Semper Reformanda

2005-09-01T11:52:00.000-05:00

The Emperor Has No Clothes: Behold Leviathan, who is impotent to even give a cold cup of water to those in need:

"11:23 A.M. - (AP) Outside the New Orleans Convention Center, survivors are growing more frustrated with the lack of help after Hurricane Katrina.

One man says, "No one has thought enough of us to even bring us a cup of water."
Daniel Edwards says many people have gone days without food or water. He says tens of thousands of people are standing on the streets with no sign of emergency workers.
Several bodies lie scattered around. Edwards pointed to an elderly lady dead in a wheelchair and said, "I don't treat my dog like that." He says he buried his dog."

My heart goes out to those impacted by Hurricane Katrina. Hopefully, the impotence of the federal, state and local governments to prevent this tragedy and to react to it will call people back from the false idol of putting faith in ourselves (and our government) and to the One True God, revealed in our Lord Jesus Christ. He is the sure anchor of our soul, and we can find no eternal security in this world, but only in Him and His finished work on the cross.

2005-06-14T10:32:00.000-05:00

Paul Stadig gets a blog!: Check out Paul Stadig's new blog here. Should be a good read, though I'm disappointed that he doesn't have anything about theonomy up yet. And he's wrong about the new Star Wars movies.

2005-04-04T15:23:00.000-05:00

The Lies of Michael Schiavo: Read this, then consider that the Florida courts believed this man, who flip-flopped over his wife, Terri, more than John Kerry and the infamous $87 billion.

Consider, that Michael Schiavo said, in court testimony in 1993, that "I feel wonderful. She's my life and I wouldn't trade her for the world...I believe in my wedding vows. ... I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that."

Consider also that Michael Schiavo sued Terri's doctors to recover the cost of caring for her for fifty years, only years later to "remember" that Terri had wanted to die if she ever had to be fed through a tube.

This is a travesty of justice and a mockery of our legal system.

2005-03-25T12:39:00.000-05:00

The Schiavo Case and Liberalism: A must-read article on the Schiavo case by Eric Cohen. He pretty clearly articulates what I find to be the most compelling reason for continued involvement by Congress and the State of Florida: the fact that there is not compelling evidence that Terri wanted to die in this situation.

2005-03-22T13:09:00.000-05:00

Doug Wilson says food is not medical treatment: At this link, Doug Wilson makes the excellent point that food is not medical treatment, and that denying food is not "letting" Terri Schiavo die; it is actually murdering her.

2005-02-08T11:29:00.000-05:00

Blogging the TNIV Fiasco: Tim Bayly is doing some good-blogging on Zondervan's ode to seeker-sensitivity: Today's New Internation Version (TNIV) of the Bible, which is touted as a "gender-neutral" Bible translation. Click here to go to his site.

2004-09-30T08:00:00.000-05:00

Indeed, I am offended, Mr. Sandefur: Tim Sandefur, in discussing a case filed against the City of Los Angeles for removing a cross from the city seal, asks whether Christians should be offended that public displays of religion are often defended based on their historical, and not religious, value. The argument bascially says, "Yes, the cross is a religious symbol, and thus might violate the Establishment Clause, but it's been there for so long and it's really just a civic acknowledgment of our religious heritage so we should keep it."

This argument is nonsense, and I take offense to it not chiefly because it offends me, but because I think it offends God. Things like crosses or stone monuments or images are not how God desires to be worshipped, and even in those ways that He has commanded us to worship Him, he takes no pleasure in it being heartless and not focused completey on Him. Consider the words of Isaiah on these matters:

"What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?" Says the LORD. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle; And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats. When you come to appear before Me, Who requires of you this trampling of My courts?
Bring your worthless offerings no longer, Incense is an abomination to Me. New moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies-- I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly.
I hate your new moon {festivals} and your appointed feasts, They have become a burden to Me; I am weary of bearing {them.} So when you spread out your hands {in prayer,} I will hide My eyes from you; Yes, even though you multiply prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood. Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow." Isaiah 1:11-17

God takes no pleasure in a public display of honor to Him if it is devoid of any real meaning. In fact, it angers Him. So yes, I have major problems with arguments in favor of public displays of religion when those arguments run as far away from God as possible.

2004-09-27T08:58:00.000-05:00

Mt. St. Helens to Erupt Again?: Seismic activity underneath Mt. St. Helens has geologists concerned that another eruption could happen soon. The new activity is supposedly very similar to the pattern observed before the eruption in 1986.

2004-09-23T07:37:00.000-05:00

Thanks to TaxProf Blog: They posted a link about to my article on Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler.

2004-09-21T07:49:00.000-05:00

Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler: I have an analysis of the Cuno decision (which invalidated an Ohio investment tax credit under the Commerce Clause) here. This is a potentially explosive decision.

2004-09-12T08:37:00.000-05:00

Why Won't CBS Admit the Documents are Forgeries?: Powerline with a nice summary of the story and a logical explanation why CBS will not admit the documents are forgeries.

Short summary: because the Kerry campaign or other Democrat operatives forged the documents and sent them to CBS.

2004-09-10T21:40:00.000-05:00

Rathergate: I am 99.9% convinced that CBS has relied on forged documents to attack President Bush's service in the National Guard.

A good post here attacking the latest from Dan Rather on the "authenticity" of the documents.

I'm guessing that CBS is standing by the veracity of these documents, despite stories questioning their authenticity from the Washington Post and ABC News, because revealing the source would blow up the presidential campaign.

Update: Someone has offered you $10,000 if you can duplicate the "documents" on a typewriter from the early 1970s when they were purportedly written.

2004-09-02T09:49:00.000-05:00

Another election update: Pennsylvania moves into the President's column. With three of the last four polls showing a tie or Bush lead, PA would now go for Bush if the election were held today. Bush now leads Kerry by a margin of 305-233.

Incidentally, the two candidates are tied in Iowa, and Bush is within the margin of error in Minnesota, Maine and Michigan. Two of those states have not voted Republican for president since 1984 (Iowa and Minnesota), and the last Republican presidential candidate that Michigan and Maine went for was George H.W. Bush in 1988.

I would say that a strong speech from President Bush tonight would move those four states into the Bush column and make the race unwinnable for Kerry absent a stunning Kerry victory in the debates or a major international incident that embarrases the President.

2004-08-27T09:39:00.000-05:00

Election Update: If the election were held today, based on current polling, President Bush would win by an electoral count of 274-264. A few weeks ago, Senator Kerry would have won 296-242, but he has had a bad few weeks in the campaign. Bush would now pick up Florida and West Virginia and win the presidency.

All the major national polls are also moving in the direction of President Bush, and the latest state polls in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania show Bush with a 1-point lead in each state. I did not include these states for him yet and I will not until two or three different polls show him ahead.

With the Republican National Convention next week, President Bush could increase his lead considerably and move over 300 electoral votes. States like WI, IA, PA, MI, NM, NH and ME are currently vulnerable for the Kerry campaign.

Update: Three of the last four polls in WI show Bush with a slight lead, so I am giving that state to Bush. The electoral count is now 284-254.

2004-08-20T09:18:00.000-05:00

John Kerry's Mind: Turns out that John Kerry thought we should bring some of our troops home from Europe and North Korea a few weeks ago, but once President Bush proposed the idea Kerry opposed it. Kerry is starting to make Al Gore appear honest and sane.

2004-08-10T07:46:00.000-05:00

Fascinating Senate Race: With Alan Keyes entering the US Senate race in Illinois to challenge Democrat Barack Obama, this race becomes very interesting. I have always been an admirer of Alan Keyes. He brings a philosophical and theological approach to politics that I appreciate. Read this article and you will see that, agree or disagree, Keyes is having the right debate about the issues.

2004-08-09T14:51:00.000-05:00

Current electoral vote count: based on state polling data published at realclearpolitics.com (linked on the right), I calculate that John Kerry would win 296-242 if the election were held today. Bush would win all the states he won in 2000 except FL, WV and NH, giving Kerry the win.

Interestingly, if the above scenario were to hold, but Bush would win FL instead of Kerry, there would be a 269-269 tie, and the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives. Barring a massive change in the composition of the House (voting for President is done by delegation in the House, not by individual votes), Bush would win.

How ironic would it be if Bush were to win his first term after protracted litigation, and his second term on a vote of the House of Representatives? It would drive the Left absolutely nuts!

Update: The folks over at election projection also predict a current lead of 296-242 for Kerry, but using a lot more silly charts and numbers. Though this may seem like bad news for Bush, as I said above, all he has to do is win FL back and the election is his. Furthermore, he still gets to give his acceptance speech at the RNC convention and he will surely get at least a small bounce from that, which could give him WV and maybe NH or WI into his column as well.

2004-07-19T11:43:00.000-05:00

Another tragic abortion story: And another example that many of our youngest, most innocent Americans are only slaves to the passions and desires of others.

2004-06-28T14:24:00.000-05:00

Putting a Face on the Womb: some remarkable pictures from BBC News, about research on fetal activities at 12 weeks and forward.

2004-05-27T13:09:00.000-05:00

Strong argument from ACLJ brief in partial-birth abortion case: "The U.S. Supreme Court in Roe held that human children prior to birth are not “persons” for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This ruling is itself unconstitutional, as well as violative of fundamental human rights, because it drives a wedge between biological humanity (which prenatal human offspring undeniably have) and legal personhood (i.e., the right to the equal protection of the law). The repellant notion underlying Roe -- that there are “subhuman” members of the human species -- conflicts directly with the very purposes of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, which undid the great injustice of treating black Americans as slaves and property instead of as human beings entitled at law to full respect."

2004-05-26T14:07:00.000-05:00

New feature: I am now allowing comments on my posts. I hope it works okay. Comment-away!

2004-05-26T13:38:00.000-05:00

Al Gore, Champion of Limited Government?:

Al Gore receives a disproportionate amount of disdain from me because the man seems to be incapable of recognizing the difference between what he says about government and the legislation he supports. Take the following quote from a recent speech:

"There is good and evil in every person. And what makes the United States special in the history of nations is our commitment to the rule of law and our carefully constructed system of checks and balances. Our natural distrust of concentrated power and our devotion to openness and democracy are what have lead us as a people to consistently choose good over evil in our collective aspirations more than the people any other nation.

Our founders were insightful students of human nature. They feared the abuse of power because they understood that every human being has not only "better angels" in his nature, but also an innate vulnerability to temptation - especially the temptation to abuse power over others.

Our founders understood full well that a system of checks and balances is needed in our constitution because every human being lives with an internal system of checks and balances that cannot be relied upon to produce virtue if they are allowed to attain an unhealthy degree of power over their fellow citizens."

Do I even have to point out the inconsistency in what Al Gore says and what legislation he supports in government?

2004-05-24T11:30:00.000-05:00

Do conservatives ignore the spiritual dimensions of sex?: Tim Sandefur claims that conservatives focus only on the physicality of love and sex, and ignore the "spiritual" dimension of love and sex.

Aside from the fact that it is odd for an objectivist atheist to use the term "spiritual", or to discuss ethereal concepts like love (I am reminded of the scene in CONTACT when Palmer Joss asks atheist Ellie Arroway to prove that she loved her father), how does Sandefur define "spiritual"? Well, he quotes Rand, who said (among other things in the quote he provides) that sex is "a physical capacity, but its exercise is determined by man’s mind—by his choice of values, held consciously or subconsciously. To a rational man [or woman], sex is an expression of self-esteem—a celebration of himself and of existence…"

The last sentence is the most important. Sex, to Rand and Sandefur, is an act of worship...but who is worshipped? Ourselves, our own needs, our own desires, and our own "existence."

A Christian, of course, lives by the two greatest commandments: to love God with all our hearts and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Self comes third, if at all. Sex for a Christian is just as much an act of worship...but the worship is directed to God and for His glory.

Tim also charges conservatives with similar thinking in the abortion debate...that we argue for the rights of the unborn simply because it has human DNA. This charge is unfounded. This conservative believes in the rights of the unborn because I have faith in God and I believe God's Word when it says that we are all fearfully and wonderfully made by our Creator, and I see no distinction between a 12 week old unborn child and a child just birthed from the womb. Sandefur will have a hard time distinguishing between a 12 week and 1 day old infant as well, not to mention the mentally ill, and he has admitted as much in the past. In any case, to argue that my abortion position relies solely on the "physical" completely ignores my faith in God, as well as my submission to His authority in my life..

2004-05-17T13:57:00.000-05:00

Are we freer than we were 100 years ago?: Tim Sandefur, in his (nicely) newly designed blog, says that he sat on a panel at FreedomFest. The topic was whether we were more free now than 100 years ago. Tim says most of the panelists agreed that we were. I would like to understand this calculus, because my first response would be to say no, we are not freer than we were 100 years ago. Sure, in some people's mind, we are more free because homosexuals can "marry" and because women can kill their own children. Granting for the purposes of argument that these kinds of things count for an increase in freedom, what about the increase in the tax burden? The growth of government? The continuing decline in the value of our money? I just find it hard to believe that we are really more free now than we were 100 years ago, but I don't know the calculus the panel used to derive their estimate.

2004-05-12T15:03:00.000-05:00

The Price of Freedom?: While innocent Americans are beheaded in Iraq, pornographers resumed their trade after a scare over an HIV breakout among participants.

2004-04-27T14:51:00.000-05:00

We hold these truths to be self-evident...: A thought just occured to me: if the Declaration of Independence is, in Lockean terms, the American social compact (i.e. the shared ideas and principles that Americans agree are necessary in order to hold our society together and give our government a basis to govern) I wonder how many Americans truly believe in the principles espoused in the Declaration anymore?

And if they don't, what does that mean for our nation?

2004-04-12T09:40:00.000-05:00

Great article: John Fund with a wonderful article on how Congressman Davy Crockett came to believe in the principles of limited government.

2004-04-02T11:59:00.000-05:00

Follow the timeline: Ann Coulter with a particularly illuminating look at the timeline of U.S. action against terror, pre and post 9/11.

2004-04-02T11:17:00.000-05:00

Christianity, evolution, and hypocrisy: Great article on the use of taxpayer funds for pro-evolution groups to tie religion and evolution together. Where is the outrage?

2004-04-01T12:31:00.000-05:00

Comparing abortion and slavery: I have been thinking/reading/praying a lot about abortion recently, due to the activity in Congress and the challenges to the partial-birth abortion ban. I was rereading over lunch a sermon on abortion delivered by Tim Bayly earlier this year. In this sermon, he asks us to consider the similarities between Dred Scott v. Sanford and Roe v. Wade. He thought that the common man who defended Dred Scott in the 1850s would sound awfully similar to the common man who defends Roe today. Listen to his thought experiment, and I think you will notice some stunning similiarities:

"Although a slave/fetus has a heart and a brain, and is human from the biological perspective, a slave/fetus just is not a legal person under the Constitution. The Supreme Court made this perfectly clear in the Dred Scott/Roe v. Wade decision.

A man/woman has the right to do whatever he/she pleases with his/her personal property, the slave/fetus.

Both the social and economic burdens which will result from prohibiting slavery/abortion will be unfairly concentrated upon a single group: slave-holders/pregnant women.

Isn’t slavery/abortion really something merciful? Isn’t it really better never to be set free/born than to be sent ill-equipped and unprepared into an environment where one is unwanted, unloved and bound to be miserable?

Those who believe that slavery/abortion is immoral are free to refrain from owning slaves/having abortions; they should give the same freedom to those who have different moral beliefs.

Accordingly, those who believe that slavery/abortion is immoral have no right to try to impose their personal morality upon others by way of legislation or a constitutional amendment.

The claim that slaves/fetuses are like us is simply ridiculous; all one has to do is look at them to see that they are completely different.

The anti-slavery/anti-abortion movement is in fact a small band of well-organized religious fanatics who have no respect for democracy or the principles of a pluralistic society."

Bayly also asks us to draw parallels between arguments made by those against slavery in the 19th century and abortion today:

"The question of whether slavery/abortion should be tolerated is not a matter of personal or religious belief; it is a question of protecting the civil rights of millions of innocent human beings who are not in a position to protect themselves.

The humanity of slaves/fetuses cannot be denied simply because they look different from us; there is no morally defensible way to draw a line somewhere along a continuum of skin color/(fetal) development and claim, 'This is where humanity starts, this is where it stops.'”

Source: Sermon delivered by Tim Bayly on January 22, 2004, in Indiana State House. The parallels themselves did not originate with Tim, but are from Patrick Derrr, "The Argument" & "The Question," Human Life Review, Vol. V, no. 3, 1979, pp. 77-83.

2004-03-30T12:43:00.000-05:00

The genesis of federal power: Mr. Rowe again asserts that a federal court may one day find a federal "right" to gay marriage, if only enough (an "overwhelming majority" according to Rowe) states eventually allow for gay marriage under state law. Mr. Rowe prefers this "federalist" approach to the issue, thinking that it will bring the "gradual" change needed to assure that all gays in America can indeed call their relationships "marriage" at some point in the future.

I continue to assert that this is an unworkable and ultimately, unconstitutional approach to federal jurisprudence. Why? Because a federal "right" is in reality an absence of specific power for the federal government to act in a certain area. We have a federal "right" to free speech because the Constitution does not give power to Congress to regulate speech. We have a federal "right" to own firearms because the Constitution does not allow Congress to regulate firearms. We have these rights because the people have withheld the power to regulate speech and firearms (as well as other areas) from Congress; NOT because a certain number of states take a certain approach to the regulation of speech and firearms.

Because the constitution is silent on marriage, the issue is thus one that is reserved to the states and the people in the 9th and 10th amendments, and always has been in our 200+ year history as a people (and, I would note, this has not been changed by the 14th amendment except when it comes to the issue of race, a la Loving v. Virginia). In a sense, the people do have a federal "right" to marriage in that they are free from federal control over the issue. The extent to which the states and the people sovereignly exercise that power--defining or redefining marriage as they see fit--should have no bearing on the federal justiciability of the marriage issue. It's a power reserved to the states and the people--period. If 49 states allow for "gay marriage", it does not give warrant for the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and override the judgment of the 50th state that still holds to the "traditional view" of marriage. To suggest that this is so reeks of the very same majoritarianism that we hear libertarians (often rightly) criticize Bork, et al.

The really unfortunate outcome of Mr. Rowe's "federalist" views are the contempt they show for our state and local governments. In Mr. Rowe's "federalist" approach to the marriage issue, state and local governments are treated as pawns in a larger game that seeks to nationalize the homosexual view of "gay marriage." It really is unfortunate that Mr. Rowe can call this "federalist" at all, since he is not at all concerned with the proper allocation of federal, state or local power, but his preferred end of recognizing gay marriage in every state. Instead of protecting the constitutional role of state and local government in the United States, Mr. Rowe's approach would only further aggrandize power in the federal departments.

2004-03-30T12:21:00.000-05:00

Bible verse(s) for today: I happened to be reading Judges 13 this morning, which recounts the story of Samson. I have always loved this story, and the Lord this morning brought something else to mind that I had not seen before:

1 Again the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and the LORD delivered them into the hand of the Philistines for forty years.
2Now there was a certain man from Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah; and his wife was barren and had no children. 3And the Angel of the LORD appeared to the woman and said to her, "Indeed now, you are barren and have borne no children, but you shall conceive and bear a son. 4Now therefore, please be careful not to drink wine or similar drink, and not to eat anything unclean. 5For behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. And no razor shall come upon his head, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb; and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines."
6So the woman came and told her husband, saying, "A Man of God came to me, and His countenance was like the countenance of the Angel of God, very awesome; but I did not ask Him where He was from, and He did not tell me His name. 7And He said to me, "Behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. Now drink no wine or similar drink, nor eat anything unclean, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death."'
8Then Manoah prayed to the LORD, and said, "O my Lord, please let the Man of God whom You sent come to us again and teach us what we shall do for the child who will be born."
9And God listened to the voice of Manoah, and the Angel of God came to the woman again as she was sitting in the field; but Manoah her husband was not with her. 10Then the woman ran in haste and told her husband, and said to him, "Look, the Man who came to me the other day has just now appeared to me!"
11So Manoah arose and followed his wife. When he came to the Man, he said to Him, "Are You the Man who spoke to this woman?"
And He said, "I am."
12Manoah said, "Now let Your words come to pass! What will be the boy's rule of life, and his work?"
13So the Angel of the LORD said to Manoah, "Of all that I said to the woman let her be careful. 14She may not eat anything that comes from the vine, nor may she drink wine or similar drink, nor eat anything unclean. All that I commanded her let her observe."

Verse 8 (which I italicized) teaches us something very important about prayer. Notice the focus on Manoah's prayer. It's not on his families own needs or wants, it's focused on God's will and a dependence on Him. Manoah asks God to be clear in how He would have them teach and train Samson. He is asking that God's will be done; this echoes the prayer instructions of Jesus Christ in Matthew 6. Oh that our prayers would be as focused on God' will as Manoah's!

2004-03-30T12:10:00.000-05:00

Good blog: I've added a link to This Classical Life, an enjoyable blog I found recently.

2004-03-30T09:25:00.000-05:00

Atheism, the Pledge of Allegiance, and John Locke: a good discussion on religion, philosophy and the founding of America over at the Claremont blog.

2004-03-23T12:16:00.000-05:00

John Kerry: The French Choice for President: This article scares me.

2004-03-19T12:55:00.000-05:00

Daily Log: 3/18/2004: Woke up at 6:30 am. Showered and got dressed; got Savannah out of bed and to Shallen. Left the house by 7:30.

Read Joshua 9-10 on the way to work. Had a good day at work, including a productive meeting on the hill late in the day. Read more of The Origin of Species on the way home. It's a tedious read. I don't know if I am going to be able to make it all the way through.

Got home about 5:45 pm. Shallen warmed up some leftovers for dinner and we had dinner as a family. Savannah was very entertaining...she was making lots of noises (often quite loud) so of course I encouraged her by making faces and sounds of my own. Shallen and I talked about our days when we could hear ourselves.

Shallen fed and put Savannah to bed at 7:00 pm, then she left for choir and praise team practice. I stayed behind and worked on paying bills and updating our checking account. Then I read one Captain America comic, then I started reading Five Views on Law and Gospel. I made it almost all the way through Willem VanGemeren's non-theonomic Reformed view of the law and gospel, and read most of Bahnsen's response to him.

I think VanGemeren's best point is that the moral aspects of the law have continuing validity, even in the gospel dispensation, because they are present at creation as part of God's plan for order in the universe. The best verse he cites to support this principle is Romans 2:14-16 ("For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves, which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel"). This helps understand (and justify) the Reformed distinction between moral, judicial, and ceremonial law, and the teaching of the Westminster Standards that the former binds all believers in all dispensations (because it is "natural" and is written on the hearts of all men), while the latter two binded only the nation of Israel in the Old Testament period (because they were gracefully given to Israel by God to point them to Christ, and they go away when Christ is revealed), except that the judicial law can be used to the extent required by "equity" (more on this concept of "equity" in the Westminster Confession of Faith later; it is the source of a great deal of debate between theonomic and non-theonomic Reformed Christians).

Shallen got home while I was reading this piece, and I continued to read it (couldn't put it down) while she did some more music work at the computer. We ended up going to bed around 11:00.

Another great day!

2004-03-18T12:37:00.000-05:00

Interesting discussion: A number of people are participating in an interesting discussion in the feedback section over at Cattalarchy. Click here to read it.

2004-03-18T12:18:00.000-05:00

The meaning of words: Steve Baarendse, who attended CGS in Bloomington at the same time as Shallen and I, has a wonderful post over on Kept the Faith. I highly recommend that you read it. My favorite part:

"Lloyd-Jones saw that the danger was not in the brash heretic who would rally the faithful to arms, but rather 'the really dangerous man is the man who introduces some very slight and subtle change.'"

It takes more grace, more wisdom and discernment, to tell when someone is slightly wrong than when they are greatly wrong. But like a ship that makes a tiny navigational error and ends up in Miami instead of New York, so can the church make a tiny error in doctrine and end up going entirely the wrong way.

2004-03-18T09:43:00.000-05:00

Vice-President Cheney with some strong words for Senator Kerry: From today's Opinion-Journal: "But it is our business when a candidate for president claims the political endorsement of foreign leaders. At the very least, we have a right to know what he is saying to foreign leaders that makes them so supportive of his candidacy. American voters are the ones charged with determining the outcome of this election--not unnamed foreign leaders."

What a great point made by the Vice-President. While Senator Kerry claims to be a "man of the people", he ridiculed the voter who asked him who the foreign leaders were, and he acts as if he can just make statements like "foreign leaders want me to win" without backing them up. It's an irresponsible disregard for the truth, and we should be very careful before we vote for a man who would presume to use unnamed foreign leaders to influence our vote.

2004-03-18T09:37:00.000-05:00

Daily Log: 3/17/2004: Yesterday morning I stopped by the new Wal-Mart that opened about a mile from our house. It's very nice and will be more convenient for us.

Last night we went to care group (our church's weekly Bible study). After a few songs and prayer, we discussed the first 8 chapters of Romans and how they applied to the uniqueness of the Christian faith.

Savannah did quite well despite being up past her bed time. The young ladies in the care group love to watch her and play with her and we enjoy their willingness to help us in that regard.

After care group we ate some Girl Scout cookies and I discussed the theory of evolution with a couple of the other men. Then we went home and went to bed!

A very enjoyable day!

2004-03-17T11:46:00.000-05:00

Mr. Rowe responds: Mr. Rowe has responded to my questions below concerning the Supreme Court, natural rights, and state law.

2004-03-17T09:25:00.000-05:00

Daily Log: 3/16/2004: Not much different from Monday. Read Joshua 4-6 on the way to work. Had a good day at work. Read more of Master and Commander on the way home.

Emily, a young woman in college and career group, was visiting with Shallen when I got home. Savannah was a "wild woman" when I got home, jumping up and down in her walker, and laughing and yelling. Emily stayed and we all had dinner around 6:15 pm (sloppy joes and macaroni and cheese....yummmm).

At 7:00 pm a medical technician showed up with tests, etc., for our life insurance. We checked out fine. My blood pressure and pulse were normal. It was weird to have my blood drawn again.

At 7:30 pm I did some work for church, then joined Shallen in the family room. She watched "American Idol" while I finished Master and Commander. Shallen worked on music for church then we went to bed around 11:00 pm.

It was a great day!

2004-03-17T08:49:00.000-05:00

Mini Book Review: Master and Commander, by Patrick O'Brian, is a delightful read. It's the first book in the Aubrey/Maturin series, which focuses on the exploits of Captain Jack Aubrey, a British sea captain around the turn of the 19th century, and Stephen Maturin, an Irish doctor who meets up with Aubrey in Port Mahon (in the Mediterranean).

The two quickly discover that they share a love of music, and Maturn is in need of employ, so he agrees to serve as doctor aboard the Sophie, a 14 gun sloop that is the first command assignment for Aubrey. They have all sorts of adventures: escorting merchantmen across the Med; cruising to capture French or Spanish merchantmen, etc.

The most enjoyable aspect of the book is the interplay between Aubrey and Maturin as they encounter different circumstances. Maturin is quick to notice that "prize-taking" is the chief end of the sailors aboard the Sophie, because each member of the crew takes a share in the value of the seized ship's hold. Maturin, being a humanist, naturalist and a bit of a romantic, sees how greed drives the crew more than patriotism. Aubrey, on the other hand, is the consumate naval officer, seeking prizes and glory and battle, and ultimately advancement to the rank of "post-captain." Maturin hates wars, and Aubrey loves war. It's an interesting relationship.

O'Brian is a skillful writer. The opening chapter is one of the finest I have ever read. Near the end, he holds the readers attention, despite the fact that the main characters are only witnesses to the climactic battle between the British and the French/Spanish. The only thing that makes the book slightly inaccessible are the nautical terms. O'Brian assumes nautical knowledge in his reader. I'm not sure if I know more about sailing now than I did before I read the book, but I do know that a ship "sets its royals" when it wants to go somewhere really fast.

9/10

2004-03-16T12:39:00.000-05:00

Daily Log: 3/15/2004: I want to start a daily log, largely so our families in Indiana, West Virginia, Illinois, etc., can better know what we are doing. So we will try to do this as often as we can.

Yesterday I got up around 6:30 am. I wish I could be more disciplined. I need to get up at 5:30 am. I have too much to do and too much to read. I usually read my Bible in the slug car in the mornings but I would rather do that in my den where it's much more quiet. Please pray for my discipline in getting up when you get a chance.

I shaved and was in the shower by 6:40. Out of the shower and dressed by 7:00. Savannah wakes up and I get her out of the crib and to Mommy. Then downstairs and breakfast, feed the dog, make my lunch, take out the dog, feed the cat (if I'm not mad at her), then leave by 7:30.

Arrive at commuter lot at 7:45. Into slug car by 7:50. Read Joshua chapter 1-3. There's something about the people of Israel crossing the Jordan that gets me every time I read it. As if God wasn't awesome enough to part the Red Sea, He then collects the waters of the Jordan in a great heap also. Good stuff!

Arrive Rosslyn Metro station at 8:15. Into Metro train and arrive at office at 8:30.

Work work work.

Leave work about 4:30 pm. Read about ten pages in Master and Commander on the way home. Get home about 5:35 pm. Take Savannah upstairs (she was on the kitchen floor playing with a pot and a wooden spoon while Shallen made dinner) and change while she sits on the bed and plays. She smiles at me every time I turn around and look at her. She still has a death grip on the wooden spoon.

Downstairs and play with Savannah while Shallen makes dinner. We have dinner about 6:15 pm. It's a delicious "bbq chicken ring". Savannah sits in the new chair we got from our relatives back in Indiana. Shallen is a wonderful cook.

I head downstairs to do some church business after dinner, while Shallen feeds Savannah and puts her to bed. Jeff stops by, a young Marine in our church's college and career group. He wants us to store his muzzleloader because they won't allow it on base at Quantico (odd, I know). Jeff and I have a nice chat in my den about a number of issues. Jeff heads off to college and career group around 7:30 pm and I follow shortly after.

At college and career I lead a discussion on the book Twentysomeone, which will be the basis of our group for the next 3-4 months. I ask the young people to think about the next ten years of their life: what do you see happening? Marriage, college, job, etc., are the popular responses. Then we talk about what the Bible has to say about these things, which is quite a bit, but we also talk about the need for prayer and discernment to fill in the details.

Home by 9:30 pm. Shallen is in den doing some music work for church. I sit in one of the leather chairs and read a comic book while she finishes up. Around 10:00 pm I take the dog out, head upstairs with Shallen, read another comic book while she finishes getting ready, and it's lights out by 10:30 pm.

What a wonderful day!

2004-03-16T09:44:00.000-05:00

A good article on marriage: Science-fiction novelist Orson Scott Card writes about marriage in a thought-provoking piece. I don't agree with everything he says--I think he places too much faith in democratic action and too much faith in "tradition"--but I agree with much of what he says. He certainly raises some rational reasons for our current marriage law. He also, being an author, knows about the value of words and applying consistent meaning to them.

2004-03-16T09:00:00.000-05:00

Some good news for President Bush: A New York Times/CBS poll shows President Bush with a slight lead, with 46 percent to Senator Kerry's 43 percent. If Nader is included, however, the President leads by 46 percent to 38 percent.

2004-03-15T15:28:00.000-05:00

"None of our business," says Kerry: John Kerry says it's "none of (our) business" which foreign leaders were pulling for him to beat the President in the general election.

2004-03-15T15:09:00.000-05:00

Drudge with scoop on Mel Gibson, President Bush: Drudge says Mel Gibson is having second-thoughts about President Bush, concerning the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Of course, lots of conservatives and libertarians are having the same doubts about WMDs, but also doubts about farm subsidies, new prescription drug benefits, campaign finance reform, etc.

2004-03-14T21:28:00.000-05:00

The RIGHT Place: Still waiting on those "words of wisdom" from Andy Boenau at The RIGHT Place.

2004-03-14T19:45:00.000-05:00

New Blog: Mr. Tim Bayly, the teaching elder (pastor) at Church of the Good Shepherd (CGS) in Bloomington, IN, started a new blog here. Shallen and I sat under Tim's teaching from shortly after our marriage--in 1998--until the summer of 2001. Tim's sermons are compelling, convicting, and glorifying to God. You can listen to most of his recent sermons on sermonaudio.com.

To give you a little insight into how much Tim loves those God has placed under his care: the last words he ever spoke in person to me, after the last Sunday service we attended at CGS in June, 2001, were: "Don't commit adultery." Tim is a man who loves God and loves others. You will benefit from reading his thoughts and opinions.

2004-03-14T19:25:00.000-05:00

How do you define "tear this country apart?": Jonathan over at Freespace has an interesting, if unsatisfying, response to an e-mailer who advocates a state-based resolution of issues like marriage and religion. The e-mailer said:

“Freedom of religion should be left to the states, not the federal government, for the same reasons that abortion should be left to the states. Rather than having a majority rule the entire country on [divisive] issues, such as school prayer, you should have the states experimenting with finding a correct balance. The market forces will eventually demonstrate which state policy is correct, and allow for dual successful models where appropriate. It is entirely rational to see Western states adopting very Newdow-like policies and the Bible-belt sticking to school prayer.”

Jonathan responded by saying:

"Although I think there is tremendous merit to states' rights solutions, the problem here is that the religion clauses are essentially derived from the natural right of liberty of conscience. States ultimately don't have proper final authority over our natural rights. But that doesn’t mean that states shouldn’t have the first crack at righting wrongs. The states’ rights model is often useful in helping to secure natural rights because sometimes its just not feasible to secure these rights at the national level, better to let the states do their best to secure them, and then have the national government step in when the time is right. Slavery is a good example—it certainly wasn't feasible to secure those natural rights at the time of the founding (the slave states wouldn’t have ratified the Constitution if this were demanded) and it ultimately took a civil war to do it. I think Lawrence v. Texas was properly decided—but at the time it was, only 13 states had sodomy laws. Ditto with Loving v. Virginia—only 16 states had laws against interracial marriage at the time that case came down. There may very well be a natural right to gay marriage (or not). But the US Supreme Court ought not to impose gay marriage any time in the near future—it would tear this country apart. Leave it up to the states, and maybe when say 35 of them voluntarily recognize gay marriage, then have the Feds step in and secure the right in all states."

I would love to see him elaborate on this. Is he suggesting that the Supreme Court can override state decisions on "natural rights" if there are enough states that take a certain view? Was the deciding factor in Lawrence, for example, the fact that only 13 states had anti-sodomy laws? Is the Supreme Court to rule by situational ethics...with the number of state laws (or international laws) on a certain view being the determining factor of the ethic du jour?

And I would ask Jonathan: if this country is not being torn apart right now over a number of social issues (abortion and homosexuality, chiefly), just exactly how do you define "tear this country apart"?

2004-03-09T13:03:00.000-05:00

Revisiting Lochner: I hadn't read the Lochner decision since law school, but I had a chance to read it again on the plane this morning. It's relatively short, and a wonderful illustration of the two major theories of constitutional interpretation that have competed for prominence since 1789.

For those unfamiliar with the facts of the case, at issue was whether a New York state law that restricted bakers to working no more than 60 hours a week was a violation of the rights of the baker, and his employer, to buy and sell labor without interference by the state.

It's interesting to note that the majority and dissent don't disagree that an individual has a right to contract, and that the states are bound to respect this right. There is also no disagreement over the general nature of the police powers of the state, as both the majority and the dissent agree that the states have a large sphere of power to regulate the health, safety and morals of the community.

What is a major source of disagreement is how much deference the judiciary should accord to the state legislature. The majority opinion argues, at great length, that the New York legislature could not plausibly argue that the law in question was enacted to protect the health, safety or morals of the community, that the number of hours worked by an individual were left to the individual and his employer, and that any restriction on this right that was not reasonably connected to the state's police powers will necessarily be unconstitutional under the 14th amendments protections of life, liberty and property.

The dissent(s) argued that it was not the place of the federal judiciary to second-guess the state legislatures and that the federal courst should afford a wide deference to legislative enactments in furtherance of the state police powers. Justice Harlan maintained that a federal court should give a presumption of constitutionality to state legislation, and that the burden of proof was on those who argue that a law is unconstitutional. Harlan also argued that the courts needed to take cognizance of the changing nature of society (i.e. becoming more industrial) and that the rise of industrialism would create the need for more, not less, state regulation.

Justice Holmes went even further, arguing that the Constitution was agnostic on the subject of economics, that it seemingly was designed to compromise between competing economic ends, and that it was ridiculous to envision that the Founders had economic relationships in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

I hope the reader can see how dangerous the views of Justice Harlan and Holmes are for our liberties. I would submit that we cannot call ourselves free if the acts of our legislatures are treated as presumptively constitutional. The burden of proof should rest on those who make the law, not on the governed. It is preposterous to suppose that the drafters of the Constitution would create a system of government where a legislature would have as much power, or be treated with the same deference, as the King of England.

And to insist, as Justice Holmes does, that the Constitution is silent with regard to economic relationships, is just as dangerous to the spirit of liberty. If a man does not have a property in his person and his right to earn an honest living, than he is not free in any meaningful sense. And the Constitution went to great lengths to protect this, and other, freedoms as well.

Unfortunately, the Lochner decision was short-lived. It was overruled in 1937. The view of Harlan and Holmes has largely dominated the judiciary ever sense, especially when it comes to economic regulation. Federal courts are far more willing to reverse a state decision on moral regulation than in economic regulation.

2004-03-08T14:54:00.000-05:00

Is Gay Marriage a Right?: The folks over at Real Clear Politics explore how homosexual activists are going for the "whole enchilada" in the gay marriage debate. I don't agree with everything they say, because I think the gay marriage issue is much more than "tradition v. tolerance." But they do have a good point about the inconsistency in Andrew Sullivan's thoughts on the issue. Click here.

2004-03-08T12:58:00.000-05:00

Worshipping the State: My good friend Tim Sandefur, over at Freespace, charges that those who think marriage should be exclusively between heterosexuals "think of the state as a way to make society conform to their moral vision, they tend to see the legalization of new forms of living as a personal threat to their own private moral purity." There are certainly some people who have such faith in the state that they need it to conform to their own moral vision. But of course the homosexual activists who want marriage to include those of the same-sex are doing the exact same thing. They want the state to conform to their moral vision, which allows for those of the same sex to marry. In both cases, individuals are divinizing the state by clamoring for its blessing and approval. Just another reason that the best resolution to this issue may be for states to get out of the marriage business altogether.

Bob Barr, former Georgia Congressman, has some wise words about the controversy here. Barr takes a very federalist approach to the issue, basically saying that someone who lives in Virginia shouldn't be any more concerned about gay marriage in Massachusetts than they should about gay marriage in Holland. Of course, I am concerned about gay marriage everywhere, but I don't presume to legislate for the people of Massachusetts or Holland.

2004-03-08T10:40:00.000-05:00

9/11 is a serious campaign issue: Charles Krauthammer with a thought-provoking piece on the importance of 9/11 in the presidential campaign, and why 9/11 is important to all of us, and not just the families of the individuals who were, sadly, killed in the terrorist attack.

2004-03-08T08:57:00.000-05:00

THE PASSION Box-Office Numbers: Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST continues to do incredible business at the box office. It tallied over $50 million this past weekend, and stands at a total of over $212 million in less than two weeks.

This helps to confirm a suspicion I have had for a while: Hollywood vastly misunderstands the people who do or will go to the movies. Since money talks in Hollywood, I would guess that we are going to see a resurgence of movies about religion, and Christianity in particular.

2004-03-05T19:44:00.000-05:00

Welcome to our new "blog." Now you can keep up to date with our family, and also hear Chris drone on and on about theology, law and politics!