« June 2006 | Main | August 2006 »

July 31, 2006

Keep politicians out of the pulpit

It is a staple of election campaigns today--particularly closely-fought contests. The candidates go to church. And not just for a Clinton-esque Bible-in-hand photo-op, but they actually take to the pulpit and make speeches.

And so it is hardly unexpected that now that Ned Lamont has taken a 51-47 lead over Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary and picked up the endorsement of the New York Times (less an endorsement of Lamont than a repudiation of Lieberman, which is typical of the way this primary battle has gone), both candidates made appearances in Connecticut churches yesterday to kick off their last full week of campaigning.

I always find this strongly distasteful. While it is the right--even the duty--of a pastor or priest to speak out on moral issues at the center of political battles--abortion, civil rights, gay marriage (pro or con)--to cede the pulpit to a candidate making a campaign speech (and to welcome the news media into the church for the event) is to abandon the purpose of the church. Furthermore, I question whether such appearances are actually helpful for the candidates, or if the majority of swing voters interpret the church visits as shameless attention-grabbing.

Speaking of the Connecticut primary, I wonder whether the Lieberman camp ever considered trying to get Republicans to switch their registration to Democrat to vote for Lieberman--as Ed Rendell did in the 2002 Pennsylvania Democratic gubernatorial primary?

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:57 PM | Comments (2)

Redux: Europe Without God?

George Weigel's latest book, The Cube and the Cathedral, sparked considerable controversy when published last year. But then again, what orthodox Catholic who happens to actually write well and is taken seriously by large segments of society is not controversial?

Weigel makes the case that Europe's death is, more or less, connected to its abandonment of Christianity. And this abandonment is most evident in the EU Constitution (which was ultimately rejected), where in 70,000 words no mention of Europe's religious foundation is even hinted at. Our modern souls wince at the assertion, but without the cloister and the attendant university of the Middle Ages, ours would be a very different (read: less intellectually-engaging) world. But enough of patting the Church's back. I believe Weigel is correct in his assertion that Christianity gives Europe two things the dying continent is missing: The truest foundation for democracy and something about which to get excited, a reason to live and procreate.

Weigel also notes that the EU's politics are the politics of a people who have no interest in actively engaging others - not to mention others who might disagree. There just seems to be something "missing" from the whole EU endeavor. And then one comes across Chesterton's wonderful Orthodoxy:

Consider the curious fact that, under Christianity, Europe (while remaining a unity) has broken up into individual nations. Patriotism is a perfect example of this deliberate balancing of one emphasis against another emphasis. The instinct of the Pagan empire would have said, "You shall all be Roman citizens, and grow alike; let the German grow less slow and reverent; the Frenchman less experimental and swift." But the instinct of Christian Europe says, "Let the German remain slow and reverent, that the Frenchman may the more safely be swift and experimental. We will make an equipoise out of these excesses. The absurdity called Germany shall correct the insanity called France" (106).

Posted by Seth Zirkle at 11:24 AM | Comments (32)

July 29, 2006

Witnessing via Knickknack

Touchstone Magazine's great blog, Mere Comments, has a good post today about the stuff that gets sold to Christians as witnessing materials. Russell D. Moore writes about his interview with scholar Alan Wolfe and his impressions of the wares being peddled at the International Christian Retail Show. T-shirts, breathmints, boy bands, perfume, golf balls, and much more are emblazed with Christian symbols and messages and being marketed to Christians as evangelism aids. Wolfe argues, however, that these things are evidence Christians in fact don't want to witness to him. He can't imagine an unbeliever coming to faith through any of these things. "Buying the stuff," says Moore, "gives Christians an easy conscience that they are carrying the Great Commission without ever having to verbally and relationally engage their unbelieving neighbors."

I believe Moore is quite right, only I would qualify his statement and say that "relationally" engaging one's neighbors is far more important than even verbally engaging them. The older I get, the less I am impressed with the practice of apologetics and arguing someone into Christianity. While I'm not advocating being negligent in apologetics, it seems to me that the old, dusty virtue of hospitality amid this isolated and lonely world is a far better witnessing technique than verbal wizardry or having a cute bumpersticker.

In other words, it's a better witness to invite your neighbors to dinner and ask them about their kids than it is to honk and wave to them from your fish-emblemed family truckster.

Posted by David Darlington at 05:43 PM | Comments (7)

There is Nothing New Under the Sun

Case in point. Just seeing this makes me feel 13 again.

I wonder if Corey Feldman is still available to do one of the voices.

Posted by David Darlington at 05:02 PM | Comments (3)

July 28, 2006

"Good Eats" hits road, stops in Evansville

What do ITA's Josh Claybourn and Food Network TV host Alton Brown have in common? They have both eaten brain sandwiches in Evansville, IN.

Brown recently recently completed a cross-country tour in search of authentic "road food"--the antithesis of today's homogenous nationwide fast food chains. His experiences are being presented in a four-episode series on the Food Network called "Feasting on Asphalt," which premieres tomorrow night at 9 PM.

It is in the second episode that Alton Brown and his crew sample pork brain sandwiches in Evansville--home town of Josh and ITA co-founder Paul Musgrave. Set your Tivo's now, this is going to be a must-see!

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:41 PM | Comments (5)

July 26, 2006

Collective Ignorance

How odd:

Half of Americans now say Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the United States invaded the country in 2003 -- up from 36 percent last year, a Harris poll finds. Pollsters deemed the increase both "substantial" and "surprising" in light of persistent press reports to the contrary in recent years.

And a confluence of opinion?

• Instapundit, "Apparently, trust in 'persistent press reports' isn't what it used to be."
• Kevin Drum, "Even if complaints from us shrill liberal bloggers are dismissed, surely poll results like this should get the media pondering the question of whether they're doing a very good job of reporting what's really going on."

Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:27 PM | Comments (10)

"One century past, a people's hope fulfilled"

One of the hallmarks of a bad government is that it will expand quite beyond the expected ills of ruining prosperity and liberty: it will also begin to infect culture. A sure sign of a sick society is songs that take quite too much of an interest in the machinery of the state. Take, for instance, North Korea's lovely, "The Joy of Bumper Harvest Overflows Amidst the Song of Mechanisation." The Maoists are a bit more blunt, churning out songs like, "Socialism is Good." There are probably hundreds more of these propaganda paeans to government, and since they are usually found in distant lands, let us hope they are mostly untranslatable.

Distance and security allow us to view such artifacts of totalitarianism with amusement. American popular music should be assurance enough that our culture can produce music that is virtually content-free. (One can even become a "musician" without playing an instrument or singing a note.) Some might say our culture suffers from other maladies, but we are free from the cancer of totalitarianism.

But what is this? A polyp in the colon of the federal leviathan! My fellow Americans, our dear leaders have approved for our education the "Food and Drug Administration Centennial Anthem," which, no joke, was recently performed at the FDA's 100th birthday party by the "FDA Chorus and U.S. Public Health Service Wind Ensemble." Seriously. There's even video, in all its cacophonous horror.

The story is even more pathetic when we consider the Outer Party member who got an extra ration of chocolate for his labours:

"I just got to thinking about trying to express my feelings about my job with some words and music," says Harris, who has worked at the FDA for 35 years . . .

For weeks, Harris sat in the corner of his basement, sometimes staying up until midnight after a full day of work. He used an electric keyboard hooked up to his computer to compose the anthem . . .

"It was fantastic!" the bespectacled Harris said after the singing ended. "I was really pretty filled with emotion that this was all happening."

Others were also filled with emotion, though this roundup of reviews suggests they weren't all elated (Acting Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach neatly dances around the implicit question of whether he enjoyed the anthem). (via Kerry Howley)

Hopefully, this is an isolated outbreak; I can't imagine too many more bureaucratic dupes will be motivated to compose starry-eyed odes to their agencies, especially not ones with such a checkered past as the FDA: Todd Seavey gives sober consideration to the Libertarian bromide that the FDA has killed more people than it's saved in this article. And thankfully, a score of government employees mumbling through wretched lyrics is still a long way from a thousand children clad in shiny pyjamas dancing and shouting hymns to the state.

As a sop to our progressive readers, I'll note that propaganda songs have a private sector counterpart: the corporate anthem. But that, of course, is just another form of collectivism.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 07:42 AM | Comments (9)

July 25, 2006

Life, Love, Privacy, and God

Today marks the 38th anniversary of Humanae Vitae, Paul VI's perhaps most famous (or infamous) encyclical. It came to the faithful after one the lengthiest preparations for an encyclical in memory, some four years. It was the first time, since Pius XI's Casti Connubii (Dec. 1932), that the Magisterium addressed artificial birth control and abortion. John XXIII had established a small committee to plan the Holy See's submissions concerning overpopulation and natality to international bodies, such as the U.N. In June of '64, Paul VI greatly enlarged the body, in no small part to address artificial contraception. Although the Church had always prohibited the use of artificial contraception, there was serious question whether the recently-introduced oral contraception, the pill, was morally different. In June of '66 the commission delivered its report, with nine of the 16 cardinals and a majority of the periti arguing that contraception was morally acceptable in the bonds of marriage. Paul's mind, like Benedict's, worked like a scholar's, and he approached the issue accordingly. While Paul did agree with the finding that oral contraception is morally indistinguishable from older forms of artificial contraception, he announced, after four months of inquiry, that he could not agree with the possibility that contraception is morally acceptable in the conjugal bedroom.

It is no secret that the issue of contraception is the sauciest flashpoint in Catholicism today. I would place it before female ordination, homosexual practice, and priestly celibacy. Before, as opposed to equal to these issues, for the conjugal union is, well, the conjugal union, affecting the faithful in a way that a married Fr. Smith never will. Some argue that the issue was infallibly addressed by the ordinary Magisterium without a solemn definition (universal agreement of bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome), as articulated in Lumen Gentium (25), long before Paul's hallmark. Others have disagreed with this view, and may be correct, especially considering the nine cardinals that believed artificial contraception was morally permissible in marriage. Now, 38 years later it matters little; Roma locuta est, causa finita est. Through the promulgation of Humane Vitae the Church has spoken through Her extraordinary Magisterium and the encyclical's message is conscious-binding on the faithful: Except in cases where it is a medical necessity that a couple utilize artificial contraception (such as the case where a woman with endometriosis takes the pill), the married couple are to engage one another conjugically in an act that reflects the fullness of God's love and created intent, namely, in an act that preserves its unitive and procreative aspects. The medically-necessitated use undoubtedly affects many married persons, but the recreational use does on an even greater scale, the stuff of theological malady.

Like that of Cinderella, the story of how Catholics in America readily utilize artificial contraception is well known. Unfortunately, unlike the former, that of pro-prophylactic papists is a true. I would suggest that the veracity of this story may be reasonably attributed to two realities: (1) Because of the encyclical's long preparation time, dissenters accumulated a substantial base in the Church, to such a degree that bishops in the U.S. were unwilling to lead their flock (Jer 31) and the "truce of 1968," as Richard John Neuhaus has called it, was signed; and (2) because of the nature of the conjugal act and contemporary America's obsession with Griswold's right to privacy, erstwhile Catholics seriously believe that the act is somehow off limits to any outside Force, whether it be God or His Church.

In confronting these realities, it must be realized that the dissenters experienced such a success that the majority of practicing Catholics are unwilling to even approach the encyclical on an intellectually-engaging plane; it must be remembered that it has been a very long time since the typical homily consistently expounded Truth from a catechetical vantage point. Further, America's hyperpreocupation with compartmentalization, the right to privacy, and the conjugal act itself (with all its attendants), makes the idea of submitting one's "privies to the pope" a very unpopular idea. But none of this would have to be considered if the faithful approached Humane Vitae as the Church tenders it.

As John Paul the Great said, "The Church proposes; she imposes nothing." Redemptoris Missio, 64. In Humane Vitae the Church does not come to the faithful and state that the Church stands against contraception, but rather that, "This kind of question [on artificial contraception] requires from the teaching authority of the Church a new and deeper reflection on the principles of the moral teaching on marriage - a teaching which is based on the natural law as illuminated and enriched by divine Revelation" (4). And slightly further, that "Jesus Christ communicated...His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments...[and] constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation" (Mt 7:10; Ibid.). Thus, in Her capacity to lead the faithful, the Church must appeal to that law which She has been given and from which She cannot deviate.

In responding to this Commission, Humanae Vitae expounds the lordship of God over all creation, even within the conjugal bedroom. We must, at all times and all places, affirm that "the question of human procreation, like every other question which touches human life, involves more than the limited aspects specific to such disciplines as biology, psychology, demography, or sociology" (7). Indeed, "it is in reality the wise and provident institution of God...[that] husband and wife, though that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives" (8). It is this in this "cooperating with God," however, that man finds a problem, for it "follows that they [the married couple] are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow" (10). In the conjugal act, husband and wife are a part of God's design of nature, and are called to reflect the fullness of God's design.

We often forget the gravitas of Christ's response to the disciples in John 12:26. In Bethany shortly before Lazarus was raised, Christ reminded the disciples that all are called to follow Him and be His servant. And this call to be perfect like Christ includes a universal call to holiness for all the faithful, in everything they do, as Lumen Gentium (5) so beautifully elucidates. In responding to this call, the faithful must order their bodies, created in the image of God (Gen 1:27), to reflect God's created intent. "To experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator" (13). Responding to Christ's call to holiness - being a minister of God's design to the world - the married couple express their love for one another as a reflection of God's love for humanity (cf. Deus Caritas Est, 1-5). In this reflection, the married couple must express the conjugal act complete, as God's love is complete, with both the unitive and procreative elements present.

Abstaining from conjugal relations except during those infertile times operates within this perfected love of the Father. It takes that which God has given within His creation and utilizes it towards its created intent. And this is not inconsistent with a prohibition on artificial contraception. "In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the latter they obstruct the natural development of the generative process" (16).

In the end, the dissidents' trope is correct: God is love (1 Jn 4:16). But this love is not what we would have it be, but rather that which God has revealed in His creation, through divine revelation. In the universal call to holiness, the faithful are called to be perfect, like Christ. In this continual act of sanctification every part of one's life must be ordered to reflect God's perfection - to the best of his or her ability in contrite humility and piety. That act which brings husband and wife together, physically and passionately as one in the image of God, cannot be an exception.

Posted by Seth Zirkle at 12:53 PM | Comments (42)

July 24, 2006

I bid you adieu . . . for now

Tomorrow is day one of the Indiana bar exam, and shortly after taking it I'll be heading overseas for 24 days. Since I'll likely be away from email and an internet connection during that time, this is my last post for about a month.

In the meantime, you can check out my itinerary in Africa here.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 07:43 AM | Comments (9)

July 23, 2006

'Not a true conservative'

There are few people who have contributed more to the rise of modern American conservatism than William F. Buckley. The man started National Review, built it and its ideology into a pillar of mainstream political thought, and once held the ear of President Reagan. It was once said that Reagan would pout and become depressed if National Review disparaged one of his policies. Buckley first burst onto the scene at the tender age of 28, and even in his old age he seemed to embody everything that young energetic conservatives stood for - a principled and intellectual adherence to limited, responsible government.

So it should give us cause to stop and consider his recent interview with CBS in which he says President Bush is no "true conservative," in particular for his interventionist foreign policy. CBS labels this an "exclusive," but Buckley has been voicing this charge for quite some time. Either way, Buckley's concerns are worth noting.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:19 PM | Comments (9)

Sunday fun

Since ITA has been around for nearly two years, we've had enough posts that search engines send people here for all sorts of random queries. But one from today through AltaVista (people actually use that?) for "greeting cards 'knocked up'" has to be one of the more interesting ones I've seen in a while.

I imagine they were disappointed to come across this post from our celebration last year of Bastille Day. But thankfully the search reminded me that we didn't celebrate it on July 14 with much fanfare. So in the spirit of "better late than never," here's a post with nine really good pieces explaining that, "Sixty Million Frenchmen Must Be Wrong."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:14 PM | Comments (0)

Russians Attack ITA

It appears as though the ITA Forum has been "HACKED-BY--ZULUM", a shady character of Russian origins. (Warning: by clicking on the forum link you're offered to download a file; don't download it). If anyone with forum know-how would like to lend a hand in removing the hack while saving the forum, please feel free to drop us a line.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:49 AM | Comments (6)

Consumer Tips Website

An ITA friend and former contributor ventured into the online advertisement business recently and I wanted to plug the new site - How to be Websmart. A few articles up already include "How to Get Free 411 Information," How to Discover New Music, How to Buy and Save on iTunes, and How to Read the News Better.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:28 AM | Comments (1)

July 22, 2006

Patriotism, With

One of the joys of growing up in my ancestral homeland of New Jersey is that you get to experience the native regional delicacies of two great American cities, New York and Philadelphia. Philly's contribution to the nation's buffet is of course the cheesesteak, and, as any local can tell you, there are really only two places to go to get a real Philly cheesesteak: Pat's King of Steaks or Geno's.

These two bitter rivals, located across the street from each other at the intersection of 9th Street and Passyunk Ave. in South Philadelphia, define the Philly cheesesteak. Pat's, founded in 1930, claims it invented cheesesteaks, while Geno's, founded in 1966, claims it makes a better version. Both institutions take their cheesesteaks very seriously. There's even an established protocol for ordering your cheesesteak, which, if you violate, marks you as a newbie, tourist, or perhaps a hick from Harrisburg or some other one-horse central PA town (similar to Seinfeld's "Soup Nazi"). As Pat tells us, a proper order sounds something like "American, with" or "whiz, without," indicating both the type of cheese, and whether or not you want fried onions on your hoagie roll (under no circumstances should you order swiss, like our friend John F. Kerry to the left here -- the traditional options are "whiz," provolone, or American).

Not to be outdone, Pat's rival Geno's has raised the ordering stakes. Owner Joey Vento recently mandated that all cheesesteak orders must be done in English, much to the dismay of some snooty BBC journalists. A sign reading "this is America, please order in English" now graces the Geno's cheesesteak stand. The South Philadelphia neighborhood that hosts the two cheesesteak giants, which was Italian-American for a long time until Mexican and Korean immigrants started moving in, seems to have embraced Vento and his message. The city's Commission on Human Relations, however, is not amused, and legal action is pending against Vento for bias (details here). Vento has done some conservative things in the past -- when I was there in summer of 2005 he had renamed his French fries "Freedom Fries" -- but this has got him a bit more attention. However, Vento is taking it in stride and doesn't seems to be making a big deal out of it. "The only thing the customer has to tell us is what kind of cheese he wants - Cheese Whiz, American or Provolone. It's as simple as that," he said.

Maybe Eric Seymour can do some on-site reporting for us? :)

(via The Weekly Standard)

Posted by David Darlington at 11:56 AM | Comments (17)

Netrooting

Despite the fact that I'm a blogger myself, I tend to be dismissive of the more grandiose claims of the blogosphere. Perhaps the most aggressive claim is that the internet-fueled grassroots, the so-called "netroots," can win elections. I think I would ignore this braggadocio had I not attended a bloggers' lunch with Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) a couple of months ago. But having paid attention to the hype, I still have to say I'm still not very impressed.

As far as I can discern, the lunch I attended was, to some extent, an attempt to build some credibility, or at least familiarity, with the home-state crowd before meeting the more influential bloggers. If bloggers will have a lot of clout in upcoming elections, then this was a wise move. But that's a pretty big If. So far, bloggers have little to show for their efforts election-wise.

Will that change this year? Last month, National Journal asked political insiders for their collective wisdom on the question, "On balance, what impact will 'netroots' (Internet political activists) have on the midterm elections?" Here are the results:

Insiders:	Republicans (71 votes)	Democrats (65 votes)
Help Democrats	14%	69%
Help Republicans	15%	0%
No Impact	70%	31%

The comments from the insiders are also insightful, if somewhat contradictory: netroots are amazing fundraisers, fundraising is relatively unimportant; netroots rally the base, netroots pull the party fatally to the left; netroots are effective propagandists, netroots fracture the media message; netroots evangelize the independents, netroots are talking to themselves.

Nevertheless, the promises of netroot support are too great to ignore. As Ana Marie Cox reported from YearlyKos, "fear of missing the boat outweighs doubt about its final destination." The largess of Democrats in Las Vegas prompted one blogger to write the ridiculous statement, "Apparently, the blogosphere is the new Iowa." (Given that the Iowa caucuses are unrepresentative indicators of the nation's political inclinations to which we pay too much attention, that may be true after all.)

Before we get to the Presidential race, we'll have to suffer through the mid-terms, where it looks as if the definitive test of the netroots power will be in Connecticut, where the Kossacks are rallying around Ned Lamont, an anti-war lefty who is challenging the moderate Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary. Bully for the blogosphere, the polls say that the race is going to be a close one. But Lieberman still enjoys the support of much of the Democratic establishment and a majority of his State's voters; if he loses the primary, he has pledged to run as an independent, and he'd likely win. This is a make-or-break race for the netroots: anything less than a Senator Lamont will illustrate that online activists are either irrelevant or spoilers.

I suppose the issue will be decided in a few months, if not sooner after the Aug. 8 primaries. For now, I remain skeptical.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 10:24 AM | Comments (3)

3-2-1 Contact!

Check out these awesome Liquid Sculptures from Martin Waugh.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 10:19 AM | Comments (1)

July 21, 2006

Hail to the Chief, Dixie Style

Last month the Southern Baptist Convention elected a new president, Frank Page. Page's election comes just moments after the SBC promulgated its new position on alcohol, namely that he who toucheth the chalice drinks to his death. Page, in addressing the alcohol question, appeals to an "overall" witness of Scripture that gives a negative appraisal of strong drink. Overall, since there is no single passage in Scripture that explicitly condemns the consumption of alcohol, just drunkenness (1 Cor 6:10). But Page's full agreement with the SBC's Resolution on alcohol is not the sauciest of Southern-Baptist gossip.

Page, pastor of First Baptist Church in Taylors, SC, represents a new direction for the Convention. At least this is what Timothy George, Dean of Beeson Divinity School (Samford Univ.), thinks. George is a champ when it comes to SBC polity, and he believes that Page brings more than a new face to SBC's presidency. In the latest issue of First Things, George posits that Page represents a via media of sorts for the Convention, in that he appeals to both the younger Baptists (whom George calls "Baptist Bloggers") who are very interested in a deeper (dare we say sacramental?) understanding of the Lord's Supper and Baptism, and the older generation of Baptists who have little issue with the SBC founding their own colony in Macon County Georgia. The former is very willing to engage in dialogue with other Baptist bodies for purposes of mission work; for the latter it depends on whether the fellowship hall coffee was decent after the 10:30 service.

Page also brings some closure between the charismatic and neo-Calvinist camps in the Convention. Page has stated that he is a Calvinist, but waffles on Total Depravity. As he and other Baptists have suggested time and time again, it is hard to "make a decision for Christ" when the human will is completely enslaved to sin. But we all know that five-point Calvinism is really just Armenianism in drag. While Page's church does not practice glossilalia, a small number of churches in the Convention do, and in the past their presence has stood out like someone praying in a foreign tongue. Yet Page's church is every bit evangelical, with "video features" and a "praise band." So Page is just as comfortable in Geneva as in South Carolina, and this is a good thing.

I would agree with George on all of these points, and I would add one more: With Page's willingness to work with other mission groups in the orthodox Protestant camp, I wonder if we will see increased dialogue with Catholicism. We all remember the SBC's reaction to Roe, the case that stopped caesaropapism dead in it tracks. We also remember who founded the SBC in 1854. Yet SBC has publicly confessed its sin of supporting abortion, and hosted Sec. Rice (whose grandparents were born slaves) to give the opening address. Perhaps with increased dialogue between the SBC and Catholicism greater progess will ensue. And not necessarily theological. No, the progress of affirming the dignity of every unborn child at all times and all places; the progress of spreading the Gospel of Christ to even more; the progress of affirming the (sacramental) marriage of one man to one woman, for life.

If only other church bodies would wake up to the sweet aroma of the SBC tomorrow morning. Maybe then the UCC's 50% decline would take a turn for the better and catch up with the SBC's two-fold growth.

Posted by Seth Zirkle at 03:32 PM | Comments (1)

Dealing with Hezbollah

Charles Krauthammer has an intriguing op-ed this week in which he argues that nearly everyone wants Hezbollah's occupation of southern Lebanon to end, but only Israel is in a position to make that happen. Krauthammer describes the strategy:

It starts by preparing the ground with air power, just as the Gulf War began with a 40-day air campaign. But if all that happens is the air campaign, the result will be failure...

Just as in Kuwait 1991, what must follow the air campaign is a land invasion to clear the ground and expel the occupier. Israel must retake south Lebanon and expel Hezbollah. It would then declare the obvious: that it has no claim to Lebanese territory and is prepared to withdraw and hand south Lebanon over to the Lebanese army (augmented perhaps by an international force), thus finally bringing about what the world has demanded -- implementation of Resolution 1559 and restoration of south Lebanon to Lebanese sovereignty.

This strategy would be much more difficult to achieve, however, if the Lebanese army joins with Hezbollah in resisting a ground invastion.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 08:46 AM | Comments (22)

July 20, 2006

The NYT, part II

If the actions below aren't enough evidence for you, Stephen Colbert explains why "The NY Times want you and your family dead."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:19 PM | Comments (3)

The Journalist's Neutrality

On Tuesday Zach noted that enrollment in journalism schools is booming. One offshoot of J-schools I find intriguing is the indoctrination of students with the idea that journalists are higher beings not subject to normal ethical considerations while covering conflict. I recall one student at Indiana University's highly ranked School of Journalism genuinely pondering what his responsibility would be like if he was covering D-Day and knew of the coming battle. Should he report it to the world, or was he duty-bound to keep it under wraps to ensure the Allies had the benefit of secrecy?

