Coercion or Conversion . . . or Cluelessness?

This article (which I stumbled upon at RealClearPolitics.com) seems a clever attempt to bolster the claims of the "Religious Left" that their party (the Democrat Party) is not, despite what others (including Dem Party leaders) say, secular.

Googling the article's author provided all the context necessary for the article--actually, when the article opened by quoting Mario Cuomo on the subject of religion and public policy, I kind of had an idea where it was headed. One example which provided context: Paulson argued in a Seventh-Day Adventist journal that developing humans in the womb were no different from living things like insects in promoting "pro-choice" policy.

SO, though I think the article is poorly reasoned and grossly wrong, it was regrettably published on a reputable e-journal and I have a couple of rebuttals to his article.

First, "secularism" is more menacing (eminent?) than he is willing to admit because of its prevalence among a certain class of elitist, powerful Americans--in particular, the popular media, academia and one of the two major political parties.

Second, we Religious Conservatives want to, for example, outlaw abortion because it ends innocent human life, not simply because I am afraid that I can't convince people not to do it otherwise. Heck, EVERY law is flouted regularly--even the most universally heralded, but does that mean that we are being unspiritual or less spiritual because we don't just let the crimes continue? Given Paulson's view of life before birth, he probably just views pro-lifers as interloping busybodies. As a Christian and a citizen in a democratic republic, I believe I must promote policy that is consistent with the Golden Rule. For example, I can't blame a King or a dictator for gov't policy that seizes money from one citizen to give to another.

Lastly, he confuses grace and unaccountability when attacking the orthodox Christian principle that we are saved by grace and not by doing good things. (That's also in the Bible, Rev. Paulson). Sure, people like Bill Clinton (according to Paulson's account) may abuse the grace extended to them by God, but that doesn't mean that we are no longer "worthy" of grace (we never were) nor does it mean that there are not or should not be earthly consequences for stupid, foolish, even sinful actions we do. Only God and Bill Clinton know the true status of Bill Clinton's soul, but the fact that Clinton may claim to be a Christian and may have sinned--even repeatedly, would serve to discredit him not the doctrines of progressive sanctification or salvation by grace.

All of Paulson's fallacious logic and theological malfeasance just demonstrates that only partisan Lefties will take Paulson seriously in his critique of ostensibly "fellow" Believers.

Ken Blackwell's "'tude"

There is a great gubernatorial race taking place in Ohio--I would love to be able to cast a vote for Ken Blackwell who is the Republican nominee. Here is the final comment he made during remarks on the night of his primary victory to his Democrat opponent in November: “Message to Brother Strickland: You can run but you can’t hide. We’re coming right atcha. We represent change, we represent the future, and there is no retreat in our bones.”

As my daughter (surprisingly) commented about a fond acquaintance the other day: "he has 'tude."

If only Kerry had won . . . peace in the Mideast!

Unbelievably, John Kerry is still thinking how stupid Americans were for not agreeing with him about whom should be president. Indeed, he's claiming that the military conflict in Lebanon would not be happening if he were president. Yeah, right.

Here's a great op/ed from the Weekly Standard about Warren Christopher--who was Secretary of State in the Clinton Administration and is a prominent Liberal foreign policy "expert," and his recent pronouncements about the Israeli-Hezbollah war.

Turning a page . . .

I can still remember the day that I learned to ride a bike . . . while visiting my grandmother in Georgia, a neighbor boy--the veterinarian's son, urged me to ride his bike in the soft sand of an unpaved Wilmington Island driveway. Hopefully, my daughter will always remember this day when, on a whim, we removed her training wheels and turned a page in her young life's story.

Well, she was successful on her first attempt, and you may not be able to see it in this picture, but I'd say I was more intense than she was . . . she has been ready to take this step for awhile, I think.

Lieberman's oppo gets Michael Schiavo endorsement!!

Whether or not you agree with allowing Terri Schiavo to starve to death, is anybody really supportive of her "widower" in the ordeal? Oh well, he has endorsed Ned Lamont, who is mounting a Lefty primary challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT). Whatever.

Activist judges going "inactive" . . . at least for now

Rich Lowry chronicles the positive developments in recent months on the "activist judges" front. Though the Tennessee S.Ct.'s decision to allow voters to be heard on the issue of homosexual "marriage" isn't referenced, it certainly belongs in a list of decisions reflecting judicial restraint and separation of powers. An excerpt:

The Washington decision, as well as the other important recent one in New York, rejects the argument that opposition to gay marriage is based only on rank prejudice. It says the Washington legislature was “entitled to believe” that preserving the current definition of marriage encourages a family structure that is best for children. Well, thank you very much! It is a symptom of our era of judicial fiat that it plays as some sort of far-reaching concession when a court says lawmakers are entitled to believe something that has been a bedrock belief throughout recorded human history.

Even Liberals agree: Dem leadership pandering on foreign policy

Here's an insightful op/ed by Peter Beinart, editor-at-large of the notably Liberal The New Republic; an excerpt:

The Democratic Party's single biggest foreign policy liability is not that Americans think Democrats are soft. It is that Americans think Democrats stand for nothing, that they have no principles beyond political expedience. And given the party's behavior over the past several months, it is not hard to understand why.

Of course, I don't agree with all of the assertions in the essay, but I think his conclusion is pretty much accurate.

Gore in 2008!!!?

I'm wondering if Al Gore will be appearing with likely DEM senate nominee Harold Ford, Jr. on Aug. 3rd in Nashville. Doubt it. However, according to reports, Gore's stock appears to be rising among the faithful (that is, faithful to the Democrat Party, mind you).

Concerning Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, here's a great op/ed on some of the "inconvenient truths" ignored by devotees of Gore and Environmental doomsdayism.

Oh, THAT'S what you mean by "monogamous"

George Michael, who is out and proud about his homosexual activity, is rejecting criticism about his "cruising" for (and engaging in) anonymous sex in a London public park, and he claims his roommate of 10 years does not object, so their planned "wedding" is still on.

[Michael] said he and [his roommate] recently celebrated their 10th anniversary and he had given his lover a £1 million present to mark the milestone.

"We had a lovely 10th anniversary party and actually my 10th anniversary present to him cost me a million quid so I reckon I should get away with more then."

Again, why should we elevate homosexual "marriage" to a societally sanctioned institution?

Intriguing poll about Tennessee

This poll of Tennesseans commissioned by the Knoxville News Sentinel has some really encouraging data in it.

Tennesseans say their government is fair-to-middlin' in a University of Tennessee poll taken earlier this month.
In a survey of 574 residents, UT's Social Science Research Institute found that three out of four respondents graded the government in general and the state Legislature in particular as "fair" or "good." Some interesting excerpts:

Nearly half the respondents - 46 percent - described themselves as conservative, while 36 percent said they were moderate and 18 percent said they were liberal.

The poll, sponsored in part by the News Sentinel and conducted July 5-16, has a margin of error of 4.1 percent.
....
Despite the mediocre numbers, the Legislature is still more popular than TennCare.

More than half the respondents said TennCare, the state's insurance program, is performing poorly, and 42 percent supported reforms of TennCare instituted by Gov. Phil Bredesen last year. Forty-eight percent said they did not support the reforms.
....
Tennesseans remain opposed to a state income tax. When asked if they would support an income tax coupled with a rollback of the sales tax, six in 10 respondents said no. An income tax received the support of 30 percent, with 10 percent unsure.

A majority of Tennesseans - 55 percent - believes that abortion laws are "about right." By an 8 percent margin, respondents want to see Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision confirming the legality of abortion, upheld.

Half the respondents don't believe that evolution is "a well-established scientific theory." Forty-four percent said intelligent design is "just as valid" as evolution, and three in four believe the creation story in Genesis is literally true.

Respondents overwhelmingly oppose government use of eminent domain to take private property, even if it's for a public purpose. Fifty-seven percent oppose eminent domain in all instances, even for public projects. That number leaps to 88 percent when the end use is for private development as opposed to schools or roads.

Three out of four respondents support term limits for county officials. The Tennessee Supreme Court will hear arguments next month in a case to decide the fate of Knox County's charter, which contains a term-limits provision.

Woohoo, is this a Red State or what?

This is an excellent time to link to the Red State theme song, Boondocks (by Little Big Town).

Excellent political ad from NC

My bloggin' colleague serr8d posted this excellent political ad from NC on his blog ("The Cutting Edge"). And check out Vernon Robinson's (the candidate's) website . . . he deserves some love from us from over the Smokies.

If guns are outlawed . . .

Here's a great report of a citizen--using a gun, who prevented a knife-wielding perpetrator from committing murder in Memphis. Kudos to Chris Cope for his courage.

Santorum lays it out on Islamofascism

Great speech delivered by U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) on the enemy we face . . . Islamofascists.

NY Times is clueless about economics

MediaBlog over at NationalReview.com points out how clueless the NY Times is on the subject of economics. Yes, lower marginal tax rates do increase revenues "from corporations and the wealthy." I know it is hard for them to admit that Ronald Reagan might have been right about something (they still believe that Mikhail Gorbachev bravely ended the Cold War), but . . .

The Constitutional Right to Jihad

Here's Mark Steyn's insightful yet humorous (though, in a way, not so humorous, due to the seriousness of the subject) analysis of the Supreme Court's holding last week that "The Constitution contains a right to Jihad." (via RealClearPolitics.com)

DP Debate over

From: MJB
7/1/06, 5:21 pm

"[A] style that is emotionless"? Ned, you sound furious. You are not a good example of Christ, but that is an issue for another message. Excepting some allusions to other political events, I have been sticking to the issue of state killing.

You shouldn't've published my messages to you w/out my permission, Ned.


------------------------------

From: Ned (posted, but not emailed--got to stick to my word, don't I?)
7/1/06, 5:43 pm

MJB,

You obviously concluded that I had written less emotionally in an earlier email than a later one. The record speaks for itself as far as your other assertions; I definitely make mistakes and commit sins, but I'll sleep with a clear conscience tonight.

And you don't have any right to keep me from "publishing" emails that you sent to me, just as you can't control who I allow to read it. I guess it would be wise for you to include such expectations in any future emails you send to strangers about things you've already posted--under a pseudonym, on a web forum. Are you concerned about anything you've written? Certainly there is little value to hastily drafted emails. I might consider pulling them down but I don't feel guilty for posting them.

Sincerely,
Ned

**Incidentally, I have posted our entire dialogue without excluding anything, other than MJB's real name and email address.

DP Debate XII

From: Ned Williams, 7/1/06, 5:01 pm

MJB,
It would save me a lot of time if you would closely read what I'm writing, perhaps there's too much on the table to keep the arguments straight, but I'll repeat my arguments. Use of deadly force by a state is moral, in my opinion. You haven't addressed the war aspect of this issue (because, I perceive, it reveals an inconsistency in your views) but the gov't should protect its citizens from threats, of course bounded by concerns for individual liberties. So, domestic threats are thwarted by laws and enforcement of those laws. Cold-blooded murder (by an individual, not a duly organized gov't, I hope you can appreciate the distinction, as I've noted before) has been deemed such a threat that we will threaten its perpetrators with loss of their own life. Assuming that a state may appropriately use deadly force, then it may impose such a sentence. Incidentally, your assertion that most murders happen in heat of emotion or whatever is not accurate, at least not as far as the death penalty is concerned; first degree murder requires that they made a decision, absent passion, to take another's life. We do not allow individuals to do that but allow gov'ts. to do that.
Don't presume that because I may write in a style that is emotionless that I am not emotional about everything I write. I am interested to be a good example of Christ in this context, so I am willing to discourse with you on this subject, but it is a drain of time--my wife and children are much more important to me than electronically arguing with a stranger. You didn't "strike a cord" or "hit a nerve" or "hit home" or anything like that. This isn't an example of a hit dog howling, I could easily ignore you and your emails if I was feeling threatened in my world view. Rather, I resented how petty you were being (snide jabs/references to Bush/Cheney; red herring references to Iraq war; asserting that my view makes me no better than PDR or AQ; asserting as if it trumped all arguments that my arguments might be rooted in belief; "rich white men" blah blah blah, etc.); those are all fallacious arguments. You haven't backed me into an intellectual corner and I have attempted to answer every question you've posed . . . I don't think you have done the same. That, in my book, isn't honest debate.
Regarding deterrence, you're narrowly defining deterrence. There is individual and general deterrence. To deter means to 1 : turn aside, discourage, or prevent from acting, 2 : INHIBIT, and I believe that having a DP deters by threat and by implementation. From the argument you stated, NO law would qualify as a deterrent, and that certainly doesn't make sense. You assert that "we're protected" because "Poor Paul Dennis Reid" is behind bars tonight, but I know there are many more people like him who have cultivated a lust for violence and power and notoriety and will act on it if not deterred. Credible laws and punishments will help to deter that. (By the way, you can take off on an argument about "cultivating a lust for violence" but I reject that all force is violence or all violence is immoral, etc.)
Again, you cannot have rule of law if we simply redefine what words meant when they were enacted based on what we--in the present, want them to mean. That may qualify as legal reasoning to you, but I flatly reject it as a fair interpretation of "cruel and unusual," as I've already stated. Like I said, you are more than welcome to try and amend the Constitution so that it prohibits capital punishment.
Sincerely,
Ned

