Global Warming and Christianity

Comparing these two perspectives, who is more persuasive? Who offers a more realistic assessment? Who offers a more responsible and moral viewpoint? Legalistic Christianity vs. nonlegalistic Christianity at its finest.



OR

Is this – as some would claim – a failure to trust God, who has promised faithfulness to what he has made? I think that to suggest that God might intervene to protect us from the corporate folly of our practices is as unchristian and unbiblical as to suggest that he protects us from the results of our individual folly or sin. This is not a creation in which there are no real risks; our faith has always held that the inexhaustible love of God cannot compel justice or virtue; we are capable of doing immeasurable damage to ourselves as individuals, and it seems clear that we have the same terrible freedom as a human race. - Archbishop Rowan Williams, discussing global warming and environmentalism.

The Bottom Nowhere in Sight?

Former Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul gives a bleak outlook on our economy in the Financial Times.

“The US government just won’t allow the correction the economy needs.” He cites the mini-depression of 1921, which lasted just a year largely because insolvent companies were allowed to fail. “No one remembers that one. They’ll remember this one, because it will last 15 years.” At some stage – Mr Paul estimates it will be between one and four years – the dollar will implode. “The dollar as a reserve standard is done,” he says. He sees little hope for other currencies where central banks have also created too much liquidity dating right back to the early 1970s."

Before you dismiss him as a crank, just remember that he saw this current economic crisis years before it arrived and almost all of his economic predictions are usually accurate. Let's hope this is one of those times he is wrong.

The Day of Reckoning...

Is coming closer for those in the Bush Administration and the CIA who authorized the use of torture. Michael Isikoff of Newsweek is reporting that "Over objections from the U.S. intelligence community, the White House is moving to declassify—and publicly release—three internal memos that will lay out, for the first time, details of the 'enhanced' interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration for use against 'high value' Qaeda detainees."

Will this lead to a "Truth Commission" or criminal investigations against government officials? I sure hope so (hopefully I'll have the time to explain why in a future post). Perhaps these memos could be so inflammatory that a Truth Commission will become undeniable. Isikoff reports, "One senior Obama official, who like others interviewed for this story requested anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity, said the memos were 'ugly' and could embarrass the CIA. Other officials predicted they would fuel demands for a 'truth commission' on torture."

However, I still don't think criminal investigations are likely. Why? Simply because Congress' hands are not clean on this matter and Obama's campaign promises on government transparency have fallen miles short of the mark. Certain members of Congress, especially those on committees dealing with detainee detention and national security, were aware of the torture techniques being used against detainees. Additionally, Obama has embraced many of the tools Bush used to protect government secrecy. Perhaps the most alarming is the continuing use of the expanded state-secrets doctrine. Those are just a few reasons why I don't think prosecutions are likely, but that may change with the release of more memos from the OLC.

Either way, this should be an interesting story to follow. Will we reward lawlessness and immoral behavior? Or will justice and the rule of law prevail?
I'll leave you with James Madison in Federalist 51:

But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

GOP at the Crossroads

Here is an excellent article in Newsweek written by David Frum discussing the internal battles for the future of the GOP and American Conservatism. Are Republicans going to become the party of O'Reily, Hannity, Palin and Limbaugh? Or will they become the party of Frum, Larison, Reihan and Duthat? I sincerely hope it is the latter, or else the GOP is destined to become an ever-shrinking southern theological party.
Preview:

In the days since I stumbled into this controversy, I've received a great deal of e-mail. (Most of it on days when Levin or Hannity or Hugh Hewitt or Limbaugh himself has had something especially disobliging to say about me.) Most of these e-mails say some version of the same thing: if you don't agree with Rush, quit calling yourself a conservative and get out of the Republican Party. There's the perfect culmination of the outlook Rush Limbaugh has taught his fans and followers: we want to transform the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan into a party of unanimous dittoheads—and we don't care how much the party has to shrink to do it. That's not the language of politics. It's the language of a cult.

The Prop. 8 Fight Continues

Yesterday the Supreme Court of California revisited the contentious issue of same-sex marriage and heard arguments on the validity of Proposition 8 which passed last November. (Background on Prop 8 see here). On Monday, the California legislature passed two resolutions declaring that, "[Prop 8] was an improper revision of the state constitution. Sweeping revisions can only be adopted if they originate in the Legislature, gain two-thirds approval in that body and then win approval by voters." Thus, they argue Prop 8 is invalid because it did not obtain the two-thirds approval in the legislature.

Not only did Prop 8 fail to get two-thirds approval of the legislature, but earlier in 2008 the legislature voted to extend full marriage rights to same-sex couples. Obtaining two-thirds support in the legislature was never going to happen. But the problem/issue is obvious. The judiciary has ruled in favor of same-sex couples, the legislature (multiple times) has ruled in favor of same-sex couples, the executive branch has deferred to the judiciary, but the people (citizens of CA) have voted "no" on extending those benefits to same-sex couples. Who is going to budge? Who should have the final say in the matter?

This whole problem stems from California being a referendum/initiative/proposition happy state, thus leaving legislation up to the citizens instead of the legislature. Some people like this form of uber-democracy stating that the power is with the people and the government should be bound by their wishes and demands. I completely disagree. I'm going to avoid the argument that there are so many stupid people out there they should not have legislative powers. Instead, I will argue it completely goes against the structure of our government and the intent of our framers. Our government is based off the idea of a constitutional democracy/republic. (Yes I know they are two very separate classifications, but we have moved closer to a democracy since our founding) The legislature was created to conceive a deliberative body of elected citizens who would address issues, debate them among themselves and come to a political and constitutional agreement on how to deal with the problem/issue. By allowing the legislative body to deliberate, all sides of the argument can be exercised and (theoretically) the free exchange of ideas will give us the most practical solution to the problem. By presenting legislative powers or issues to the public at-large, we completely ignore the benefits of a slow, principled body of lawmakers. Instead, we see majority tyranny where powerful groups suppress the rights of politically unpopular groups, hyperbolic rhetoric, demagoguery (The call stated the vote was for the "soul of the nation," and Pastor Rick Warren constantly uttered the lie that recognizing same-sex marriage rights would prohibit religious organizations from preaching against homosexuality) and no accountability. Who will vote out the voters of propositions if they lead to dreadful/damaging policy? I think we need to heed the advice of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 71:

The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they entrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion, or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests.

In my personal opinion, I don't think a specific branch of government or the people have the ability to preclude same-sex couples from marriage rights. The Supreme Court has established marriage as a fundamental right, stating in Loving v. Virginia, "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." However, opponents will argue that the court in Loving was referring specifically to marriage as an institution between a man and a woman, not same-sex couples. This is a valid argument and has not yet been visited by the court. Many will argue that a state should be free to establish their own legislation dealing with the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens (which I agree with) but I don't believe the state possesses the power to infringe on a fundamental constitutional right, "When a state exercises power wholly within the domain of state interest, it is insulated from federal judicial review. But such insulation is not carried over when state power is used as an instrument for circumventing a federally protected right." Gomillion v. Lightfoot. Yes, I know we aren't dealing with a Fed/State battle, but the argument is analogous. I also believe same-sex marriage is protected by the fundamental right to liberty. Furthermore, preventing same-sex couples from marrying is a violation of their 14th amendment equal protection rights. See Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas and this law review article.

Time and time again I've pointed out that our country was founded on the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. An extremely important part of securing liberty is allowing others to do whatever they please as long as it does not harm anyone else. Mere disapproval is not enough to invalidate laws or protections from others. I'm not sure which way the court will rule on this issue. I hope it is in favor of same-sex couples, but who knows. If the court rules the other way, perhaps in time it will be viewed as a success and a more solid claim of legitimacy for same-sex couples as Andrew Sullivan explains:

Who wants the critical moment in the securing of marriage rights to be imposed by a court against a clear majority vote of the citizens? Give it time, and conviction, and we'll win where it matters most: at the ballot box.