The answer may seem obvious to some folks, but not at all to journalists. The New York University and Columbia University, among other schools, often host symposiums to discuss this very issue. Here's one article explaining a 1999 symposium, not surprisingly endorsed by the United Nations.

But if the New York Times is to be our guide, a journalist's duty of neutrality takes it to some shocking extremes. NYT photographer Joao Silva was in the room as a member of Muqtada al-Sadr's "Mahdi Army" tried to kill American troops.

Assistant Managing Editor for Photography Michele McNally comments with this show of support:

A sniper loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr fires towards U.S. positions in the cemetery in Najaf, Iraq.

Michele McNally: "Right there with the Mahdi army. Incredible courage."

"Incredible courage"? Those aren't the first words that comes to mind. Jeff Goldstein offers the better response:

Incredible courage? Well, far be it for me to question such self-congratulatory enthusiasm, but it seems to me that actual "incredible courage" would have entailed, say, Joao Silva getting word to US troops, or his bumrushing the sniper and beating him unconscious with a heavy telephoto lens.

Whereas what we've witnessed here is the product of dangerous opportunism in the service of plaudits and cocktail party invites.

Update: An "anonymous" commenter, who's a law student in Indianapolis, corrects a mistaken assumption on my part that the photographer is American. Joao Silva is actually South African. But he was on assignment from the NYT, and a deeper issue is the Times' endorsement of his "incredible courage." Besides, these sort of photographs are becoming relatively common from American journalists as well and it's a topic still worthy of discussion.

Update 2: Indiana native Ernie Pyle has long been the standard bearer for journalists covering military conflicts, but his objectivity was far different from modern practices (See, for instance, "Brave Men, Brave Men!").

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:47 AM | Comments (51)

July 19, 2006

Going or Coming?

On a recent post, Eric Rasmusen queried why Evangelicals and Roman Catholics are meeting each other at the door: The Evangelicals are coming in, and the Catholics are going out. His observation that prominent Protestant minds are coming over the pond to Rome is cogent; in the past 30 years we have Avery Dulles, Richard Neuhaus, R.R. Reno, Steve Webb, J. Budziszewski, Reinhard Huetter, Mortimer Adler, Paul Griffiths, and Robert Bork, just to name a few. And of course, who can forget Newman and Waugh from a few years back.

Rasmusen wonders if this is due to the classic "evangelical despair" at theology. Mark Noll of Wheaton suggested as much in his classic Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (1996) with his opening line, "The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind." For the layman, who has no interest in theological training, this might be true. But for a minds like Heutter, Adler, Griffiths, and Neuhaus, evangelical despair simply doesn't cut it. One remembers Newman's line that conversion stories are not conversation pieces between courses at dinner, but I'm certain that all of these men knew and continue to know Protestant theology - there was little chance that, mirabile dictu, evangelical theology suddenly went limp.

But I seriously doubt that anyone in the list above came to Rome becuase "the idea that if a doctrine is old, it's got to be right, and that papal infallibility, unlike inerrancy, can quiet one's uneasy doubts by giving a right answer to everything." That the pope has spoken infallibily twice in history makes me wonder if "everything" for Rasmusen relates to Marian dogma. Rasmusen qualifies his evangelical with "intelligent," so I take him at his word and believe that such a man would engage in serious theological inquiry - and, in so doing, would see that such stale Protestant estimations of why one converts are the stuff of the Brothers Grimm. But I cannot help but think that he speaks in jest, so criticism should be taken with a grain of salt.

His post is short, so one is also hesitant to admonish Rasmusen for short-shrifting evangelical theology with despair. Unless, of course, he has in mind those parts of the evangelical community who narrowly apply sola scriptura to the exclusion of any extra-biblical theological discourse. Under such an estimation of Christianity, despair seems about right when faced with 2,000 years of theological inquiry. One simply cannot get the homousion of the Son out of John 1 without some inquiry into other elements of God's creation, through the guidance of the Spirit. You need Nicea's help to get an orthodox Trinity.

Hesitancy waivers, however, at Rasmusen's claim that Rome can't keep "seriously-minded people." In all honesty I'm not sure what people Rasmusen is thinking of, but I cannot call to mind one well-regarded theologian who has left recently. There have been a small number of theologians who have been officially censured by the Vatican, but this was due to heresy being presented to the faithful by such theologians as orthodoxy.

While Rasmusen get the impetus for conversion wrong, one wonders if he was completely serious, and, notwithstanding sincerity, his question is a good one.

Posted by Seth Zirkle at 01:00 PM | Comments (2)

July 18, 2006

Getting Back to It

Thanks to Seth for his comments on isolation, place, and eccelsia (welcome aboard too!). I planned my own thoughts on community, isolation, and the church, and how evangelical churches (especially the "postmodern" ones) are always advertising themselves as "authentic communities," which I will get to shortly. While digesting these issues, however, I came across this article on "Practicing the Discipline of Place" from the online journal The New Pantagruel. The author, Caleb Stegall, was, if you'll recall, one of the participants of NRO's Crunchy Con blog from earlier this year. He was one of the crunchy con "true believers" that often spoke up in Rod's defense.

Stegall spends a lot of time ragging on mobility, which is something Josh and I noticed as well in our first comments on the subject. Is the unavoidable physical component of relationships tied to "place" that factor which makes them seem more concrete?

Posted by David Darlington at 11:12 PM | Comments (8)

Who Would Jesus Hire?

Mary Ann Glendon, the Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, has been a friend to all things bright and beautiful for some time. She is a regular contributor to First Things, and sits on the boards of both the Institute on Religion and Democracy and Neuhaus' Institute on Religion and Public Life. Her latest article in First Things, "Principled Immigration," is a nice sampling of her irenic style entrenced by a perspicacious mind.

Glendon suggests that the principles set forth in the 2003 Joint Pastoral Letter issued by the US and Mexican bishops are on the mark. After all, it would be difficult to disagree with what was promulgated: (1) persons have the right to find employment opportunities in their homeland; (2) when opportunities are not abailable at home, persons have the right to migrate to find work to support themselves and their families; (3) sovereign nations have the rith to control their boundaries, but economically stronger nations have a stronger obligation to accommodate migration flows; (4) refugees and asylum seekers fleeing wars and persecutions should be protected; and (5) the human dignity and rights of undocumented workers should be respected.

Yet there is something missing, and this something is related to the presence of "undocumented" instead of "illegal" in statement five. Glendon rightly notes that while these platitudes are all well, good, and true, there should also be some recogition that, as Christians, we are called to be responsible citizens, and this includes an intrinsic desire for an ordered society. Platonic idealism lost out to the aristotelian via media a long time ago, but our leaders, and especially those who are Christian, must remember the necessity of a respect for the law.

And Glendon also notes that without some regard for the law, platforms two and three could easily lead to our current immigration morass. She suggests, correctly, that only when these principles are understood under the premise of respect for the law can society fully function: The human dignity of immigrants will be upheld and the social ordering of the republic will contine.

The position taken by Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles on the Sensenbrenner-King Bill in 2005 is a vivid example of the antithesis of Glendon's position. But then again, Cardinal Mahoney himself is a vivid example of how liberal Catholicism is an acid not only to the Church but to American society (You'll recall that he spent millions to build what is perhaps the most architecturally repulsive cathedral in the history of Christendom after the '94 quake). Archbishop Chaput of Denver, J. Budziszewski, and Neuhaus have all suggested that it is possible to be a responsible American citizen while exhibiting a social awareness formed by Catholic moral theology.

Posted by Seth Zirkle at 10:50 AM | Comments (3)

MM

In The Agora is proud to announce that this is our 2000th post! In celebration of our accomplishment, and as a thanks to our readers, we now present to you . . .

More pictures of cute baby animals!

And many, many more here.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 07:00 AM | Comments (6)

J-School

Fort Wayne Observed pointed out a recent story showing that despite dramatic cuts in jobs at newspapers, journalism schools' enrollments are booming.

I don't know what's more depressing, that so many young people are willing to live a life of poverty to be a reporter journalist, or that they think they need to go to J-School to do so.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 06:35 AM | Comments (0)

July 17, 2006

Paramilitary Police Raids

ITA friend and fellow Hoosier Radley Balko has published his "special report on the militarization of law enforcement and the dramatic rise in the use of paramilitary police units for routine police work." It's free to download through his employer, the Cato Institute, and you can read it here. You can order a slick bound copy here. And for the really eager, there's an interactive map to accompany the paper which is available here.

Balko has been at the forefront of several high profile police fouls and established himself as a leader in highlighting the problem. His research has uncovered three dozen examples of completely innocent people killed in mistaken raids, and twenty cases of nonviolent offenders who've been killed. He concludes that these raids "bring unnecessary violence and provocation to nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom were guilty only of misdemeanors, they terrorize innocents when police mistakenly target the wrong residence, and they have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and injuries, not only of drug offenders, but also of police officers, children, bystanders, and innocent suspects."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 10:47 PM | Comments (3)

July 16, 2006

Atlas At Last

Speaking of refugee millionaires, Jane Galt joins the growing list of bemused pundits who have noticed the long-running effort to make Atlas Shrugged into a movie, which has gained momentum due to the support of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.

One pertinent question is how Hollywood will finesse John Galt's 150-page speech (Julian Sanchez suggests a DVD extra.) Perhaps it's a good thing that Rand is gone, for the IMDb says she would have quibbled mightily over something like that; from the trivia page for The Fountainhead:

Ayn Rand was furious when she heard that Howard Roark's speech at the trial was being trimmed, chiefly because it was considered long, rambling and confusing, especially to Gary Cooper who didn't understand it. She got the studio to make sure that the speech was untouched and in its entirety in the finished product.

For what it's worth, the scene plays well, and the movie is pretty good. I think it's especially amusing that Cooper didn't get it, though, as Hollywood is not especially known as a hotbed of Objectivism. (Does the support of two top stars indicate that Rand's religion philosophy will supplant Kabbalah as the latest fad?)

So what kind of cultural penetration can we expect from an Objectivist blockbuster? For one, I wouldn't assume that the movie would accurately reflect the gist of the novel; many who read Rand, usually in high school, are attracted most by the staunch individualism, and I think most celebrities probably operate at the same level. Further, any Objectivism that did leak through might be of a strain too virulent to be practical, a common complaint. I was having lunch with a couple of Libertarians one day when they lamented that their crowd had too many loonies; what's more, one could make a safe bet, they said, that the loonies came to libertarianism through Rand.

So, how about a biopic of Bastiat?

Posted by Zach Wendling at 07:57 PM | Comments (4)

Like Rats Fleeing a Sinking Ship

French Fact of the Day:

On average, at least one millionaire leaves France every day to take up residence in more wealth-friendly nations, according to a government study.

(via Don Boudreaux)

Posted by Zach Wendling at 07:55 PM | Comments (0)

July 15, 2006

Oops

President Bush, following talks with President Putin in Russia: "I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world, like Iraq where there's a free press and free religion, and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same."

Putin responds: "We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy that they have in Iraq, quite honestly."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 10:18 AM | Comments (5)

July 14, 2006

Community, Come Hell and High Water

Villa Platte, Louisiana is as good a place as any to start a discussion on the virtues of community and rootedness. This story of hospitality during the fury of Hurricane Rita last fall stands in sharp contrast to the ham-fisted relief efforts of FEMA and other big government bureaucracies. You'll have to forgive the author's political editorializing at points, but it's worth reading. Here are a few money paragraphs:

Ville Platte's homemade rescue and relief effort--organized around the popular slogan "If not us, then who?"--stands in striking contrast to the incompetence of higher levels of government as well as to the hostility of other, wealthier towns, including some white suburbs of New Orleans, toward influxes of evacuees, especially poor people of color. Indeed, Evangeline Parish as a whole has become a surprising island of interracial solidarity and self-organization in a state better known for incorrigible racism and corruption.

What makes Ville Platte and some of its neighboring communities so exceptional?

Part of the answer, we discovered, has been the subtle growth of a regional "nationalism" that has drawn southern Louisiana's root cultures--African-American, black Creole, Cajun and French Indian--closer together in response to the grim and ever-growing threats of environmental and cultural extinction. There is a shared, painful recognition that the land is rapidly sinking and dying, as much from the onslaught of corporate globalization as from climate wrath.

If one wanted to be fashionably academic, Ville Platte's big-heartedness might be construed as a conscious response to the "postcolonial" crisis of Acadiana. In plainer language, it is an act of love in a time of danger: a radical but traditionalist gesture that defies most of the simplistic antinomies--liberal versus conservative, red state versus blue state, freedom of choice versus family values, and so on--that the media use to categorize contemporary American life.

Posted by David Darlington at 12:43 PM | Comments (0)

July 13, 2006

The ABA's accreditation problem

The American Bar Association (ABA) has taken upon itself the task of providing accreditation to law schools across the country. In most states a law school graduate cannot take the bar exam without having attended an ABA-approved school (aka having achieved accreditation). But the ABA has made things interesting by instilling "diversity" requirements in the accreditation process. Standard 211 requires law schools to take "concrete action to demonstrate a commitment to having a diverse student body."

For anyone familiar with the diversity-crazed atmosphere at most institutions of higher education, this might not come as much of a surprise. But the requirements border on unlawful in light of the Supreme Court decision on racial preferences established in Grutter v. Bollinger. Prof. David Bernstein dissects these glaring inconsistencies here.

A U.S. Civil Rights Commission took a closer look at what was going on and the ABA, perhaps realizing its policies don't exactly line up with the law, claimed no law schools had ever been denied accreditation for failing to meet the "diversity" requirements. But Prof. Bernstein reports today that the ABA can longer use this as a defense.

The ABA has denied Charleston Law School provisional accreditation, in part because the ABA is not yet satisfied with its commitment to "diversity." The law school, its future on the line, will now do the only sensible thing under the circumstances, and admit wildly underqualified minority applicants who will go on to fail the bar exam in wildly disproportionate numbers. But there is a saving grace: thanks to the ABA, which condemned the law school for relying too heavily on electronic resources, while they are in law school they will be able to read cases in the official reports, rather than rely on identical PDF files from Westlaw. Makes me proud to be a member of the ABA.

One astute commenter notes that 4% of the students at the Charleston Law School are black and only 4% of the students at Howard Law School are white. I suspect the ABA won't be going after Howard Law School for its comparable lack of "diversity." Unfortunately I was coaxed into joining the ABA because doing so provided a financial discount on a bar review. Depending on how the ABA votes on diversity at its upcoming August annual meeting, I may ask to be taken off of its membership roll.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 08:17 PM | Comments (9)

The Israeli powder keg

The Raw Story has footage, via YouTube, of a Fox News crew being shot at on live television after revealing the military position of Israeli troops. Of course, they may have fired simply because the troops weren't sure if it was the press or an enemy.

As the conflict in the Middle East escalates to what appears to be WWIII, my thoughts keep returning to a quote from former president Bill Clinton. He said he would "fight and die" for Israel if Iraq or Iran attacked the Jewish state.

The Israelis know that if the Iraqi or the Iranian army came across the Jordan River, I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die.

Does Clinton still feel the same way, and does the sentiment apply to Palenstine as well as Iraq and Iran? More important, does President Bush share that view and would he be willing to send American troops to Israel's defense? It doesn't take a genius to see that Israel's precarious situation has all the makings of a powder keg similar to the one that gave rise to the first World War.

Update: U.S. is the only nation on the U.N. Security Council to vote against a resolution condemning Israel for its military response in Gaza.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 03:35 PM | Comments (39)

July 12, 2006

Isolation in Ecclesia?

I should like to thank everyone for their warm welcome.

In reading David's latest post on isolation, I could not help but to think of Richard M. Weaver's classic Ideas Have Consequences (1948). In the chapter addressing what he calls "the spoiled-child psychology," Weaver posits that the decay of America's social fabric is the dependence of man on innumerable man-made institutions in the city to carry out even the most menial tasks, all the while loosing touch with his fellow man. In removing a rural, agrarian dependence upon one's self and another, man ironically becomes his own means to an end, yet at the same time relying on the social and technological inventions of others. This ethos, of course, is rooted in the Emersonian ideal of the personal psyche being revered before all else. Physical, emotional, and intellectual comfort must be afforded every chance to advance.

But I think that we see this also in Christianity, most especially in America. The idea of isolation in ecclesia came to mind when I read David's statement that "being bound to one's local community by devotion and discipline regardless of what comes around" is the essence of "discipline of place." As a Catholic convert, I am often reminded of Flannery O'Connor's statement that time and again we suffer more from the Church that for it. As the silly season after Vatican II settles, this is most certainly true. Finding a local congregation where the Gospel is preached and secular instruments, such as pianos, guitars, and drums, are not used to supplement the most banal of banal music, is a feat. But even in the midst of the most stupefying secularity we must find the Sacred.

I would suggest that without some sense of ecclesia, and most pragmatically in the Pauline sense we find in Eph. 3:1-10, the modern American Christian is never truly in a community, one he is bound to by devotion and discipline. Rather, he is simply among others he agrees with in conception and practice. This is certainly visible in that most piculear practice of "church shopping." Again, Newman comes to mind, and his observation that pursuing a practice of placing the human gnosis above the Logos got the Gnostics in trouble.