DP Debate XI

From MJB, 7/1/06, 4:08 pm

Except, Ned, that your beliefs justify killing only in self-defense, and state killing isn’t done is self-defense, which, by your own beliefs, make state killing immoral. Further, Ned, in the same paragraph (#4), you claim that state killing is and isn’t cold-blooded.

I realize that my previous message hit you emotionally, considering how riled your response was. This message has hit home against your arguments, since you must stretch the definition of self-defense beyond the breaking point to claim that a man who is locked up for life still must be killed. Self-defense means defending yourself from attack. Sedley Alley & Paul Reid haven’t hurt anyone in years (if Alley ever did). In addition, the earlier argument that a killed criminal never kills again isn’t a deterrence argument, since it doesn’t work as an example. Worse, it would extend the state killing without bounds: A killed rapist never rapes again. A killed burglar never burgles again. A killed embezzler never embezzles again. A killed drunk driver never drives drunk again. A killed president never sends men to kill & die for oil again.

I didn’t say that state killing was wrong because almost no other country practices it. That makes it UNUSUAL. That it is irrevocable makes it CRUEL AND UNUSUAL. That makes it unconstitutional. Your intent argument doesn’t hold water, because the Constitution is a living document not fixed in the supposed “intent” of some rich White men of the late 18th century.

No one denies that a government may defend or protect its citizens. Paul Reid is in prison. We are protected. End of story.

DP Debate X

Come on MJB, I will gladly claim that I am choosing/supporting/advocating the Death Penalty. My point is that I am not going to behead you for having the opposite view of mine or for being, if you ever are, in the majority on the issue. You're wasting breath trying to emotionally scare me away from being an advocate of the DP. And, though I think you've changed your tune on this, it is arguably also on your hands, because you have stood by while an unjust, immoral, oppressive act took place.

Re. posthumous testing of Alley's DNA, it is likely that you are underestimating the cost of it or who'll pay such cost. Again, I don't believe* you care about any of that and I don't believe* it will deter you from your beliefs* if the DNA tests affirm that the victim had bled in his car. And again, we don't have to satisfy you and yours for justice to be done . . . you're unsatisfiable.

It is not true that the DP has no deterrence effect as someone (idgaf?) has stated several times, there is no recorded incident of an executed criminal killing again, and numerous examples of non-executed murderers killing again). It is commonsense that when there are 2 executions of condemned people in 50 years, despite all the tough talk from gov't officials and society, that the bark loses it's impact.

Again, my "foundation" for stating that executing Sedley Alley isn't immoral or isn't cold-blooded are my beliefs,* what is your basis for labeling it differently? (To clarify, my view of executions are that they are done in cold-blood, there's no passion involved, and the State, after "due process" certainly has the right to impose such punishment.)

It is a form of self-defense to execute those who wantonly take the lives of others. Frankly, I reject your characterization that Reid's murders were merely "bad choices" made in the "heat of emotion." Sedley Alley's actions were cold-blooded as well. And even if you say something like, "Alley (who may or may not have committed this murder) would not have been motivated to kill his rape victim if he wasn't worried about the DP!" that only establishes a) that he feared being put to death and b) that he was cold-blooded and it ignores that every DAY in America men commit murder to avoid being MERELY sent to jail . . . should we remove jail sentences because it "causes" perpetrators to kill police officers?

