AgapeRevolution.com

Entries from May 2006

New Poll Numbers on Attitudes toward Marriage and Child Rearing

May 31, 2006 · Leave a Comment

According to UPI, younger people in the U.S. perceive marriage as less important for couples with children. The destruction of the link between sex, procreation, and marriage, which has occurred through the increasing legitimacy of cohabitation and homosexual relationships will soon create the same population problems that Europe is currently facing. 

A Gallup Poll finds that younger people in the United States are less likely to view marriage as important for couples with children.

The poll mirrors what has been happening in the country. The percentage of U.S. adults who are married has dropped from 77 percent in the 1960s to 53 percent in 2000, the percentage of those who are divorced has grown from 3 percent to 11 percent and the percentage who are single or living together from 9 percent to 24 percent.

Respondents tended to view marriage as more important as a sign of commitment than as a necessity for children. While 65 percent say that marriage is very important when couples plan to spend their lives together, 37 percent say it is very important when they have children.

Eighty percent of respondents who were 65 or older and 69 percent of those aged 50 to 64 say marriage is very important for lifelong commitment, and 58 percent and 37 percent when a couple has a child. Among those aged 40 to 49 and 18 to 38, 63 percent and 57 percent think marriage is important for commitment and 33 percent and 30 percent for children.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Culture

New Adult-Child Sex Movement in Europe

May 31, 2006 · 3 Comments

According to UPI, a new party wants to legalize sex between adults and children in the Netherlands. This further takes Europe down a slippery slope that it has been following in the radicalization of any laws dealing with sexual morality.

A new political party in the Netherlands is dedicated to legalizing sex between adults and children. 

Ad van den Berg, founder of the NVD Party, told the newspaper AD that the party plans to lobby first to lower the age of sexual consent from 16 to 12 and then to phase it out completely. He said that pedophilia used to be something that people in the country were willing to discuss but, because of Belgian killer Marc Dutroux, they are all "being put in the same box."

"Forbidding makes children all the more curious," Van den Berg said. "Rearing is also about introducing children to sex."

He said that the party advocates only consensual sex.

The party plans its official launch Wednesday. Its full name is Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit, or Love, Freedom and Diversity.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Culture · Law · Politics

The Threat of Same-Sex Marriage to Religious Freedom II

May 31, 2006 · Leave a Comment

Maggie Gallagher has an excellent article at Real Clear Politics.

The story circulating on the Internet was hard to believe at first: A North Truro, Mass., volunteer fireman lost his position because he signed a petition opposing gay marriage?

I was lucky enough to get Leo "Skip" Childs on the phone. Skip is the kind of guy who makes you ashamed of yourself, but very proud to be an American. He volunteers many hours in the tiny town of North Truro, repairing fire trucks, saving lives. "Last month I went on 22 rescue calls, plus 10 to 15 hours of administrative duties," he told me.
. . .
After five years, Skip thought his reappointment to the Board of Fire Engineers would be routine. Then Selectman Paul Asher-Best spoke up: "Recent action you took, Mr. Childs, indicates to me that you think that gay people are less than fully human, and not entitled to all the civil rights that are afforded to them. The Supreme Judicial Court talks about marriage rights being a basic civil right. … I need … assurance from you that you would offer equal protection to everyone in Truro, including households headed by gay or lesbian people, because to me your action speaks otherwise."

Skip is scratching his head at this point. How could signing a marriage petition make you unfit to rescue people? He tried to be conciliatory: "I'm more concerned that a special interest group with a strong lobby would be able to influence a judge in our state. … I wouldn't have a problem with it if it passed on the referendum."

But with that comment, Paul Asher-Best went ballistic. As Asher-Best later told me, "I consider myself one half of a loving couple who has been together 27 years. I don't consider myself a special interest.

"Mr. Childs' explanation, just like I said, amplifies his bias," he pronounced, "and I think for that reason I couldn't support him."

The town council voted for a new Board of Fire Engineers, minus Skip Childs. The Childses were humiliated. After nearly a decade of volunteering every spare hour to rescue your neighbors, this is your reward? Dressed down as a bigot in public for signing a marriage petition?
. . .
But two ideas are clearly now on a collision course in America: 1) There's something special about unions of husbands and wives, and 2) there's no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and only hate-filled bigots think otherwise. In Massachusetts, the second idea is now the official view of the law.

Skip Childs is one of the first casualties of this new conflict. But as our senators debate a Marriage Protection Amendment June 5, they should be forewarned: If they leave marriage to the courts, he won't be the last.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Culture · Law · Politics

EU Officials Attempt to Strike Balance Between Free Speech and Religious Sensitivities

May 31, 2006 · Leave a Comment

According to the Associated Press, EU officials are holding meetings with religious leaders to determine how to balance between free speech and religious sensitivities. 

Senior EU officials were holding talks Tuesday with Christian, Islamic and Jewish leaders as well as Buddhist spiritual leader the Dalai Lama to discuss how to strike a balance between freedom of speech and religious sensitivities.

Attention has been focused on the issue since newspaper caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad triggered protests by Muslims worldwide. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel were co-chairing the talks that aim to ease tensions between religions around the world, Barroso's office said.

Barroso told reporters going into the talks that the meeting was "a brainstorming with no pre-hatched conclusions," hoping to build on respect for diversity.

"It really is an opportunity to discuss freely amongst ourselves," Barroso said.

The EU leaders and their 16 religious counterparts were to debate ways on how the religious leaders can better handle tensions like the ones that spread amid the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, which sparked a series of violent protests across the Islamic world.

Many Muslims joined by other faiths denounced the drawings as offensive. But media outlets from a number of countries have carried the Danish cartoons asserting their right to free expression.

Schuessel said regular meetings with religious leaders should be set up.

"We have so many problems to overcome, we need really all forces, all moderate and constructive forces, to help to create a better world," Schuessel said.