Yet without a working definition of ecclesia that includes the Logos, such seems little more than chikenary. I think that Pius XII's Mystici Corporis captures well this vision of ecclesia for the 21st century. In a world where there is a palpable divide between the church and the state, the church's identity as the Body of Christ on Earth must be all the more visible. Being a part of this Body is not merely an assent of faith or agreement, but rather a continual grace, from baptism to burial. Living within its confines, ecclesia must be more than a social contract of agreement through statements of faith or practices of living: it encompases a discipline of place that demands orthodoxy, orthopraxy, sacrifice, and devotion.

Posted by Seth Zirkle at 05:45 PM | Comments (11)

Photo of the Day

It's just too painful to put up without a warning...

Reuters has this caption: "A reveller gets tossed by a wild cow after the second running of the bulls at the San Fermin festival in Pamplona July 8, 2006. REUTERS/Vincent West (SPAIN)"

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 02:55 PM | Comments (3)

July 11, 2006

New Arrival

In The Agora is delighted to introduce our newest contributor, Seth Zirkle. Seth is a student at Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis. And he's, like, way smart. Please give him a warm welcome.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 11:21 PM | Comments (6)

Are gay marriage bans 'rational'?

That's the question legal scholar Dale Carpenter asks at the Volokh Conspiracy. It's a good post that extends much of the debate taking place in this ITA post from a few days ago (click here for Jason Kuznicki's post on the subject, which prompted it). Carpenter succinctly states the rational basis test:

As ordinarily applied, rational basis is a very forgiving standard. The law must be (1) rationally related to (2) a legitimate end of the state. The law need not be very wise or very good to survive. As I once heard Richard Epstein memorably describe it, the rational basis standard basically asks whether any fool could come up with a stupid reason for a bad policy.

Carpenter then goes on to examine the two rationales the New York court offered to meet the test and finds their opinion "remarkably thin". Although Carpenter appears to believe same-gender marriage bans would easily pass the rational basis test, he doesn't seem to think the New York court offered the most compelling case. I would have to agree.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:15 AM | Comments (6)

More on Isolation

Commenting on the article I linked below, blogger Daniel Larison has the following to say:

This [survey on increased isolation] is a significant confirmation that the constant mobility, upheaval, rootlessness and individualism of modern American life have come together to cut off millions of people from anything resembling real social, much less community, life. As the article notes, the people surveyed may have a horde of online contacts and numerous acquaintances with whom they correspond, but the depth of these relationships scarcely extends beyond the surface.

With trends like this, it is doubtful that appeals to a life centered around local community will have any meaning for people who have no idea what that community might resemble. These people might be hungry for real community, but might not even know how to go about finding it. Not only are these people lacking in koinonia, but they seem to be bereft, at a fundamental, intimate level, of even the most basic human affinities outside of the now increasingly unstable institution of marriage. I defy the libertarians out there to tell us that this trend towards isolation is a good development; I defy them to tell us that it is not a product of the very social and political individualism they champion, or that an even greater emphasis on the self would benefit all concerned.

In the comments on my prior post, Josh and I discussed whether or not a "discipline of place" would be an appropriate conservative virtue to promote as a solution to the problem of personal isolation. By "discipline of place" I am referring to being bound to one's local community by devotion and discipline regardless of what comes around. I am optimistic that if more people decided to value their local community and look to it for guidance and assistance in times of trouble, over big corporate or governmental bureaucracies, social capital would rebound. Though perhaps it might take serious local trauma plus a critical mass of people doing it for such a rediscovery to take place. Larison is more pessimistic, arguing that many people don't even know what authentic communities look like any more.

I'm envisioning my next few posts will be loosely tied together around the ideas of social isolation, the search for authentic community, and the discipline of place. I hope Josh and I aren't the only ones interested in these topics.

Posted by David Darlington at 12:20 AM | Comments (8)

July 10, 2006

Who's in the Pulpit?

Weeks following the Episcopal Church's (ECUSA) General Convention, the Most Reverend George Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Rt. Rev. Bishop Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh and moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, have announced that they will give an address in suburban D.C. to discuss the future of the Anglican Communion. No one envies the task before these men, especially in light of Jefferts Schori's election as the next Presiding Bishop. Schori, hailing from the smallest diocese in America, has stated that she will continue to allow ECUSA's "local option" of blessing homosexual couples, and finds no problem with admitting practicing homosexuals to holy orders.

Yet for the Rt. Rev. Iker, Bishop of Ft. Worth, Schori's election and upcoming consecration represent another dilemma, this one flying in under the radar of even more orthodox mainline Protestants -- the female presbyterate. Iker and a number of other bishops who have remained in the ECUSA do not agree with the ordination of women, and Schori's election forestalls a "local option" of simply not allowing women within his diocese.

Iker's position is a difficult one. Only two sizeable Protestant churches in the US -- the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LC-MS) (2.6 million communicants) and the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) (16.2 million communicants) -- do not ordain women. A number of other Protestant church bodies, such as the Evangelical-Free Church in America, discourage the practice, but have no official prohibition. Add to this the innumerable non-denoms that constitute a sizeable portion of Evangelicals in America, and the picture is completely fuzzy. Iker appeals to Scripture and the witness of the Holy Spirit throughout the church's history to support his position. The LC-MS does the same, reading St. Paul's words to the Corinthians as no less authoritative than Romans 9.

But without a sense of ecclesiology, I think that Iker's position is tenuous. One may trump sola scriptura, and, quite rightly, come away with an understanding that the Lord, speaking through the Apostle, did not intend the female presbyterate. To attenuate Paul's prohibition with patriarchal social norms of the time would render his understanding of justification in Romans 9 -- the sine qua non of Luther's theology of the cross -- as little more than Paul's unnatural obsession with legalism as a Shamite Pharisee. Iker's position is tenuous, but it is well-grounded. He and others are honest enough to state that one cannot profess that Scripture is the sole means of establishing normative forms of theology and worship and then sweep those portions of Scripture under the rug that offend our modern sensibilities.

Perhaps not under the rug, but attenuated with some exegetical insight. Yet without some foundation, such a practice inevitably resorts to an epistemology of the self, which is the root of the ECUSA's present quandary. Perhaps Newman was right; it is necessary to understand that the pastoral role is inextricably connected to a historical, finite ministry that Christ instituted until His return. And such a conception of the pastoral office must give some account of its surroundings, history, and the councils which defined it. One might even say "T"radition?

Posted by Seth Zirkle at 06:29 PM | Comments (2)

Yawn

Now that the world is over its fits, is anybody else ready for some football?

Bobby, soccer was invented by European ladies to keep them busy while their husbands did the cooking.
-- Hank Hill

In other sports news, it's nice to see that Britney's husband finally found something he's good at over in Wimbledon.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:15 PM | Comments (4)

Libertarian Platreformation

Everyone loves good political theatre, and the Libertarian Party seems to have put on a big show at their recent national convention in Portland. The word is that a coup of sorts was orchestrated by the Libertarian Reform Caucus, which is apparently a rough analog of the Democratic Leadership Council. The LRC was founded by libertarians who bemoan the LP's fringe status:

The platform and message of the Libertarian Party is extreme, sacrificing practicality and political appeal in favor of philosophical consistency with a single axiom. As such, the party currently appeals only to a tiny fraction of the voting public.

The result of the LRC's machinations? As Reason's Brian Doherty titles his report, "The Portland Plank Massacre of 2006." A party platform that used to have 61 planks now has only 15. That's quite a "streamlining," as Kevin Drum describes it:

Long story short, it turns out that the old LP platform included not just the stuff you'd expect (abolish Social Security, abolish the Postal Service, abolish Medicare), but also such things as an end to paper money and an end to all taxation. Oddly, some libertarians felt that these planks in their platform were unrealistic and doomed the party to irrelevancy.

So has the self-avowed "Party of Principle" sacrificed purity to become the "Party of Pragmatism"? Not so, says the LRC, which merely wants to open up the LP to anyone in the libertarian quadrant of the Nolan Chart. A larger voting base will help, even if ever so gradually, to push back against the enemies of liberty.

And this thinking represents a watershed movement within libertarianism, which has long abhorred incrementalism. As two-time LP Presidential nominee Harry Browne was fond of retorting, "Incrementalism only goes one way." Such obstinance only leads to one electoral outcome, too.

So what are the practical consequences of the LRC coup? David Weigel speculates:

It's easy to joke about this, but what are the big subjects of discussion in the political blogs right now? One is whether libertarian-minded voters are up for grabs. Another is whether the extreme divisions, hilarious incompetence, and disregard for liberty of the two main parties could pave the way for a third party.

Personally, I think that most swing voters, at least the swing voters who could be persuaded to vote Libertarian, probably don't scrutinize party platforms before they head to the polls. However, lunatic planks can certainly hurt if one of the major parties decided to run some negative ads against an insurgent campaign.

