tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-76492730554276464442024-03-05T19:18:08.816-08:00HenslerismsLouis Henslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391812455324029490noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649273055427646444.post-63082970245953811382023-05-19T04:49:00.002-07:002023-05-19T04:51:34.451-07:00The Left's Elevation of Donald Trump<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNINL1TByNBbnRqfROwwxoTkiglcFr8Qe7rJZFz04wsGMbDW7XLaz1iWLl1rej5TFyOU2cMFiiHoLyyAHNCqifiJv65piGXYTvCgIah7e8EZ-eF5X0b9bvuS12Zoi_0GxG-7e4DVEUqzZ_vBotrIjif58reWh2K5kxarh8uBm6sQwsJK_UpBhMsNW0/s689/TrumpWireTap.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="221" data-original-width="689" height="103" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNINL1TByNBbnRqfROwwxoTkiglcFr8Qe7rJZFz04wsGMbDW7XLaz1iWLl1rej5TFyOU2cMFiiHoLyyAHNCqifiJv65piGXYTvCgIah7e8EZ-eF5X0b9bvuS12Zoi_0GxG-7e4DVEUqzZ_vBotrIjif58reWh2K5kxarh8uBm6sQwsJK_UpBhMsNW0/s320/TrumpWireTap.png" width="320" /></a></div><div>An unintended (?) consequence of the corruption of public norms practiced by the Obama administration, the Clinton campaign, and the FBI as revealed in the Durham report is the elevation of former President Donald Trump. In a just world, Trump would be an embarrassing former President. We have plenty of those. (We'll have another when President Joe Biden leaves office.) Electing embarrassing presidents is the American way. </div><br />But instead of his deserved status as an embarrassing ex, Donald Trump now holds the status of a vindicated martyr. I didn't say that his followers<i> think</i> he's a vindicated martyr. He<i> is </i>a vindicated martyr. The left did that. We all laughed in 2016 when candidate Trump said the Obama administration was spying on his campaign. He was right. Many were skeptical, to say the least, when Trump claimed that his alleged collusion with Russia was a completely fabricated and fictional hoax, a "witch hunt." He was right again. <br /><br />So instead of a former president whose morals are questionable (at best), whose relationship with the truth is strained, and whose personality is repellent to many, Trump can with some justification portray himself as no less moral, no less repellent, and probably more truthful than his political enemies. Trump may not deserve this elevated status, but gifts aren't deserved, they're freely given, and Trump's martyr status is a gift from the left.<br /><br />Trump will now be that much harder to beat in 2024. If you're happy about that (and many are), send a note of thanks to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and James Comey. If you're troubled by that, Durham has shown you who's to blame.<p></p>Louis Henslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391812455324029490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649273055427646444.post-62498273946821077532023-02-07T08:03:00.000-08:002023-02-07T08:03:49.179-08:00Reflection on Embarrassing SOTUs Past<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7JONWLOfuKg8F2JgsmupPNV9828LyYhd4T695ofTlLD18FwWTTj4jW0vz5g5rp0WKYl56LrTijMvnUbvp5xT3l87-rZisBKgmIXxjQuYOvCLBq8rqfn4E7w1bJftd59oyFVIs9qIhmgyr0Wcz-5V2PF89ghq9AkCpyLPnM5WmEc7vyAk8Ev_TwEUD/s1024/PelosiSotU.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="674" data-original-width="1024" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7JONWLOfuKg8F2JgsmupPNV9828LyYhd4T695ofTlLD18FwWTTj4jW0vz5g5rp0WKYl56LrTijMvnUbvp5xT3l87-rZisBKgmIXxjQuYOvCLBq8rqfn4E7w1bJftd59oyFVIs9qIhmgyr0Wcz-5V2PF89ghq9AkCpyLPnM5WmEc7vyAk8Ev_TwEUD/s320/PelosiSotU.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />As I thought about tonight's SotU address, I recalled the former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's childish display (pictured above) after the SotU three years ago and the predictable responses on right and left:<p></p><p>From the right -- outrage at the defiling of our "sacred" institutions.</p><p>From the left -- whataboutist references to Joe Wilson.</p><p>The references to Joe Wilson's outburst fourteen years ago were meant to suggest that Pelosi's act was no great breach of decorum, but rather business as usual in Washington. When Wilson disrupted President Obama's SotU address in 2009, the issue was healthcare, and the President was arguing that undocumented migrants would not be covered under Obamacare. At that moment, the previously little-known Congressman from South Carolina shouted out "you lie!" The left's reference to Wilson's outburst was not without rhetorical force -- it was shockingly indecorous. But I fear that few may remember what happened after Wilson's outburst.</p><p>First, leaders from both parties immediately condemned Wilson's action and called for him to apologize.</p><p>Second, Wilson apologized right away and without equivocation.</p><p>Third, President Obama graciously accepted the apology.</p><p>Fourth, the House (with Pelosi presiding as Speaker) approved a "resolution of disapproval" against Wilson.</p><p>So far from showing that Pelosi's display at the SotU was business as usual, the Wilson episode shows how far we fell in the eleven years between Wilson's outburst in 2009 and Pelosi's display in 2020. If Wilson's incivility provided a template for Pelosi's, we should have seen a bipartisan condemnation of Pelosi's incivility (didn't happen), she should have apologized (nope), Trump should have graciously accepted the apology (never), and the House should have formally condemned Pelosi's action (not that Congress).<br /><br />Many reading this can only think about how either Pelosi or Wilson was justified (or at least accurate). If that is you, then I respectfully suggest that your reaction proves my point.<br /><br />Will there be another outburst of incivility tonight? Hopefully not, but if there is, does anyone seriously think this Congress will do any better than the group in 2020? Even if nothing happens tonight, eventually, there will be another outbreak of incivility, and when there is, it really will then be business as usual, and that's too bad.</p>Louis Henslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391812455324029490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649273055427646444.post-77407382342694789362020-04-25T11:06:00.001-07:002020-04-26T09:31:28.176-07:00Harvard Prof Wants to Brainwash My Kids? I Pity the Fool!<div class="css-901oao r-hkyrab r-1qd0xha r-a023e6 r-16dba41 r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-bnwqim r-qvutc0" dir="auto" lang="en" style="background-color: white; border: 0px solid black; box-sizing: border-box; display: inline; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.3125; margin: 0px; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLKhb0_W92cTXo-lTAtA8n8fPNfD5PelyTgANqw9qti-TI-Bzoljxko9T-fUBht2Eev9BJ3b4aBqf-Lq0H6oGNcpFp6K0XbqwIJ4AzuYk6cjEmaVyFCGA0UiBx-6_vmdKv-YHHqTrb8VU/s1600/apple-256262_640.webp" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; color: #14171a; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="423" data-original-width="640" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLKhb0_W92cTXo-lTAtA8n8fPNfD5PelyTgANqw9qti-TI-Bzoljxko9T-fUBht2Eev9BJ3b4aBqf-Lq0H6oGNcpFp6K0XbqwIJ4AzuYk6cjEmaVyFCGA0UiBx-6_vmdKv-YHHqTrb8VU/s320/apple-256262_640.webp" width="320" /></a><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0" style="border: 0px solid black; box-sizing: border-box; display: inline; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.3125; margin: 0px; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; white-space: inherit;">I live in a subculture that is hostile to "government schools," but I still send my kids to those schools. I don't intend to explain my educational decisions here. I mention the environment in which I live so that the reader will understand that it has often been necessary for me to defend my decision to send my kids to the government schools. "Don't you understand that they want to brainwash your kids?" (Btw, <a href="https://hslda.org/content/hs/state/ma/20200324-harvard-summit-to-discuss-regulating-homeschooling.aspx" target="_blank">Harvard</a> now is proving that my homeschooling friends' suspicions are correct.) In my own defense, I have often said that </span><span style="font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: inherit; font-weight: inherit;">if a teacher thinks he can be more influential over my kids than I am, then I pity that fool. Four out of my five children are grown now, and so I can say with some certitude that I think I was right. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="css-901oao r-hkyrab r-1qd0xha r-a023e6 r-16dba41 r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-bnwqim r-qvutc0" dir="auto" lang="en" style="background-color: white; border: 0px solid black; box-sizing: border-box; display: inline; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.3125; margin: 0px; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: inherit; font-weight: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
<div class="css-901oao r-hkyrab r-1qd0xha r-a023e6 r-16dba41 r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-bnwqim r-qvutc0" dir="auto" lang="en" style="background-color: white; border: 0px solid black; box-sizing: border-box; display: inline; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.3125; margin: 0px; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span style="font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: inherit; font-weight: inherit;">In fact, I think </span>both the left's attack on homeschooling and the right's attack on public education really are, at best, proxies for a bigger fight -- for presumptive control over the upbringing of children. As long as parents are primarily responsible for the upbringing of their children, I believe parents will be the primary influencers over those children, no matter how those kids are educated. The left gains little by effectively forcing almost all parents to send their kids to the government schools. I offer my four oldest children as exhibits 1-4. </div>
<div class="css-901oao r-hkyrab r-1qd0xha r-a023e6 r-16dba41 r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-bnwqim r-qvutc0" dir="auto" lang="en" style="background-color: white; border: 0px solid black; box-sizing: border-box; display: inline; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.3125; margin: 0px; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<br /></div>
