call fundamentalist. We are antiabortion, anti-euthanasia and believe in traditional marriage. Other religious issues are second tier.
The Resonance Christians have other top tier beliefs. They believe in social justice issues, and have by and large drunk the kool-aid on global warming. The issues that Classical Christians believe in are second tier, and as a result many voted for Obama.
Republicans have been slow to see this change in Christian voting patterns and slower still to act in any meaningful way to court these voters. It's much easier for the GOP to win these voters over than true independents since they are inclined to GOP positions on secondary issues already.
While the stimulus packages have many flaws, one good expenditure has been the cash for clunkers program. While it's arguable if this program is creating demand or merely accelerating future demand, it is a program that will reap benefits in the long run. As the fuel inefficient vehicles are replaced with fuel efficient vehicles the amount of gasoline consumption will drop, or probably more likely, rise at a slower rate. This means less is spent purchasing foreign oil, and more money stays in our own economy. The program is less of a bailout and more of a capital expenditure. This type of program is appealing to the Resonance Christian because it is helping the environment, which is being a good steward of that which God has given us.
Another item that could be used with little actual cost would be debt forgiveness. This can take the form both of foreign debt owed to the US which will likely never be paid, and also internal debt that is being paid, student loans for example. Forgiving debt that will never come into our coffers is merely memorializing that which is reality. Forgiving internal debt that is in the process of being paid off is more in the line of a capital expenditure. If the loan is currently in repayment and being actively paid then forgiving the loan frees up disposable income that will likely be spent, creating demand and in turn fueling the economy.
With a little outside the box thinking the GOP could make some sensible proposals that in the end pay for themselves and win back the Resonance Christian. Then the GOP doesn't have to compromise on core values to court the independent voter and still wins in 2010.
I respectfully disagree.
The republicans have been losing Christian voters, and that is the group they need to win in order to win the next election. The following labels could use some improvement, but for lack of a better term I'll refer to Christians as Classical Christians and Resonance Christians. The Classical Christians are individuals like me who some would mistakenly call fundamentalist. We are antiabortion, anti-euthanasia and believe in traditional marriage. Other religious issues are second tier.
The Resonance Christians have other top tier beliefs. They believe in social justice issues, and have by and large drunk the kool-aid on global warming. The issues that Classical Christians believe in are second tier, and as a result many voted for Obama.
Republicans have been slow to see this change in Christian voting patterns and slower still to act in any meaningful way to court these voters. It's much easier for the GOP to win these voters over than true independents since they are inclined to GOP positions on secondary issues already.
While the stimulus packages have many flaws, one good expenditure has been the cash for clunkers program. While it's arguable if this program is creating demand or merely accelerating future demand, it is a program that will reap benefits in the long run. As the fuel inefficient vehicles are replaced with fuel efficient vehicles the amount of gasoline consumption will drop, or probably more likely, rise at a slower rate. This means less is spent purchasing foreign oil, and more money stays in our own economy. The program is less of a bailout and more of a capital expenditure. This type of program is appealing to the Resonance Christian because it is helping the environment, which is being a good steward of that which God has given us.
Another item that could be used with little actual cost would be debt forgiveness. This can take the form both of foreign debt owed to the US which will likely never be paid, and also internal debt that is being paid, student loans for example. Forgiving debt that will never come into our coffers is merely memorializing that which is reality. Forgiving internal debt that is in the process of being paid off is more in the line of a capital expenditure. If the loan is currently in repayment and being actively paid then forgiving the loan frees up disposable income that will likely be spent, creating demand and in turn fueling the economy.
With a little outside the box thinking the GOP could make some sensible proposals that in the end pay for themselves and win back the Resonance Christian. Then the GOP doesn't have to compromise on core values to court the independent voter and still wins in 2010.
Healthcare Reform
We can probablly all agree that healthcare in the US is messed up. The question is what is the bigger ill, government intervention or unfettered insurance companies running amok?
Insruance companies are out of control. One example, in January I had salmonella, but it was presenting as appendicitus. So off to the ER where the ER doc thinks it is appendicitius and acts accordingly. When all is said and done, the hospital bill and insurance nonsense comes in. The insurance company is refusing to pay for tests that "are not necessary" to treat salmonella.
Even if the insurance companies have their guidelines based on doctors reviewing records, the examining physician's thoughts should be given greater weight since he was there to poke and prod and could see and examine what was going on.
Government health care is not any better. In Canada and the UK it is great for emergent situations, but not good for run of the mill ailments, even large/serious aiments. Need your knee scoped? It may take a year. The indigent health care systems in place in the US are marginally better at best. The fear is that the same will happen to health care in the US should government take control over health care.
I don't know what a good answer is, but two things stand out.
1) There is a potential middle ground. The government hires attorneys in significant numbers and pays them well, but not exhorbinant sums. There is no reason they couldn't do the same for doctors. These doctors would then be available to treat like they do in Canada and the UK. Then people will have a choice, they can either keep their private insurance, or they can go to a government doctor. Yes, this will hurt the insurance companies bottom line, but given the flaws in the way a government controled system of this nature would have there would still be a market for private insurance. They would simply have to provide a better product to keep people who are on the fringe of needing insurance as paying customers.
2) The nay sayers who trumpet the free market and say the free market will provide better care than the government seem to be discounting the free market. We already have a government healthcare system in Medicare. The free market responded by making Medicare supplement insurance. What's to stop that from happening if the government gets involved in healthcare for everyone?
I haven't formed an opinion on the current health care debate, but it seems that this has become more about political power and political will than about reforming a broken system. And we are all worse off as an end result.
Insruance companies are out of control. One example, in January I had salmonella, but it was presenting as appendicitus. So off to the ER where the ER doc thinks it is appendicitius and acts accordingly. When all is said and done, the hospital bill and insurance nonsense comes in. The insurance company is refusing to pay for tests that "are not necessary" to treat salmonella.
Even if the insurance companies have their guidelines based on doctors reviewing records, the examining physician's thoughts should be given greater weight since he was there to poke and prod and could see and examine what was going on.
Government health care is not any better. In Canada and the UK it is great for emergent situations, but not good for run of the mill ailments, even large/serious aiments. Need your knee scoped? It may take a year. The indigent health care systems in place in the US are marginally better at best. The fear is that the same will happen to health care in the US should government take control over health care.
I don't know what a good answer is, but two things stand out.
1) There is a potential middle ground. The government hires attorneys in significant numbers and pays them well, but not exhorbinant sums. There is no reason they couldn't do the same for doctors. These doctors would then be available to treat like they do in Canada and the UK. Then people will have a choice, they can either keep their private insurance, or they can go to a government doctor. Yes, this will hurt the insurance companies bottom line, but given the flaws in the way a government controled system of this nature would have there would still be a market for private insurance. They would simply have to provide a better product to keep people who are on the fringe of needing insurance as paying customers.
2) The nay sayers who trumpet the free market and say the free market will provide better care than the government seem to be discounting the free market. We already have a government healthcare system in Medicare. The free market responded by making Medicare supplement insurance. What's to stop that from happening if the government gets involved in healthcare for everyone?
I haven't formed an opinion on the current health care debate, but it seems that this has become more about political power and political will than about reforming a broken system. And we are all worse off as an end result.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