Just ask the Green Party. It is just a little further out there than the LP, but it suffers from a frustrating case of mistaken identity. When one speaks of the Green Party, one usually means the outfit that trots out Ralph Nader and his cross for a Presidential run. More formally, this is the Green Party of the US (or formerly, the faintly Federalist-sounding Association of State Green Parties). This is not to be confused with the more lunatic and much smaller Green Party USA, yet it often is. Regular Greens gnash their teeth when they see the media reporting that their platform calls for such quaint policies as a 30-hour work week (with no reduction in pay), the abolition of the Senate, federal chartering of interstate corporations, economy-throttling levels of progressive taxation, and other Red-as-a-baboon's-ass proposals for workers to control the means of production. I'm sympathetic to the argument that such bad press can derail even a marginal campaign.

But that presumes that there's a campaign in the first place, and I think that if Libertarians want to start winning, they have to do more than just remove stumbling blocks. They have to get hip to electioneering. Again, a break with their Browne-past is a big start. But Doherty's piece also posits that the Platform Massacre may have sapped the LP of its political capital:

Still, an old college chum of mine, who was one of my radical LP running buddies in those halcyon days of 1988, and who has since pursued incremental libertarian causes in a calmer, more GOP-centered fashion, told me something moderates and reformers should contemplate.

He's quite sure that the extensive, consistent radicalism of the old platform was a major element that excited him about the LP and made him willing to expend as much energy on libertarian causes over the years as he has. That is one potential cost of the platform change that its supporters may not have considered: that its more limited vision could cut off a vital source of energetic, committed activists . . .

It may be in the end that the LP's greatest contribution to the cause of liberty is to provide impassioned libertarians with a consumption expense that excites them, or to energize young activists. (On that question, I don't think I saw more than 20 people under 30 at this convention, a very bad sign for the LP's future.)

Then again, as my fellow Republicans so often ask me, "Where else are you going to go?"

Posted by Zach Wendling at 05:58 AM | Comments (6)

July 09, 2006

We're All in This Together

Americans are living lives increasingly isolated from each other, recent research finds. A quarter of Americans now report that they have not a single person to confide in with their most personal troubles, which is more than double the number reported twenty years ago. Overall, Americans report an average of two close confidants, down from three twenty years ago.

One's spouse remains the single most important confidant in the average American's life. Nearly 50 percent said their spouse was the only person they could trust with their deepest concerns. While this may seem like a good thing at the surface, in reality it places tremendous pressure on the marital relationship to "work," and for both spouses to remain emotionally and physically invested in it. If the relationship fails, those without close confidants outside the relationship are left isolated and in danger.

One would think that with our increasingly networked lives, via blogs, IM, email, myspace, and the like, people would be more connected than ever, but that seems not to be the case. A person can have 200 friends on myspace, but no one to talk to when faced with a scary medical situation, for example. Our communications networks are vast, but our messages are trivial and at least one or two steps removed from actually sitting down and talking to someone face-to-face. How many of us email or IM our co-workers rather than walking over to their office? (guilty as charged)

I'm convinced of the paradoxical reality of the "networked but isolated American." For me, the definitive text on the phenomenon is Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone, mentioned briefly in the above article. It's a thick and dragging read on the concept of "social capital," i.e. the social benefits we derive from interpersonal relationships. Putnam argues that our isolated lives have undercut America's reserve of social capital, which in aggregate leads to much less pleasant lives (a neighborhood with poor social connections, for example, is not likely to form a Neighborhood Watch and keep crime down). I'm vastly simplifying here, but it's been 3 or 4 years since I actually read the book.

This is something I've thought a lot about lately. I'm probably one of those "networked but isolated" types who has more relationships online than in person. Indeed, as a single person if it wasn't for my small group Bible study, I might be in that confidant-less 25 percent. So what's a guy to do? Thank God for those friends he has, and endeavor to get out more. :)

Posted by David Darlington at 08:52 PM | Comments (7)

Erin Texeira is at it again

One of the Associated Press' worst reporters, Erin Texeira, has penned a couple of new "stories" on race relations. "Slavery reparations gaining momentum" and "Black men fight negative stereotypes daily" is now in newspapers across the country. Texeira's evidence that raparations are gaining momentum? Charles Ogletree, a Harvard law professor and a leading reparations activist, says it is. And that's apparently enough for Texeira and the AP to run a national story on its "vigor and vitality in the 21st century". Click here to read more about Erin Texeira and the Narrative Journalism Movement.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 05:34 PM | Comments (4)

Who knew?

The New York Daily News' Michael Goodwin claims "It's WWIII, and U.S. is out of ideas"

The war on terror, or the war of terror, has tentacles that reach much of the globe. It is a world war.

While it is often a war of loose or no affiliation, and sometimes just amateur copycats, the similar goals of destruction add up to a threat against modern society. Even the hapless wanna-bes busted in Miami ordered guns and military equipment from a man they thought was from Al Qaeda. Islamic fascists are the driving force, but anti-American hatred is a global membership card for any and all who have a grievance and a gun.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:39 AM | Comments (0)

July 08, 2006

Homosexual marriages and adoptions

In a paper posted online I explore the constitutionality of laws banning homosexual adoptions (pdf). Ed Brayton has posted his reaction and additional thoughts here.

The constitutional discussion touches on many issues addressed in a recent decision by the New York Court of Appeals (NY's highest court), which denied a state constitutional right to same sex marriage. Jason Kuznicki responds to the decision by taking issue with the court's portrayal of the right test by stating:

"the New York Court of Appeals seems to have misconstrued the rational basis test by declaring that government goals must be 'rational' rather than 'legitimate.'"

I believe Jason's understanding of the rational basis test is a bit off. The rational basis review does not provide courts a license to judge "the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices." (Federal Commun. Comm'n v. Beach Commun.) Under this test the legislature is given the benefit of the doubt and a strong presumption of validity so long as there is a "reasonably conceivable" situation that would constitute a rational basis for a statute. The issue then isn't whether a law is "legitimate"; rather, the issue is whether the law was rational in the minds of legislators.

To illustrate, in the infamous case of Lawrence v. Texas, the Court took pains to rest its holding on due process grounds because the law would have held up under an Equal Protection rational basis test (Justice O'Connor's concurrence notably took a different view). Homosexual marriage bans have a rational basis in minds of some legislators, and courts must defer to the legislature and give it the benefit of the doubt. That is why the New York decided (correctly, in my opinion) that it is up to the legislature and political process to enable such marriages.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 05:11 PM | Comments (70)

Ann Coulter questions

The Associated Press reports today that infamous right wing pundit Ann Coulter is under investigation for charges of plagarism. But her publisher of "Godless," the Crown Publishing Group, issued a statement saying it had reviewed the "the allegations of plagiarism" in her book and "found them to be as trivial and meritless as they are irresponsible." The AP says that "the New York Post enlisted the Berkeley, Calif.-based iParadigms to run the author's material through its iThenticate software program, a web-based plagiarism detection system."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 05:03 PM | Comments (5)

July 07, 2006

Columbine Documents: Disturbing or Mundane?

The Denver Post has a feature story today about the release by the Jefferson County (CO) sheriff's office of over 900 pages of documents related to the Columbine High School shooting. The documents range from school assignments and drawings to store receipts and a notebook kept by one of the killers' parents. (The full .pdf document can be accessed from the link above.)

Although many of the pages are disturbing in hindsight, and things such as a "to-do" list of specific preparations for the attack are obviously chilling, what strikes me about much of the material is how unremarkable it actually is. Articles by the Denver Post and other media outlets make much of the many sketches depicting weapons and violence. However, I had many friends in middle school and high school who liked to draw very similar things, yet never engaged in any sort of violence.

In fact, I'd say that a fascination with weapons and warfare is a fairly common phase for young men to go through. How, then, can we distinguish between a harmless interest of this sort and a real inclination toward violence? There are no easy answers. Above all, parents, relatives, teachers, and other adults must be truly engaged in the lives of young people to detect the real warning signs of trouble.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:48 PM | Comments (6)

Breaking News

Reuters is reporting that North Korea's Taepodong-2 ballistic missile test that ultimately failed was actually aimed at Hawaiian waters. Reuters cited the Sankei Shimbun for its information, which in turn cited multiple sources in the United States and Japan.

Meanwhile, as China offers a relatively passive response to North Korea's tests, Taiwan is moving forward with plans to test-fire a missile capable of hitting China. Not surprisingly China's reaction to Taiwan's missile plans was a bit different than its reaction to North Korea. Nevertheless, many analysts seem to think tension between these two potentially explosive enemies is actually improving. New direct flights between the two are just one manifestation of the thaw.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:44 AM | Comments (4)

July 06, 2006

Greed and Happiness

This 4th of July post linking to Dinesh D'Souza's patriotic piece has led to an interesting discussion in the comments. Frequent ITA reader Gregory Travis took the bold step of explicitly stating what libertarians and conservatives have long suspected of leftists who still deny the moniker "socialist". He writes:

Individual economic satisfaction (i.e. how "happy" you are) is a function of the individual's perception of his or her status in comparison to other individuals. Absolute wealth (or income) levels do not determine satisfaction, relative position does.