Lastly, like I've said in every post, it is a FALLACY to say that the DP is wrong because a majority of (good) countries' gov'ts think it is wrong or because some (bad) countries think it is okay. You wouldn't accept that reasoning on a host of issues I could list . . . as you said somewhere, "morality isn't determined by majority vote." Sure, such evidence may persuade some people, but it doesn't persuade me. You're welcome to make those arguments, but you're wasting my time making them to me. By the way, as I said (and you appear to have ignored) majorities of Europeans support the death penalty, though their "representative" gov'ts don't. And your definition of "cruel" and "unusual" as relates to the Constitution is a stretch, given that the same folks who approved those words in relation to punishment approved capital punishment elsewhere in the same document. I think it is too unstable of a basis for a democratic republic for 5 justices to be able to "interpret" words differently than they were intended when written. You guys need to go to the work of changing the Constitution the honest way, I think, if you want it to prohibit capital punishment.

I appreciate your compliment--that I'm a good person, and I would say that it is consistent with good character to think that a gov't may properly use deadly force to protect its citizens. I'm assuming you have conceded your moral equivalency arguments?

We'll "talk,"
Ned

DP Debate IX

From: MJB
Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 2:03 PM
To: Ned Williams
Subject: Re: "beliefs" and their legitimacy in policy discussions


Let's put aside, Ned, whether Sedley Alley's motion for DNA testing w/ justified or not. Shouldn't Tennessee permit DNA testing now?

MJB

-------------------------------------
From: Ned Williams
To: MJB
Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 2:10 PM
Subject: RE: "beliefs" and their legitimacy in policy discussions

On him? Is that even being asked for? If so, sure--assuming his next of kin approve of it and the taxpayers don't have to pay for it and it isn't unreasonably "costly" to allow it to happen.

--------------------------------
From: MJB, 7/1/06, 2:26 pm

I am glad to read it, on the evidence that he wanted tested before we killed him.

--------------------------------
From Me,

Yikes, you guys keep busy don't you? Like I said, sure, with qualifications.


--------------------------------

From: MJB, 7/1/06, 3:11 pm

Ned. Our state--representing us--doesn't want to let Sedley Alley's representatives perform the DNA tests even now. Tennessee currently demonstrates a fear of being proved wrong.
Now, I’d like to cut through all the stuff in your last message & return to the issues involving state killing. I don’t mind discussing Israel’s occupation of Palestine & oppression of Palestinians & Palestinian revolutionaries’ violence toward Israelis. I don’t mind discussing Bush-Dick’s unwarranted invasion & occupation of Iraq or their illegal arrest & torture of men at Guantanomo—but one thing at a time.

Ned, if all you did were vote for candidates who want to kill, then you & I wouldn’t be in this discussion. You vociferously supported killing on the City Paper’s website. Thus, the blood is on you, too, as it’s on me, but I refuse it. I am against it. You are not.

You claim a deterrence to state killing that has been proven time & again not to exist. You claim that these delays hinder the possible deterrence, but there is no evidence that that is so. Further, most murders are performed in the heat of emotion or by people who are mentally disturbed. The VAST majority of murders are committed by people who are not making good decisions, which further deteriorates any deterrent effect of state killing. Today’s Supreme Court has cut down on what you construe as delays in our killing a helpless individual, but it, even with John Roberts & Samuel Alito, is unlikely to speed up the process any further. Without a deterrent effect by state killing, you have no reason to support it, even if you state, without foundation, that it isn’t cold-blooded & that it isn’t immoral.

Here is what we know: State killing has no deterrent effect on crime. State killing is practiced by very few nations of the world, which makes it unusual. State killing differs from all other punishments by being irrevocable, thus making it cruel AND unusual. Killing someone without the cause of self-defense makes one a killer. You & I have agreed on that. Live with it or change your mind on this. You will still be you, a good person, if you support the abolition of state killing.

MJB