I have two problems with the statements of the EU officials in this article. First, the second that one attempts to create a balance between free speech and religious sensitivities, free speech has already been lost. Free speech means that the state cannot restrict individual expression of ideas. The state can place some limits on how ideas are expressed if those restrictions are not based on the content of the speech. However, any attempt by the state to regulate the content of people’s ideas is extremely dangerous territory. If everybody in a society already knew what ideas were good and bad, perhaps it would not be so dangerous for the state to suppress ideas. The problem is that there is an extreme amount of disagreement in society about what ideas are good and bad. As a result, it is necessary to test ideas through free and open debate so that the people can determine what ideas are good and bad. Suppression of free speech increases the risk that bad and dangerous ideas will rein in a society because those ideas will go untested by debate. Additionally, restrictions on speech inevitably produce extreme abuses of government power since the state can use its power to regulate speech to suppress dissent against repressive state policies. A world in which religions cannot be publicly criticized is a very dangerous world because there are many bad and dangerous religious beliefs. In a world where religious belief and the state can be subject to abuse, it is necessary that free speech be available to provide accountability against those abuses. The proper response to an untrue or offensive idea is to counter it with one’s own idea.

The second problem that I have with the statement of the EU officials is that they expressly state that their goal is to increase respect for diversity while at the same time stating that they had no pre-hatched conclusions. This is in fact a lie because they already stated that the goal of these discussions was to reduce tensions among religions and increase respect for diversity. These are not neutral principles. What business does the state have in attempting to make religions like each other more? If one religion commits some act of violence against another religion, then the state should enforce the laws that prohibit that type of violence. However, the state cannot and should not ever have anything to do with making religions like each other more. This could not be a more offensive attack on religious freedom. If one cannot state that one’s religion is better than other religions, then there is no religious freedom. If one cannot hate other religious belief systems, then there is no religious freedom. If one cannot state that other religions are tools of Satan, there is no religious freedom. If one cannot state that other people in other religions are going to burn in hell, there is no religious freedom. If one cannot create a cartoon making fun of other religions, there is no religious freedom. Since all of these are examples of expression, the inability to do all of this is also a violation of the right to free speech. By the way, I am not making any normative claim here about whether it is good or bad for people to say anything that I have just listed here. It is just my simple argument that if one does not have the right to express these types of ideas, then there is no religious freedom or free speech. The great hypocritical irony of this whole situation is that the EU is implicitly creating a state religion through this meeting. It is establishing a state religion of religious pluralism where each religion must accept as valid the beliefs of other religions. This state religion is no more valid than the others that have dominated Europe for centuries. If people cannot reject the doctrines of religious pluralism, then there is no religious freedom or free speech.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Law · Politics · Theology

X-Men Leaves Da Vinci Code in Its Dust

May 30, 2006 · Leave a Comment

According to BBC News, X-Men just passed Da Vinci Code as the biggest opening of the year. 

X-Men: The Last Stand has opened to record-breaking business in the US and Canada, taking $103.1m (£55m) in its first three days of release.

The film had the year's biggest opening to date, beating The Da Vinci Code's first-weekend takings of $77m (£41m).

The film also set a new record for the Memorial Day holiday weekend by earning $120.1m (£64m) in its first four days.

The Da Vinci Code fell to second place but still took $43m (£23m) over the same four-day period.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: The Arts

Everlasting Love (U2)

May 30, 2006 · 3 Comments

Hearts gone astray
Keeping up when they go
I went away
Just when you needed me so
You won’t regret
I’ll come back begging you
Don’t you forget
Welcome love we once knew
Yeah

Open up your eyes
Then you’ll realize
Here I said was my
Everlasting love

Need you by my side
Come and be my bride
You’ll never be denied
Everlasting love

From the very start
Open up your heart
Feel the love you’ve got
Everlasting love

This love will last forever
This love will last forever

Hearts gone astray
Keeping up when they go
I went away
Just when you needed me so
You won’t regret
I’ll come back begging you
Don’t you forget
Welcome love we once knew
Yeah

When love’s river flows
No one really knows
Till someone’s there to show the
Way to lasting love

Like the sun it shines
Endlessly it shines
You always will be mine
Eternal love

Whatever love went wrong
Ours would still be strong
We’d have our own
Everlasting love

This love will last forever
This love will last forever

Open up your eyes
Then you’ll realize
Here I said was my
Everlasting love

Need you by my side
Come and be my pride
Never be denied
Everlasting love

From the very start
Open up your heart
Feel the love you’ve got

Everlasting love…

Everlasting Love is unquestionably one of the best songs by U2. The audio perfomance of this song can be heard at YouTube. As I have discussed previously, the relationship between God and humanity is like the relationship between a bride and a groom. In the song, All Because of You I Am, Bono expresses his love for Jesus Christ through a love serenade. The song Everlasting Love is an expression of love from the opposite direction. Bono wrote this song from the perspective of God, and in this song, God expresses his passionate desire that human beings would participate in his eternal love. Although this song is not the actual words of God, it is an accurate depiction of what God would probably say to humanity through such a song.

The first four lines of the song express the existence of human rebellion or the sin condition. It says, “Heats gone astray . . . I went away.” Because of the sin condition, all human beings inevitably rebel against God and pursue their own selfish ends. This sin against God creates a conflict in the relationship between God and humanity. Even though God loves human beings, he is also a God of justice that must punish the sins that have been committed against him. Through the unjust death of Jesus Christ, reconciliation occurs in the relationship between humanity and God. This reconciliation offers the possibility of more authentic relationships because human beings are no longer motivated to love because of fear of punishment. As John says, “There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.” (1 John 4:18)

God next expresses his desire to restore his relationship with humanity when he says, “I’ll come back begging you / Don’t you forget / Welcome love we once knew.” Because of the death of Jesus Christ, God now appeals for a renewed relationship with human beings or a return to the love that was lost. As it says in Deuteronomy, “Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the LORD your God will gather you and bring you back. He will bring you to the land that belonged to your ancestors, and you will take possession of it.” (4-5)

He next says, “Open up your eyes / Then you’ll realize / Here I said was my / Everlasting love.” Because people are still in their sinful state, many people block God and his love out of their lives. God is appealing to people to open up their eyes and turn away from their selfishness so that they can participate in his love. As Jesus said, “For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.” (Matthew 13:5)

Then God says, “Need you by my side / Come and be my bride / You’ll never be denied Everlasting love.” God is expressing his desire for a deeply intimate eternal relationship with every single person who will turn to him and accept it. God is asking us to join his side in a personal relationship like the one that he had with Enoch. In Genesis it says, “Enoch walked faithfully with God . . . .” (5:24) God is asking for a relationship that is like that of a bride and groom. Isaiah said, “[A]s a bridegroom rejoices over his bride, so will your God rejoice over you.” (62:5) It also says in Revelation, “Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready.” (Revelation 19:7)

Then God appeals to the eternal nature of his love by saying, “This love will last forever / This love will last forever.” It is impossible that any being but God could legitimately express the words in this song. It would be non-sense for a human being to tell another person that their love will last forever because forever is a concept that a finite being cannot even comprehend. Only an infinite being who exists eternally, can actually say that its love will last forever. A human being promising another person everlasting love would be no more feasible than promising an infinite amount of money. In Psalms, it says, “But from everlasting to everlasting the LORD’s love is with those who fear him . . . .” (103:17) It is God and only God that offers the possibility of eternal love.

God next expresses the importance of sharing love with others when he says, “When love’s river flows / No one really knows / Till someone’s there to show the Way to lasting love.” In order to change the hearts of selfish sinners, one must share love with them. As Paul said, “‘How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!’” (Romans 10:15) John said, “Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.” (1 John 4:11) By definition, love is not something that one can just take in. Love is something that one must share.

God understands that human beings are a work in progress when he says, “Whatever love went wrong / Ours would still be strong / We’d have our own / Everlasting love.” In Matthew, Jesus tells us to “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (5:48) The standard for human conduct will always be perfection, but God understands that we are works in progress, and he will extend his grace to us and continue to love us in spite of our imperfections.

God expresses his desire that he could be proud of us when he says, “Need you by my side / Come and be my pride / Never be denied / Everlasting love.” We should be like Job, “Then the LORD said to Satan, ‘Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.’” (Job 1:8) It is God’s desire that our love would be so perfect, that he can go and brag to Satan about us.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Agape Revolution · The Arts

Interviews with Bono of U2

May 28, 2006 · 2 Comments

Categories: The Arts

The Threat of Same-Sex Marriage to Religious Freedom

May 27, 2006 · Leave a Comment

The Star Tribune (AP) has an article discussing the potential threats to religious freedom that could result from same-sex marriage. 

While many religious groups are lobbying against gay marriage, some scholars say they also need to look ahead and ponder the practical problems if such unions are one day widely legalized.

Their take: If gay marriage becomes recognized under law across the country, religious groups could face challenges to customary ways of doing business, even to their finances.

Although 19 states have passed anti-gay marriage amendments, Marc D. Stern, general counsel of the American Jewish Congress and an influential ally of liberals on church-state separation, thinks widespread legalization of same-sex unions is inevitable.

From his perspective, that will cause major problems for religious agencies unless they start a campaign now so their ability to dissent is guaranteed. Already, he notes, Catholic Charities Boston ended a century of adoption services because an anti-discrimination law requires placements with same-sex couples in Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is now legal.

Some gay rights advocates agree that conflicts would be inevitable but argue that public interest in ending discrimination should take precedence over claims of religious freedom.

"We are in a zero-sum game in terms of moral values,'' says Chai Feldblum of Georgetown University's Law Center, a veteran gay rights advocate. Government must choose sides.
. . .
Specialists say religions' legal leverage was weakened by the Supreme Court's 1990 Employment Division v. Smith decision, which ended the requirement that government must show a "compelling interest'' before restricting religious freedom.
. . .
Stern, an Orthodox Jew, cited more than 200 cases he said signal future trouble for agencies and individuals that uphold historic Jewish and Christian opposition to gay marriage. Pertinent laws cover a myriad number of areas including public accommodations, employment, housing, municipal contracts, college admissions and even tax exemption.
. . .
Robin Fretwell Wilson, a University of Maryland law professor, said the record with legalized abortion indicates what might happen.

Once women gained the right to choose, she noted, activists filed numerous lawsuits trying to force religious hospitals and individuals to provide a procedure they considered immoral. Wilson predicted the same costly conflict for religious groups that reject same-sex weddings or same-sex couples, unless they win clear legal exemptions.

Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School favors gay marriage but worries that after legalization, government would threaten faiths that oppose same-sex marriage with loss of tax exemption.

The reason is the Supreme Court's 1983 ruling that removed Bob Jones University's tax exemption over its religious opposition (since modified) to interracial dating and marriage because it violated public policy.
. . .
Washington attorney Russell Upton wrote in the American University Law Review that the Boy Scouts – who ban gay leaders and oppose gay sex – should lose state tax exemption because "government should not subsidize discrimination.''

And Feldblum says that "without a doubt'' that eradicating bias is "a compelling goal'' for government.

To her, that trumps a religious foundation for excluding gay couples.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Law

Speculation Concerning Supreme Court Opening

May 27, 2006 · Leave a Comment

William Kristol recently speculated on the possibility of an opening during the next month on the Supreme Court.

The administration also got reenergized on the judicial front, shepherding Brett Kavanaugh through to confirmation to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. If a Supreme Court seat comes open in a month, the administration seems prepared, with (sources say) a short list of well vetted and well qualified conservative candidates.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Law

Israeli Prime Minister Addresses Congress

May 26, 2006 · Leave a Comment

Ehud Omert, the prime minister of Israel, recently addressed the U.S. Congress. The full text of his speech is below.

SPEAKER: EHUD OLMERT, PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL

OLMERT: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, distinguished members of the U.S. Congress, ladies and gentlemen:

On behalf of the people in the state of Israel, I wish to express my profound gratitude to you for your privilege of addressing this joint meeting of the U.S. Congress.

This building, this chamber, and all of you stand as a testament to the enduring principles of liberty and democracy.

More than 30 years ago, I came to Washington as a young legislator thanks to a program sponsored by the State Department. I had a chance to tour this building, and I saw then what I believe today, that this institution, the United States Congress, is the greatest deliberative body of the world.

(APPLAUSE)

I did not imagine then that a day would actually come when I would have the honor of addressing this forum as the prime minister of my nation, the state of Israel. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

The United States is a superpower whose influence reaches across oceans and beyond borders. Your continued support, which I am happy to say transcends parties and affiliations, is of paramount importance to us.

We revere the principles and values represented by your great country and are grateful for the unwavering support and friendship we have received from the U.S. Congress, from President George W. Bush, and from the American people.

(more…)

Categories: Politics

Agape Love in the Early Church II

May 26, 2006 · Leave a Comment

Justin Martyr (100-65 A.D.), an early Christian apologist, discussed the early church and its worship of God in the First Apology.

Chapter LXI.—Christian baptism.

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”

And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.

Chapter LXV.—Administration of the sacraments.

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to . . . [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

Chapter LXVI.—Of the Eucharist.

And this food is called among us . . . [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Chapter LXVII.—Weekly worship of the Christians.

And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

For further reading, see Agape Love in the Early Church I.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Agape Revolution · Theology

Three Members of Iraq’s Tennis Team Shot for Wearing Shorts

May 26, 2006 · Leave a Comment

BBC News is reporting on another example of the peace of Islam.

The coach of Iraq's tennis team and two players were shot dead in Baghdad on Thursday, said Iraqi Olympic officials. Coach Hussein Ahmed Rashid and players Nasser Ali Hatem and Wissam Adel Auda were killed in the al-Saidiya district of the capital.

Witnesses said the three were dressed in shorts and were killed days after militants issued a warning forbidding the wearing of shorts.

Other Iraqi athletes have been targeted in recent incidents.

In this case, according to accounts, the men dropped off laundry and were then stopped in their vehicle by gunmen.

Leaflets

Two of the athletes stepped out of the car and were shot in the head, said one witness. The third was shot dead in the vehicle.

"The gunman took the body out of the car and threw it on top of the other two bodies before stealing the car," said the witness, who requested anonymity.

He said leaflets had been recently distributed in the area warning residents not to wear shorts.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Theology

House of Lords Rules on Important Divorce Issues

May 25, 2006 · Leave a Comment

According to the Daily Telegraph, the House of Lords (UK) has just ruled on two important family law issues.

Wives are entitled to a fair deal on divorce, Britain's highest court ruled yesterday.
. . .

For the first time, women who sacrifice their careers for the benefit of their families will be able to seek compensation from wealthy husbands – rather than just enough to live on.

The same principles will apply to house-husbands who stay at home to bring up children while their wives go out to work.

The law lords ruled that two women were entitled to multi-million-pound settlements from their former husbands.

The House of Lords also slammed the lid on the growing tendency of judges to investigate who was to blame for the breakdown of a marriage. Overruling the lower courts, the law lords insisted that misbehaviour should have no bearing on a financial settlement unless the conduct was so bad that it would be unfair to ignore it.

The House of Lords ruled on two issues that had been appealed from decisions of lower courts. The first issue was whether a homemaker should receive compensation for foregone income when a divorce occurs? The House of Lords concluded that homemakers should receive such compensation. The second issue was whether fault for causing the divorce should be considered in the distribution of marital property (like if adultery caused the divorce)? The House of Lords said that fault issues should generally not be considered except in extreme situations. The second issue has been the subject of prior postings here on Agape Revolution. See: UK May Allow Civil Damages for Adultery; Civil Damages for Adultery II; Civil Damages for Adultery III; Adultery Does Have Consequences.

(more…)

Categories: Culture · Law

Religious Freedom in New York City Public Schools

May 24, 2006 · Leave a Comment

The New York Times has an article, which mentions some highly constitutionally suspect regulations that New York City Public Schools are imposing on Christian student organizations. 

On a recent sunny afternoon at Stuyvesant High School, the track team warmed up in the lobby. On the sixth floor, the school newspaper staff assembled to listen to a speaker. Outside, a cluster of students gathered to pray.

The students were members of Seekers, the elite school's Christian club. Like Joshua marching around Jericho before the walls came tumbling down, they were walking around their building and praying in preparation for an event called Jesus Day.

"Our main goal for Jesus Day is evangelism," said David Seok, 18, a senior and a co-president of Seekers. "We try to reach out to our school and our friends who don't believe."

About 30 public high schools in New York City have Seekers clubs like Stuyvesant's. Loosely affiliated with the Urban Youth Alliance, an evangelical Christian organization based in the Bronx, the Seekers clubs, which date to at least the 1980's, comprise the largest and most established network of Christian student groups in New York City public schools. For most of them, Jesus Day — actually a series of outreach-oriented rallies that were held on different days last week in schools across the city — is their capstone event of the year.
. . .
School administrators must also wrestle with difficult questions about where the right to religious expression ends and the separation of church and state begins. Some school officials have discouraged their Seekers clubs over the years from having Jesus Day, while others have imposed strict limitations on advertising for the event, including prohibiting groups from using the name "Jesus" in any literature.

At the Bronx High School of Science last year, Michael Zhou, 18, the Seekers club president, said, the group got around restrictions placed on them by leaving out the letter "u" from Jesus, putting up posters reading, "Jes s," and the message, "All that's missing is U."

At Townsend Harris High School in Flushing, Queens, the Seekers club was not even allowed to meet on campus until several years ago. The school's principal barred members of the faculty from advising the club, making it impossible for it to become an officially sanctioned student organization, said Ellen Fee, a math teacher and assistant principal who is the club's current adviser.

Ms. Fee agreed to become the club's adviser after coming to the school in 2003 — she also advises the Muslim students group — paving the way for Seekers to become official. Today, it is the school's second-largest club, she said. But the school's principal, Thomas Cunningham, asked the members not to take part in Jesus Day.

"That's one of the criteria that the principal laid down," said Vivian Shibata, the club's president. "He preferred that we didn't have Jesus Day. We didn't want to push the limits."

At Stuyvesant, Stanley Teitel, the school's principal, has given the group wider latitude, saying he trusts other students at the school to be able to make up their own minds about Jesus Day. The school also has Jewish and Muslim clubs. The members of Seekers were free to post fliers for Jesus Day around the school and hold their event in the cafeteria after school.

"It's your decision as to whether or not you want to go," Mr. Teitel said. "I'm not forcing you. It's not part of your instructional day. They're just advertising this event is occurring. We do many after-school events."

Several years ago, after receiving a directive from the New York City Board of Education, the school reversed its policy of prohibiting students from holding Jesus Day on campus, he said. Before that, the students held the event on a street corner near the school, off school property.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Culture · Law

What Is Currently Preventing US Population Decline?

May 24, 2006 · Leave a Comment

Robert Samuelson has a good article at Real Clear Politics on the problem of declining birth rates. 

There's no more population “explosion.'' In wealthier countries, motherhood is going out of style and plunging birthrates portend population loss. This is a hugely significant development, even if we don't fully understand the causes — 30 years ago experts didn't predict it — or consequences. One way or another, the side effects will be massive for economics, politics and people's well-being. Indeed, they may already have started. Is it a coincidence that Germany and Italy, two countries on the edge of population decline, are so troubled?

. . .

Up to a point, we understand plunging fertility rates. Wattenberg reviews the usual suspects: improved incomes; health and life expectancies (as more children survive, parents have fewer babies); growing urbanization (families need fewer children to work the fields); women's access to education and jobs; contraception; later and fewer marriages; more divorces. But our understanding is only partial, because there's one big exception to low fertility rates: the United States.

American fertility is roughly at the replacement rate, 2.1 children per woman. . . . What explains the American exception? Eberstadt cites three differences with Europe and most other advanced countries: greater optimism, greater patriotism and stronger religious values. There's some supporting evidence. A survey by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago asked respondents in 33 countries to react to this statement: “I would rather be a citizen of (my country) than of any other.'' Among Americans, 75 percent “strongly'' agreed; among Germans, the French and Spanish, comparable responses were 21 percent, 34 percent and 21 percent, respectively.

Children are now usually a conscious choice — whereas they were once considered economic necessities or religious obligations. Somehow American society better mixes child rearing and jobs than other societies that provide greater child subsidies (government day care, family allowances). Indeed, generous welfare states may discourage having children. A study by economists at the University of Minnesota found that high Social Security payments and payroll taxes are associated with low fertility rates. People may feel they don't need children to care for them in old age. Or high taxes and poor economies may deter young people from starting families.

No one knows. Among experts, there is much skepticism that Putin-like economic incentives will alone revive fertility rates. By not having children, people are voting against the future — their countries' and, perhaps, their own. It is easy to imagine the sacrifices and disappointments of raising children. It is hard, try as people might, to imagine the intense joys and selfish pleasures. People ignore Adam Smith's keen insight: “The chief part of human happiness arises from the consciousness of being beloved.''

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Culture

Church in the U.S. Capitol

May 24, 2006 · Leave a Comment

There is an excellent article by David Barton on Wallbuilders.com.

CAPITOL IN 1800Many people are surprised to learn that the United States Capitol regularly served as a church building; a practice that began even before Congress officially moved into the building and lasted until well after the Civil War. Below is a brief history of the Capitol's use as a church, and some of the prominent individuals who attended services there.

The cornerstone of the Capitol was laid by President George Washington in 1793., but it was not until the end of 1800 that Congress actually moved into the building. According to the congressional records for late November of 1800, Congress spent the first few weeks organizing the Capitol rooms, committees, locations, etc. Then, on December 4, 1800, Congress approved the use of the Capitol building as a church building.

The approval of the Capitol for church was given by both the House and the Senate, with House approval being given by Speaker of the House, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, and Senate approval being given by the President of the Senate, Thomas Jefferson. Interestingly, Jefferson’s approval came while he was still officially the Vice- President but after he had just been elected President.

Significantly, the Capitol building had been used as a church even for years before it was occupied by Congress. The cornerstone for the Capitol had been laid on September 18, 1793; two years later while still under construction, the July 2, 1795, Federal Orrery newspaper of Boston reported:

City of Washington, June 19. It is with much pleasure that we discover the rising consequence of our infant city. Public worship is now regularly administered at the Capitol, every Sunday morning, at 11 o’clock by the Reverend Mr. Ralph.

Categories: History

Agape Love in Deuteronomy Chapter Thirty

May 23, 2006 · Leave a Comment

When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come on you and you take them to heart wherever the LORD your God disperses you among the nations, and when you and your children return to the LORD your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you. Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the LORD your God will gather you and bring you back. He will bring you to the land that belonged to your ancestors, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors. The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. The LORD your God will put all these curses on your enemies who hate and persecute you. You will again obey the LORD and follow all his commands I am giving you today. Then the LORD your God will make you most prosperous in all the work of your hands and in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your land. The LORD will again delight in you and make you prosperous, just as he delighted in your ancestors, if you obey the LORD your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Agape Revolution

Fifty-Percent of Americans Support the Marriage Amendment

May 23, 2006 · Leave a Comment

According to UPI, 50 percent of Americans support a constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to a man and a woman.

A new survey says Americans are still opposed to gay marriage but only half favor a constitutional amendment to bar it.

When asked whether the Constitution should be amended to define marriage as only between a man and woman, which would preclude states from sanctioning same-sex marriages, 50 percent of Americans say they would favor such an amendment, while 47 percent are opposed, Gallup News Service reported.

Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs survey found that 39 percent believe marriages between homosexuals should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Culture · Politics

Chief Justice Roberts Addresses Georgetown Law Graduates

May 22, 2006 · Leave a Comment

USA Today has some excerpts from the address that Chief Justice Roberts just gave to the graduates at Georgetown Law School. 

Chief Justice John Roberts said Sunday he is seeking greater consensus on the Supreme Court, arguing that more consensus among justices is likely if hot-button issues are decided on the "narrowest possible grounds."

In a 15-minute address to Georgetown University law graduates, the 51-year-old chief justice — youngest in 200 years — sketched a vision for leading a court bitterly divided on issues such as abortion, the death penalty and gay rights.

He said the nation benefits if unelected justices can avoid making 5-4 decisions that have sweeping impact, noting that many of the court's most controversial decisions — from presidential wartime powers to political boundaries in Texas — will be decided in the final six weeks of the current term.

"If it is not necessary to decide more to a case, then in my view it is necessary not to decide more to a case," Roberts said. "Division should not be artificially suppressed, but the rule of law benefits from a broader agreement. The broader the agreement among the justices, the more likely it is a decision on the narrowest possible grounds."
. . .
Roberts lightheartedly made reference to the heightened public scrutiny of the highest court.
. . .
During his confirmation process, both conservative and liberal advocacy groups scoured Roberts' judicial record and background for evidence of his political leanings.

"Look at the graduates around you. Twenty some years from now, these are the people the press is going to track down to find something embarrassing about you," he said with a smile, as the crowd roared in response. "Today is the day to decide among yourselves, what happens at Georgetown stays at Georgetown."

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Law

Women Pressured into Aborting Down’s Syndrome Babies

May 22, 2006 · 2 Comments

The Daily Telegraph is reporting that some women in the UK are being pressured by doctors into aborting their Down's Syndrome babies.

Lisa Green could hardly wait to give birth to her second child. The images from her eight-month scans were showing a fully formed baby weighing more than 7lb. With the excitement and anticipation familiar to any expectant parent, she and her husband Tim had already chosen a name for their unborn son.

"Then the doctor said, 'I have some bad news – your baby has Down's syndrome'," recalls Mrs Green, 35, a part-time administrator from Margate, in Kent.
 
After a complicated pregnancy, during which the doctors had found that Mrs Green was carrying excess amniotic fluid, the couple had agreed that their baby could be tested for genetic conditions. "We were both in total shock, but this was considerably worsened when he said, 'You can have a termination.' I was 35 weeks' pregnant at this stage. My baby was fully formed and his name was decided. I was appalled.

"He urged us to think about the termination and think about how having a baby with 'mental retardation' would affect our lives. He listed only the potential negatives about Down's syndrome, without giving us any information to read for a more balanced view. The midwife tried to interject and offer us some leaflets, but he talked her down."

Mrs Green decided to go ahead with the pregnancy and, two weeks later, gave birth to Harrison – a little brother for their first child, Sam, who is now five. Harrison Green is now two years old and has just started nursery part-time. He is, according to his mother, a "happy and healthy" child.

But thousands of other unborn children diagnosed with Down's suffer a different fate. According to new research by the Down's Syndrome Association, Mrs Green is not alone in her experience.

Many pregnant women whose babies are diagnosed with the condition by an NHS screening programme are being actively encouraged to have late abortions. Since its launch in 2003, the screening service has been offered to all 760,000 women who fall pregnant in the UK every year, at an estimated cost to the NHS of £15,300 per Down's syndrome pregnancy detected.
. . .
Those fears now appear to have become a disturbing reality. Nuala Scarisbrick, a trustee of Life, the pro-life organisation, said that the offer of late terminations for Down's babies was a case of "overt eugenics". She added: "There are human rights for everybody unless you are disabled in some way, it seems."

In recent years, advances in medical screening and the associated rise in the number of terminations (about 185,000 are performed every year in the UK) have led to a number of critics condemning the rising tide of "abortion on demand".
. . .
Although children with Down's syndrome who also have an untreated heart condition are unlikely to survive into their teens, a child with no other health problems can expect to live up to the age of 60. Many children with the condition can, like Harrison, lead happy and fulfilled lives.

"We don't know what we'd do without him – he's so adored," says Mrs Green. "The frightening thing is that, had we been told by the same doctor about the Down's syndrome earlier in the pregnancy, there is a chance we might have decided to abort. That decision would have been based on incomplete and biased information."

But by the time of diagnosis, the Greens already knew that their feelings about their son were unconditional. In the end, the couple decided to act on biased information of their own: love.

Categories: Culture · Science

Bono Pushing for Marshall Plan for Africa

May 22, 2006 · Leave a Comment

According to Reuters, Bono is advocating for a Marshall Plan for Africa. 

Irish rock star Bono met British finance minister Gordon Brown at a run-down Nigerian primary school on Monday, as Africa moved to hold the rich world to account over promises to fund a "Marshall Plan" for the continent.

Some ceilings at Ido Sarki School, on the outskirts of the Nigerian capital, had collapsed and about 150 children crowded onto benches in one classroom, illustrating the scale of the task required for the poorest continent to deliver basic education to all within nine years.

"Education for every child is the most cost-effective investment the world could ever make," Brown said, adding that every extra year of schooling also had measurable impact on a country's health and prosperity.

African finance ministers invited Brown and Bono to a conference in Abuja where they followed up on last year's meeting of the Group of Eight rich nations which promised to double aid to Africa by 2010.

Development campaigners say the rich world is already falling behind on promises to fund a development plan on the scale of the Marshall Plan that helped rebuild Europe after the Second World War.

 (Posted by Trask)

Categories: Politics

Islamic Teaching vs. Christian Teaching

May 21, 2006 · 7 Comments

Nina Shea has some very interesting excerpts from the textbooks of students in Saudi Arabia in the Washington Post. I thought that it would be interesting to contrast these teachings of Islam with the teachings of Jesus Christ in his Sermon on the Mount. 

The Teachings of Islamic Schools in Saudi Arabia

FIRST GRADE:

" Every religion other than Islam is false."

"Fill in the blanks with the appropriate words (Islam, hellfire): Every religion other than ______________ is false. Whoever dies outside of Islam enters ____________."

FOURTH GRADE:

"True belief means . . . that you hate the polytheists and infidels but do not treat them unjustly."

FIFTH GRADE:

"Whoever obeys the Prophet and accepts the oneness of God cannot maintain a loyal friendship with those who oppose God and His Prophet, even if they are his closest relatives."

"It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and His Prophet, or someone who fights the religion of Islam."

"A Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion. Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy in religion."

SIXTH GRADE:

"Just as Muslims were successful in the past when they came together in a sincere endeavor to evict the Christian crusaders from Palestine, so will the Arabs and Muslims emerge victorious, God willing, against the Jews and their allies if they stand together and fight a true jihad for God, for this is within God's power."

(more…)

Categories: Agape Revolution · Theology

The Coming Demographic Extinction of the West

May 20, 2006 · Leave a Comment

Mark Steyn had an excellent article a few months ago in the Wall Street Journal about the coming demographic extinction of Western civilzation.

Most people reading this have strong stomachs, so let me lay it out as baldly as I can: Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries. There'll probably still be a geographical area on the map marked as Italy or the Netherlands–probably–just as in Istanbul there's still a building called St. Sophia's Cathedral. But it's not a cathedral; it's merely a designation for a piece of real estate. Likewise, Italy and the Netherlands will merely be designations for real estate. The challenge for those who reckon Western civilization is on balance better than the alternatives is to figure out a way to save at least some parts of the West.

One obstacle to doing that is that, in the typical election campaign in your advanced industrial democracy, the political platforms of at least one party in the United States and pretty much all parties in the rest of the West are largely about what one would call the secondary impulses of society–government health care, government day care (which Canada's thinking of introducing), government paternity leave (which Britain's just introduced). We've prioritized the secondary impulse over the primary ones: national defense, family, faith and, most basic of all, reproductive activity–"Go forth and multiply," because if you don't you won't be able to afford all those secondary-impulse issues, like cradle-to-grave welfare.

(more…)

Categories: Culture · Politics

President Bush Signs New Tax Cuts Into Law

May 20, 2006 · 1 Comment

According to the Associated Press, President Bush just signed into law a new tax cut bill, which cuts the capital gains tax. 

President Bush has signed a $70 billion tax cut bill that Republicans hope will help them as they head into the fall elections.

"With this bill, we're sending the American people a clear message about our policy," Bush said Wednesday.

Democrats overwhelmingly opposed the bill, saying the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends will flow mostly to the rich.

"Today's really a good day to be a millionaire, but it's a bad day if you want to be a millionaire," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "That's because President Bush just signed a bill that sealed the fate of those trying to get ahead."

There are three reasons why these tax cuts were a bad idea. First, the claimed justification for these tax cuts is that they will improve economic growth, but there is no need for economic stimulus right now since the economy grew at a rate of 4.8% in the first quarter of this year, and the economy is expected to grow at a rate of 3.5% in the second quarter of this year. This is a stable rate of growth.

Second, if there are threats to the US economy, those threats are emanating from two sources. First, since the whole economy relies on energy, high energy prices could produce inflation problems in the US economy. However, creating incentives for consumers and manufacturers to decrease reliance on oil is the solution to this problem. Second, the dramatically increasing budget deficits are a threat to the US economy because they drive up inflation and interest rates, and government borrowing crowds out private invesment. The capital gains tax cuts only further increase the deficit, and they do nothing to solve the energy problem.

Third, the capital gains tax cuts further a trend in the Bush Administration of only proposing tax cuts that benefit the most wealthy people in society. Hardly any of the Bush Administration's tax cuts provide any direct benefit to people below the upper middle class. Why not provide a tax cut to lower income and middle class families that are providing all of the human capital, which the US economy operates on but who receive no economic reward for their investment? The failure of the developed world to support families is what is currently producing demographic problems with declining populations that will eventually create major problems for economies of the developed world.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Current Events · Politics

Federal Judge Strikes Down Gay Adoption Law

May 20, 2006 · Leave a Comment

According to the Star Tribune (AP), a federal judge has ruled that an Oklahoma law, which prohibits recognition of gay adoptions from other states and countries, is unconstitutional.

A federal judge struck down a 2-year-old law that prohibits Oklahoma from recognizing adoptions by same-sex couples from other states and countries.

U.S. District Judge Robin Cauthron ruled Friday the measure violated due process rights under the U.S. Constitution because it attempted to break up families without considering the parents' fitness or the children's best interests.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Culture · Law

Market Forces Are Increasing Demand for Fuel Efficient Cars

May 20, 2006 · 7 Comments

According to CNN, demand for smaller cars that are more fuel efficient is increasing rapidly. Although Congress still needs to take action to reduce reliance on oil in the car market, it is good to see that market forces are increasing reliance on smaller cars.

In an atmosphere of high fuel prices, the market for used cars with high fuel mileage has gotten red hot.

Gas prices can cause greater fluctuations in used-car prices than in new cars for two reasons: used-car prices are more flexible than new-car prices and used-car shoppers generally have lower incomes than new-car shoppers.

In one extreme example, used Toyota Priuses are in such demand that they lose almost no value in the first year or two of ownership even after being driven tens of thousands of miles.

. . .

Honda Civic Hybrids are also sporting near-immovable resale values.

The Prius is an exceptional case, though, warned Forrest Sherman, a pricing analyst with Kelley Blue Book.

Those paying top dollar for a used Prius now may see prices drop later.

"It will happen," said Sherman. "There are only so many people that will find (a used Prius) that attractive and will pay that much for it"

It isn't all just Beanie Baby-style insanity, though. There are some sound fundamental reasons for the high prices being paid for hybrid cars like the Prius and Civic Hybrid in the used-car market.

First, prices for all kinds of used vehicles are relatively high now because the supply of used cars is low. A few years ago, leasing wasn't very popular. Today, that means fewer cars being traded in at the end of lease contracts, a major source of well-maintained used cars.

Second, prices for used compact cars, including non-hybrids, are up because of high gas prices. It isn't just that people are buying them to save fuel, but that more buyers are considering these cars and discovering how good they've actually become, said Raj Sundaram, president of Automotive Lease Guide, a company that tracks used car values for the leasing industry.

"Resale values on mid-compact cars are jumping quite a bit," said Sundaram.

Mid-compacts include the Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla and Ford Focus. Prices for used compact cars, a category that includes mid-compacts, have climbed about 20 percent in the past year, according to data from Edmunds.com.

A 2005 Honda Civic EX with 20,000 miles on it is worth $55 more than its original $18,280 price, according to Kelley Blue Book.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Culture · Current Events · Science

Some House Conservatives Have Declared War on New Spending

May 20, 2006 · 4 Comments

According to the Washington Times, some House Conservatives have declared war on new spending. With spending out of control and the public angry with congress, it is about time. 

A bitter fight broke out among House Republicans yesterday as conservatives demanded Congress stick to the budget approved Thursday, and managed to strip $507 million out of a $136 billion military spending bill before the House approved it.

The raucous floor fight yesterday afternoon marks the start of a rough road ahead for the many remaining spending bills this election year, as Republican leaders try to dole out popular funding and conservatives demand fiscal discipline.

"The ink isn't even dry on the budget and we're already attempting to violate it," complained Rep. Jeb Hensarling, the Texas Republican who led the charge against the $507 million taken from a reserve fund and designated for military construction projects.

Conservatives said the projects weren't war emergencies and they pointed to an administration statement yesterday stating the White House "opposes the use of war reserve funds for military construction projects."

"After months of negotiating to build a disciplined federal budget, some of us feel that to turn around two days later and use a gimmick to exceed the budget is wrong," said Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican and chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee.

. . .

Conservatives acknowledged it was tough to take a stand on the popular military spending bill yesterday, but they said Americans want fiscal discipline in Congress and they'll keep fighting for it.

"House conservatives are adamant about sticking to this budget," Mr. Pence said.

"Could be a long, hot summer on the floor of Congress," he added.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Politics

Justice Scalia Speaks His Mind

May 19, 2006 · Leave a Comment

Justice ScaliaAccording to LegalTimes.com, Justice Scalia has expressed his opposition to legislation that would prohibit federal judges from citing foreign law. However, Justice Scalia's opinion on this issue is not as interesting as the fact that he expressed an opinion at all since judges generally do not discuss how they might rule on legal issues, which might come before the court. What a boring place the Supreme Court would be without Justice Scalia.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Thursday repeated his strong opposition to invoking foreign law in Supreme Court constitutional decisions — but he said Congress should not legislate against the practice.

“I don’t think it’s any of your business,” Scalia said before a lunch meeting of the National Italian American Foundation that included many members of Congress of Italian descent. “I’ll be darned if I think it’s up to Congress to tell us how to rule.”

Scalia added, “Let us make our little mistakes, just as we let you make yours.”

Scalia’s blunt admonition was a new twist on one of his pet peeves about his colleagues on the Court, namely their occasional citation of foreign or international court rulings in decisions on issues including gay rights, affirmative action, and the death penalty for juveniles. As much as Scalia opposes the practice, his loyalty to the Court and its independence apparently led him to speak out against proposed legislation on the subject.

The practice has outraged Republicans in Congress, prompting several to introduce legislation that would discourage or forbid it. In 2004, Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) introduced a resolution to express the opposition of Congress to citation of foreign law by federal judges, and in interviews he has suggested that judges who ignore the resolution could be subject to impeachment.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Law

Is President Bush Serious about the Same-Sex Marriage Amendment?

May 19, 2006 · Leave a Comment

According to Washington Times, many social conservatives are expressing frustration over minimal backing by the Bush Administration for the same-sex marriage amendment. 

Social conservatives say President Bush must work harder before next month's scheduled Senate vote to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman, and some even say the White House is sending all the wrong signals on the issue.

"The only thing we're hearing now from the administration are either comments that are totally opposed to the amendment or those that appear to be opposed to the amendment," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. "The president needs to speak to the issue just as passionately as he did in the campaign." 
. . .

After Monday night's national prime-time Oval Office address on immigration, Mr. Perkins wrote an e-mail to supporters wondering why Mr. Bush has never done that for an issue such as marriage, which matters so much to social conservatives.

"It's not that we are demanding this, but when the First Lady is disparaging the issue, and when the Vice President lets stand unrebutted Mary Cheney's claims, we think some demonstration of presidential leadership is warranted — and overdue," he wrote.

The constitutional amendment is scheduled for a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee today and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has set a time for a Senate floor vote the week of June 5.

In recent weeks, Laura Bush has told Fox News that she doesn't think the issue should be used in campaigns, and Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Mary has been highlighting her father's past opposition to the amendment during a tour for her book. 

"Amending the Constitution with this amendment, this piece of legislation, is a bad piece of legislation," Miss Cheney, a lesbian, told Fox News, adding that the amendment was "writing discrimination into the Constitution."

In 2004, Mr. Bush, in a five-minute address from the White House Roosevelt Room, called for a constitutional amendment protecting marriage. He said the 2003 Massachusetts court decision that legalized same-sex "marriages" for that state and the actions of mayors across the country who began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples made it clear that Congress must act.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Culture · Politics

Georgia Judge Rules Same-Sex Marriage Amendment Unconstitutional

May 18, 2006 · Leave a Comment

According to USA Today (AP), a Georgia Superior Court Judge struck down the state's same-sex marriage amendment because of a procedural issue with the language of the amendment. 

Georgia will appeal a judge's ruling that struck down its voter-approved ban on gay marriage, and the governor said Wednesday he will call a special legislative session if the state Supreme Court doesn't rule on the issue soon.

"I think the people spoke overwhelmingly. I think the people of Georgia knew exactly what they were voting for," Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue said.

The constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was approved by 76% of the state's voters in November 2004. On Tuesday, however, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance C. Russell ruled the measure violated the Georgia Constitution's single-subject rules for ballot questions.

The ballot measure addressed issues other than gay marriage, including civil unions and the power of Georgia courts to rule on disputes arising from same-sex relationships.

Perdue said he would call a special session of the Legislature to propose another constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage if the high court did not rule by Aug. 7. The deadline for the measure to be printed on ballots for the November general election would be Aug. 14, he said.

(Posted by Trask)

Categories: Law