I don't want to impute Greg's views on all liberals, but I think it's safe to say a sizable number of leftists agree with him. Economic well being does not depend on absolute wealth in their eyes. These leftists would prefer a world in which everyone earned $10,000 a year over one in which half earned $20,000 and the other half earned $80,000.

To some extent I agree with Greg that a certain amount of economic unhappiness is indeed attributable to the inequality, and not just poverty in absolute terms. The income of some of America's lowest class citizens would make others in the world burst with joy. Clearly more is at play than mere absolute wealth.

If you stop to think about it, deeply and truly, you'll find that you often get no pleasure out of having money, only out of having more of it than the next person. The great C.S. Lewis has something to say about all of this:

"We say that people are proud of being richer, or cleverer, or better-looking than others. If every one else became equally rich, or clever, or good-looking there would be nothing to be proud about. It is the comparison that makes you proud: the pleasure of being above the rest."

Lewis talks about it in terms of pride, and I'm speaking in terms of greed. They're essentially the same thing, though, just different sides of the same coin. Pride is taking pleasure in being ahead, greed is discontent over being behind.

The Christian is told to find joy in the great things we have, and in so doing we will have solved most of our miseries (somewhere Joel Osteen is smiling). But is this discontent over our relative economic position, rather than our absolute one, so bad? Is it not what drives the capitalistic system?

In principle, for economics a wider income distribution is not a problem. But for political and social reasons it certainly is. The income differences and inequality fuels economic growth. It creates a replenishing environment of new markets and continually provides new and better services.

Ah, but here we embark on the age-old debate of capitalism vs. socialism, and no single blog post can attempt to tackle that. But it's worth highlighting the fundamental differences and patting those on the back who explicitly raise them, rather than couching them in veiled terms.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:12 AM | Comments (30)

July 05, 2006

God bless Fark

Here's a fark.com headline that's worth repeating: "For the first time in almost 200 years, France advances to Berlin."

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 08:46 PM | Comments (0)

Self service

On Sunday, Josh linked to an article which listed 50 reasons why it's great to be an American man. I would add two items to that list. First, credit card readers at gas pumps. No need to walk over to the cashier and wait in line--just swipe, pump, and get back on the road.

Second, self checkout lines at supermarkets and stores. These are a marvelous concept on many levels. For one thing, they can be like super-express lanes. Often there are at least four self-checkout stations supervised by a single store employee, whereas many stores only have one traditional express lane available. Also, it must be great fun for the supervising employee to watch customers fumbling to scan the UPC symbols on their items. I can imagine them thinking "Not so easy, is it buddy?"

One thing I must point out, though. Some etiquette is needed for using these stations. First, they are not intended to be used for purchasing a large number of items, as evidenced by the small bagging area. I was at a local grocery store this week with a handful of items to buy, the express lane wasn't open, and three of the self-checkout lanes were occupied with people fumbling through carts stuffed full of groceries. Second, if all the self-checkouts are occupied, please follow "post office rules" in forming a line--there should be a single line, and the person at the front takes the next available station.

Any other comments or suggestions about self-checkout stations?

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:24 PM | Comments (10)

July 04, 2006

Declaration of Exegesis

Words of Wisdom from P.J. O'Rourke's Parliament of Whores (1991, pp. 8-11):

Our Founding Fathers lacked the special literary skills with which modern writers on the subject of government are so richly endowed. When they wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, they found themselves more or less forced to come to the point. So clumsy of thought and pen were the Founders that even today, seven generations later, we can tell what they were talking about.

They were talking about having a good time:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...

"This is living!" "I gotta be me!" "Ain't we got fun!" It's all there in the Declaration of Independence. We are the only nation in the world founded on happiness. Search as you will the sacred creeds of other nations and peoples, read the Magna Carta, the Communist Manifesto, the Ten Commandments, the Analects of Confucius, Plato's Republic, the New Testament, or the UN Charter, and find me any happiness at all. America is the Happy Kingdom . . .

As it is with us, so it was with the Original Dads. Their beef with Triple George? He was no fun:

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

There are twenty-seven specific complaints against the British Crown set forth in the Declaration of Independence. To modern ears they still sound reasonable. They still sound reasonable, in large part, because so many of them can be leveled against the present federal government of the United States.

Maybe not the "Death, Desolation, and Tyranny" complaint (unless you're deeply opposed, on fight-for-your-right-to-party grounds, to coca-plant eradication in Bolivia and Peru), but how about:

. . . has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

George III was a piker compared with FDR or LBJ.

Or:

. . . has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant . . . for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

Every American president does that to the House and the Senate.

. . . has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

Our Congress won't pass a balanced-budget constitutional amendment or any legislation banning people over thirty from wearing spandex bicycle shorts.

. . . has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing . . . to encourage their migrations hither . . .

Tell a Vietnamese boat person, a Hong Kong shopkeeper or a migrant worker from Mexico that this doesn't describe U.S. immigration policy.

. . . has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies . . .

Certainly.

. . . has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws

Federal regulatory agencies, for instance.

. . . depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury.

If we cross one of those regulatory agencies.

. . . cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world

is what our trade quotas and tariffs do.

. . . imposing Taxes on us without our Consent

Nobody asked me if I wanted a 1040 Form.

. . . taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments

So say state rights conservatives.

. . . has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts . . . and destroyed the lives of our people.

All the tree huggers believe this.

And lastly:

. . . has excited domestic insurrections amongst us . . .

In Watts, Bensonhurst, that Mohawk reservation in upstate New York and my house since I married into a family full of Democrats.

American Civics calls the Declaration of Independence a "living document." All too true.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 10:56 AM | Comments (0)

Legal Illuminations

The Hoosier State has been liberalizing other laws besides the use of deadly force; this year marks the first time that Hoosiers may legally set off consumer fireworks on their own property. Previously, if one purchased fireworks, the really cool ones, in Indiana, one had to sign a form stating that one would only set them off out-of-state or in a state-designated area babysat by firemen. There were many criminals in Indiana on past Fourths of July.

Hoosiers ought to feel noble about treating Independence Day celebrants as responsible adults -- in fact, what better day to do so? And recognizing the relative safety of fireworks is the first step in allaying concerns that the government ought to step in.

We often over-estimate the risk associated with tragic, preventable, and often publicized events, such as fireworks-related injuries, so anti-fireworks laws gain a lot of currency from sensational mishaps.

However, we should bear in mind that most proposals to take fireworks away from Americans ignore the realities of risks. The American Pyrotechnics Association has some reassuring information:

• Fireworks consumption has increased 661% over the past quarter-century, yet injuries per 100,000 lbs. have decreased 88.5%.
• The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that serious misuse accounts for a large majority of fireworks-related injuries.
• Children aged 5-14 are the age group most-frequently involved in fireworks-related injuries.*
• Fireworks account for fewer injuries per 100,000 youths than pens & pencils, fishing, fences, skateboards, stairs & steps, skating, and baseball.
• Among these injurious activities, "Fireworks is the only category for which prohibition, instead of education and adult supervision, is often urged."

Despite the apparently great progress in fireworks safety over the past quarter century, it seems that injuries persist because of serious misuse and poor adult supervision. Fireworks are inherently dangerous, of course, but their use isn't automatically injurious (as opposed to tobacco or alcohol).

Unfortunately, nanny-statists persist in their war against fireworks, as reported in this Reason piece by Robert Stacy McCain. Let's hope that the Spirit of '76 inspires oppressed Americans elsewhere to vigilantly fight that tyranny.

* On the contrary, McCain states that, "The majority of those injured by fireworks are 15 or older—and 72 percent are male." I don't know where his figure came from, but the case is either that children get hurt when they aren't properly supervised or that "children" who know better are being foolish. I don't think either of those require state prohibition.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 09:44 AM | Comments (4)

What's So Great About America?

On July 4th it seems like a good time to turn to foreign-born Dinesh D'Souza's splendid piece titled, "What's So Great About America?" I think it was an instant classic and a helluva read. It's well worth taking the time to read it through.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:07 AM | Comments (29)

The Declaration of Independence

Action of Second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America

WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great- Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

HE has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.

HE has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

HE has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.

HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.

HE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.

HE has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of the Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and the Convulsions within.

HE has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.

HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.

HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.

HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us;

FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:

FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:

FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:

FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rules into these Colonies:

FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.

HE has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

HE has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.

HE is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.

HE has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages