About Me

Name:CRB
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Blog Roll

 

Gonzales v. Carhart, Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood

Posted by CRB on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 9:18:34 PM
Just a few years ago, when the killing of abortion doctors was current discussion, some who oppose abortion made the tragic mistake of saying "At least fewer babies will die." Sadly minimizing the death of one person, they fueled the fires of the abortion movement with their stupidity.

Now the tables are turned but the tragedy is of equal disgust. "It's a gruesome procedure, but at least abortion rights are still intact," amounts to nothing more than an equally thoughtless justification of a horiffic killing procedure. Such responses will fuel the fires for Life. I pray.


http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/2007/04/gonzales-v-carhart-gonzales-v-planned.html
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Power of the (Redefined and Poorly-Chosen) Word

Posted by CRB on Saturday, April 14, 2007 8:21:37 AM
What comes to mind first when you think of a dictator? Is it one of the Roman Emperors, or maybe a modern-day militarist like Stalin or Mao? Maybe some central-American thug? Of course Hitler and Moussolini are there. The term conjures up a list that includes few if any positive figures in history because the use of absolute authority is so often abusive.

In our Constitution we have a separation of powers and checks and balances to protect us from Absolute Authority. Each branch has its stated range of authority. Among their assigned duties, the President conducts foreign policy; the Congress declares war and has oversight over the budget; the Courts interpret and enforce law. Along with this each branch has its stated limits. Congress does not conduct foreign policy; the President does not pass legislation; the Courts do not invent law. At least that's how things are supposed to be.

By comparing the authorities of the various branches one might say that the difference between them, with regard to their delegated responsibilities, is almost absolute. ("Might say," that is. It's not a term I would choose. They are certainly clearly-stated, well-defined, and quite rigid.) There are checks between the branches which prevents the scope of authority from being completely absolute. That's the "balance" we enjoy. Unfortunately, as quoted by Glenn Greenwald in Salon, Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard used the expression "near dictatorial" to describe the difference.

While this may be an apt description of the separation of powers, it is certainly a poor choice of words. As a consequence some of the Left has gone nutty in taking the redefined term (from describing the degree of difference to describing the general function in office) and turning President Bush into the next Nero. And while I agree with Salon author Glenn Greenwald that the term is repugnant, I do think he failed to acknowledge the point that seemed clear -- that Congress should not be stepping into Executive territory (just as the Executive should not step into congressional territory). Unfortunately he operated on an assumption of Goldfarb's meaning instead of inquiry and dialogue. His phrase "but if I had to guess" makes that clear. We may all wish that Mr. Goldfarb had been more specific and that Mr. Greenwald had asked.

The specific concerns that I have are the two recent events that frame this defense by Mr. Greenwald -- that Sen. Nancy Pelosi acted with the authority of an ambassador in Syria and, as stated by Mr. Goldfarb, Congress is seeking to manage the military. Now, whether the President failed on these is one thing, but whether that justifies a clear breech of Congressional authority by Sen. Pelosi, or the unwillingness of Congress to support an action for which it voted, these are the more immediate matters. Sen. Pelosi acted outside of her Constitutional powers and Congress needs, in both houses, to either rescind its vote or vote for appropriate support. The rest is politics.

Unfortunately some bloggers go to an extreme and even misrepresent those on their own side. While Mr. Greenwald was correct in addressing the particular detail being discussed (though I disagree with part of his framing), Silent Patriot took the term more generally and tried to extend the framework of the statement to the whole of the Presidency as being "near dictatorial". Or, to put it more simply:
Mr. Goldfarb said that the President has, in his position and in specific areas, near dictatorial power.
Mr. Greenwald said "No," that Mr. Goldfarb misunderstand the level of authority allowed in the Constitution.
SilentPatriot said "Somebody said that the President is a near dictator. Ra! Ra! Ra! What about Hillary? Ra! Ra! Ra!"
The Left-Wingnuts have their panties in a bunch. They just love describing President Bush with the most derogatory terms possible, and this one certainly fits the bill. Just think -- all this began with one very poorly-chosen term that was reinterpreted two steps down the road. The first two authors provided good discussion but the last one is (as always) a hoot. It does make one give consideration to one's choice of words.

http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Blog Against Theophobes

Posted by CRB on Monday, April 09, 2007 7:26:13 AM
1) There is no theocracy in the US.
2) There is no impending theocracy in the US.
3) Reconstruction influence from the Religious Right is no different in its affects than then influence of the Religious Left. Both will affect policy but not the Constitution.
4) Reconstructionists aren't out to destroy or supplant the Constitution. It is the "secular dominionist" and "religious dominionist" of whom we should all be aware.
5) It can't happen. The Religious Dominionist community is just too small.

Their calls:

No religious discrimination.
PRO End-of-Life Care (no more Terri Schiavo travesties)
Reproductive health decisions made by individuals, not religious "majorities"Democracy not Theocracy
Academic Integrity (like, a rock is as old as it is, not as old as the Bible says)
Sound Science (good bye so-called "intelligent" design)
Respect for ALL families (based on love, not sexual orientation. Hellooooo.)
And finally, The right to worship, OR NOT.

Answers to their objections:

1) Religoius tolerance is not religious preference.
2) The Life ethic is not theocratic.
3) Life is not a tool for the utilitarians. 
4) Thirty years ago the Left called for "academic freedom" and now object to quesitons.  Continue Academic Freedom.  Question the Left.
5) Allow questioning of the Left's agenda and net results.
6) Marriage of a man and woman is not theocratic.
7) It's a really empty statement.  Nobody is being forced to do anything.

When the Left loudly denies that they express religious bigotry against evangelicals, just search out their "blog against theocracy" posts and read some of the nonsense they spout. Falsehood, misrepresentation, and disingenuous remarks are rampant and adequately evidential. And it's all from a mass hysteria generated by a few movers and shakers in the group. Those are the individuals whom we should watch.

Pray for them. Redemption is our message.

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003575.html

http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/2007/04/blog-against-theophobes.html

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »