The comprehensive scope of the moral revolution America is currently experiencing is likely to surprise many Americans when they realize that the Boy Scouts are…
The comprehensive scope of the moral revolution America is currently experiencing is likely to surprise many Americans when they realize that the Boy Scouts are…
After addressing a large secular assembly on issues of moral controversy, I turned and faced a woman who urgently wanted to ask me a question:…
Watching the American scene in the 1960s, historian Daniel Boorstin, invented the idea of the “pseudo-event.” The rise of television and modern mass media had produced a transformation of the news business, so that what now mattered was not if an event was important, but only if it was “newsworthy.”
As Boorstin explained, the pseudo-event was orchestrated and planned to receive maximum public attention, even if the event itself was really unimportant. Pseudo-events merely look important, because the media and the public agree to act as if they are. As Boorstin explained, the pseudo-event is not something that happens by mistake, like a train wreck or an accident. It is something “planted primarily for the immediate purpose of being reported.” Lastly, Boorstin asserted, the pseudo-event is “intended to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
Sound familiar? The pseudo-event is the driving force of American political life today, and it is a game increasingly played by both major political parties. The “fiscal cliff” was the most embarrassing recent example of a pseudo-event. Democrats and Republicans alike conspired to create a fake political crisis that each party thought would work to its own advantage. Both parties gambled that public outrage over the loss of Bush-era tax cuts would create a manufactured political crisis that would give the party and its allies political leverage.
Democrats gambled that they would get new tax revenues out of the crisis, while Republicans hoped for spending cuts. In the end, the negotiated “fix” for the pseudo-crisis was a weak combination of increased tax revenue and promised, yet unspecified, spending cuts.
The entire enterprise was tantamount to a war game played with live ammunition. Both sides claimed a modicum of victory and promised to play the game to better advantage next time. Neither side was willing to deal with what the real crisis of governance represents. The “fiscal cliff” was just a dramatic distraction from the real crisis.
As columnist David Brooks argued, “Far from laying the groundwork for future cooperation, it sentences the country to another few years of budget trench warfare. There will be a fight over drastic spending cuts known as sequestration, then over the debt limit and on and on.”
As Brooks predicted, the same debacle is now being played out with the debt limit pseudo-event. Both parties are jockeying for position. The nation has already exceeded the $16.4 trillion borrowing limit previously set by Congress. A bit of financial finagling by the Department of the Treasury has bought just a bit of time before Congress must raise the debt ceiling once again. Otherwise the United States will default on its debt.
How did this happen? Congress approved the spending, as did the President. The spending, which necessitated the borrowing, was approved by the very people who will not debate whether to pay the bills they themselves created.
Federal law requires Congress to establish a limit to national borrowing, but the U. S. Constitution requires the government to pay its debts. The debt limit requirement is merely a matter of law. The pledge to pay the nation’s debt is a mandate of the Constitution. The debt ceiling is now a political abstraction, used by both parties to create a pseudo-event.
Conservatives should be particularly unwilling to participate in such a charade, and yet many do so, thinking they can use the pseudo-event to their advantage. It is a losing game, dishonest politics, and a failure of governance.
It is intended to direct the nation’s attention away from the real crisis and onto the pseudo-event. It avoids dealing with the real disaster that looms before us.
Once again, David Brooks nailed the real issue: “Public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product was around 38 percent in 1965. It is around 74 percent now. Debt could approach a ruinous 90 percent of G.D.P. in a decade and a cataclysmic 247 percent of G.D.P. 30 years from now, according to the Congressional Budget Office and JPMorgan.”
But, do politicians bear all the blame? Not hardly. The public has an insatiable appetite for pseudo-events and a horrified aversion to the truth. Why? We are approaching the point that voters will not deal with the issue because it will cost them their entitlements. They will be glad for their children and grandchildren to pay the catastrophic debt.
As Brooks explains:
“Ultimately, we should blame the American voters. The average Medicare couple pays $109,000 into the program and gets $343,000 in benefits out, according to the Urban Institute. This is $234,000 in free money. Many voters have decided they like spending a lot on themselves and pushing costs onto their children and grandchildren. They have decided they like borrowing up to $1 trillion a year for tax credits, disability payments, defense contracts and the rest. They have found that the original Keynesian rationale for these deficits provides a perfect cover for permanent deficit-living. They have made it clear that they will destroy any politician who tries to stop them from cost-shifting in this way.”
Given this political reality, fiscal conservatives are insane to believe that these pseudo-events play to their advantage. Each “solution” to a false crisis actually lets the American people and the political class claim a false victory — even as the real crisis grows far worse.
Conservatives should point out that the Constitution demands the nation pay its debts, and that Congress and the President must take responsibility for the spending — and the massive borrowing — their actions mandate. Conservatives should point to the real crisis, stand on principle, and refuse to distract themselves and the American people with false crises and pseudo-events.
In the end, pseudo-events only serve to make the problem worse, never better. We cannot deal with the real crisis, if we keep playing the game of the pseudo-event.
I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at email@example.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/albertmohler
David Brooks, “Another Fiscal Flop,” The New York Times, Monday, December 31, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/opinion/brooks-another-fiscal-flop.html?ref=davidbrooks
A new chapter in America’s moral revolution came today as Atlanta pastor Louie Giglio withdrew from giving the benediction at President Obama’s second inaugural ceremony.…
The 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade will bring the nation face to face with the abortion question once again. More accurately, it will serve…
Families across the Christian world are gathering for Christmas even now, with caravans of cars and planeloads of passengers headed to hearth and home. Christmas…
Thus says the LORD: “A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted…
The major festivals of the Christian year often prompt major cover stories in the nation’s weekly news magazines. Time, Newsweek, and US News & World…
The U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics maintains a list of recognized job descriptions, and that list has been undergoing a lot of change in…
French President François Hollande recently announced that he wants French schools to put an end to homework. That is certain to thrill school children in the nation, but the reason for Hollande’s war on homework will likely puzzle many French citizens.
President Hollande wants to end homework in order to level the playing field for the nation’s students. As France 24 reports, Hollande told an audience at The Sorbonne, “An education program is, by definition, a societal program. Work should be done at school, rather than at home.”
He went on to explain that it was unfair for students with parents who are engaged with their schoolwork to gain an educational advantage over others, whose parents do not offer such support.
Hollande wants to neutralize the impact of parents by keeping students at school longer. As France 24 notes, French students are already staying at school longer than students in many other nations, often leaving the school “only at 5pm or 6pm.”
The more hours students spend in the government’s schools, the less hours they are at home — where inequity abounds.
As Dylan Matthews of The Washington Post explains, Hollande argues for the elimination of homework, “not in terms of student learning but as a way to equal the playing field for all students.” Further, “Poor children, he argues, are less likely to get parental aid for homework, and so requiring homework can widen the achievement gap.”
Hollande is right about the inequity. Children whose parents are not involved, for whatever reason, are surely at a serious disadvantage. Every effort to help them should be made. But even if homework is eliminated, the inequity will remain.
The reason for the inequity is clear, and it doesn’t begin when the child starts formal education. It starts at the beginning of life and in the earliest stages of infancy and childhood. Parents who talk to their children and, even more importantly, read to their children, give their children a priceless head start. Parents who spend time with their children and are involved in their school work, offering encouragement and accountability, increase that advantage. Involved and engaged parents give a child a priceless advantage.
There is another dimension to this picture, but one that most political leaders will not acknowledge. The presence of two parents in the home at least doubles the opportunity for a child to get the needed help. The breakdown of the family is a major part of the background to this problem.
The only way for this particular inequity to be eliminated is to remove children from the care of their parents and to raise them as wards of the state. Such proposals have been made by statists ranging from Plato to Lenin. To a lesser degree, similar arguments have been made in this country by educational leaders such as philosopher John Dewey. Adding even more hours to the school week is just a further step in that direction.
This is the logic of statism, proposing the state as the answer to inequities it cannot possibly resolve, and marginalizing or subverting the family in the process.
This story from France should prompt all of us to do a little homework of our own, reminding ourselves of the central importance of the family.
I discuss this story and more in today’s edition of The Briefing: A Daily Analysis of News and Events from a Christian Worldview. LISTEN HERE [The program will be available at 6:30am, EST]
I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at firstname.lastname@example.org. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/albertmohler
Links to articles cited:
Russia is in the grip of an apocalyptic fever. The New York Times reports that Russians across the nation’s nine time zones are in the grip of a mass hysteria of sorts — and it’s all about the end of the world.
As Ellen Barry reports:
“Inmates in a women’s prison near the Chinese border are said to have experienced a ‘collective mass psychosis’ so intense that their wardens summoned a priest to calm them. In a factory town east of Moscow, panicked citizens stripped shelves of matches, kerosene, sugar and candles. A huge Mayan-style archway is being built — out of ice — on Karl Marx Street in Chelyabinsk in the south.”
She also explains the cause of the hysteria. It seems that even Russians are fascinated with the Mayan calendar. “For those not schooled in New Age prophecy, there are rumors the world will end on Dec. 21, 2012, when a 5,125-year cycle known as the Long Count in the Mayan calendar supposedly comes to a close. Russia, a nation with a penchant for mystical thinking, has taken notice.”
The apocalyptic fever has now concerned the Russian government, which spoke to the crisis through its Minister of Emergency Situations, who assured the nation that the End is not nigh”
“Last week, Russia’s government decided to put an end to the doomsday talk. Its minister of emergency situations said Friday that he had access to ‘methods of monitoring what is occurring on the planet Earth,’ and that he could say with confidence that the world was not going to end in December. He acknowledged, however, that Russians were still vulnerable to ‘blizzards, ice storms, tornadoes, floods, trouble with transportation and food supply, breakdowns in heat, electricity and water supply.'”
Well, there you have it. The Russian Minister of Emergency Situations has “methods of monitoring what is happening on the planet Earth,” and the End is not happening. Feel better now?
The Russian Orthodox Church has also stated its doubt that the End of the World is approaching, as have other government and cultural authorities. It is unclear that this is helping anything.
The government is also considering legislative action, making it illegal to “violate believer’s feelings.” One member of Russia’s Parliament, a doctor, warned that such anxiety could upset the nervous system. “Everyone has a different nervous system, and this kind of information affects them differently. Information acts subconsciously. Some people are provoked to laughter, some to heart attacks, and some . . . to negative actions.”
The Christian worldview points to the End of the World as a promised reality — an end that demonstrates the righteousness and justice of God and the consummation of the Gospel. God’s judgment poured out on this world is certain, but so is the promise of New Creation.
Russia bears all the marks of a radical spiritual confusion. In the aftermath of official Soviet atheism, the nation is filled with New Age confusions and a host of spiritual fevers. The Mayan calendar is just one focus of those fevers, but a potent one.
The same kind of confusions are present here in the United States, but with less intensity than in Russia. Russians, Ellen Barry explains, “can be powerfully transported by emotions.”
That, we can assume, is true of all people. Confusion marks the worldview and spirituality of millions of Americans just like the Russians, and the Mayan calendar is being watched carefully by many of our neighbors as well.
If I believed in the power of the Mayan calendar to predict the end of the world, I am not at all sure I would trust the government of Russia to tell me it isn’t so.
I discuss this issue, along with several other current concerns, in today’s edition of The Briefing: A Daily Analysis of News and Events from a Christian Worldview. LISTEN HERE
Link to Article Cited: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/world/europe/mayan-end-of-world-stirs-panic-in-russia-and-elsewhere.html?_r=0
Writing a generation ago, sociologist Christopher Lasch pointed to the weakening of the family as the most significant and dangerous development of our times. In…
TODAY 1. The Supreme Court and Same-Sex Marriage — A Decision Not to Decide is Still a Decision. 2. First Same-Sex Marriage in West Point’s Chapel — What it Means. 3. Sharia Law Combines with Autocracy in Egypt. 4. The Two-Edged Sword of Palestinian Statehood. 5. Does Justice Require that Stay-at-Home Moms Leave Home? I discuss all these and more in today’s edition of The Briefing: A Daily Analysis of News and Events from a Christian Worldview.
1. The U.S. Supreme Court and Same-Sex Marriage — A Decision Not to Decide is Still a Decision
The justices of the Supreme Court went behind closed doors last Friday to decide whether to take a list of cases, including crucial cases concerning same-sex marriage. It was expected that the Court might announce its decision in one or more of the same-sex marriages cases on Friday, but no announcement came. This morning at 9:30 the Court has scheduled another opportunity to announce cases, but the more traditional announcement on Mondays is the list of cases the Court will not take.
Many Americans, including millions of Americans concerned about the same-sex marriage cases, may not understand what such an announcement might mean. For example, if the Court announces that it will not grant a hearing to the case known as Hollingsworth v. Perry, same-sex marriage will almost immediately become fully legal in California.
The reason for this is quite simple. If the Supreme Court decides not to take the case, it will let stand the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. That court ruled that California’s voter-initiated Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, sustaining an earlier ruling to that effect in a San Francisco Federal District Court.
In other words, a decision not to take the case is still a decision — a decision to allow the Ninth Circuit’s decision to stand.
It takes four justices to agree to take a case, and at least five justices to decide most cases. Observers of the Court often try to predict such decisions, but the decision making process of the justices is hidden from view.
In addition to the Proposition 8 appeal, there are cases dealing with the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA], passed into law in 1996. The Court will have a harder time declining to hear that case, given the fact that it represents a frontal challenge to a Federal law passed by Congress and signed into law by the President Bill Clinton.
In any event, a decision in any of these cases, if taken up by the Court, would likely come in late summer.
Some same-sex marriage advocates are already celebrating what they believe will be a major victory at the Court, one way or the other. “2012 has already been the watershed year in the history of this movement,” Chad Griffin told USA Today. Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, also said: “It’s so clear where this country’s headed.”
Speaking of a DOMA case, Paul Clement, a former Solicitor General of the United States under President George W. Bush told the paper, “The Court will want to take this case and get it resolved.” Time will tell.
2. The First Same-Sex Marriage Ceremony in West Point’s Chapel — What it Means
This past Saturday, Cadet Chapel at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point was the site of a same-sex marriage ceremony. It was a first for the stately chapel, and it came over a year after President Obama rescinded the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that prohibited openly-gay people from serving in the U.S. military.
As NBC News reported:
“Penelope Gnesin and Brenda Sue Fulton, a West Point graduate, were exchanging vows in the regal church in an afternoon ceremony attended by around 250 guests and conducted by a senior Army chaplain.”
“Fulton said the only hassle involved in arranging her ceremony came when she was initially told that none of West Point’s chaplains were authorized by their denominations to perform same-sex weddings. Luckily, she said, they were able to call on a friend, Army Chaplain Col. J. Wesley Smith. He is the senior Army chaplain at Dover Air Force Base, where he presides over the solemn ceremonies held when the bodies of soldiers killed in action oversees return to U.S. soil. The couple planned on adding other military trappings to their wedding, including a tradition called the saber arch, where officers or cadets hold their swords aloft over the newlyweds as they emerge from the church.”
Though the wedding was the first held in the Gothic-styled Cadet Chapel, it was the second at West Point. The first was just a week earlier, held in a smaller chapel on the campus.
According to the Pentagon, the ceremony did not indicate the Army’s approval of same-sex marriage — a doubtful point made necessary by fact that the Federal government defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
What does all this mean? The celebration of a same-sex marriage ceremony in Cadet Chapel at West Point, complete with the saber arch and full military honors, represents a huge step toward the normalization of same-sex marriage, and of homosexuality itself, in the larger society. The event was a powerful symbol of the great revolution in sexual morality that marks our times.
3. Sharia Law Combines with Autocracy in Egypt
Last week, Egypt’s President Mohammed Morsi consolidated his grip on power, establishing himself as an autocrat with apparently unlimited political power. Morsi had previously handed down a set of decrees that established his rule as beyond any judicial constraint, leading to protests in the streets.
As last week came to an end, Morsi approved a rushed new draft of an Egyptian constitution. To no one’s surprise, the draft constitution supports Morsi’s new claims to power. Also to no one’s surprise, the new constitution bears all the marks of influence by Morsi’s colleagues in the Muslim Brotherhood.
The new constitution includes references to Sharia law, without specific language that would limit its application.
As The Wall Street Journal reported:
“The draft constitution was finished early Friday by Egypt’s 100-member Constituent Assembly, a body that had been conceived as representing Egyptians broadly. The group became dominated by Islamist politicians, however, after it was boycotted by Christian and secular members who had made up more than one-quarter of it.”
“Many legal experts said they saw major ambiguities and contradictions in several articles dealing with the role of Shariah, or Islamic law; the powers of the president and the legislature; the nature of the judicial and electoral systems; and the establishment of regulatory and oversight bodies and agencies.”
This is a sad development for Egypt. As one observer noted, the new constitution combines the autocracy of Anwar Sadat with the Islamist agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood. Instead of an Arab Spring, the signs in Egypt point to a new dark and dangerous epoch.
4. The Two-Edged Sword of Palestinian Statehood
The decision of the United Nations to grant “observer state” status to the Palestinians last week is still reverberating throughout the world. The U.N. took this action despite the fact that the Palestinians have utterly failed to meet the most minimal criteria for statehood. The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1934) represents the international standard for defining the marks of statehood. According to that agreement: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”
The Palestinians have met none of these requirements. To the credit of the Obama Administration, Susan Rice, the U.S Ambassador to the United Nations, set her argument clearly: “This resolution does not establish that Palestine is a state.”
Nevertheless, the granting of “observer state” status does mean that the Palestinians can now claim to be a state, and to appeal for membership on U.N. bodies and international tribunals such as the International Criminal Court.
This may set up an interesting two-edged sword for the Palestinians, as Christine Hauser of The New York Times reports:
“In recent years, the Palestinian Authority has tried to have its accusations of Israeli war crimes investigated by the International Criminal Court, only to see its request go nowhere because the Palestinian territories were not recognized as a state. But now the court says it will take a fresh look at the issue after the United Nations General Assembly voted to enhance the standing of the Palestinians, conferring on them the word “state” as part of their new status as nonmember observers. On Friday, a spokeswoman for the prosecutors office said it ‘will consider the implications of this resolution.'”
That represents a threat to Israel, which could now find itself tied up in international criminal courts for decades. But the double-edged nature of the threat was also made clear by the Times.
“Some analysts said that by accepting the jurisdiction of the court, the Palestinians could also open themselves up to prosecution for war crimes, including Hamas’s attacks on Israeli civilians.”
The action of the U.N granting observer state status to the Palestinians is likely to breed more division, rather than to enhance the cause of peace.
5. Does Justice Require that Stay-at-Home Moms Leave Home?
Jill Filipovic of The Guardian [London] begins her article by pointing to a recent statement by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bade Ginsburg that has drawn a good bit of controversy. Justice Ginsburg said last month that there will be enough women on the Supreme Court when there are nine female justices.
In her words:
“So now the perception is, yes, women are here to stay. And when I’m sometimes asked when will there be enough [women on the supreme court]? And I say when there are nine, people are shocked. But ther’d been nine men, and nobody’s ever raised a question about that.”
Filipovic then argued that “It’s not unreasonable to think that, at some point, nine of the finest legal minds in the country would belong to women.
Interestingly, that is where the article actually gets interesting. Filipovic turns to argue why more women are not reaching the highest ranks of the law. Her answer is that the desire to “have it all” takes many women out of the routes to power in the law and other professions. As women decide to marry and have children they take on responsibilities that limit their progress in their chosen profession.
In an extended argument, Filipovic argues that many men actually do “have it all” because they have stay-at-home wives. As she explains,
“Consider, for example, the fact that only 44% of married male lawyers have a spouse who is employed full-time. That means that more than half of male lawyers have a person at home who can dedicate significant amounts of time to taking care of every aspect of the couples’ out-of-work life: housekeeping, childcare, home finances, vacation-planning, social calendaring. Female lawyers, by contrast, are overwhelmingly married to partners who have full-time jobs. It’s a whole lot easier to be the kind of employee who works 16-hour days and dedicates your life to your job when that’s the only thing you actually have to worry about – because you have a spouse who takes care of all the rest.”
Her answer to this inequity?
“Justice Ginsburg is right: there will be enough women on the supreme court when we see it filled by nine female justices. But that won’t happen until women have real access to power and when, crucially, men start to change by actually pulling their own weight, not relying on stay-at-home wives, being aware of just how deep unconscious gender bias goes, making efforts to promote and mentor women, and recognizing that, for all of their individual hard work, they were also given a heck of a lot for free.”
She asserts that men must pull their own weight and stop “relying on stay-at-home wives.” In her worldview, justice requires that stay-at-home wives and moms must leave home and go into the workforce simply because their existence in the home is harming their professional sisters.
Filipovic is not alone in making this kind of argument, but it is still worth taking a clear-headed look at it when it appears in public. Brace yourselves for similar arguments to come. The feminist movement is supposed to be all about choice, but leading feminists show little respect for women who decide to stay at home as wives and mothers.
I discuss all these stories and more in today’s edition of The Briefing: A Daily Analysis of News and Events from a Christian Worldview. LISTEN HERE.
Links to articles cited:
TODAY: Another Decision Day at the Supreme Court — Marriage on the Line / Does the Fiscal Cliff Really Matter? / The Gender Police Hit a Toy Store / The United Nations Grants Palestinians Observer State Status, But Where is the State? I discuss all these and more in today’s edition of The Briefing: A Daily Analysis of News and Events from a Christian Worldview.
1. Another Day of Decision at the U.S. Supreme Court — Marriage on the Line
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will meet behind closed doors today to decide whether to take a case that will require the Court to rule on the question of same-sex marriage. The case in question today is an appeal by defenders of California’s Proposition 8, the measure passed by the voters of that state in 2008. That voter initiative defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, overturning a decision by the California Supreme Court that legalized same-sex marriage.
Advocates for same-sex marriage went to the Federal courts, demanding a repeal of Proposition 8. They won at both a Federal District Court in San Francisco and at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Defenders of Proposition 8 now hope for the U.S. Supreme Court to take the appeal. Otherwise, the decision of the Ninth Circuit will stand and Proposition 8 will be stricken down.
As Bill Mears, Supreme Court reporter for CNN explains:
“The justices will meet privately Friday for a closed-door conference to decide if they will accept any of 10 pending appeals, essentially over whether a fundamental constitutional right for gays and lesbians to marry exists. If they agree to hear the issue, oral arguments would be likely be held in March with a ruling by late June.”
In other words, the Court could also decide to take another case on the same issue, particularly one that challenges the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] that defines marriage for the Federal government as the union of a man and a woman.
Political considerations are always at work, as Mears acknowledges:
“As more states legalize same-sex marriage, one of the key questions the justices may be forced to address is whether a national consensus now exists supporting the idea of expanding an “equal protection” right of marriage to homosexuals. Three separate issues confront the justices, who are likely to only accept only one for review in coming months. These include federal benefits, state benefits and state referendums.”
One way or another, the Supreme Court will have to rule on some question related to same-sex marriage. If it decides to take one of these cases now, it could hand down a decision that is limited in effect to California, or it could also take either the Proposition 8 case or the DOMA case and hand down a ruling with nationwide effect. Even if a decision has direct implications only for California, the impact will be national. The direction set by the Supreme Court in any one of these cases will tell us a very great deal about the direction the Court intends to go on the larger question of same-sex marriage and the law.
2. Does the Fiscal Cliff Really Matter?
Should Christians in the United States give much attention to the fight in Washington over the so-called “Fiscal Cliff?” The short answer to that question is yes. The Fiscal Cliff is not the largest financial, economic, or political crisis facing the United States — but it is the most urgent.
Just what is the Fiscal Cliff? The Wall Street Journal explains it succinctly:
“The fiscal cliff is the combination of large spending cuts and tax increases that are scheduled to be automatically enacted at the start of 2013. Bush-era income-tax cuts will expire for tens of millions of Americans, and billions of dollars of spending cuts will take effect because Congress couldn’t reach a deal last year to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years. Democrats want a combination of spending cuts and tax increases for upper-income households. Republicans want to cut spending but don’t want to raise tax rates, though they have signaled they would consider raising revenue through other measures, such as limiting deductions. Both want to avoid the fiscal cliff, because it forces severe cuts, particularly in military spending.”
This represents a true and urgent crisis — partly because the issues directly involved are so critical, but even more because the impact of “going over” the Fiscal Cliff would almost surely lead to another economic recession.
The prospects for avoiding that catastrophe are not clear, given the divide that separates Democrats and Republicans. Nevertheless, neither party can afford to allow the nation to “go over” the Fiscal Cliff — nor to be seen as responsible for making that happen.
In the end, however, avoiding the Fiscal Cliff is not the greatest challenge our political leaders face. The greater challenge is dealing with the fact that we are borrowing ourselves into national peril, robbing future generations as we do. If the long-term economic facts are not faced with courage, the Fiscal Cliff of 2013 will be hardly worth remembering.
As Robert Pear of The New York Times explains, President Obama and the Democrats now face the greater responsibility — facing the crisis of entitlement spending.
As he reports:
“President Obama’s re-election and Democratic gains in Congress were supposed to make it easier for the party to strike a deal with Republicans to resolve the year-end fiscal crisis by providing new leverage. But they could also make it harder as empowered Democrats, including some elected on liberal platforms, resist significant changes in entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. As Congress returned Monday, the debate over those programs, which many Democrats see as the core of the party’s identity, was shaping up as the Democratic version of the higher-profile struggle among Republicans over taxes.”
Pear offers an insightful report, including the fact that some argue that if Social Security and Medicare are transformed by Democrats into welfare programs, rather than earned benefits, the programs themselves will quickly lose public support.
Any agreement will likely require an increase in Federal revenue by tax income. But no tax increase can come close to closing the gap on entitlement spending. That represents a moral crisis larger than any Fiscal Cliff.
3. The Gender Police Hit a Toy Store
Back on November 15 I reported on a preschool in Sweden that had disallowed the use of masculine and feminine pronouns among the children. The pronouns for “he’ and “she” are now replaced with “hen,” a newly created word that is supposedly free from gender.
As reporter John Tagliabue of The New York Times told the story:
“At an ocher-color preschool along a lane in Stockholm’s Old Town, the teachers avoid the pronouns ‘him’ and ‘her,’ instead calling their 115 toddlers simply ‘friends.’ Masculine and feminine references are taboo, often replaced by the pronoun ‘hen,’ an artificial and genderless word that most Swedes avoid but is popular in some gay and feminist circles.”
The article also included this:
“Peter Rudberg, 36, an anesthesiologist whose 3-year-old son, Hjalmar, attends the kindergarten, called its gender-neutral approach ‘a boon,’ though, like many Swedes, he believes the country has moved beyond the problem. ‘In modern Sweden, gender equality is a nonissue,’ he said. Yet he cautioned against extremes, like ‘boys prohibited from playing boys’ games.'”
Well, Mr. Rudberg, you had better watch what is happening at Top Toy, a major toy store chain in Sweden. As The Herald Sun [Australia] reports, the Swedish affiliate of Toys-R-Us has had to go gender-neutral in advertising, after being sanctioned by the national advertising authority for the crime of portraying boys with toy machine guns and girls with dolls.
From the report:
“The country’s advertising watchdog reprimanded the company for gender discrimination three years ago following complaints over outdated gender roles in the 2008 Christmas catalogue, which featured boys dressed as superheroes and girls playing princess. A comparison between this year’s Toys R Us catalogs in Sweden and Denmark, where Top Toy is also the franchisee, showed that a boy wielding a toy machine gun in the Danish edition had been replaced by a girl in Sweden. Elsewhere, a girl was Photoshopped out of the ‘Hello Kitty’ page, a girl holding a baby doll was replaced by a boy, and, in sister chain BR’s catalogue, a young girl’s pink T-shirt was turned light blue. Top Toy, Sweden’s largest toy retailer by number of stores, said it had received ‘training and guidance’ from the Swedish advertising watchdog, which is a self-regulatory agency.”
Reflecting the “training and guidance” the company had received from the advertising police, the Director of Sales told the paper: “With the new gender thinking, there is nothing that is right or wrong. It’s not a boy or girl thing, it’s a toy for children.”
Does he actually believe that? Note that the “gender-neutral” approach required “photoshopping” the photographs. Actual children allowed to choose for themselves are unlikely to get with this program, regardless of the advertising. Gender still matters. Give a six-year-old boy a doll this Christmas and you will probably see that truth in living color.
4. The United Nations Grants the Palestinians Observer State Status — But Where is the State?
Voting 138-9, the United Nations General Assembly granted the Palestinians observer state status, handing Palestinian leaders a great gift. The new status will allow the Palestinians to participate in debates at the U.N. and to request seating on U.N. agencies and the International Criminal Court.
The move was strongly opposed by both Israel and the United States. Very few media reports even mentioned the fact that the Palestinians had utterly failed to meet the leading criteria for state status, but they were granted observer state status anyway.
The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1934) represents the gold standard for defining the marks of statehood. According to that international agreement:
“The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”
The Palestinians have met none of these criteria. Most importantly, the failure of the Palestinians to form a stable government is made clear by the fact that the Palestinian Authority is not even in functional control of Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas.
This was a political decision that was as much about marginalizing Israel as about rewarding the Palestinians.
Links to articles cited:
TODAY: The Digital Divide — Where the Young People Are / Filtering the Flood in the Digital Age / Are Hindus and Muslims Better at Practicing what They Preach? / The Rise of Muslim Atheists? / You Mean Judges Have Worldviews, Too? I discuss all these and more in today’s edition of The Briefing: A Daily Analysis of News and Events from a Christian Worldview.
1. The Digital Divide — Where the Young People Are
Retailers have no choice but to go where consumers are. The Wall Street Journal took a look at a typical American family, the Ulitcans of Columbus, Ohio. The fifty-something parents have four children, ranging in age from 10 to 27. The parents do their Christmas shopping in local stores and the local shopping mall.
Their children do not follow the same pattern. As Shelly Banjo reports, they do most of their shopping online. While the parents are at the mall, “the offspring mostly ignore the holiday décor, and instead peer into their smartphones, comparing prices, looking for deals and seeking friends’ advice about potential purchases.”
Americans under age 29 are, on average, fully immersed in the digital age. Younger Americans are rightly defined as “digital natives” who stay in almost constant digital contact.
The Journal describes a “generational shopping split” to which retailers must respond, or find themselves soon out of business.
As the paper reports:
“Technology plays an increasing role in the generational shopping split. Millennials are 2½ times more likely to be early adopters of technology than older generations, serving as a leading indicator for retailers of what is likely to become mainstream, said Christine Barton, a partner at Boston Consulting Group. Millennials are more likely than older shoppers to check out brands on social networks (53% versus 37%) and use mobile devices to read reviews, research products and compare prices while shopping (50% versus 21%), according to a recent BCG/Barkley report.”
And the Millennials are a formidable challenge as they move into adulthood. They represent the future buying public.
The Journal recognizes this fact:
“The 79 million people who make up the Millennial generation wield $200 billion in annual spending power. While that is only a sliver of the $3.4 trillion that baby boomers spend each year, analysts say, retailers need to try to nab those younger shoppers now, because their spending is likely to rival the boomers’ as early as 2020 and they already exert a disproportionate influence on their parents’ spending decisions.”
Of course, The Wall Street Journal is interested in what this means for retailers and the business community, but the article is a wake-up call for the church and Christian leaders as well.
Put bluntly. if you want to reach younger Americans, you will have to engage them online. Shopping malls cannot safely assume that the Millennials and their younger siblings will eventually make their way into their stores. This generation looks first to the Internet and social media. If an organization, business, or church is not present in a credible way online, you are writing off influence with younger Americans — something no church can afford to do.
Christian leaders who want to influence the Millennials and other young Americans must join them where are — online — and in an effective manner. Otherwise, we will find ourselves talking only to older Americans and find ourselves and our churches in the same peril as the shopping malls.
2. Filtering the Flood in the Digital Age
Feel overwhelmed by information and entertainment? You are not alone. The Columbia Journalism Review reports this month that the average American home is now drowning in data.
The Review cited a study that compared the amount of information coming into the average American home in 1960 and in 2005. According to the report:
“They found that in 1960 there were 82 minutes of media coming into the home each day for every minute someone in the household actually consumed media. In 2005, that number had grown to 884 incoming minutes for each minute of consuming. Our information overload is nearly 11 times greater than it was 45 years ago. Shocked? No, probably not, but perhaps comforted that there is a plausible number to attach to your sense of the avalanche.”
That overload was dated to 2005 — we are now surely living under an even greater avalanche. We all need filters to help us decide what to read, listen to, and watch. Furthermore, we need a whole new set of skills in terms of analyzing, understanding, and evaluating our media and information intake.
The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that younger Americans are increasingly adept at receiving several streams of information at once — a process often called multitasking. There are real questions about the effectiveness of this process, but this is the new normal for the Digital Natives.
The Review notes the fact that Americans seem overwhelmed by this avalanche because we are overwhelmed. Those of us who fail to develop critical skills in filtering what we really need to take in will almost certainly find ourselves drowning in data, but knowing less and less rather than more and more.
3. Are Hindus and Muslims Better at Practicing What They Preach?
The Christian Century and Religion News Service report that a new study published in the American Sociological Review claims that Hindus and Muslims practice what they preach at a level that exceeds the faithfulness of both Christians and Jews.
Jeanie Groh reports, “With their ‘True Love Waits’ jewelry, conferences and T-shirts, Christians may be the face of the abstinence movement, but Muslims and Hindus are more likely to abstain from premarital sex.”
Researchers Amy Adamczyk and Brittany E. Hayes of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice “found that 94 percent of Jews in the nations they studied reported having premarital sex, compared to 79 percent of Christians, 65 percent of Buddhists, 43 percent of Muslims and 19 percent of Hindus. As for extramarital sex, 4 percent of Jews reported having sex outside of marriage, compared to 3 percent of Christians. Less than 1 percent each of Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists reported having sex outside of marriage.”
That is a very significant embarrassment for Christianity, but there is more to the story. It turns out that most of the Hindus and Muslims included in the study were from cultures that strongly opposed sex outside of marriage. As one sociologist cited in the article explained, “the burka really works.” In many Muslim cultures, young men and women are strictly segregated until marriage — making premarital sex all but impossible.
The real insight from the report should be the impact of secularization on sexual morality. In the secularized West, people can identify themselves as Christians without making any real identification with Christian beliefs or morality. Before the impact of secularization and the marginalization of Christian sexual morality, the cultures of the West were just as opposed to premarital sex and all sex outside of marriage.
Secularization matters, and once the binding authority of a biblical morality is gone, the sexual morality is transformed. One humbling word for Christians comes from a Muslim authority:
“In consistently reminding others and oneself of the importance of modest dress, modest actions and modest interactions, Muslims tend to inculcate the concepts of sexual morals from a young age.”
That was once also true of those who call themselves Christians.
4. The Rise of Muslim Atheists?
The Economist [London] reports that Muslim atheists are becoming more outspoken — but they have to be very careful. Atheism remains a crime, often punishable by death, in most of the Muslim world.
According to the report:
“Sharia law, which covers only Muslims unless incorporated into national law, assumes people are born into their parents’ religion. Thus ex-Muslim atheists are guilty of apostasy—ahudud crime against God, like adultery and drinking alcohol. Potential sanctions can be severe: eight states, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania and Sudan have the death penalty on their statute books for such offenses.”
“In reality such punishments are rarely meted out. Most atheists are prosecuted for blasphemy or for inciting hatred. (Atheists born to non-Muslim families are not considered apostates, but they can still be prosecuted for other crimes against religion.) Even in places where laws are lenient, religious authorities and social attitudes can be harsh, with vigilantes inflicting beatings or beheadings.”
Once again, secularization plays an important role. Ex-Muslim atheists tend to make themselves known only in Western nations where such declarations are safe. There is a “Council of Ex-Muslims” in Britain, but not in Iran, where atheism is punished by the death penalty.
Consider this rather stark statement from the report: “A 2010 survey by the Pew Research Center, an American think-tank, found that 84% of Muslims in Egypt and 86% in Jordan backed the death penalty for apostates, compared with 51% in Nigeria and 30% in Indonesia.”
Despite headlines such as this one in The Economist, don’t expect a tidal wave of declared Ex-Muslim atheists anytime soon.
5. You Mean Judges Have Worldviews, Too?
Americans often imagine that judges are impartial agents, able to evaluate questions of law without personal bias. That is nonsense, of course. Putting on a black robe does not eliminate the importance of worldview.
That point is made very clear in a book to be released early next year by Harvard University Press. The book, The Behavior of Federal Judges, looked at judicial decisions in the Federal courts and analyzed the decisions and opinions, judge by judge, on the basis of the party affiliation of the President who nominated them to the bench.
The book has already engendered controversy, as demonstrated in an article about the book published in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.
As reporter Adam Liptak reveals, the book demonstrates a pervasive link between the judgments of judges and the party affiliation of the nominating presidents.
As Liptak reports:
“Many judges hate it when news reports note this sort of thing, saying it undermines public trust in the courts by painting them as political actors rather than how they like to see themselves — as disinterested guardians of neutral legal principles. But there is a lot of evidence that the party of the president who appointed a judge is a significant guide to how that judge will vote on politically charged issues like affirmative action.”
As the authors of the book assert: “Justices appointed by Republican presidents vote more conservatively on average than justices appointed by Democratic ones, with the difference being most pronounced in civil rights cases.”
Is anyone honestly surprised by this? The pattern revealed in this book powerfully affirms the importance of worldview in human thinking. Judges, it turns out, are no different from the rest of us. They, too, operate on the basis of a worldview, and that worldview actually explains why they were chosen by a president who, more often than not, shared their worldview (or believed that they shared a worldview).
Worldview matters — it always matters. For Christians, faithfulness requires the development of a truly biblical worldview from which everything else follows. This new book makes the importance of worldview clear — for all of us.
I discuss these stories and more in today’s edition of The Briefing: A Daily Analysis of News and Events from a Christian Worldview. LISTEN HERE.
Links to articles cited:
TODAY: The Perils of Powerball –The Losing Game of the Lottery / The Deadly Danger of a New Prenatal Test / Abortions Fall by Five Percent . . . Good News or Strange Math? / An Actor Says Watching His Own Show is “Filling Your Head With Filth” / The Ominous Threat of Inflatable Bouncers. I discuss all these and more in today’s edition of The Briefing: A Daily Analysis of News and Events from a Christian Worldview.
1. The Perils of Powerball –Why Do So Many Play the Losing Game of the Lottery?
The Powerball jackpot has now reached a record-breaking $500 million, leading to a buying frenzy of lottery tickets. As reported by The Guardian [London], this is no accident. “The big jackpot is not unexpected,” says the paper. “In fact, it is part of a plan put in place early this year to build prize funds faster, drive sales and generate more money for the states that run the game.”
That plan appears to be working. Sales of Powerball reached almost $4 billion in the 2012 fiscal year and many expect that record to be broken in 2013. Since there has been no Powerball winner since October 6, the jackpot has reached this record level — a level exceeded only by the Mega-Millions jackpot of $656 million earlier this year.
As many in the national media have pointed out, the giant jackpot actually means that any single Powerball ticket is reduced in terms of the odds. Powerball organizers estimate the odds of winning at one in 175 million.
How do those odds sound? Just consider this — ABC News has estimated that an individual is three times more likely to die from a falling coconut than to win this lottery prize.
Nevertheless, people are flocking to buy the tickets. As The Guardian reports, “It has been proved that once the jackpot reaches a certain threshold more players play.”
Who really wins? The Guardian helpfully breaks it down. For each $2 ticket, $1 goes to the jackpot and $1 goes to the state lottery as income. The Federal government takes 25% of the jackpot in taxes.
Anyway you look at it, the big winner is government, which ends up with at least 62% of all revenue. Cash-strapped governments are turning to various forms of state-sponsored gambling in order to raise revenue.
But this means that these governments have turned to prey on their own citizens, raising revenue by offering false promises of riches. Furthermore, it is well documented that the primary purchasers of lottery tickets are people in lower-income neighborhoods — the very people who can least afford to lose month by purchasing what will be worthless shreds of paper.
Christians have long opposed gambling as a vice and as a major issue of justice. Dependence on gambling ruins untold families and lives and it perverts the character of government.
The illustration offered by ABC News is powerful and unforgettable. You are three times more likely to die from a falling coconut than to win this lottery jackpot. You do the math.
2. The Deadly Danger of a New Prenatal Test
The Washington Post reports that a new prenatal test is being widely demanded by patients. The tests allow a more determinative finding of genetic abnormalities such as Down syndrome, but do not present the risks represented by invasive amniocentesis.
As Rita Rubin reports:
“With the new tests, fragments of fetal DNA extracted from the mother’s blood sample are checked for increased amounts of material from chromosomes 21, 18 and 13, a sign that the fetus carries three instead of the normal two copies of those chromosomes. In this case, more is not better. Having an extra copy of 21, a condition called trisomy 21, is the main cause of Down syndrome, while having a third copy of 18, a condition called trisomy 18, causes a less common disorder named Edwards syndrome. Trisomy 13 is also known as Patau syndrome. All three conditions are linked to serious developmental and medical problems.”
These tests are now offered to thousands of expectant mothers, and even more are demanding them. At present, the most likely mother to be offered the test is older, and thus more at risk of bearing a child with genetic abnormalities.
The main question raised in the article in The Washington Post is who will pay for the tests. Since they are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration or recognized as standard protocols, they are not covered by most insurance plans.
Completely missing from the report is any acknowledgment of the moral catastrophe these tests often cause — the abortion of unborn children deemed unworthy. For years now, it has been acknowledged that the vast majority of fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted. These tests often amount to a search and destroy mission into then womb. There was no acknowledgment whatsoever of the ethical questions involved.
In that light, consider this chilling excerpt from the article:
“Mark Evans, a Manhattan OB-GYN, says his patients want to skip the standard screening tests and go right to the new tests. ‘My patients are the average New Yorkers,’ he says, ‘who want their answers yesterday.'”
3. Abortions Fall Five Percent — Good News or Strange Math?
Mike Stobbe of the Associated Press reported last week that abortions fell five percent in 2009, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control. A five percent drop in one year would be the largest single reduction in a decade.
That is good news, of course. Any reduction in abortion is good news. According to this report, abortions fell by about 38,000 in 2009, which would mean 38,000 fewer murders in the womb. Even with this reduction, there were at least 785,000 abortions in America that year. That number defies our moral imagination.
But, were fewer abortions really performed in 2009? A closer look at the story reveals the urgency of that question.
As Stobbe reports:
“Nearly all states report abortion numbers to the federal government, but it’s voluntary. A few states — including California, which has the largest population and largest number of abortion providers — don’t send in data. Experts believe there are more than 1 million abortions performed nationwide each year, but because of the incomplete reporting, the CDC had reports of about 785,000 in 2009.”
In other words, the CDC didn’t even have information from California, “which has the largest population and largest number of abortion providers.” The CDC extrapolated the data in order to come up with its figures. Even so, the report admits that “experts believe” the actual numbers to be far larger — with more than a million abortions actually performed.
A drop in the number of abortions — any drop — would be good news, but there is actually little firm evidence that the drop actually happened.
You wouldn’t know that by looking at the headlines about the story in many newspapers. Beyond that problem, consider the fact that many media outlets asserted that the use of contraceptives was the reason for the drop.
As Stobbe’s article reported:
“The reason for the decline wasn’t clear, but some experts said it may be due to better use of birth control during tough economic times. Their theory is that some women believe they can’t afford to get pregnant.”
Several commentators skipped the fact that this is a “theory” and that the reported reduction is drawn from extrapolated data. They simply claimed that abortions dropped and that the use of contraceptives was the reason.
4. An Actor Says Watching His Own Show is “Filling Your Head with Filth.”
Angus T. Jones, the young star of CBS’s “Two and a Half Men,” recently told a church audience to stop watching his show because it is “filling your head with filth.”
The Chicago Tribune described the show as a “raunchy television comedy” that offers risque humor as its main fare.
Jones, now age 19, has been on the show for nine years. He recently identified with a California-based church, though the nature of his beliefs and the beliefs of the church are not fully clear.
What is clear is the revulsion Jones now feels toward his own program.
“‘If you watch Two and a Half Men, please stop watching Two and a Half Men,’ Jones says in a video, ‘I’m on Two and a Half Men and I don’t want to be on it. If I am doing any harm, I don’t want to be here. I don’t want to be contributing to the enemy’s plan. . . You cannot be a true God-fearing person and be on a television show like that. . . . I’m not okay with what I’m learning, what the Bible says and being on that television show.'”
Understandably, CBS declined to comment on the actor’s powerful comments.
5. The Ominous Threat of Inflatable Bouncers
The journal Pediatrics alarmed the nation’s parents in recent days with a report claiming that injuries to children in inflatable bouncers has reached “epidemic” proportions.
As USA Today summarized:
“In 2010 alone, 30 children a day were treated for these injuries in hospital emergency departments, the report says. The number of injuries increased from 702 in 1995 to 11,311 in 2010. Falls were the most common cause, followed by stunts and collisions. Smaller children are a greater risk.”
Gary Smith, the lead author of the report, claimed that the increase in injuries from inflatables is “astounding.”
That is remarkable language — proclaiming an “epidemic” threat from inflatable bouncers. The report did suggest some common sense precautions parents should keep in mind.
And parents must protect their children from harm. That is a parent’s charge.
But just how safe can a child’s life be? If inflatable bouncers represent an epidemic, where is a child safe? This story underlines the fact that there is no safe place in a fallen world — not even in an inflatable bouncer. A report issued just a few weeks ago indicated that playgrounds have been made so supposedly safe that children no longer find them playful. Today’s parents are afraid to let children be children.
In a Genesis 3 world, not even a child’s play is fully safe — not even in an inflatable bouncer.
I discuss all these stories and more in today’s edition of The Briefing: A Daily Analysis of News and Events from a Christian Worldview. LISTEN HERE.
Links to articles cited:
TODAY: What the Christmas Buying Season Says About Us / The Perils of State Sponsored Religious Education / Atheist Group Gets Major Funding at a State University / Paul Krugman Wants to Marginalize Opponents of Evolution / The Last Typewriter Leaves the Factory in Britain. I discuss all these and more in today’s edition of The Briefing: A Daily Analysis of News and Events from a Christian Worldview.
1. What the Christmas Buying Season Says About Us
They came, they saw, they bought. Retailers reported billions of dollars in sales on what is now known as “Black Friday,” the Friday after Thanksgiving. For years now, that day has marked the official start of the Christmas buying season. Nevertheless, new developments threaten to displace Black Friday from its primacy.
The first development is “Cyber Monday,” the Monday after Thanksgiving, which has emerged as the major day for special bargains available through retailers on the Internet. According to Huffington Post: Money, Americans were expected to spend more than $1.5 billion yesterday, setting a new record.
At the same time, USA Today reports that Cyber Monday is itself being displaced by online bargains offered even earlier. As Maria Puente reported, Cyber Monday is being replaced by a cyber season that will last right up to Christmas Eve.
The other development is the fact that several major retailers opened their stores at some point on Thanksgiving Day, attempting to lure customers with advance bargains. This led to no shortage of outrage and discussion, with several commentators lamenting the heartlessness of forcing employees to work on Thanksgiving Day.
Christians must understand the moral complexity of a market economy, and that complexity is fully on display this Christmas shopping season.
We know the dangers of materialism, but we have benefited from an economy that is built on consumer demand. We know that possessions cannot bring true joy, but we are all possessors. A slowdown in sales means that millions will lose their jobs and be unable to feed their families. A shortfall in revenue will hurt corporate bottom lines, but pension funds for retirees and tax support for schools will also be reduced.
It makes no sense to condemn retailers for opening stores on Thanksgiving Day and then turn to make major purchases on the Internet. If retailers do not find a way to compete successfully with online merchants, stores will disappear, leading not only to a loss of community but a net loss of jobs.
There are no easy answers to any of these complex issues. One thing is clear — the retailer most likely to be responsive to these concerns is likely to be local. We are all likely to make purchases online this season, and some in big chain stores as well. But the “Buy Local” movement should be embraced by conservatives as a recognition of the importance of local merchants to the making of a liveable community. That is a conservative virtue we should remember all year long.
2. The Perils of State Sponsored Religious Education
Religious education, of a sort, is required in Britain’s state schools. A new report from Oxford University’s Department of Education indicates that this religious education is not being done well.
Graeme Paton, education editor for The Telegraph [London] reports that academics at Oxford want to help the schools to improve the quality of religious education — especially when it comes to teaching “the traditions and fundamental beliefs of Christians.”
Dr. Nigel Fancourt of Oxford University said that much of the religious education in the schools is “incoherent, lacking in intellectual development, or too stereotypical.”
At the sane time, some teachers shy way from any material that might appear to be “evangelizing.” Though something about Christianity is to be taught in these compulsory classes, there is no guarantee of anything truly representative of Christianity. Add to this the fact that Britain is now one of the most secularized nations on earth. The United Kingdom is also increasingly diverse in religious affiliation, with other religious groups, including humanists, demanding inclusion.
On the one hand, it hardly seems reassuring that the faculty of Oxford University intends to help solve the problem. On the other hand, the real issue is not that the teaching is done poorly, but that it is done at all.
The state — any state — is incompetent to teach Christianity the way any Christian should want it taught. This is the job of churches and Christian families.
Furthermore, when I was writing my book on the New Atheists, Atheism Remix, I discovered that a large percentage of British atheists, including figures such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, repudiated first of all the tepid, lukewarm, lifeless distortion of Christianity they had received in compulsory religious education classes in school. That should serve as a warning to us all.
3. An Atheist Group Gets Major Funding at the University of Wisconsin — Sign of the Future?
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported recently that a group of atheist students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is set to receive almost $70,000 in student fees for personnel and programming next year. This is believed to be the first major funding of an atheist student group at any state university.
As reporter Annysa Johnson revealed:
“An atheist group at the University of Wisconsin-Madison seems on track to receive nearly $70,000 in student fees for staffing and programming next year, in what appears to be a first for the university and student atheist groups nationally. The Atheists, Humanists, and Agnostics, or AHA as it’s called, said it will provide support services for students struggling with doubts about their faiths and offer a safe place where they can discuss religious issues without fear of recrimination.”
“The allocation marks the first time that an atheist group has qualified for funding beyond the small, event-specific grants most student-run organizations receive. And it appears to be the largest ever awarded to any campus group of its kind in the country, according to the Columbus-based Secular Student Alliance. ‘It’s pretty common for groups to have budgets of a few hundred dollars,’ said Alliance spokesman Jesse Galef, whose organization has 383 affiliates around the country, up from 206 in 2009. ‘This is something on a different magnitude entirely,’ he said.”
The decision to fund an atheist student group at the University of Wisconsin follows the appointment of atheist chaplains at several major universities, including Harvard University. Taken together, this is another sign of the increasingly secularized character of the nation’s leading academic institutions.
As sociologist Peter Berger has argued, the most fully secularized regions of the world include the nations of Western Europe and the towns where major American universities are located.
4. Paul Krugman Wants to Marginalize Dissenters from Evolution
Writing in his regular column in The New York Times, economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman argues that anyone who dissents from evolution should be seen as pulling the nation onto “a path of inexorable decline.”
In his words:
“We are, after all, living in an era when science plays a crucial economic role. How are we going to search effectively for natural resources if schools trying to teach modern geology must give equal time to claims that the world is only 6,000 years old? How are we going to stay competitive in biotechnology if biology classes avoid any material that might offend creationists?”
He begins his column by assaulting Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida for refusing to say how old he believes the earth to be and for making statements critical of evolution:
“Earlier this week, GQ magazine published an interview with Senator Marco Rubio, whom many consider a contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, in which Mr. Rubio was asked how old the earth is. After declaring ‘I’m not a scientist, man,’ the senator went into desperate evasive action, ending with the declaration that ‘it’s one of the great mysteries.'”
“Reading Mr. Rubio’s interview is like driving through a deeply eroded canyon; all at once, you can clearly see what lies below the superficial landscape. Like striated rock beds that speak of deep time, his inability to acknowledge scientific evidence speaks of the anti-rational mind-set that has taken over his political party. By the way, that question didn’t come out of the blue. As speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Mr. Rubio provided powerful aid to creationists trying to water down science education. In one interview, he compared the teaching of evolution to Communist indoctrination tactics— although he graciously added that ‘I’m not equating the evolution people with Fidel Castro.’ Gee, thanks.”
There is more of course, but the main thrust of Mr. Krugman’s column is that those who refuse to accept evolution are a threat to civilization itself. There is an unveiled political agenda to his column, but the worldview dimension is massive.
Krugman is not the first major columnist for The New York Times to be apoplectic about the failure of millions of Americans to accept evolution. He will not be the last.
For evidence of another NYT columnist making a similar argument, see my article “Intellectual or Religious? Kristof Requires a Choice,” December 21, 2004.
5. The Last Typewriter Rolls off the Line in Britain
This past weekend the Financial Times reported that the last typewriter has rolled off the line at the last factory in Britain still manufacturing the antiquarian devices. This is a sad day for those of us who relish the experience of writing on a typewriter.
As the paper reports:
“Touchscreens may look stylish but are perceptually one-dimensional. They will never sport the typewriters’ spirited pushback to the finger’s touch, the imperious clackety-clack sound of the keys, the inky smell (and for some misguided souls, no doubt taste, too). Typewriters’ sensory universe has always been part of their appeal: when a silent typewriter was introduced in the 1940s, it flopped. Even in terms of getting the job done, the old writer’s workhorse may still be one up on the newfangled tools of the trade. Frederick Forsyth has asked: ‘Have you ever tried to hack into my typewriter? It’s very secure.’ And no one using a mechanical typewriter has ever been driven to alt-control-delete, the last hope of the hopeless.”
All of that is true, and though the loss of the typewriter was inevitable, it is also sad. The Financial Times was right — such an event should not go without notice.
I discuss all these stories and more in today’s edition of The Briefing: A Daily Analysis of News and Events from a Christian Worldview. LISTEN HERE
Links to articles cited:
TODAY: Autocracy in Egypt as Morsi Launches an Islamist Coup / The Real Aims of Hamas / India Executes a Terrorist / An Oklahoma Judge Sentences a Teenager to Church / Larry Hagman Dies — But Is Death Really “Just Another Stage in Our Development?” I discuss all these and more in today’s edition of The Briefing: A Daily Analysis of News and Events from a Christian Worldview.
1. An Islamist Coup in Egypt — Autocracy on Display
“God’s will and elections made me the captain of this ship.” So declared Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi last week as he issued a presidential edict that gave him unchecked power in that nation. Morsi is the first democratically elected president in Egypt’s history, but he was elected with the support of the Islamist group the Muslim Brotherhood. This fact gave rise to the fear that his election would lead to an anti-democratic end: one citizen, one vote, one time.
Morsi had previously discharged the Egyptian legislature and with this new edict he defied the authorities of the courts to constrain his power. The New York Times warned that Morsi’s actions raised the specter of “a return to autocracy.” Actually, Morsi’s moves created the reality of an antocracy.
Dashing the hopes of many who had championed the so-called “Arab Spring” of 2011, Morsi has created a virtual dictatorship with one exception — he does not hold direct control of the military. Indeed, the draft constitution proposed by the Muslim Brotherhood does not put the military under civilian control.
As The Wall Street Journal pointed out, this puts Egypt on the road to becoming the next Pakistan — a very lamentable truth. The Journal was right to call Morsi’s actions an “Islamist coup.”
But, as the Journal warns:
“Mr. Morsi says his diktat will merely last as long as it takes the country to adopt a new constitution, which is what authoritarians always say. They claim to be a necessary step on the way to democracy, but democracy never arrives. Mr. Morsi’s rationalization is that he must have this power to “protect the revolution,” as if the demonstrators who deposed Hosni Mubarak in 2011 merely wanted another Mubarak with a beard and prayer rug. Mr. Morsi is claiming more power than Mr. Mubarak ever had.”
As is almost always the case, President Morsi claimed to assume unlimited power for the cause of saving the revolution that brought him to power. “The people wanted me to be the guardian of these steps in this phase,” he told Reuters.
This is the language used by autocrats who assume absolute power. It happened in the French Revolution and in the Bolshevik Revolution. It is still the language of the Communist Party in China.
Christians understand exactly what is going on here — human beings will seek absolute power if they can gain it. In a fallen world, every leader must be held accountable by checks and balances, and every healthy system of government requires a real separation of powers. Otherwise, tyranny inevitably results.
This just proves Lord Acton’s observation that “power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Christians, informed by the doctrine of sin, understand why this is true.
2. The Real Goals of Hamas
We just pray that the fragile cease fire in Gaza and Israel can hold, but Israel’s predicament was made clear by the fact that the international press claims the cease fire as a victory for Hamas, the terrorist organization that controls the government in Gaza — the same organization that launched the recent rocket attacks on Israel.
Clearly, Hamas sees the cease fire as a victory. Young men in Gaza bragged to Western reporters that their rockets had landed for the first time in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
Furthermore, The New York Times reported that the relatives of slain Hamas military leader Ahmed al-Jabari were celebrating his death. “Rest in peace. The mission is accomplished,” read one sign near the home where his relatives, including two wives, were staying.
One of his widows made her understanding clear:
“Allah give him a big honor because he is going to go to paradise; thanks for God for all this . . . All this happened because this is from our God and this is the work of Jabari and the fighters here in Gaza. Thanks for God. It’s a big victory.”
Keep in mind that one of the central goals of Hamas, as made clear in its founding charter, is to raise “the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.”
That is what Israel is really up against when it comes to Hamas and its aims.
3. India Executes a Terrorist
India hanged a terrorist last week, its first execution since 2004. Officials executed Ajmal Kasab, the young man who was the sole surviving terrorist in the 2008 attack on Mumbia that killed 164 and wounded more than 300 people.
At his trial, Kasab admitted that he was one of 10 terrorists who conducted the attack and he also admitted that the attack was supported by Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI. Kasab was clearly visible on video, shooting and killing civilians in Mumbai.
He was sentenced to death, and hanged last week after appeals for clemency failed. He was barely out of his teens when he participated in the terrorist operation.
India has the death penalty, but it is used very infrequently. Like many nations, including the United States, there is growing discomfort with the death penalty itself. Nevertheless, India’s citizenry offered wide support for the death penalty in this case, eventually resulting in Kasab’s hanging.
What does this demonstrate? At the very least, it indicates that, even in nations that are moving away from the death penalty as a common sentence for the crime of premeditated murder, some crimes still seem to demand the ultimate punishment available to human justice.
But that justice, vital as it is, cannot restore the lives Kasab and his accomplices took that day.
4. An Oklahoma Judge Sentences a Teenager to Church
Another aspect of human justice was evident in an Oklahoma courtroom recently when a judge sentenced a teenager to attend church for ten years.
Erick Eckholm of The New York Times reported,
“Initially there was little outcry in Muskogee, Okla., last week when a judge, as a condition of a youth’s probation for a driving-related manslaughter conviction, sentenced him to attend church regularly for 10 years. The judge, Mike Norman, 67, had sentenced people to church before, though never for such a serious crime. But as word of the ruling spread in state and national legal circles, constitutional experts condemned it as a flagrant violation of the separation of church and state.”
The Tulsa World reported the facts of the case:
“The defendant, Tyler Alred, 17, was behind the wheel of a Chevrolet pickup about 4 a.m. Dec. 3 when he crashed into a tree on a county road east of Muskogee. His friend and passenger John Luke Dum, 16, of Muskogee died at the scene. Alred, a high school and welding school student, admitted to Oklahoma Highway Patrol troopers that he had been drinking, records show.”
“Although not legally drunk – he was given two breath tests, which, at 0.06 and 0.07, fell below the legal 0.08 blood-alcohol threshold for legal drunkenness – he was underage and, as a result, considered to be driving under the influence of alcohol. Alred was charged with manslaughter as a youthful offender. He pleaded guilty in August, with no plea deal with prosecutors to govern his punishment.”
Judge Normans ruling is now challenged by the ACLU and others, who charge that the sentence is unconstitutional. The judge was clearly attempting to find an alternative sentence that would accomplish some approximation of justice, mixed with an effort to reclaim a young life.
As a matter of law, the sentence probably is unconstitutional. At the same time, the sentence demonstrates the painful limits of human justice. What is an appropriate sentence for a 17-year-old boy under this circumstance? What are the aims of justice? Even Judge Norman’s critics will be stuck on that excruciating question.
5. Larry Hagman Dies — Is Death Really “Just Another Stage in Our Development?”
Actor Larry Hagman, star of television’s Dallas series on CBS, died last Friday in Dallas, Texas at age 81. He died of complications from cancer, which he had discussed openly in recent months. Hagman had previously undergone a liver transplant and other health crises.
He was at one point the most recognizable male actor in the world, given the audience attracted to Dallas. The “Who Shot J.R.” episode of that series drew the second-largest audience in television history (exceeded only by the final episode of M*A*S*H).
Hagman delighted in his work as an actor, playing the loathsome character J.R. Ewing with relish. His fellow actors professed their enjoyment of working with him.
Speaking several years ago, Hagman said that death is “just another stage of our development.”
He continued: “I honestly believe that we don’t just disappear. We don’t go into a void. I think we’re part of a big energy curtain, an energy wave, in which we are like molecules.”
Every worldview has to answer the challenge of understanding death. Larry Hagman’s worldview, perhaps influenced by Eastern religious thought, is on full display in that comment.
I discuss all these and more in today’s edition of The Briefing: A Daily Analysis of News and Events from a Christian Worldview. LISTEN HERE. http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/11/26/the-briefing-11-26-12/
Links to articles cited:
TODAY: The Church of England turns down women bishops / San Francisco turns down public nudity . . . partially, maybe / Teenagers disconnected — Hurricane Sandy’s lessons for the digital age / A true Thanksgiving. I discuss all these and more in today’s edition of The Briefing: A Daily Analysis of News and Events from a Christian Worldview.
1. The Church of England Votes Against Women Bishops — What Does This Mean?
“This is a train crash,” said one frustrated priest. Yesterday was a decisive day in the history of the Church of England, but it was also a deeply divisive day. After 37 years of controversy and turmoil, the church’s General Synod turned down a proposal to consecrate women as bishops. The proposal required a two-thirds majority in all three houses of the General Synod in order to pass, and it failed to receive that vote among the laity.
The lay members of the General Synod voted 132 in favor and 74 against, meaning that the proposal went down to a narrow defeat — but a defeat all the same. Tellingly, bishops voted 44-3 in favor (with 2 abstentions) and clergy voted 148-45 in favor. The defeat means that it will take another five years for another proposal can put the issue before a General Synod vote once again.
The vote came almost two decades after the Church of England voted to ordain women as priests. The question of women serving as bishops was more involved, given the fact that bishops supervise other clergy. A strongly traditionalist wing of the church has staunchly opposed women as both priests and bishops, but they were unsuccessful in blocking the ordination of women twenty years ago. The proposal to consecrate women bishops was presented as a “compromise” that would approve women bishops but call for “respect” to those clergy and parishes that opposed women serving in that capacity.
The meaning of that “respect” was never specified, and this led to the proposal’s defeat. The failure of the proposal was a dramatic rebuke to the leadership of Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and a warning to his designated successor, Justin Welby, currently Bishop of Durham. Both men had strongly supported the measure.
Bishop Welby had called for the adoption of the proposal with this argument:
“We cannot get trapped into believing this is a zero-sum decision where one person’s gain must be another’s loss. That is not a theology of grace.”
That amounts to a quintessentially Anglican promise — a vote on such a fundamental question that would settle the issue by some form of compromise. But the current proposal was really no compromise at all, and it never could have been
Actually, that point was made with clarity by the Rev. Janet Appleby, a parish priest who drafted the “compromise” language:
“The trouble is our disagreement is absolute: either a woman can be a bishop or she cannot.”
She is exactly right. The Church of England cannot operate without the universal recognition of its bishops within the church. If women are consecrated as bishops, the entire church will have women bishops.
The debate before the General Synod had mostly to do with the nature of the “compromise” language. The House of Bishops is expected to meet this morning “to consider a way forward.”
Press coverage of the vote, even among the church’s own media and press branches, was free from serious theological or biblical debate. A church that has already decided to ordain women as priests is not likely to return to a confrontation with biblical texts and theological arguments that would limit the teaching office in the church to men.
Those pushing the proposal used cultural arguments, instead. They insisted that the Church of England would have to accept the cultural assumption that all gender discrimination is wrong, or look badly out of date, out of step, and out of order.
One thing is almost certain — a church or denomination that ordains women as pastors will one day vote to appoint them to every office and role. Any compromise in this regard is really a matter of time, and not a matter of principle.
2. San Francisco Votes to Limit Public Nudity — Partially, Maybe
San Francisco is famous for its beauty, its history, its cuisine, and its liberal culture. But will San Francisco accept any limits on that liberal sexual culture? Just consider this lead to a news story released late yesterday:
“What started out as a discussion about whether people could stroll naked through this liberal city’s storied streets ended up Tuesday as a discussion about the role of local government. Faced with complaints about a band of so-called ‘Naked Guys’ gathering daily in the Castro District, Supervisor Scott Wiener introduced legislation last month to ban public nudity citywide, except for at permitted festivals and parades.”
So reported Maria L. La Ganga of The Los Angeles Times. Supervisor Wiener told his colleagues that calls for keeping public nudity fully legal were not coming from straight couples with children. “The dominant demographic expressing concern is gay men,” he explained.
A group of far-left supervisors (keep in mind that is far-left in the context of San Francisco) fought against any new restriction on public nudity. Supervisor John Avalos said that the complaints were only about “inconsequential nudity.”
San Francisco currently outlaws “lewd” nudity and it requires clothing in restaurants, plastic beneath bodies on public property, and some space between nude bodies. Trust me, no one is making this up.
The Washington Post reported that the law approved late yesterday still has significant allowances for public nudity:
“A first offense would carry a maximum penalty of a $100 fine, but prosecutors would have authority to charge a third violation as a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $500 fine and a year in jail. Exemptions would be made for participants at permitted street fairs and parades, such as the city’s annual gay pride event and the Folsom Street Fair, which celebrates sadomasochism and other sexual subcultures.”
Or, as one activist told the Associated Press, “Freedom is not something man gives anyone. It’s something we all — men, women, children — are born with and then people come in and try to erase it from you and if you won’t let that go they want to silence you, they want to banish you and they want to burn you at the stake.”
The Washington Post also reported that many California cities have no laws banning public nudity. You have been warned.
3. Hurricane Sandy Revealed that Teenagers Can Survive (Temporarily) without Digital Connections
Aimee Lee Ball of The New York Times reported that, for many young people on the East Coast, the extended time without electrical power in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy was their first experience of a non-digital world. In her words,
“Blank screens. Cellphones on the fritz. Wii games sitting dormant in darkened rec rooms. For a swath of teenagers and preteens on the East Coast, the power failures that followed Hurricane Sandy last month represented the first time in their young lives that they were totally off the grid, without the ability to text, play Minecraft, video-chat, check Facebook, or send updates to Twitter.”
For these “digital natives,” who have never known a time without smart phones, iPods, Facebook, and all the rest, the power outage was traumatic — and yet they survived. Ball’s report is must reading for parents and others interested in adolescents, young adults … and the rest of us.
As Ball reported, “the storm provided a rare glimpse of a life lived offline. It drove some children crazy, while others managed to embrace the experience of a digital slowdown. It also produced some unexpected ammunition for parents already eager to curb the digital obsessions of their children.”
4. A True Thanksgiving
As Americans gather for the Thanksgiving holiday, several ironies arise. For an increasing number, there is no giving of thanks to God, but just a general sense of thankfulness. But thankfulness requires an object of that gratitude. In an increasingly secularized age, this gets complicated.
Christians understand the nature of the holiday observance, remembering the historic roots of the celebration among the Pilgrims. But today’s Christians need to keep in mind that the most important day of thanksgiving for us is the Lord’s Day, when corporate thanksgiving to God is central to authentic Christian worship.
Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family.
Links to articles cited:
TODAY: Should Israel put its trust in an Iron Dome? / A day of decision for Anglicans — Women Bishops? / Hindu congresswomen to take oath on Bhagavad Gita / Judge grants injunction in contraception mandate case. I discuss all these and more in today’s edition of The Briefing: A Daily Analysis of News and Events from a Christian Worldview.
1. Israel’s Iron Dome — Should Israel Place its Trust in Technology?
Americans seem almost as fascinated as Israelis when it comes to Israel’s “Iron Dome,” perhaps the world’s most sophisticated and accurate anti-missile defense system. The system deploys rockets fired at incoming missiles or rockets, thus avoiding a deadly hit during a rocket attack. Israel has been subjected to a barrage of rockets from Hamas forces in Gaza, with some rockets now hitting the cities of Tel Aviv, Ashdod, and Jerusalem.
Israeli Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, has called the Iron Dome “probably the most technologically impressive achievement in recent years in Israel.”
According to recent reports, the Iron Dome system has been hugely successful, neutralizing more than 300 rockets and achieving a success rate of between 80 to 90 percent. The system, created with the assistance of the United States, offers Israel a margin of time once an attack begins. Each interceptor missile costs up to $50,000.
As Isabel Kershner of The New York Times reports:
“Iron Dome shoots down rockets with a radar-guided missile known as Tamir, which was developed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, an Israeli company. The radar was developed by Elta, a subsidiary of Israel Aerospace Industries, and another company, Impress, developed the command and control system.
Because each interceptor missile costs $40,000 to $50,000, the system is designed to aim only at rockets headed for populated areas and to ignore those destined for open ground outside cities and towns. Israeli officials say that the cost is offset by the lives and property that are saved.”
In recent days Israeli defense and political authorities have expressed concern that the nation’s citizens may be placing too much trust in the Iron Dome system. They fear that people may begin to ignore or minimize air raid sirens and other warnings, increasing the danger of a deadly strike.
Israel’s current leaders are not the first to sound that alarm. King David sounded a similar concern in Psalm 20:7-8 — “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God. They collapse and fall, but we rise and stand upright.”
Technology cannot save. Any nation that places its ultimate trust in technology is creating an idol that cannot deliver on its promises — no matter how impressive it may be.
2. A Day of Decision for the Church of England: Women Bishops?
The Church of England will decide today if women are to be consecrated as bishops. The church’s General Synod will vote on a “compromise” measure that seems certain to please almost no one.
As The Washington Post reports:
“While opening the way for female bishops, the proposal before the General Synod also commits the church, when it assigns priests and bishops, to ‘respect’ the position of parishes that oppose them — without defining what respect means in practical terms.”
“Enough waiting,” declared Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, a proponent of women bishops. If the proposal is approved by a two-thirds majority in all three houses of the synod, women will soon serve as bishops. If the measure is defeated, it will take at least five years to bring the matter to a vote once again.
In truth, this is not a compromise at all. If the proposal passes, women bishops will be consecrated throughout the church and must be recognized by all parishes and ministers. Given the fact that the Church of England started ordaining women to the priesthood almost twenty years ago, the elevation of women to the episcopacy was inevitable.
One central argument put forth by the proponents of women bishops demands close attention.
Peter Broadbent, the Bishop of Willesden (near London), warned that if the proposal fails, the Church of England would “look completely stupid in the eyes of society.”
Similarly, Rosie Harper, chaplain to the Bishop of Buckingham and vicar of Great Missenden told The Guardian [London[ that, if the measure fails, “it will seem to people in the country [at large] that the church is operating within a lower ethical framework than their own.”
In other words, let the culture set the demands for the church. Since the role of women in society is no longer up for debate, the church must give way. Otherwise, it will look backwards, unethical, and stupid.
Note the absence of any theological or biblical argument, or even an acknowledgement that the service of women in the teaching office of the church runs counter to clear biblical teachings. The culture is cited as the authority in the matter.
On any question, that move is a sure sign of theological and spiritual disaster.
3. America’s First Hindu Congressperson to Take Oath on the Bhagavad Gita
A sure sign of America’s increasing religious and ethnic diversity will be evident in January when Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii takes the oath of office as the nation’s first Hindu Member of Congress. The Huffington Post reports that Gabbard will take the oath of office over a copy of the Bhagavad Gita, one of several Hindu texts. The Bhagavad Gita is a text of 700 verses and 18 chapters that tells the central Mahabharata epic.
There are an estimated 600,000 to 2.3 million Hindus in the United States. Gabbard will serve alongside at least 2 Buddhist members of Congress.
This development underlines the changing nature of America as a mission field. The world is coming to the United States, and that world brings a universe of worldviews and religious belief systems. Evangelical Christians must see the seating of a Hindu Member of Congress as yet another indicator of that challenge. At the same time, this same development is an affirmation of our American commitment to religious liberty — the same liberty that allows an evangelical Christian to participate in the public life of the nation.
4. Judge Grants Injunction in Contraception Mandate Challenge
Word came late Monday that U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton of the District of Columbia has handed down an injunction that prevents, for now, action against Tyndale House Publishers. Tyndale House had sought relief from the contraception mandate ordered by the Obama Administration as part of its health care reform.
Judge Walton said that the mandate “affirmatively compels the plaintiffs to violate their religious beliefs in order to comply with the law and avoid the sanctions that would be imposed for their non-compliance.”
This is a major victory, though it may be short-lived. Judge Walton said that he will consider making the injunction permanent at a later date. The Obama Administration is certain to appeal.
I discuss all these and more in today’s edition of The Briefing: A Daily Analysis of News and Events from a Christian Worldview. LISTEN HERE. Links to all articles cited also provided. http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/11/20/the-briefing-11-20-12/
The Christmas season comes each year with the expected flurry of media attention to the biblical accounts of Christ’s conception and birth. The general thrust…
Families across the Christian world are gathering for Christmas even now, with caravans of cars and planeloads of passengers headed to hearth and home. Christmas…
Americans by the millions are still tuning in to watch Downton Abbey — now in its fifth season — eager to enjoy the continuation of the saga…
Barely five days after The New York Times ran a major news article on the firing of Atlanta’s fire chief for his views on homosexuality,…