Tea Partiers Almost All White – So What?
Dennis Prager wrote a piece for National Review Online entitled Race and the Tea Parties (April 27, 2010) and it is about as wrong as I’ve read in a long time.
He starts out with this
Opponents of the popular expression of conservative opposition to big government — the tea-party movement — regularly note that tea partiers are overwhelmingly white. This is intended to disqualify the tea parties from serious moral consideration.
Typical straw man argument. He tells us why people have pointed this out and then shows how wrong that motivation is. He doesn’t waste one sentence, however, proving this motivation. He simply assumes it.
And it gets better …
The fact that the Left believes that the preponderance of whites among tea partiers invalidates the tea-party movement tells us much more about the Left than it does about the tea partiers.
Where is the evidence that “the Left” believes any such thing. I’ll grant him that the race of the group should be considered when evaluating some of its opinions – but certainly not all – as should gender and class. His disagreement with that indicates how much he has lost touch with reality. I’ll return to this later.
He goes on to say …
One would hope that all people would assess ideas by their moral rightness or wrongness, not by the race, gender, or class of those who hold them.
I could not agree more.
But in the world of the Left, people are taught not to assess ideas but to identify the race, class, and gender of those who espouse those ideas.
The “world of the Left?” Is this really what people are being taught? I could easily make similar assertions of the Right with nothing to back up my claims.
This helps explain the widespread use of ad hominem attacks by the Left: Rather than argue against their opponents’ ideas, the Left usually dismisses those making an argument with which it disagrees as “racist,” “intolerant,” “bigoted,” “sexist,” ”homophobic,” “xenophobic,” and/or “homophobic.”
Two things are going on here.
First, he is making the assumption that pointing out that tea partiers are mostly white is always an attempt to invalidate all of its arguments. This is simply not the case.
Second, he is ignoring any valid reason for pointing out these biases. When a particular group espouses an idea that is inherently racist or sexist, I have every right to point that out. Much of the rhetoric out of the tea party camp is clearly racist. I don’t call the tea partiers racist to invalidate their ideas. Their ideas are racist and that makes those ideas wrong. Why is this not clear?
To prove my point I am going to say something I might regret. I may agree with some of the ideas held by the tea party. I don’t, however, agree with all their ideas because they are racist – some of the ideas, not the people. Just because some of the members, or all of them, are racist does not make their valid ideas automatically invalid. The racist, and sexist, ideas are invalid – because they are racist and/or sexist. Is there something wrong with pointing that out.
He gives another example …
This is why, to cite another example, men are dismissed when they oppose abortion. The idea is far less significant than the sex of the advocate. As for women who oppose abortion on demand, they are either not authentically female or simply traitors to their sex. Just as the Left depicts blacks who oppose race-based affirmative action as not authentic blacks or as traitors to their race.
Is it just me or is that paragraph simply a list of assertions with no foundation.
And, of course, he brings up the issue of abortion. In this case, I’m glad because this is a great example of what I said I’d return to. There are two issues to consider here – abortion, and a woman’s right to choose. I know opponents of choice don’t like to look at it this way but the issues are different. A man has the same right as a woman to hold a valid opinion on both issues, BUT his opinion on the matter of choice, because he will never have to make that choice, does not carry as much weight as the opinion of a woman.
Prager finishes his first point with …
In this morally inverted world, the virtual absence of blacks and minorities from tea-party rallies cannot possibly reflect anything negative on the blacks and minorities’ absence, only on the white tea partiers’ presence.
Okay, this is a very good point. The virtual absence of minorities does not necessarily indicate that the party is inherently racist, but it might. Members of the tea party should take a serious look at their ideas. Perhaps the absence of minorities does indicate a problem with the party itself.
He finishes with a second point that sounds suspiciously like the first so I won’t get into that.
One final thing bothers me about his article. Two days before his article, another article entitled Imagine: Protest, Insurgency and the Workings of White Privilege was wildly popular online. I don’t see any reference to this article by Prager but I have to assume he had seen it. Anyone writing on the subject would have seen it. If he had not seen it, he can contact me and I’ll make a note here.
Assuming he had seen it, he makes no attempt to address it. What if the tea party were predominantly black, or muslim? Would they be allowed to storm Washington in protest? This is a matter for serious consideration. The fact that he ignores it in his piece is telling.
If you ask me.
Tea Party Patriots
Years ago I learned of groups all over our great nation who were organizing Tea Parties on April 15th to protest income taxes. I hated taxes and I thought it was a great idea. I used to talk about doing one of my own, but like many things in life it turned out to be one of those things I guess I didn’t really care enough to do.
Several years have past since then and my opinions have changed a bit. I still hate paying taxes and I still think the market is the best place for ideas to win or lose. I’ve learned a great deal, however, about the responsibility one citizen has to help his fellow citizens. I’ve spent time reading the writings of our nation’s founders and I’ve learned a couple of things. One, some of them were more liberal than your conservative friends would like you to believe. Two, sometimes their ideas were just plain wrong. I think many of us like to take an idealized view of these men but we must remind ourselves that they fought about the issues for a reason – they were not right about everything.
The evolution of my thinking on these matters has led me to the point where I am surprised by movements like The Tea Party Patriots. According to their website, they hold three core values – Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. As I’ve written many times, I believe in all of these things. My problem with this movement is the extreme to which they carry these points and the emphasis on financial concerns. I’ll discuss each of the core values separately.
Fiscal Responsibility
Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.
I’ll admit that I agree with much of this one, but the first sentence really gets me. They start with an assumption that is incorrect – two actually. One, that any individual has the freedom to do with her money what she wants. I disagree. The other, that the government should honor and respect that freedom. If such a freedom existed, I’d agree wholeheartedly.
Why do so many of us believe that we have the right to control something simply because we earned it, created it or have some other claim to ownership? This reminds me so much of the two year old who continually screams “Mine!” Do we not have a responsibility to use our wealth in a way that benefits others? Am I really free to do with my possessions as I wish?
I guess the point is that no other person has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my property. I agree, but that doesn’t mean I can do what I want. The question, then, is whether a government “of the people and by the people” has the authority to tell me what I can and cannot do. Like any good libertarian, I would argue that the government does not have the right to restrain my freedom except to protect the freedom of another individual or group of individuals. Much of the poverty we see around us is most certainly caused by a callous disregard for the rights and freedoms of other individuals. If _we_ don’t watch out for others, who will?
Constitutionally Limited Government
We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states’ rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.
Once again, I have no issue with the substance of anything but the first sentence – which I’ll get to in a moment. Where I would disagree is in the application. I think the Constitution grants more power to the federal government than members of this movement would admit. My assumption is that they interpret this phrase – “those powers not expressly stated” – much more strictly than I would or than was intended. Before you get all “English teacher” on me, I know what expressly means. My argument is not with that word. In my opinion, Section 9 and Section 10 of Article I expressly grant the power to enact quite a bit of legislation – even though the specifics of that legislation is not expressly stated.
Now for a look at the first sentence. Is the Constitution the supreme law of the land? Yes and No. Yes, it is the final authority in matters of law. No, it is not the final authority on all matters. This, in fact, is why it is necessary to amend it from time to time. We must be careful not to hold the Constitution in such high regard that we neglect the importance of natural law and the rights of the individual. The U.S. Constitution is a wonderful document precisely because it helps gaurantee our rights as individuals. It is easy to assume that those rights are granted to us by the Constitution. It may grant us some rights, but other rights were ours before the Constitution was drafted.
Free Markets
A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government’s interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.
This is a matter of great sadness for me. I believe in the power of the free market. Always have, always will. The operative word, however, is FREE. Our current economic system is very far from free in many regards.
I can hear the Tea Party Patriots yelling now. “That’s right. That is precisely what we want to see changed.” Okay, I hear you and I agree. Our current system may be broken but let’s not assume the answer is the unfettered permission to do as we please. This is a common misconception of freedom and it all seems to be rooted in the first sentence of the first core value – I have a right to do with my possessions as I see fit. This is simply not the case. In many cases the actions I take have a negative impact on the freedom of others. This is why we don’t allow businesses to behave in certain ways.
So What?
I was drawn to this topic today because of the reading I’ve been doing about the health care reform that was signed into law yesterday. If you’d asked me 15 years ago I would have been very much against this proposal. Today, I may not agree with everything proposed by the new legislation but I am happy something is happening. As a society we have turned a blind eye to policies which are not fair to all citizens while they pretend to be conservative and based on free enterprise.
Like I’ve written and said many times – if the government is going to tax us and dictate policy, it is about time they begin to pass legislation that is fair. I know this proposal is far from perfect. I’m confused, for example, why it still involves employers in the equation. I’m sure I’ll have something more to write about that.
Two Cents Each
- In Manhattan, Preparing for Kindergarten Admission Test
- This is simply ridiculous!
- Geeks Drive Girls Out of Computer Science | LiveScience
- Girls do seem to shy away from CS careers and that is unfortunate, but this "study" has not found the answer. I've not read anything quite so silly on livescience in a long time.
- E-books spark battle inside the publishing industry – washingtonpost.com
- Is anyone else growing tired of old school companies trying to stop innovation instead of finding a way to adapt?
- 100 Skills Everyone Should Master | Mighty Girl
- I don't think every item should be on the list but it's a great list anyway.
- Your guide to better chopstick etiquette (mostly Japanese) | Just Hungry
- A great list of tips if you want to use chopsticks properly. It does not explain "how" to use them but how to use them properly.
Happy Holidays!
Are you offended that I didn’t say Merry Christmas?
According to statistics posted on the website of the Wish Me A Merry Christmas Campaign, 53% of Americans are offended when greeted with Happy Holidays.
I have to tell you that I am a little surprised by this. I’m not sure I trust the statistics in the first place but that seems like an awful lot of people. Are people really offended by this? I understand why people prefer “Merry Christmas.” I prefer that myself and I’m very pleased when people say it, but I’m not offended when people say something different.
Another statistic on the website states that nine out of ten people think it’s okay to say Merry Christmas. Saying Happy Holidys is a good way to keep from offending the one out of ten. If more then five out of ten are offended by this effort, do we drop in in favor of offending the minority? I think the answer is no. People who are offended by Happy Holidays simply need to lighten up. If it doesn’t exclude you, don’t be offended by it. Simple as that.
I just think people misunderstand the spirit of Happy Holidays. I know many people are worried about the war on Christmas, but I don’t think that is what this is about. Americans celebrate at least five different holidays in the space of five or six weeks. Happy Holidays is a way to acknowledge all of these holidays at once. Is there really something offensive about inclusioin? Years ago my friends and I used to say Happy Hanukwanzmas. Would that be better?
The merits of the campaign itself are a different issue entirely for me. When I first stumbled onto this site I was very irritated – mostly because of my thoughts above – but I came to see some merit in the idea or at least in a modified version of the idea. I do think more retailers should offer a friendly Merry Christmas under certain circumstances. A great example is when I stop to purchase my tree every year. It would be downright silly for the clerk to wish me Happy Holidays when I am clearly in the act of celebrating a specific holiday.
On the other hand, my experience tells me that this campaign could do without the buttons. I tend to say Happy Holidays sometimes, but I’ve found that people almost always respond with Merry Christmas if I say Merry Christmas first.
Merry Christmas!
Turn Hope into Action
In keeping with this weeks topic, I found this interesting idea - Obama for Peace: Turn Hope into Action.
If you’d like to see our President live up to his promises and the prize with which he was honored, check out the site.
Monuments to Peace
Yesterdays post reminded me of a great site I wanted to share with you.
Peace Monuments Around the World “contains information about many peace monuments — over time and in all parts of world.”
I find it inspiring.
Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize – I Agree with Bill O’Reilly?
I hate to be one of millions of voices saying the same thing, but I simply must say something about this.
If you know me, or have read any of my thoughts over the last year, you know that I support President Barrack Obama. I voted for him. As it stands now, I would vote for him again. I don’t support everything he supports but I believe he is the right leader for our nation at this point.
But, like many others, I feel like the Nobel Peace Prize is premature. Along with many of us, the President himself feels that this award was a call to action. A call to follow up his words with deeds. I agree with all of that and I hope it works, but the award should have been given to someone because of his or her accomplishments.
I don’t believe, as some do, that he should have declined the award. The most interesting argument in this regard, though a bit of a stretch in my view, is by Rinku Sen. She writes:
There’s an additional element that affects the struggle for racial justice. Obama talks a lot about personal responsibility for black men. He doesn’t think you should whine and ask for things you’re not willing to earn. Is that just about asking, and never about accepting? Perhaps he will earn it, I’m not saying he won’t, but he hasn’t yet, as he himself acknowledged.
— Obama Should Have Turned It Down
As usual, I also don’t agree with Rush Limbaugh when he claims that this makes our President a laughing stock. He writes:
Folks, the Nobel Peace Prize, we owe ‘em. Our president has become a laughingstock. They are telling jokes about Barack Obama even in State-Controlled Media. ABC is assembling what they think are the funniest jokes that they’re finding anywhere, from blogs to State-Controlled Media sources and so forth and it’s hilarious. Everybody in the world is laughing except the Norwegians, everybody is laughing at our president. You know, I’m a former nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize. I was nominated this year, the year that Gore got the Peace Prize, official nominee. I’m especially qualified to comment on this. I’m much closer to having won a Nobel Peace Prize than any of you people are because I’ve actually been nominated. (laughing) And, by the way, when I was nominated there wasn’t any laughter. No, there was no laughter. There was anger and rage from certain sectors of this country, but there was no laughter. Our president has won the Peace Prize, and he is a standing joke.
— Our President is a Laughingstock: Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize
I also don’t subscribe to the notion that Obama won because he is black. Rinku Sen writes:
I’m sure the Nobel committee is very, very smart, but it all made me wonder if they’re so eager to reward the first black president of the U.S. that they wanted to get it done now, just in case he turns out to be a warmonger robbing them of their chance to meet the coolest kid on the block. — Obama Should Have Turned It Down
and this wingnut writes:
I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota for it, but that is the only thing I can think of for this news. There is no way Barack Obama earned it in the nominations period.
— Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize: He’s Becoming Jimmy Carter Faster Than Jimmy Carter Did.
What surprised me most about all of this is that I agree with Bill O’Reilly’s comments. I’m pleasantly surprised by his comments on this. He writes:
“Talking Points” does not share the dissent — understands it, but does not share it — because having a U.S. president honored with a peace prize is good for the country. We should want the world to think we are a nation that gives peace a chance, because that’s what we are.
In the past, Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson won the prize. Jimmy Carter received it after he left office. Yasser Arafat also won the Nobel Peace Prize, if you can believe it. But so did Martin Luther King Jr. and Mother Teresa.
There are times when what’s good for America should trump partisan politics. President Obama was honored Friday, and deserved or not, the world is hearing “America” and “peace” in the same sentence. That’s good.
There are a lot of negative things one might say about this development but I have to agree that this is good for America.
Dear Friend of Liberty
Last week I mentioned that I’d received a letter from Liberty University. Today I’d like to comment on that letter.
I’ve debated this for a couple of weeks now and I’ve decided to comment on the letter paragraph by paragraph. I will post the letter in full at the bottom of the post for those of you that want to read it first.
Dear Friend of Liberty,
I hope this letter finds you well and prosperous. I am writing to you today because, quite frankly, I need your help.
It does, thank you. With what can I help?
For nearly three decades, proud Americans like you have helped us grounded in the conservative Christian values that Liberty University was founded to support and defend. With the recent election of Barack Obama as President, radical left-wing activist groups are energized and seeking to use big government to mute the conservative voice. Few groups are more sinister than Americans United for Separation of Church and State and its misguided leader Barry Lynn.
What? I am ever frustrated with the labeling of others as radical and with the idea that radical is a bad thing. Were our founding fathers not radical?
and sinister? What makes a AU sinister? They stand up for freedom and the separations of church and state. Many on the extreme right subscribe to the notion that our country was not founded on the principle of separation which is probably where the term sinister comes from, but they are sadly mistaken. Our nation was indeed founded on that principle and I firmly believe it is one of the factors that has given us our prosperity (along with the entrepreneurial spirt most anyone must possess to have picked up and moved to another country).
Recently, Lynn, an ACLU lawyer turned reverend, seized on a fundraising opportunity when the university told a LU Democrat Club it could not use LU’s name and money in promoting some of its causes. The Democrat Club and its staff sponsor had refused to cut ties with the National Democratic Party, which supports abortion-on-demand and same-sex marriage.
First of all, what’s with the “an ACLU lawyer turned reverend” comment? What is that supposed to convey?
So, he was a lawyer for the ACLU. Good for him! We need good lawyers in the ACLU. I don’t agree with everything they do (and I’ve written about that before) but they stand up for freedom and that is a good thing. This is another thing that used to frustrate me about Dr. Falwell. The first time I heard him make a derogatory comment about the ACLU I was genuinely confused.
So, Lynn became a reverend. In my experience I’ve known many pastors who had been called to ministry after another career. Make no mistake, Falwell’s comments are meant to make the average “friend of liberty” think that Lynn can’t possibly be a “good guy” if he worked for the ACLU.
LU thought the Democrat Club’s allegiance to the Democratic Party was a direct contradiction to core Christian values held dear by the university, which is both pro-life and pro-traditional marriage.
This is where things get a little difficult for me to explain. I have NO problem with a university hiring employees who subscribe a a statement of faith, but university’s SHOULD NOT hold positions on issues. Once again, I DO support the right of the university to require employees subscribe, but a university is designed to be a place of education. Education by nature must be liberal. Student’s must be taught in an environment that is open to different positions.
I am also NOT saying that all material be taught as though it is on the same moral ground. I FULLY SUPPORT the right of any private university to teach students different positions and for students to learn what university leadership believes, but students should never be restricted from educational activities simply because university leadership disagrees with the political affiliation.
Lynn’s weapon of choice is the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, a federal agency which he often uses to pistol whip those who disagree with his radical, liberal political agenda.
Really? Is this any way for the chancellor of a university to speak of someone else? I’m not the biggest fan of Lynn’s but to say he uses the IRS to “pistol whip” anyone who disagrees with him? And there you go calling him a radical again as if that were a bad thing. The science department at LU teaches that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. I can think of few things more radical.
In this case, Lynn’s assertion is that LU, in limiting the use of its name and money, had violated its non-profit standing. His goal is to have LU stripped of its tax exempt status by the federal government.
I don’t know if Lynn has a case here. My suspicion is that he has, but this is an open and shut case in my book. I don’t think any of us should pay taxes but since we do I don’t think any institution should be exempt from those taxes. There is too much abuse of this. Religious institutions and other non-profits should pay taxes like any other institution (well, no they shouldn’t but you know what I mean).
Personally, I find such assertions and petitions for federal involvement in curbing religious freedoms a disturbing trend as we move closer to a more intrusive and socialized federal government. in fact, AU’s actions are un-American. If a school like Liberty University can be required to endorse and support abortion rights and same-sex marriage, then how can we continue to call America “a free country”?
Wow, this is packed full of goodness.
I wholeheartedly agree that “federal involvement in curbing religious freedoms” is disturbing. I’d argue that federal involvement in anything is disturbing but unfortunately we’ve crossed that bridge already, haven’t we? So, why are so many on the right set on granting the federal government the right to restrict behaviors as personal as sex and reproduction? How is that not disturbing?
AU’s actions are un-American? LU wants to tell students to break ties with one of two political parties in this country and AU’s attempt to stop that is un-American?
Is LU being “required to endorse and support abortion rights and same-sex marriage?” I didn’t read that anywhere. First of all, one of these rights is already guaranteed by ruling from the Supreme Court but that doesn’t mean LU has to support even that one. What has always made America great is the right to disagree. Restricting the rights of someone to have an abortion is a crime as it should be but disagreeing with that is not. Allowing students to believe does not require the university agree.
“[H]ow can we continue to call America ‘a free country’?” This is the point I’ve been trying to make. America is founded on principles of individual freedom and the separation of church and state. Students must be given the opportunity to associate with any political party they want. THAT is what makes America free.
My father taught millions to stand and fight when they knew in their heart they were doing what was right.
One of the things I admired most about Dr. Falwell. No matter how much I disagreed with some of what he stood for, I admire that very much and always will remember him for it.
I think it’s time for Christian conservatives to stand up against left wing political bullies like Barry Lynn. If we don’t stop him now, your church or your family could be his next political target. I hope you can send a financial gift of $15, $25, $50 or $100 to help us fight for the heart of America.
Calling names again. This argument might be relevant if Mr. Lynn was attacking LU’s right to teach a certain religious position, but we are not talking about that here. LU is telling students they cannot associate with a political party. This is similar to LU’s efforts to stop the formation of a Greenpeace chapter on campus when I was there. They simply cannot call themselves “Friends of Liberty” if they restrict the rights of their very own students.
In closing, I must say that this whole episode bothers me as a Christian as much as it does as an American. Jerry Falwell Jr. is following in his fathers footsteps by stating in so many words that a Christian cannot be a member of the Democratic Party or support certain candidates and/or political positions. I find this upsetting in a way that I find hard to put into words. I know very many devout Christians who are Democrats. I know many who are pro-choice, myself included. I know many who support human rights for homosexuals, myself included. I also know many who support positions I disagree with. I can be very arrogant from time to time but I would never be so arrogant to tell those people that they are not really Christians. Do I run around telling people that no Christian in his right mind should have voted for George W. Bush? Well maybe but I don’t question their faith over it, do I? 
Dear Friend of Liberty,
I hope this letter finds you well and prosperous. I am writing to you today because, quite frankly, I need your help.
For nearly three decades, proud Americans like you have helped us grounded in the conservative Christian values that Liberty University was founded to support and defend. With the recent election of Barack Obama as President, radical left-wing activist groups are energized and seeking to use big government to mute the conservative voice. Few groups are more sinister than Americans United for Separation of Church and State and its misguided leader Barry Lynn.
Recently, Lynn, an ACLU lawyer turned reverend, seized on a fundraising opportunity when the university told a LU Democrat Club it could not use LU’s name and money in promoting some of its causes. The Democrat Club and its staff sponsor had refused to cut ties with the National Democratic Party, which supports abortion-on-demand and same-sex marriage.
LU thought the Democrat Club’s allegiance to the Democratic Party was a direct contradiction to core Christian values held dear by the university, which is both pro-life and pro-traditional marriage.
Lynn’s weapon of choice is the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, a federal agency which he often uses to pistol whip those who disagree with his radical, liberal political agenda.
In this case, Lynn’s assertion is that LU, in limiting the use of its name and money, had violated its non-profit standing. His goal is to have LU stripped of its tax exempt status by the federal government.
Personally, I find such assertions and petitions for federal involvement in curbing religious freedoms a disturbing trend as we move closer to a more intrusive and socialized federal government. in fact, AU’s actions are un-American. If a school like Liberty University can be required to endorse and support abortion rights and same-sex marriage, then how can we continue to call America “a free country”?
My father taught millions to stand and fight when they knew in their heart they were doing what was right. I think it’s time for Christian conservatives to stand up against left wing political bullies like Barry Lynn. If we don’t stop him now, your church or your family could be his next political target. I hope you can send a financial gift of $15, $25, $50 or $100 to help us fight for the heart of America.
God Bless You,
Jerry Falwell Jr.
Friend of Liberty
About a month ago we received a letter from Jerry Falwell, Jr., the chancellor at Liberty University, an evangelical Christian university founded in 1971 by the late Dr. Jerry Falwell, Sr. The letter represents, in so many ways, the frustrations I have with LU in particular and the religious right in general. I will write more about that letter next week, but I thought it would be good to lay a foundation for my interest in Liberty.
I enrolled at LU in 1985. Our freshmen class was roughly 2500 strong, the largest freshmen class up to that point. The Moral Majority had become a strong political force in our country and LBC had just earned university status and had become LU. it was an exciting time to be on campus. I enjoyed my time at Liberty, learned much, graduated with a B.S. in 1988 and remained in Lynchburg until January 1989.
I knew when I enrolled that my worldview was different than Dr. Falwell’s. I used to cringe when he would review the university’s statement of faith during chapels and other gatherings. I believed most of it, but he would say …
“We believe in the pre-millennial, pre-tribulational return of Christ.”
One or two sentences is not enough to present my view, but I believe what most Christians believed until the early 1900s – Christ is reigning now over a spiritual kingdom and will return to earth but not to set up a political kingdom here on earth.
“pro Israel”
I have nothing against Israel but I think U.S. foreign policy is flawed because of an improper interpretation of Scripture. Anyone paying attention during the Presidency of George W. Bush should know what I’m talking about. I think every American should care about this but I also think Christians should be saddened by it. There are almost 2 Billion people in the world who will not listen to the message of Christ because America supports Israel no matter what the circumstances.
“pro strong national defense”
I also have nothing against a strong national defense, but including it as part of a university’s statement of faith always bothered me somehow.
I didn’t agree with everything Dr. Falwell stood for but I admired his dedication to his church and Liberty.
I have many fond memories of my college experience – fun times with friends, breaking rules, challenging authority, kidnapping the student body president – many of the same experiences others remember from college days, but there are three events I remember vividly because they helped shape my current worldview. I won’t bother to try and put them in chronological order but all of these can be dated with a bit of research.
I was on campus when a young man from another college contacted Dr. Falwell with a message he believed was from God. That message was to step down as leader of the moral majority and focus on his calling as pastor of a local church. I was impressed by Dr. Falwell’s decision to follow this young man’s advice. In retrospect, after all that I’ve seen over the last twenty years, I can’t help but wonder if there was more to that story than we were told. In any case, Dr. Falwell’s decision to focus on pastoring was the right one no matter how he came to it. This experience taught me that it is easy to be distracted by good things. If I have work to do I should do it without being distracted by other good things I could be doing.
I was running the campus radio station during the overnight shift one night during NCAA conference championship games. We never read news announcements overnight but I left the teletype running to keep tabs on the scores. Sometime that night I peeled the paper off the machine and began scanning for cities I knew were involved in the games. I noticed Charlotte, NC and stopped to read the story. Turns out that Jim Bakker had resigned from his position at his ministry due to some kind of sin and that our own Dr. Falwell was going to take over the ministry. I made the announcement over the air but to this day noone has ever confirmed that they heard that announcement. Our radio station was not very popular back then. The next day, Dr. Falwell confirmed the story in chapel.
I was not a supporter of Bakker’s ministry but I’d been to Heritage USA a couple of times and I knew that some good work was being done despite all the charlatan behavior and swindles going on. In the months that followed I heard many different sides to this story and I learned that things are not always as they seem.
The last experience came as a member of the College Republicans. I’ve been registered as Republican for most of my adult life but I’ve always considered myself more of a libertarian. I joined because, as one might imagine, it was a very popular group on the LU campus. It was exciting to be a member. At the convention it was always interesting to see how one or two very large groups of delegates could sway party decisions. Any party plank that did not have the approval of LU’s delegates was almost certain to fail unless George Mason’s group was in support.
It was during this time that I began to realize how flawed the political process can be. I was not completely naive when I joined but being a part opened my eyes to things that I’d not carefully thought through before. Our chapter, despite my best arguments to do otherwise, wanted to endorse George H. W. Bush as a candidate for President. This bothered me on so many levels that I still can’t shake the frustration.
It bothered me because Bush was in favor of what I considered to be a very totalitarian idea – a national curriculum for all schools in America.
It bothered me because Bush was endorsed mostly as a counter to Jack Kemp, who had been branded a “liberal” in our chapter. Kemp’s work with HUD had earned him this label. It seems that any Republican who supports a social program is immediately branded a liberal. I won’t try to justify the existence of HUD, but couldn’t we use a similar argument to brand Bush a liberal for his “national curriculum” idea? How is that a conservative idea?
It bothered me because Bush was clearly pro-choice and just pandering to the right wing by changing his stance. I’m pro-choice so I have no issue with that but I do have issue with a group that openly cares about one or two core issues and then doesn’t stick to them when political power is at stake. In my mind it was more important to Dr. Falwell to maintain his influence on government than to stand up for the issues he cared about.
Some of this is difficult for me to write because I have a lot of admiration for the good work Dr. Falwell did, but the fact is that I’m not proud of other things. Jim Wallis said it best when speaking to Dr. Falwell on Meet the Press in 2004
Jerry, there are millions and millions of Christians who want the nation to know that you don’t speak for them…
Weekly Link Roundup
- Stanford offers free downloads of its iPhone development class | Software | iPhone Central | Macworld
- A great way to learn iPhone programming
- Recent gopher Bookmarks on Delicious
- Wow, it's been at least ten years since I browsed gopher.
- 8 Year-Old Entrepreneur Makes Plea For Job – Business Opportunities Weblog
- What a cool little kid!
- Tarjeta de dentista :: Cuarto derecha
- Very creative design idea.
- Garlic Shrimp and Scallops Recipe (by Jeremy Zawodny)
- Rachel Sutherland, 2006 The Other Half of Famous Twins | GetBack Retro Images, Video, Games and Trivia
- HugeURL
- Totally useless site but good for quick laugh.
- Talking Points Memo | Frightful Kindle
- I love the Kindle app for iPhone but I like the Kindle better. The "non-backlitness" is a big plus for me. I spend a lot of time in front of a screen so the more I can get away the better. The iPhone app is very cool for "having my books with me" all the time. I carry the Kindle a lot of places but I carry the iPhone everywhere.
- Twitter / mcuban: can't say no one makes mon …
- Haha, good point
- "60 Minutes" freaks out over Conficker. Where's John Hodgman when you need him? | TV Barn
- "Maybe tonight, a lot of 50-plussers will update their security software or lock up that wi-fi they've been sharing with the neighborhood. I suppose that's all for the good. Still, I wonder if anyone bothered to inform Lauren, the 30-trying-to-look-like-22-year-old featured in those Windows ads, that her $700 Windows box could get infected with Conficker — but a Mac, or a PC with non-MS-manufactured Linux as the operating system, can't?"
- BBC NEWS | Magazine | Death and my daughters
- A moving story about dealing with death.
- BBC NEWS | UK | England | North Yorkshire | Missing chef website investigated
- I was in the hospital with third degree burns on 22% of my body when I was a junior in high school. A local convenience store placed a can for donations in the store. I know they collected donations – people told me and it was a high traffic store. I never saw a dime of those donations!
- Perfect Running Pace Revealed | LiveScience
- "Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison now have an explanation for this state of running nirvana, and we can thank our ancestors and some evolutionary biology for it."
Texas Considers Allowing Guns on Campuses – NYTimes.com
The NY Times is reporting that the state legislature in Texas is considering a bill which would allow properly licensed persons to carry concealed weapons on a college campus.
I hate guns myself but I firmly believe our right to carry them helps protect our freedom. I also believe that if more people carried concealed weapons there would be less violence – not more.
On the other hand, I tend to worry about weapons on a college campus. I have a lot of friends of college age and most are very responsible, but we all know that college is a time when students “let loose” a bit (or a lot). Concealed weapons may not be a great idea in this environment.
What do you think?
A New Crop of Scientists Are Using Their Children as Research Subjects – NYTimes.com
Apparently, some scientists use their own children as test subjects in the name of science.
At a birthing class, Dr. Sinha, a neuroscience professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, stunned everyone, including his wife, by saying he was excited about the baby’s birth “because I really want to study him and do experiments with him.” He did, too, strapping a camera on baby Darius’s head, recording what he looked at.
— A New Crop of Scientists Are Using Their Children as Research Subjects – NYTimes.com
I love science as much as anyone, but this is very disturbing to me. Does anyone NOT see an ethical issue here?
World Community Grid
This great site lets you donate your computer’s processing power to be used for good.
When I signed up there were six active projects – five related to health issues directly and one for clean energy. I decided I wanted to participate in all six but you can choose the ones you are interested in on the website.
You begin by signing up for an account on the website and downloading some software. After downloading, you will want to configure it so that it runs when you want and works on tasks related to projects you care about.
The first thing I noticed was that one of the projects was World Community Grid which actually covers all of the project you select on the website. The software also allows you to assign other projects which are not part of World Community Grid but I did not look into any of them.
Then I set the runtime settings so that this program runs as my screen saver. Anytime my Mac goes into screensaver mode, it will request tasks and begin working on them. It’s a nice thing to be able to give in this small way.
You should check it out. If you find other projects online worth checking out, let me know.
Cory Doctorow – Grossly Deceitful?
On Wednesday, Cory Doctorow wrote an excellent piece in response to an Op-Ed piece by Roy Blount Jr. to which I’ve linked before
Today, Peter Glaskowsky at CNET tells us that he has been “sorely tempted” to write a formal response to Doctorow’s essay but he decides instead to dismiss it as “grossly deceitful” and move along to his own opinion on the matter.
I’d like to see Mr. Glaskowsky at least attempt to answer the questions Doctorow and other have rasied.
Two Votes Against Me
This is one of those stories I just can’t believe.
Big guy forces the little guy out of business. Little guy sues. Big guy, forced to pay $50 million, vows to appeal and spends $3 million to help elect a judge. Then he appeals and wins.
I simply can’t believe that anyone thinks this is how things should work – I can’t believe it.
I’m not thinking due process and I’m not thinking 14th Amendment; as a citizen I’m sitting there saying, ‘How in the world? I’ve got two votes against me and we haven’t even started yet,’
Hugh Caperton (the little guy)
Andrew L. Frey, attorney for Don Blankenship (the big guy) posed a few interesting questions but I think they are all easy answers.
Should a judge sit on a case involving a newspaper that endorsed his campaign?
Yes.
Is recusal necessary when one party is an interest group that worked for the judge’s election?
Yes.
If the justice Blankenship worked so hard to oust had been reelected, would he harbor such animus that he should recuse himself from the case?
Probably, yes.
Am I the only one who thinks these are not difficult ethical questions?
YouTube – Coal Action Heats Up Capitol
Young people standing up for our planet on Monday.
NFL Players Player’s Talk About Barack Obama
My posts over the next week will be mostly Super Bowl related and I thought the following video would be an interesting transition from my previous posts.
What do NFL players think about our new president?
Some of them speak out in this video.
WhiteHouse.gov
By now, most people have probably seen the new White House website.
There are promising signs that this will be an administration that cares to communicate with the public in a much more open way. Most third party content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, the unreasonable restrictions in the robots.txt file have been eliminated (I’ve seen others credited with finding this first, but it looks to me like it was reported first here.), and the blog looks good so far.
Some have argued that the site doesn’t go far enough, and I’d agree in principle; but I think it is a great step in the right direction. The responsibility for the welfare of our society falls on each of us. We must have a government that wants to keep the us informed as well as hear and understand our needs and opinions.
Check out the new site.
Roe v. Wade
Two days ago marked the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. I think it’s safe to say that no other Supreme Court ruling has spurred so many into active protest and support. Millions of people call themselves pro-choice and millions call themselves pro-life. Thousands march ever year in Washington in what they call the March for Life and thousands more march and act in support or protest of this ruling.
With the election of our new President, this ruling is again at the forefront of the minds of many. Barack Obama co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act and stated that he would sign it as his first act as President, which has millions of people furious and frustrated. I’ve read summaries of FOCA written by supporters and detractors, but I have not read the bill myself yet. As such, I cannot say that I support it. It seems to raise issues regarding states rights which complicate the matter in my mind. I will have to save that discussion for another day.
But on the matter of a woman’s right to choose, I’ve made up my mind. I can’t pretend that this issue doesn’t leave me conflicted, but I believe in freedom. I think abortion is a terrible thing and I’d like to see fewer abortions this year than there were last, but I have never believed it is an issue for government to decide. Those who march against the right to choose, like to talk about the “slippery slope.” I don’t see any other way to look at anti-abortion laws as dangerously slippery. Reproductive rights should be protected at all costs. Any government big enough to tell you that you cannot have an abortion is big enough to tell you that you must!
I know many would argue that the this right infringes on the rights of the unborn. I understand this argument, but I think this is similar to other judgement calls that need to be made in a free society. Stripping a woman’s right to choose places her freedom in the hands of government as well as others with a stake in the matter – parents, extended family, etc. This must be placed in balance against the rights of the unborn child. This is one of those issues that is a no-win situation. In many cases, a young woman is in grave danger when it becomes public that she is pregnant.
I don’t have the time to spell out all of my thoughts on this controversial and complicated subject. This is a heated debate and I don’t want to inflame the emotions of those with whom I disagree. Along with my thoughts on FOCA, I will have to make time to write at length about this issue, but on this day close to the anniversary of Roe v. Wade I wanted to make two of my opinions clear.
One, I am pro-choice. I strongly support the right of a woman to decide what happens in the matter of her own pregnancy.
Two, I am pro-life. I strongly believe that abortion is always a bad decision. I would argue that even in the case of rape, incest, and the life of the mother – abortion is not a good solution. It is a terrible thing.
So, how do I reconcile these disparate views? I remind myself that this discussion takes place on two levels – personal and societal. On a personal level, I believe abortion is wrong. I don’t want to see any woman have an abortion. I’d like to say that I have enough respect for others to allow them to make this choice without judgement from me, but on the issue I strongly disagree. On a societal level, the issue is different. It is not whether abortion is a bad thing, it is whether any society has the right to force a life-changing choice on an individual.
Obama’s First 100 Days
Since FDR, it is common for Americans to judge a president’s effectiveness based on his productivity over the first one-hundred days of his presidency. It’s interesting to note that the “100 days” of FDR were actually not the first one-hundred days of his presidency but the first one-hundred day session of Congress. Congress was convened on March 9, 1933 – five days after the inauguration, and they adjourned on June 16, 1933 – 100 days later. This period of time was the most productive in American legislative history.
I think most Americans understand that it is unfair to judge a President based on what he can accomplish in less than 7% of his term – and at the beginning of it – yet we all still seem fascinated by this arbitrary measure of productivity. There are websites where one can see the progress other presidents made and others that will track President Obama’s progress (here and here) and still others with lots of advice for our new President.
Businessweek has advice on how to be productive in the first one-hundred days and the Washington Post warns that Obama should not make the same mistakes Clinton made.
As official Washington turns its attention from the transition to Obama’s plans for the first 100 days, Clinton’s difficult experience in his own first 100 days can again serve as a cautionary tale for Obama.
Clinton sought to move on a number of major policy fronts — an economic stimulus package, an overhaul of the health care system led by Hillary Clinton — that were eventually abandoned, and was buffeted by unforeseen controversies (gays in the military/”don’t ask, don’t tell”) and unpredictable events (the Branch Davidian stand-off in Waco, Texas).
“I think there was a great deal of exuberance by the president in terms of what he’d be able to accomplish immediately, and, no, he couldn’t match it all,” said Democratic pollster Peter Hart of Bill Clinton in the spring of 1993.
Obama’s First 100
So, what should Barack Obama do in his first one-hundred days?
Scientific American says
Energy security is the greatest challenge and the greatest opportunity of our time. But lack of action has put the U.S. at risk. America needs a bold plan that ignites our collective imagination, sparks innovation, and creates economic and national security. The starting point? A call to action from our new president in the first 100 days of his administration.
Obama’s First 100 Days
and it is clear that many others care about peace and the environment.
I think most people believe that the biggest challenge we face at this point is the economy. Commenters on the WP piece seem to agree that the economy is most pressing (followed by Isreal, and energy). Gerald F. Seib, Executive Washington Editor at the Wall Street Journal says that the top five items on the to-do list are economy, economy, economy, economy, and economy. This guy says the top issue is the economy (followed by Guantanamo, the Middle East, energy, and healthcare) and one of his commenters points out the following:
Barring any event of the magnitude of 9/11 or something approaching it, the bread and butter issue of American politics is, as it’s always been, the price of bread and butter.
link
and others agree
Though presidential historians say it’s an arbitrary Рand in some ways unfair Рmeasurement, they say Obama’s early actions will set the tone for his administration and establish his priorities and leadership style.
“It’s an unreasonable expectation that we put on all our presidents, just because it worked that way in 1933 for FDR. They shouldn’t be held to that” said Stephen Hess, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who worked for several presidents.
Obama’s advisers and outside observers say it is clear that fixing the economy and creating jobs will dominate his agenda in the early days, just as it did Roosevelt’s.
Shades of FDR
Alan Murray, Deputy Managing Editor at the Wall Street Journal, says that even though President Obama faces “a significant number of foreign policy problems” (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Middle East) of which any one could hijack the President’s agenda, the economy is the biggest issue “bar none” and that the stimulus plan he pushes through Congress will “probably be the defining product of his presidency.” In a video preview of the next one-hundred days, he says that Obama will be considered successful if he can recover the economy and tackle just one more of the important issues on his agenda. Another commentator in the same video reminds us, though, that every day spent on the “short term agenda” is a day not spent on healthcare, climate change, or taxes.
President Obama’s campaign website has a list of issues that also puts the economy at the top, though the list is actually in alphabetical order.
The President himself had this to say:
“The first hundred days is going to be important, but it‚Äôs probably going to be more like the first thousand days that makes a difference” he told a Colorado radio station in an interview shortly before Election Day. “Most of the big challenges that we face, whether it’s making college more affordable, or fixing our health care system so it works for everybody, or making sure that we’ve got a serious energy strategy, or winding down the war in Iraq, all those things are probably going to take longer than three months to complete.”
Shades of FDR
Actually, I am not sure I’d agree that the economy should be the point of focus over the next one-hundred days. I must admit that I feel a certain sense of unease at the present state of our economy but I am in a different position than most – I have very little debt and 80% of my income comes from recession resistant sources. I’d like to think that my opinion would be the same even if that were not the case. Our economy has thrived for years on over-consumption and that has led us to this point. In order to solve our environmental problems and improve our stature in the world, we need to cut back on our consumption. I think a sluggish economy is a necessary evil and I am not sure we need to jump in and save it.
That being said, I believe that something must be done to help those who desperately need to survive during these hard economic times. My biggest concern, and the number one reason I voted for President Obama, is social injustice in the world. There are many in our own country who cannot afford to put food on the table and that ought not to be so in a place like this.
So, I guess in a sense it all comes back to economic concerns again.
What do you think?
-
Subscribe
-
What I'm Reading
-
What I'm Watching
-
About This Site
This website is simply a place for me to express my opinions. I post my thoughts on faith, family, freedom, and fun. -
About Me
Subscribe via RSS