<div class="css-901oao r-hkyrab r-1qd0xha r-a023e6 r-16dba41 r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-bnwqim r-qvutc0" dir="auto" lang="en" style="background-color: white; border: 0px solid black; box-sizing: border-box; display: inline; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.3125; margin: 0px; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
This fight is not really about the quality of education. Kids with poor home lives will struggle whether they're home schooled or educated by the government. I am sad to report that I see examples of both all the time. Government schools cannot rescue kids from bad homes. And, of course, home schooling can't either. Kids in great homes will thrive both in a home schooled environment and in the government schools. I've seen plenty of examples of both of those as well.</div>
<div class="css-901oao r-hkyrab r-1qd0xha r-a023e6 r-16dba41 r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-bnwqim r-qvutc0" dir="auto" lang="en" style="background-color: white; border: 0px solid black; box-sizing: border-box; display: inline; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.3125; margin: 0px; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<br /></div>
<div class="css-901oao r-hkyrab r-1qd0xha r-a023e6 r-16dba41 r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-bnwqim r-qvutc0" dir="auto" lang="en" style="background-color: white; border: 0px solid black; box-sizing: border-box; display: inline; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.3125; margin: 0px; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
The reason that I am firmly behind the home schoolers in their debate with the elites (even though I send my kids to the government schools) is that I believe that it is vitally important that fit parents be primarily responsible for the care of their children. </div>
</span>Louis Henslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391812455324029490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649273055427646444.post-40505673758206067282019-10-02T08:05:00.000-07:002019-10-02T08:05:19.523-07:00Confessions of an Erstwhile #NeverTrumper<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjW9lMcAN2h0RMrkEmY9ztJk7wOPBaOuPtaryqCoTiklZ70xCp3r7yRXPalEE75We824VgAEkN4Wc9tUaIhn-kh6YgVx4CinARib7suCei7YOUDgA6QH8M5fTgreHAutFYQgvVmyK1arMU/s1600/Platt+Trump.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="773" data-original-width="1160" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjW9lMcAN2h0RMrkEmY9ztJk7wOPBaOuPtaryqCoTiklZ70xCp3r7yRXPalEE75We824VgAEkN4Wc9tUaIhn-kh6YgVx4CinARib7suCei7YOUDgA6QH8M5fTgreHAutFYQgvVmyK1arMU/s320/Platt+Trump.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I have been a #NeverTrumper for more than four years now,
and much of my opposition to Trump has stemmed from my Christian commitment, or
so I have said. But my #NeverTrumpism has not been a static thing, and over the
last four years, I have come to several realizations that I confess here in the
hope that they will inspire other Christians to learn from my mistakes.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Confession #1: I was
a knee-jerk #NeverTrumper.</b> I became a #NeverTrumper on June 16, 2015, the
day Donald Trump rode the “golden escalator” to his candidacy. But my early
opposition to Trump was more out of annoyance than out of principle – I did not
take Donald Trump seriously as a candidate, and I feared that his brand of
showmanship would demean the electoral process (and it did). I wanted Trump to
get out of the way so that the “more serious” candidates could get down to
debating the issues. But I badly underestimated candidate Trump. I did not
recognize that Trump’s candidacy was for real until he had all but sealed up
the nomination, at which point I was forced to replace my knee-jerk
#NeverTrumpism with a more serious consideration of candidate Trump’s merits. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Confession #2: My
#NeverTrumpism was a form of virtue signaling.</b> My first instinct
post-nomination was to say that there is a minimum standard of moral
acceptability to win my vote and that Donald Trump did not make the cut. I
dismissed arguments to the contrary as “mere consequentialism.” I was better
than that. I would not sully myself with a vote for the morally flawed Donald
Trump, as though a morally depraved creature like me could further corrupt
myself by casting a vote. If I am being honest, I wanted it to be known that I
was more virtuous than Trump (and perhaps more virtuous than those who were
willing to vote for Trump). Of course, I never quite put it that way, by I am
afraid my Trump supporting friends got the message. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Confession #3: My #NeverTrumpism
survived my realization that every vote is a vote for the lesser evil.</b> Not
until the month before the election did I discern that my opposition to Trump
might not be based on some transcendent moral principle. But sustained
reflection forced me to admit that any vote for a human was a vote for a depraved
creature. Jesus never is on the ballot. This realization led me to the next leg
of my #NeverTrumpist journey – the utilitarian calculus. I finally reconsidered
all the “consequentialist” arguments that Trump supporters had been making to
me. What about the Supreme Court? What about religious liberty? What about
limited government? My ultimate decision to reject Trump in 2016 was based on a
complicated calculation that concluded Trump probably was the more dangerous of
the two leading candidates. (Perhaps it was my refusal to vote for Hillary either
that was based on moral principle?)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Confession #4: Reasonable
Christian minds could differ on voting for Trump.</b> Such complicated
utilitarian calculations about votes are notoriously not susceptible to precise
mathematical quantification. Therefore, my former #NeverTrump moral dogmatism
was unjustified. As a Christian, I should categorize such difficult voting
choices under the “doubtful things” of Romans 14. Much too late, I finally stopped
questioning the morals of my Christian brothers and sisters who chose to vote
for Trump. I do not know now how I could not have seen this ambiguity when I
myself felt compelled to vote for a third-party candidate, a sure loser. But by
Election Day, my previously virulent and judgmental #NeverTrumpism was watered
down to a third-party protest vote combined with a more live-and-let-live
attitude.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Confession #5: I was
a jerk.</b> I stand by my 2016 #NeverTrump vote, but I am not proud of
everything I did leading up to Election Day. Like many #NeverTrumpers, I was
brash and outspoken. That is a nice way of saying I was an obnoxious jerk. I
alienated some of my friends, including some of my Christian friends. Well,
with 2020 around the corner, I am determined to do better this time. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Confession #6: My
#NeverTrumpism was placed in abeyance when Trump became president. </b>I fought
vociferously, even viciously, against the Trump candidacy until Election Day,
but once he became president, he became my president. Christian #NeverTrumpers
can’t be part of the not-my-president crowd. Romans 13 (among other Scriptures)
does not permit that.<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Confession #7: The
calculus in 2020 might be different.</b> Will I still be a #NeverTrumper in
2020? We’ll see. The landscape in which I will make that decision certainly has
shifted. First, in 2016, I discounted all of the consequentialist arguments
Trump supporters made because I simply did not trust Trump to do what he
promised, and with good reason – his relationship with veracity has been
strained, at best. But I have to admit that President Trump has pretty much
done what candidate Trump said he would do, and I like most of his
administration, if not his style. Second, while President Trump has been just
as personally embarrassing as advertised, my worst fears of international destabilization
have not come to fruition. So, for me, Trump’s pluses have increased and his
minuses have somewhat diminished. And with leading democrat candidates running
on potentially disastrous policies like taxpayer-funded abortion on demand, the
Green New Deal, Medicare for all (including illegal immigrants), reparations
for slavery, and an aggressive agenda against Christian dissenters, voting for
President Trump in 2020, depending on his democratic opponent, is no longer
entirely out of the question for me. So by the time the major parties choose
their candidates, I may be a #MaybeTrumper. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Confession #8: Important
remnants of my #NeverTrumpism remain.</b> But even if I “ever” vote for Trump,
certain “nevers” will remain. First, I will never praise his personal virtue. It
should go without saying that praising evil is wrong, and yet Jerry Falwell Jr.
has compared Trump to Jesus. To Christians, that should be beyond offensive.
You always know that someone is about to excuse Trump’s evil when they lead
with, “I know Trump’s not perfect, but” . . . . “Not perfect” does not quite
cover Trump’s moral flaws. Of course he is not perfect. Nobody is perfect. Those
who say Trump is “not perfect” are providing cover for the fact that he is one
of the more despicable human beings to whom most of us ever will be exposed. I
have heard Christians praise Trump as a “great family man” (apparently because
he has provided for his children financially) even though he was essentially
absent as his children were raised by his serially abandoned wives. This sort
of praise of Trump from Christians demeans true Christian virtue. If I ever
vote for Trump, I will do so while holding my nose, not while praising his
non-existent personal virtue. I will show no enthusiasm for what I believe I must
do. My Christian testimony demands as much. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Second, if I “ever” vote for Trump, I must “never” criticize
democrats for ignoring their candidates’ moral flaws. Hypocrisy still is wrong.
Remember this passage from the 1998 “declaration concerning religion, ethics,
and the crisis in the Clinton presidency”? “But we maintain that in general
there is a reasonable threshold of behavior beneath which our public leaders
should not fall, because the moral character of a people is more important than
the tenure of a particular politician or the protection of a particular political
agenda.” Some who signed this declaration that President Clinton was unfit
because he had sex with an intern in the Oval Office have given serial
adulterer President Trump a pass. We have to be consistent. Either there is a
moral minimum for president, or there is not. I have reluctantly concluded that
maybe there is not. If there is a moral minimum standard, I do not see how
President Trump can get over even a minimal bar.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Third, if I “ever” vote for Trump, I am determined “never” to
do so out of fear. In support of candidate Trump, evangelical icon, Dr. James
Dobson said, “Hillary scares me to death.” That kind of fear is not a good look
for a Christian who supposedly trusts a sovereign, omnipotent, and loving God
in whose hand is the heart of the king. I am determined not to vote out of fear.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Fourth, even if I “ever” vote for Trump, I will never
violate my conscience to do so. If I get in the voting booth and find that I
just do not feel right about the vote, I will not cast it. As Martin Luther
declared before the Diet of Worms, “to go against conscience is neither right
nor safe.” I still reject consequentialism, so I am pretty sure God does not
need my vote to accomplish His will, and I am even more sure that He does not
expect me to violate my conscience (even if my conscience is too weak) in
service to some political end that He can accomplish without me. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />Louis Henslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391812455324029490noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649273055427646444.post-10163814643679737262018-09-26T07:48:00.003-07:002018-10-16T06:56:02.588-07:00Tim Keller's "Justice" Demeans Grace and Mercy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbnkgJSUTURCCu_BYmdc5hn3GI-1ajWkVwq_EO_4ux4k7n0xf6oRQ3zhTR5dnlSxVm98ndLKVLUfuUX4SzmuEdwNKBAMB-NtNYVa0RWuVwpHL2mxzrfxMwUEfPQDbwJ4nLjPTxsZCSm7k/s1600/Good+Samaritan.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1001" data-original-width="800" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbnkgJSUTURCCu_BYmdc5hn3GI-1ajWkVwq_EO_4ux4k7n0xf6oRQ3zhTR5dnlSxVm98ndLKVLUfuUX4SzmuEdwNKBAMB-NtNYVa0RWuVwpHL2mxzrfxMwUEfPQDbwJ4nLjPTxsZCSm7k/s320/Good+Samaritan.jpg" width="255" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
There’s a debate raging in evangelical Christianity. One
side of the debate is led by Tim Keller, author of the book Generous Justice. To
oversimplify greatly, Keller suggests Christians should be engaged in social
justice. On the other side is a group led by several evangelical luminaries,
with perhaps John MacArthur as the leader. This group has published <a href="https://statementonsocialjustice.com/">The Statement on Social Justice
& the Gospel</a>. I don’t intend to critique Keller’s book, I haven’t even
read it. Neither do I intend to express an opinion on the wisdom of issuing “Statements”
like MacArthur’s. I’m agnostic on that, although I have read much of the
statement and agree with all that I read. Rather, I want to take issue with
Keller’s use of the term “justice.” <br />
<br />
In explaining his ideas, <a href="https://youtu.be/-yB__3_Fhq0">Keller cites</a>
Jesus’ parable of The Good Samaritan. Keller describes the Samaritan in Jesus’
parable as doing “acts of justice.” I think Keller’s using the word “justice”
in this way is confusing and counter-productive. I think Keller is confusing “justice”
with “grace” or “mercy.” I think by taking acts of grace, mercy, or charity and
calling that “justice,” Keller demeans the concepts of grace and mercy and
diminishes the Christian obligation. <br />
<br />
These words have long-accepted meanings. Plato’s definition of justice, “giving
every man his due,” still is widely accepted. And as we all know from Sunday school,
“grace” is giving someone something good that they don’t deserve, while “mercy”
is withholding something bad that they do deserve. In the Bible, justice,
grace, and mercy frequently go hand-in-hand. For example, in the Deluge, God
delivered justice to humankind, while Noah and his family received grace and
mercy. Sodom and Gomorrah received justice at God’s hand while Lot and his
daughters got grace and mercy. As Christians, we understand that God’s justice
was poured out on Jesus on the cross, while we, His people, get grace and
mercy. <br />
<br />
When Keller uses the term “justice” to describe good things that one person
does for another, I think what he’s really describing is “grace” or maybe even “mercy.”
Did the Good Samaritan owe the man who fell among thieves the help that he
delivered? Was that justice? Or was he extending grace or mercy? Oh, Jesus was
teaching a moral obligation to help people like the man who fell among thieves,
to be sure, but I think Keller’s chosen example illustrates grace, not justice.
<br />
<br />
This isn’t just semantics, for when we describe the Christian obligation to
help those in need as “justice,” we strip the parties involved in the acts of
kindness of a proper response to the situation. My obligation as a Christian is
to go beyond mere “justice,” giving people what they deserve. I am to extend
grace and mercy. I understand why Keller uses the wrong word, he’s politicizing
the idea. In America, we have a long tradition of the government not requiring
its citizens to do good. We must do justice, but we need not extend charity. The
charitable obligation is enforced, if at all, only privately, not by the state.
So to justify compelled charity (an oxymoron, I know), we instead call it “social
justice.” The state can compel us to do justice, to pay what we owe. But this
verbal sleight of hand deprives those doing the good of the opportunity to
extend genuine Christian charity. After all, if it’s owed, then the benefit is
merely paying what is due, not giving out of Christian charity. <br />
<br />
Many probably would suggest that “justice” is the correct word to use here
because in many social circumstances some people have been systematically
disadvantaged and therefore are owed something from the rest. Perhaps. My
problem, though, with Keller’s use of the term, especially in conjunction with
teachings such as Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan is that frequently
people are in trouble because they deserve to be in trouble. They’ve made bad,
often wicked, choices, and they are suffering the consequences of those
choices. Social “justice” would not reach that person, and yet I believe
Christian charity should. Using the term “justice” instead of “grace,” “mercy,”
or “charity” tends to cramp the true Christian obligation and deprive the
believer of the opportunity to voluntarily sacrifice for the good of others. <br />
<br />
Just as troubling, calling charity “social justice” deprives the person helped
of the opportunity for gratitude. What was the proper response of the man
attacked by thieves to the Good Samaritan who helped him? Well, if the
Samaritan were only doing justice, only delivering what the man was owed, then
his response might be “What took you so long?” But if the help extended by the
Good Samaritan is seen as grace, mercy, or charity, then the proper response is
gratitude, and that proper response will edify both helper and helped. And if
you don’t think calling charity “justice” can inculcate a spirit of entitlement
and ingratitude, then I respectfully suggest that you are not paying attention to what is going on in our society today.<br />
<br />
I want to hasten to clarify that I am not criticizing Tim Keller generally. I
am sure that I agree with eighty per cent of what he says and teaches. And I
think his emphasis on the charitable obligation of evangelical Christianity is
much needed – we’ve been leaving such important work to the Roman Catholic
Church for far too long. But I think that attempts to politicize the gospel,
both on the left and on the right, end up in the ditch, and that is where I
fear Keller’s ministerial commitment to social “justice” is headed.</div>
Louis Henslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391812455324029490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649273055427646444.post-78796886556628713652018-08-14T09:22:00.003-07:002020-08-12T11:28:04.548-07:00My libertarian message: "If you need a club, a car, or a torch to deliver your message, it's not free speech."<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjl1kJB6APaQk0xaNHnfFacEkdh994nVrdTQ0zCbCuW9dYFhMpJ_wsZp9yYIsQLE21jInOtonzUj2bvx61WakRDVtKvw89cnFqY5sZurfQJdsAqIljU5BHSkNK7iX611uln24U2mm5sxDk/s1600/Charlottesville.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1067" data-original-width="1600" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjl1kJB6APaQk0xaNHnfFacEkdh994nVrdTQ0zCbCuW9dYFhMpJ_wsZp9yYIsQLE21jInOtonzUj2bvx61WakRDVtKvw89cnFqY5sZurfQJdsAqIljU5BHSkNK7iX611uln24U2mm5sxDk/s320/Charlottesville.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">As I have been reflecting on the Charlottesville tragedy, I can't help thinking that the Supreme Court of United States encouraged that result with its decision in Snyder v. Phelps. The Phelps family are the "God hates fags" cultists. The Snyder family is a national treasure -- a gold star family. Not surprisingly, the Phelps family has trouble getting anyone to pay attention to their hate. So they hit upon an idea -- let's "protest" the funerals of fallen war heroes. Then people can't ignore us. And so they did, and the Snyder family took them to court under the long-accepted tort doctrine of intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"). Under this cause of action, a defendant who intentionally or recklessly inflicts severe emotional distress on a victim through extreme (very unusual) and outrageous (very bad) conduct can be held legally responsible for the severe emotional distress that they intentionally inflict. Not surprisingly, the Snyders won their civil suit, and the Phelps family appealed all the way to the Supreme Court claiming that the First Amendment protected their funeral "protest" stunt. The Supreme Court (except for Justice Alito) agreed with the Phelps family.<br /><br />And so the law of the land is that staged stunts that get out a message by intentionally hurting other people are constitutionally protected free speech. I think that's nonsense. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">I'm not suggesting that the government should be allowed to sanction mere hateful words. </span><span style="color: #1d2129;">It's important to remember that the Snyder family did not sue the Phelps family because of the hatefulness of their message. I'm attuned to the danger of attempts to regulate so-called "hate speech," but the Phelps family was not being held responsible for their message. </span><span style="color: #1d2129;">The offensiveness of the message isn't the point. It's the mode of delivery. The Phelps family is perfectly free to </span><span style="color: #1d2129;">deliver precisely the same message in a variety of ways</span><span style="color: #1d2129;"> (and they do). </span><span style="color: #1d2129;">What they should not be allowed to do is intentionally inflict severe emotional distress on other people to get attention for their message. </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">The trial court found by a preponderance of evidence that the Phelps family did more than spew hate. 1<span style="color: #1d2129;">) They targeted mourning family members at the funeral of their young son. 2) They intended to cause sev</span><span style="color: #1d2129;">ere emotional distress. 3) They successfully caused severe (probably clinical, akin to a physical injury) emotional distress. </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #1d2129;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #1d2129;">I think the First Amendment "absolutely" protects messages, but not delivery methods (at least not delivery met</span><span style="color: #1d2129;">hods beyond normal speech and press). This brings me back to Charlottesville. I believe the road to the Charlottesville tragedy started with the flag burning case. Justice Scalia was one of my judicial heroes, but I think he went off the rails constitutionally with the flag burning case. I think flag burning should be protected, but it just isn't speech. Once we start providing constitutional protection for expressive stunts like burning a flag, why not protect other stunts like burning a cross, or protesting a funeral, or marching around carrying torches, or plowing a car into a crowd?</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #1d2129;">Many Justice Scalia fans proclaim themselves "First Amendment absolutists." But is that really possible? Let's see. If I am a rabid statist, do I have an absolute First Amendment right to get my message out by carving "down with liberty" onto the side of the pickup truck belonging to the most libertarian/small government person on campus? Those are words I put on the truck, so they're absolutely protected, right? (Remember this has nothing to do with the offensiveness of the message.) Consider another example. Let's assume that you have six kids, and I think your population explosion is over-burdening the planet, so I go to your four-year-old's preschool and walk up to her on the playground and follow her around screaming "I wish your dad knew about birth control." Those are words, so they're absolutely protected, right? If I do that, and you try to sue me in a civil suit, that's prohibited government regulation, right? I speak as a fool. Clearly the right to express yourself is not absolute. S</span><span style="color: #1d2129;">ome speech delivery methods, such as a scrawled message on a pickup or screaming in a toddler's face, might be actionable as a trespass to chattels or an IIED, the First Amendment notwithstanding. We can have a discussion about whether what the Phelps family did ought to constitute IIED. I think it should, and the trial court agreed with me. I have no problem giving a plaintiff a cause of action in circumstances like Phelps or like the harassing of the child scenario I suggested. </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: inherit;">So the Phelps message may have been constitutionally protected, but the method of delivery should not have been. Getting in the face of a two-year-old and screaming threats would not be merely "hateful words," it would be verbal violence. I'd call what the Phelps family did a form of "verbal violence" targeting vulnerable victims, not utterly unlike screaming in the face of a small child.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #1d2129;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #1d2129;">It's a pretty subtle distinction I'm making. People can say what they want, but they still should be responsible for how they deliver the message. </span><span style="color: #1d2129;">If I'm a statist and want to get out my big government message by picketing the biggest libertarian on campus, would the First Amendment protect my right to stand outside his car holding up a sign that said "Down with liberty"? Would the First Amendment protect my right to scratch "Down with liberty" into the paint of his truck? Is there a difference? I think the difference is the mode of delivery. The first way of getting my message out isn't a tort. The government shouldn't prevent me from doing that. The second method is a tort (trespass to chattels). I think the First Amendment doesn't privilege the tort. The Snyder v. Phelps court disagreed with me, but I think there is a difference between protecting speech that is otherwise tortious (like burning a cross in front of someone's house, which I'm not even sure constitutes speech, although I think Scalia would have thought so) and pure speech that does not constitute a tort. </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"><br style="color: #1d2129;" /></span><span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: inherit;">This was not a case of the government targeting the speech of the Phelps family with a regulation made for them. </span><span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: inherit;">The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress existed long before the Phelps family started inflicting emotional distress for attention. The tort wasn't created for them, but it fits. And it was</span><span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: inherit;"> crafted taking First Amendment values into consideration, hence the limitations on the cause of action. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Phelps family argued that they had a permit and complied with its terms, but the permit didn't entitle them to do whatever they wanted in the permitted space. They couldn't set off explosives or lob rocks at bystanders. They couldn't amplify their voices so as to damage the hearing of those around them. Existing tort law provided that if they targeted vulnerable people and caused clinical emotional injury, they would be liable. I can't imagine that their permit purported to wipe out existing tort law. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I think much of the support of the Phelps case comes from our mothers. My mother taught me "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." With all due respect to my mom, and probably yours, they were wrong. Words frequently do hurt. That's why there's a long rabbinic tradition grounded in Biblical principle prohibiting lashon hara. I'm not saying that all harmful speech should be actionable, but all American jurisdictions have determined that when someone uses extreme and outrageous methods to deliver speech as a weapon to inflict severe emotional harm, the wielder of the damaging words is responsible for the harm the words do. In Snyder v. Phelps, a civil court determined that the Phelps family's conduct (including their speech but not limited to their speech) was extreme, outrageous, calculated to inflict severe emotional distress and did, in fact, inflict such distress. </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #1d2129;">The Phelps decision was an authoritarian decision. I'm a political libertarian, but most of my political friends and allies are conservatives. They sometimes wonder aloud how a libertarian like me can advocate government regulation of speech. C</span><span style="color: #1d2129;">onservatives always get libertarianism wrong. Libertarianism doesn't mean everyone does what they want without consequence. It means everyone is responsible for the consequences of their own voluntary actions. Some libertarians feel</span><span style="color: #1d2129;"> torn between the private right of victims to be free from intentional inflictions of emotional distress and the right of victimizers to do and say whatever they want. I think this conflict stems from a misunderstanding of libertarianism. Libertarianism is based in personal responsibility. Everyone bears the consequences of their own choices, and they're not allowed to impose the costs of those choices on others without recourse. The version of libertarianism that says everyone gets to do what they want without regard to the consequences isn't libertarianism at all. I would call that libertine, not libertarian. </span></span><div><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #1d2129;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #1d2129;">Eight</span><span style="color: #1d2129;"> authoritarians on the Supreme Court insisted that their political values trumped the Snyders' private right to redress for severe emotional harm intentionally inflicted on them by the Phelps cult. Providing an outlet for people to get redress against wrongdoers isn't big government, it's a minimum role for government. Government telling me I have to put up with extreme and outrageous verbal abuse at my son's funeral or that I have to tolerate false and defamatory savaging of my reputation because of the First Amendment, that's big government. </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">None of this suggests that any of the "speech" at Charlottesville last year was actionable. It probably wasn't. But I think the events of that tragic weekend should cause us to reconsider what I see as the Court's mistake in Snyder v. Phelps. Speech is protected. Delivery methods should not be.</span></span><br />
<div>
<span face="" style="background-color: #eff1f3; color: #1d2129; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span></div>
</div>Louis Henslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391812455324029490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649273055427646444.post-79952738654695860392018-06-18T09:18:00.001-07:002020-05-25T09:27:18.222-07:00Jeff Sessions and Russell Moore Both Misuse Romans 13 in Political Debate<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently caused a bit of a
stir by citing Romans 13 in a speech on immigration enforcement. Ever since,
every Tom, Dick, and Harry seems to be a biblical scholar with the firm opinion
that General Sessions got Romans 13 wrong. As someone who has thought and
written about Romans 13 for decades, I thought I might add my amateur critique
of General Sessions’ exegesis. <br />
<br />
Here’s what he said: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
If you violate the law, you subject yourself to prosecution. I
would cite you to the Apostle Paul in his clear and wise command in Romans 13
to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for
His purposes. Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent
and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing that
protects the weak and protects the lawful. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
First General Sessions clearly is right that Paul’s
statement in Romans 13:1 is a command backed by Paul’s apostolic authority,
which he cites at the very beginning of his letter to the Church at Rome.
However, I have to quibble with the General a little. Paul’s command to “every
soul” (and that includes animals, by the way) is not to “obey.” He commands
them to submit. It is possible to obey without submitting, and it is possible
to submit without obeying. Usually the two go hand-in-hand, so I don’t want to
be too hard on General Sessions for this mistake. <br />
<br />
A more fundamental error is that General Sessions relates Paul’s command to “the
government.” Paul does mention rulers later on in the passage, but Romans 13
never mentions “government,” as such, and Paul’s command is to submit to “powers.”
Again, I can’t really blame General Sessions for getting this wrong. Pretty
much all modern English translations of the Bible translate the object of the obligation
of submission as something like “governing authorities.” Imho, that’s a
horrible translation. As usual, the King James pretty much gets it right – “higher
powers.” I think the word “superiors” works quite well. Rulers are one example
of this. Bosses at work are another. This list could be quite long. Paul went
out of his way when setting up this command not to limit it to political rulers
but rather to extend the obligation of submission to all superiors. <br />
<br />
General Sessions then gives his understanding of the reason for the obligation of
submission: “because God has ordained the government for His purposes.” The
problem, here again, is that Paul isn’t talking about government. He’s talking
about “the powers that be.” Romans 13 is not a tract on government. It is a
tract on God’s sovereign rule over all “powers.” God puts all powers in place
for His purposes. Therefore, we can safely submit to those powers. <br />
<br />
General Sessions then proceeds to describe what he thinks is God’s purpose for
government: “Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent
and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing that
protects the weak and protects the lawful.” Now I happen to agree with both of
those sentences, but that is not what the Apostle Paul is talking about in
Romans 13. In fact, those hallmarks of our government did not necessarily
characterize the governments in place to which Paul was commanding submission.
Paul’s point was not “you should obey government because government is good.”
Paul’s point was “You can safely submit to your superiors because God is
sovereign, has those superiors on a leash, and will use those superiors for
your good.”<br />
<br />
I recently submitted my grades for the spring, so I am in a grading mood, and I
would have to give General Sessions’ exegesis a C-. Honestly, it’s not
significantly worse than what I’ve heard all my life, but if you’re going to
cite Romans 13 in a political speech, you probably should be a little more
careful. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I won’t bother grading the many (other) amateur critics of
General Sessions’ exegesis, but I do want to look at one critic who should know
what he is talking about. Here’s what Dr. Russell Moore said: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
Romans 13 does not mean that any law that the government
passes or carries out is a good law or a just law. Romans 13 simply means that
the governing authorities are put in place for a reason, and the reason the
Apostle Paul says there in Romans 13 is to commend that which is good and to punish
that which is evil. It is hard for me to imagine that children clinging to
their parents in a very, very difficult time could be classified as evil. I
think I understand what the attorney general is trying to say which is that we
have a rule of law and we ought to observe that rule of law. I agree with that.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Dr. Moore’s first sentence stating that “Romans 13 does not
mean that any law that the government passes or carries out is a good law or a
just law” clearly is correct. Of course, General Sessions never suggested
otherwise. And yet, Paul commanded all “souls” to submit to their superiors,
never mentioning whether those superiors where good or just. In fact, most, at
the time, were not. Dr. Moore goes on to say that “Romans 13 simply means that
the governing authorities are put in place for a reason.” Well, Romans 13 means
a lot more than that. But so far, Dr. Moore appears to agree with General
Sessions. Dr. Moore then describes that reason: “to commend that which is good
and to punish that which is evil.” <br />
<br />
Having established what he sees as “the purpose for government” (something
Romans 13 does not directly address), Dr. Moore then goes on to critique
President Trump’s immigration policy because “It is hard for me to imagine
that children clinging to their parents in a very, very difficult time could be
classified as evil.” There is plenty wrong with what Dr. Moore is saying now.
His argument essentially is that Romans 13 provides a yardstick by which we can
measure the obligation of submission. When a superior fails the essential
purpose of government, then the obligation of submission evaporates. But Romans
13 never sets out an imperative norm for government. Rather, it sets out an
indicative description that God uses all superiors, including rulers, to praise
evil and to punish good, at least in some sense. By taking it upon himself to
pass judgment on whether the administration’s immigration policy lives up to
the non-existent Romans 13 standard, Dr. Moore has enthroned himself. God can
and does use bad superiors to accomplish good purposes. The Bible and history
are full of examples. The Christian’s obligation is to submit, even when he can’t
obey for reasons of morality. <br />
<br />
Dr. Moore then closes by agreeing with General Sessions' fundamental point
about the rule of law, which is a good point, but has nothing to do with Romans
13. <br />
<br />
Overall, I have to give Dr. Moore a D+. Basically, his exegesis is the same as
General Sessions’ and suffers from the same defects. But Dr. Moore adds the additional
defect of gutting Paul’s essential teaching by twisting it into something it
was never intended to be, a measuring stick by which the believer can determine
whether he owes an obligation of submission to superiors. <br />
<br />
I have written much more on Romans 13 in an <a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=2407960">article</a> that surveys historical
commentaries on the passage and a few historical political disputes (the
American Revolution, the Third Reich, and Apartheid South Africa) in which
Romans 13 was deployed on both sides of the political argument. Here is the way
I concluded that article: “I see the approach of many Christians from the
Middle Ages forward, who have used Romans 13 either to justify or to condemn
particular governing regimes (a practice that continues to this day) to be
almost entirely beside Paul’s point. In this, I think my view is consonant with
that of the non-resistant Anabaptists and with the Lutherans, particularly
including Dietrich Bonhoeffer.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFQNIZIOC39VtaJYzAIoRcEU8FXtqxRKZDCHzMKC5-OSG-XrOfmp-H6siHtr5-eREAqECkakFRN2jMmhgO4NcNN081fBIrcqiqVfr9RwIR8oNvzR72aT8oIieL-O8Lw8n_aibOP1Fx77E/s1600/screencapture-regent-edu-acad-schlaw-student_life-studentorgs-lawreview-docs-issues-v27n1-9_Hensler_vol_27_1-pdf-2018-06-18-11_59_48.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="791" data-original-width="1600" height="158" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFQNIZIOC39VtaJYzAIoRcEU8FXtqxRKZDCHzMKC5-OSG-XrOfmp-H6siHtr5-eREAqECkakFRN2jMmhgO4NcNN081fBIrcqiqVfr9RwIR8oNvzR72aT8oIieL-O8Lw8n_aibOP1Fx77E/s320/screencapture-regent-edu-acad-schlaw-student_life-studentorgs-lawreview-docs-issues-v27n1-9_Hensler_vol_27_1-pdf-2018-06-18-11_59_48.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />Louis Henslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391812455324029490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649273055427646444.post-32463241006643628512018-05-22T11:37:00.000-07:002018-11-28T07:48:19.303-08:00Oh Be Careful, Little Mouth, What You Sing<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
I write this from an uncomfortable place -- I'm afraid right now. Our church’s excellent music
leader recently announced that he’s leaving for another ministry. I’m very
hopeful that his new ministry will expand the borders of his influence for the kingdom,
but, perhaps selfishly, I’m afraid for our church. Our present music director
is impeccably trained and musically talented. It shows in his work. He also
exhibits some affinity for music with theologically rich lyrics. I know these
traits are not all that common in worship leaders. Not long ago, my family
spent a few months visiting many churches around the area. We saw enough to
know that there is reason to be afraid, very afraid. With one or two
exceptions, the music ministries at the several churches we visited left very
much to be desired. It's clear that our present music director
will not be easily replaced. I’m afraid he’ll be impossible to replace. I tend
to trust the powers that be at our church, but I’m still afraid. Here are three
characteristics I’m hoping they’ll look for in a replacement, in order of
importance to me. <br />
<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">1) Theologically rich lyrics.</b> First,
I want a music director who is committed to theologically rich lyrics. For the
few people who pay attention to my Facebook page, you’ve seen me ride this
hobby horse before. I favor songs like one of my favorites, "Arise,
My Soul, Arise." Every time I sing this song, I am enriched by the
profound soteriological concepts beautifully expressed there. If you wonder why
I sometimes bemoan some contemporary Christian worship songs, I challenge you to try this
experiment. Take a week or two teaching your way through "Arise, My Soul,
Arise" with your child. Then take a week or two teaching your way through
today’s most popular 7/11 chorus. See the difference? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I can’t help but see a connection between the present popularity of “substance-lite”
lyrics and a diminished view of God. My view of God was developed, in part, by
singing songs like “Immortal, invisible, God only wise, In light inaccessible
hid from our eyes, Most blessed, most glorious, the Ancient of Days, Almighty,
victorious, Thy great name we praise.” (That’s just the first verse.) My
kids learn about God by singing “You're a good, good father, It's who you are,
it's who you are, it's who you are.” There’s more of the same to this song, but that pretty
much covers the theological content. Perhaps I should not be
surprised that I now see the “big man upstairs” attitude toward God (which used
to be limited to the world outside the church) finding its way into evangelical
Christianity when we are diminishing the language that we use to describe Him within the church?<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I understand that I am swimming against the current here,
but I am convinced that the “dumbing down” of corporate worship
parallels the debasing of our broader culture. Many worship songs tend
to be purely emotional, stripped of any substantive doctrinal content.
Similarly, modern American political campaigns are emotional affairs, denuded
of any policy substance. "Kasich seems like a nice guy." "Cruz's
smile creeps me out." These are real "reasons" real people have given
for supporting a political candidate. And should we be surprised? Fox and CNN
have for decades been peddling an infotainment product that is long on pretty
faces and short on substance. They get us riled up, but they don't teach us
anything. And so we see the rise of substance free candidates who engage voters
on a purely emotional level. That’s bad for politics. I think it’s worse for
worship.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let me clarify a couple of things that I am not saying. First,
I am not saying that worship should be stripped of emotion. To the contrary, I
challenge anyone to sing and engage with “Arise, My Soul, Arise,” and not feel
the emotion. The choice isn't between emotion and no emotion. It's between emotion
along with doctrinal engagement and pure emotion stripped of anything that
appeals to the mind.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I also am not saying that all contemporary songs are bad,
clearly they are not. If you are tempted to reject what I’m saying as “chronological
snobbery,” I would respectfully suggest that you check your own commitment to
chronology, because I am not merely an old guy who likes old music. I would
cite "In Christ Alone" and "His Robes for Mine" as good
examples of content-heavy contemporary worship songs. On the flipside, it's
also the case that not all "old hymns" are content-laden. The
debasing I'm talking about didn't start in the 21st century. Many early 20<sup>th</sup>
century "hymns," including some of the old favorites, are sappy,
emotional, and shallow, imho. It's just more striking today because
content-free worship songs tend to have fewer words and more repetition now,
having given up any pretense to content. I'm not against contemporary music. I prefer more substantive contemporary music to less substantive music. (The same goes with old songs -- I like to sing old songs that mean something.) To prove that this is not just another
rant by an old guy against CCM, here are three links to contemporary Christian
music ministries that I’ve found tend toward theologically rich lyrics: <a href="https://www.churchworksmedia.com/worship-music-philosophy/">Church Works
Media</a>, <a href="https://www.gettymusic.com/about-us/">Getty Music</a>, and <a href="http://watchsong.com/about/">Watchsong</a>.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This also is not about musical styles. I can enjoy various
styles of music, but this is not about what I enjoy. I do prefer a more
dignified style in my worship music since I think a certain seriousness is
necessary to the best worship, but that is not what I am talking about here. I
am talking only about the substantive content of the lyrics.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Finally, I don't deny that relatively shallow, somewhat
mindless, very sentimental worship can be "good." But I
think substantive, thoughtful, meaningful, and heartfelt worship always would
be "better." My beef, if I have one, isn't with shallow worship.
It's with worship leaders who should, imho, be leading from the
"good" to the "better." I believe that, before any new song
is sung by the congregation, the lyrics ought to be reviewed by a pastor to
discern whether they have a message and whether that message is biblical. If
the song fails either of those two tests, it should be relegated to being sung
on the radio and excluded from congregational singing. Better yet, the message of any new song should be taught by a pastor (perhaps on Sunday or Wednesday night) before the song makes its debut on Sunday morning. I think this requirement would discipline song selection. And I imagine some would be surprised that many popular songs are strings of cliches without any real meaning.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">2) Musical training
and competence.</b> The second thing I’m looking for in our new worship leader
is a level of musical competence. I think a college degree in music is
essential. In my limited experience, I’ve found that trained musicians avoid
one of the great mistakes of many “worship leaders” – trying to use popular
recordings for congregational singing. As it turns out, many of the top tunes
on the CCM charts are “unsingable” by a normal congregation. This should not
be surprising. Those songs were written, arranged, and recorded to sound good
and to sell records when sung by professionals (after a lot of studio
production), not for congregational singing. It seems to me that trained
musicians tend to understand this better than amateurs. I also would be more
confident that a trained musician would understand, for example, when hammering
the djembe fits with the style of a particular song, and when it doesn’t. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">3) Talent. </b>I put
this last because I think it may be the least important. Don’t get me wrong, it’s
important. Our current music director is a huge talent, and that’s a big help. I’ve
suffered under worship leaders who are always singing just below the pitch
being played by the piano. It’s jarring to the ear. But I put vocal talent last
because I’ve found that when a congregation is led in worship by a talented singer
who lacks the first two qualities I’m looking for, the song service tends to
devolve into a performance. The leader stands up there singing out with his
eyes closed, neither knowing nor caring whether the congregation is with him.
His sweet, melodious voice fills the room, and that’s all that matters.
Reducing the congregation to an audience is not what I’m looking for in a music
director. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Having said all of that, I am trying to learn through this
to trust. Ultimately, the church is God’s church. I trust Him to give us the
gifts we need to live the corporate lives He’s called us to live.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPb7b23igXiqmSnLe7a8jNmc3LYE0nijLIu6e4YdjIqu27pR3rb0ZzS8_0tu335VonodsDaxY7Kt5lXOPj6JfSHAfdPvyULHFbcx9bKLSNXEnVdlrskols-HK88gQ23mlUxtbr8_SN_Y0/s1600/Getty.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="230" data-original-width="460" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPb7b23igXiqmSnLe7a8jNmc3LYE0nijLIu6e4YdjIqu27pR3rb0ZzS8_0tu335VonodsDaxY7Kt5lXOPj6JfSHAfdPvyULHFbcx9bKLSNXEnVdlrskols-HK88gQ23mlUxtbr8_SN_Y0/s320/Getty.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />Louis Henslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391812455324029490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649273055427646444.post-73380652756441942162018-03-15T08:26:00.004-07:002018-03-26T09:31:08.517-07:00Crucify Aragorn! Give us Jar Jar Binks!<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
As I was watching the local news interviewing students who
participated in the “walkout” protest yesterday, I couldn’t help wondering: “Are
all high school students this inarticulate?” I know – that makes me a horrible
person. It’s obvious that we’re all supposed to be praising these students for “making
their voices heard.” Never mind that they don’t know what they’re talking
about. They’re speaking up, and that’s what counts. I guess the news coverage
of these protesters is the media equivalent of the participation trophy. Excellence
in knowledge or speech is unnecessary to be an opinion winner. Just show up,
and you also make a valuable contribution. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The same popular sentiment applies to voting. We are told
that we all have a duty to vote. All voters are praised. And yet we’ve probably
all seen those cringe-worthy exit interviews that demonstrate that the people
who just voted had no idea what they were voting about. Well, I’m sorry, but I
don’t think everyone should vote. I don’t think we need more people voting. I
think we need more people who know what they’re doing voting. Mike Rowe famously said, "Encouraging everyone to vote is like encouraging everyone to own a gun." I don't want gun democracy -- I'd prefer that gun owners know how to shoot straight. I feel the same way about opinion leaders and voters. Either the pen is mightier than the sword, or it isn't.<br />
<br />
I frequently use
the hashtag #democracyisoverrated. The Founders of our country understood this,
which is why they gave us a republican form of government, not a democracy. We
have made that government more democratic to our own hurt. Colorado's
republican caucus process in the last presidential election cycle demonstrated
the superiority of the republican form of government over democracy. In
Colorado, each precinct was open to all republicans. The precincts elected
delegates to the state convention. The delegates to the state convention then
elected delegates to the national convention. This added layer of winnowing
produced ultimate decision makers who had been vetted by the political process
and were more informed and engaged than the person on the street whom they
represented. The result was to select an informed and qualified candidate
instead of the uninformed and disreputable demagogue. I know that what I am
writing is contrary to the spirit of our age, but it's true: Most of us just
aren't qualified or equipped to select our own leaders directly. We all would
be better off if we selected qualified and trusted delegates who could then
select leaders on our behalf. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This brings me to the rise of President Trump. I don’t mean
to pick on President Trump, I think he’s actually been a better president than
I had hoped and certainly better than he is portrayed in the popular media. But
that doesn’t change my conviction that the rise of Trump is a symptom of the
degradation of our culture by popular media. Popular culture has taught us that
"articulate" equals "evil." Think about it. Watch a movie,
and the character who appears to be the smartest and the smoothest talker in
the first twenty minutes is the villain. If a character somehow seems flawed,
then that character will likely have some nobility about her.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That's one reason that I read Tolkien and
Lewis to my children. Those writers gave us the anti-Trump, virtuous heroes who
are moral, intelligent, wise, and articulate. Consider Aragorn before the Black
Gates: "I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me.
A day may come when the courage of men fails, when we forsake our friends and
break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. An hour of wolves and
shattered shields, when the age of men comes crashing down, but it is not this
day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you
stand, Men of the West!" Imagine President Trump delivering those lines.
Can’t? Neither can I, but I do remember presidents delivering memorable lines.
We won’t tolerate that now. Our popular media have conditioned us to be
suspicious of those who appear to be smarter than we are. We’re so afraid that
all of the articulate candidates might be Palpatine that we’re willing to put
Jar Jar Binks in the Oval Office. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I’ve learned through years of life experience on a law
school admissions committee, hiring committee, and as a voter: These days we
all want to admit, hire, and vote for ourselves. I'm afraid this explains
Trump's electoral success. I doubt whether it's always been this way. I think
there probably was a time when voters wanted someone better than them to manage
things they weren't equipped to handle. But now that all of our opinions are
worthy of news coverage, now that we all get participation trophies, no matter
the quality of our effort, we now understand that nobody's better than we are,
so we might as well elect someone just as uninformed, just as inarticulate,
just as flawed as we are.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<o:p></o:p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiD5guTkLXQdCT-VLYaEEfyqjIJPcv-IF6yWKIGvSbRp8H64E2XhfAXCcReqIF1ReRRR25eiPwyy6PEwHR1htsjo0Vni6xSHp33jXdcPxsgQSiiy_xTWmmEKoivxl9U1TMEOzoqJtKOHvc/s1600/participation+trophies.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="473" data-original-width="768" height="197" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiD5guTkLXQdCT-VLYaEEfyqjIJPcv-IF6yWKIGvSbRp8H64E2XhfAXCcReqIF1ReRRR25eiPwyy6PEwHR1htsjo0Vni6xSHp33jXdcPxsgQSiiy_xTWmmEKoivxl9U1TMEOzoqJtKOHvc/s320/participation+trophies.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />Louis Henslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391812455324029490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649273055427646444.post-56145223709266476282018-02-02T08:53:00.004-08:002023-01-13T05:05:19.749-08:00#ReleaseTheMemo: CLS, the Rule of Law, and the Nunes Memo<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-size: 14px;">The Critical Legal Studies (CLS) movement was born in the American legal academy in the 70's and reached the pinnacle of its importance in the mid-to-late 80's when it turned the Harvard Law School (the de facto capital of the movement) into "<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/30/weekinreview/harvard-tenure-battle-puts-critical-legal-studies-on-trial.html" target="_blank">the Beirut of legal education</a>." (I actually benefited from the mess CLS made of Harvard because at least two of my best professors at Chicago were refugees from Harvard, at least temporarily seeking shelter from the CLS movement there.) Adherents of CLS (Crits) are hostile to the traditional western concept of the rule of law. In fact, they think there is no such thing. Law is mere politics, they say. Critical Legal Scholars seek to destroy (they say "deconstruct") law from the inside. This led the <a href="https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1189&context=faculty_scholarship" target="_blank">Dean of Duke Law School</a> to question in 1984 how those who do not believe in law can teach it. Good question.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 15px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 15px;">At the law school where I teach, we tell our students about CLS (even though the movement is much less prominent today than it was about thirty years ago), and I'm glad we do because it has had a profound effect on our country. One of the CLS writings we have our students read is a piece by </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-size: 14px;">Paul Butler on jury nullification. Butler argued that "the idea of 'the rule of law' is more mythological than real," and that his audience "should embrace the anti-democratic nature of jury nullification because it provides them with the power to determine justice in a way that majority rule does not," and that they should "serve a higher calling than law: justice." Butler learned this philosophy at Harvard Law School, where he graduated in 1986, near the apex of the CLS movement. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-size: 14px;">What does all of this have to do with America today you ask? Guess who else graduated from Harvard just five years after Paul Butler? That's right, President Barack Obama, and I'll bet dollars to donuts that there's a 70% overlap between Butler's and Obama's course selection, surely dominated by Crits. (I would even guess that the real reason President Obama always refused to release his transcripts wasn't any of the reasons imagined by online conspiracy theorists. I'll bet he refused to release his transcripts because he would be embarrassed by his course selection at Harvard.) </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-size: 14px;">The main reason I would bet that President Obama studied at the feet of Crits is that the Obama administration was CLS philosophy implemented on a grand scale. (The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say.) We saw it <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323823004578591503509555268" target="_blank">over and over</a>. President Obama refused to enforce laws that he did not like, and he acted in the absence of law when he thought it was desirable to do so. And why not? He was taught in law school that there is no such thing as law. What passes for law is merely politics. Law is what you can get away with politically, and that's how President Obama ran his administration, especially in his second term, when he had more flexibility. </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-size: 14px;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-size: 14px;">But President Obama is so 2016, you might say. What does that have to do with America today? I'll tell you. Parts of our federal government are supposed to be political. The Senate and the House of Representatives are prime examples. Politics is the rule there, and that is the way it is supposed to be. But other parts of our government are supposed to be legal, not political. The Justice Department, the IRS, and the Federal Courts are supposed to be such non-political examples. Those branches and limbs of the federal government are supposed to be bound by the laws created by the political parts of government, but their work is supposed to be free of politics. This is part of the reason that President George W. Bush's attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, was pressured to resign for allegedly improperly firing US Attorneys for political reasons. The Justice Department is not supposed to be political. <br /><br />But what happens when the President himself, who appoints all the high-ranking officials in these non-political limbs of the federal government, has been taught and believes that there is no distinction between law and politics? Then you get the Obama administration. The Justice Department, IRS, FBI, and even the Federal Courts become law-free zones. Politics is everything. The attorney general does not enforce the law, she protects her preferred political party. The IRS persecutes political opponents. Lifetime appointees to the federal bench issue transparently political decisions with no basis in law. This is Obama's lasting legacy, the eroding of the rule of law within the institutions of our federal government. <br /><br />Many of President Obama's legislative and executive legacies likely will be quickly dismantled by President Trump, but Obama's hundreds, maybe even thousands, of appointments and hires have revolutionized the Justice Department, the judiciary, and, apparently, the FBI. While many, maybe even most, of President Obama's appointees probably are not Crits, if there are even a couple hundred high-ranking Justice Department officials and/or lifetime federal judicial appointees who are not committed to the rule of law, we could be in for decades of lawlessness. We've never seen anything like this before. Not from Bush, not even from Clinton. A liberal employee of the federal government can still be fundamentally committed to the rule of law, but those who share President Obama's philosophy threaten law itself. That lasting influence of the Obama administration must be rooted out, not covered up. #ReleaseTheMemo</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4KNI5qjZt6rIONj0YuMLH5LsyVd4Eluu0K9ytNdT-01rnL3OOZT_uglCalTmSzEyWQ2XispgWwUIJUG4MpCIf0DeSQ8BdJCkcWdpY2QM8A2imiTQeomUY-bqdIHV_LBHkwdvS5OcWcG0/s1600/%2523ReleaseTheMemo.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="340" data-original-width="720" height="151" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4KNI5qjZt6rIONj0YuMLH5LsyVd4Eluu0K9ytNdT-01rnL3OOZT_uglCalTmSzEyWQ2XispgWwUIJUG4MpCIf0DeSQ8BdJCkcWdpY2QM8A2imiTQeomUY-bqdIHV_LBHkwdvS5OcWcG0/s320/%2523ReleaseTheMemo.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span></span>Louis Henslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391812455324029490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649273055427646444.post-6168919599629131032018-02-01T07:31:00.000-08:002018-09-26T08:56:21.211-07:00Reflections a Year After the Stolen Gorsuch Supreme Court Seat<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_ihuJHu1l_IGf0BoujMiSsY50uJWynpr5QBn1Sa78qMiWabp8vPaGj9kqbdxhbkxdaHMLhzZQrLWACFl7ZJiCLCv3FKaeYNM5R3ddcPWh-5QRnR2yrWxNc2BdsWhvvhJS4rEFNANFycU/s1600/2016_March_16_Merrick_Garland_at_podium_with_Obama_and_Biden.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1067" data-original-width="1600" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_ihuJHu1l_IGf0BoujMiSsY50uJWynpr5QBn1Sa78qMiWabp8vPaGj9kqbdxhbkxdaHMLhzZQrLWACFl7ZJiCLCv3FKaeYNM5R3ddcPWh-5QRnR2yrWxNc2BdsWhvvhJS4rEFNANFycU/s320/2016_March_16_Merrick_Garland_at_podium_with_Obama_and_Biden.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
I've heard many times that the seat occupied by Justice Neil Gorsuch is a "stolen" seat on the Supreme Court. Let's break that down. The Gorsuch seat is stolen only if someone else was entitled to it. Was anyone else entitled to it?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
That's not a hard question. We know what's required to be entitled to a Supreme Court seat -- nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate. Was anyone else nominated and confirmed for the Scalia vacancy? No. So the seat didn't belong to anyone else and wasn't stolen by the republicans when Gorsuch took it.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Of course, I know what the democrats and their allies in the mainstream media mean when they say this is a stolen seat. They mean Garland should have been confirmed. But that's wrong, too. Is the Senate obligated to confirm every qualified nominee? Has the Senate always confirmed every qualified nominee? The answer to both questions is "no." The republican Senate was under no obligation to confirm Garland.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
"But he didn't even get a hearing," you say. I tend to agree that the republicans should have given Garland a hearing. As I said at the time of his nomination, I thought the republicans should have given Garland the Bork treatment. Slow walk his confirmation and then reject it. For political reasons, they decided to skip all that and simply say "let's leave this seat up to the people in the election." Even though I think this was a less than ideal way to reject Garland, that doesn't change the fact that the republican Senators were perfectly entitled to reject him, which they did.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Here's the fundamental point that the democrats and their allies in the mainstream media seem to miss -- elections have consequences for the makeup of the Supreme Court. That principle applies to both elections for President and elections for the Senate. I say democrats "seem" to miss this point because they merely pretend to miss it. They actually understand it all too well. In fact, that was the very game they were playing with the Garland nomination.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
You see, they know that the only sure way to move the Court either to the right or to the left is to control both the White House and the Senate. When control of the White House and Senate are split, then there might have to be compromise, and it's much harder to move the Court very far. The democrats learned this lesson very well during the Reagan administration. President Reagan appointed Robert Bork, who would have moved the Court to the right. The democrats controlled the Senate, so they rejected Bork, who was eminently qualified, on ideological grounds. Reagan was forced to nominate Kennedy, who turned out to be the quintessential moderate. Imagine how much different our Supreme Court precedent would look today if Reagan could have forced Bork instead of Kennedy on the democrats. That's the importance of controlling the Senate.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
So when the late great Justice Scalia died unexpectedly late in President Obama's second term when the republicans controlled the Senate, all of the players had political decisions to make. President Obama had the first decision to make. He could either nominate a liberal or a true moderate (like Kennedy). If he nominated a liberal, the nomination almost surely would be rejected, one way or another, and the open seat would become an issue in the upcoming election, during which the democrats felt sure they would retain the White House and hoped to regain the Senate.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
If Obama nominated another Kennedy, the republicans would have had a tough choice. They could either accept another Kennedy to replace Scalia, which would move the Court incrementally to the left, or they could reject the moderate nominee and roll the dice on the election. If Clinton were elected (as most expected) and the republicans retained the Senate, they'd be right back where they started when Scalia passed. But if the republicans lost the White House and the Senate, then a moderate would be off the table. They would get another Sotomayor. Replacing Scalia with a Sotomayor would be a drastic shift to the left.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
President Obama made the key decision. He decided to appoint a liberal. I know a few of you will say "but Garland is a moderate." Please, don't even. I know the left says that, but he's a moderate like Roberts is a moderate, not like Kennedy is a moderate. Swapping out Scalia for Garland would have been a huge shift to the left. So Obama intentionally chose to nominate a jurist he knew the republicans would reject. And why shouldn't he? Clinton was sure to win, so, worst case scenario, the liberals would be, after the election, right back where they started from. Why should Obama agree to appoint a moderate as Reagan had been forced to do?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Of course, we know what happened. Scalia's open seat became, perhaps, the most important issue in the presidential election. I say that because it welded the right wing of the republican party, especially the religious right, to Trump in a way that perhaps nothing else could. Trump masterfully put out his list of potential conservative nominees and promised to nominate from that list. And he delivered.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-top: 6px;">
I understand that this is the unimaginable worst case scenario for the democrats. They rolled the dice on the election and the dice came up craps. But this was the risk that Obama took when he decided to nominate a liberal. It looked like a good bet at the time, the odds were in his favor, but he lost his bet. </div>
<div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-top: 6px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-top: 6px;">
So did republicans steal a Supreme Court seat? No, the democrats gambled it away.</div>
</div>
Louis Henslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391812455324029490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649273055427646444.post-72733550528609569932018-01-16T11:22:00.001-08:002019-01-21T13:47:21.060-08:00MLK's Beautiful Christian Dream<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgld4PMFNbz1_ydyqsvVbtGYap9l9rJo1he9rlvcwkiyTcu8MRFS5JmQxEhDj2SikaFEB9Qmg6Uo690MscTxqKZ-7giSDAWSjBsE8AC4MdOvTTd62iGKuqXeQPvp9-UEyC-NTqlJrHpFR0/s1600/mlk-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="550" data-original-width="825" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgld4PMFNbz1_ydyqsvVbtGYap9l9rJo1he9rlvcwkiyTcu8MRFS5JmQxEhDj2SikaFEB9Qmg6Uo690MscTxqKZ-7giSDAWSjBsE8AC4MdOvTTd62iGKuqXeQPvp9-UEyC-NTqlJrHpFR0/s320/mlk-2.jpg" width="320" /></a>The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had a beautiful dream of a colorblind society in which people are judged based on important things like what they do and in which unimportant details, like skin tone, are irrelevant to how we interact with each other. This is a distinctively Christian vision. One of the great innovations of the Christian religion is that it is a religion for all. The world had long known societies that accepted all gods. But the Christians may have been the fir<span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline; font-family: inherit;">st to see their God as accepting all people.</span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 6px;">
The Apostle Paul had to fight hard for that. The first Christians were Jews who believed that Yahweh was the God of the Jews. So to follow the Christian God, you had to become a Jew. But Paul, with the direct intervention of a divine vision, erased this error at the Council of Jerusalem. As Paul powerfully explained in Galatians 3:28, in Christ, "[t]here is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This is true equality. This is unity. This is love. This is the vision of MLK, a world, but especially a Church, in which irrelevancies, like skin color, are irrelevant.</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Unfortunately, Satan has successfully transmogrified Dr. King's beautiful dream into a dystopian nightmare. Now our elites insist that we see first the color of our skin so that we can properly categorize each other and practice "diversity," and "tolerance," and "inclusion." Racists focus on race so they can exclude. The elites focus on race so they can include. Neither of these is MLK's dream, and neither is Christian.</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
As a Christian, when I see another man, I shouldn't see a white man or a black man to be excluded or included. I should see a fellow bearer of the image of God, and, if he's a Christian, I should see a Christian brother. The color of his skin is no more relevant than the color of his shoes. Where Christianity demands unity, the elites substitute diversity. Where Christianity demands love, the elites substitute tolerance. If you've accepted what the elites are peddling, you've accepted a sorry substitute for Christianity and a sorry substitute for MLK's beautiful dream.</div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
In honor of the vision of MLK, I determine to spend this entire day ignoring the color of the skin of my fellow divine image bearers. Going forward, I vow to oppose any movement that seeks to force me to see my fellow humans, and especially fellow Christians, first as a skin color.<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
Louis Henslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391812455324029490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649273055427646444.post-61638749643488506032017-11-01T11:07:00.000-07:002018-09-20T13:29:59.033-07:00Halloween and the Reversal of the Great Commission<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDty2FO4ue_s39MbxZQV60lJgg9VhJpL19KdF25JWcPfWCve_NTYByWqgRMBM5QN-pBFxjS0ed2f2VnZ8F-fiOAUnR7Pb8O1Cyj2gFvUj5Wl-6e7Jt4lvE8Rw465L0tM6UOcXAnEZWRX0/s1600/1209713_1429007457318674_2061454112_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="640" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDty2FO4ue_s39MbxZQV60lJgg9VhJpL19KdF25JWcPfWCve_NTYByWqgRMBM5QN-pBFxjS0ed2f2VnZ8F-fiOAUnR7Pb8O1Cyj2gFvUj5Wl-6e7Jt4lvE8Rw465L0tM6UOcXAnEZWRX0/s320/1209713_1429007457318674_2061454112_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Everyone is free to read this, but this is particularly
addressed to Christians.<br />
<br />
One of my adult daughters and I took my ten-year-old son out trick-or-treating
yesterday evening while his mother manned the candy bowl at home. As we
wandered around the streets with many of our neighbors whom we rarely see and
knocked on many doors that are never otherwise opened to us, I was struck by
how many more points of contact we had with our neighbors than we have on any
other day or even any other month. Seeing all of my neighbors smiling and
opening their doors (as we were doing the same), it was hard to imagine that
many evangelical Christians struggle with how we might reach our neighbors with
the gospel. <br />
<br />
Reflecting on those ideas made me afraid. I fear we evangelical Christians may
be reversing the Great Commission. Jesus commanded His disciples to “go” and
teach and make disciples. But I am afraid that we evangelical Christians have
developed a tendency to “stay” in our churches and invite the world to come in.
I fear that this reversal of the Great Commission from “go” to “stay and invite”
is not good for evangelism and is not good for edification within the church. <br />
<br />
Peter gave us a blueprint for outreach in 1 Peter 2. He begged his readers as “strangers
and pilgrims” to remain “honorable” in their “conduct” so that when unbelievers
speak against them (not if, but when), those unbelievers may see their good
deeds and glorify God. And how did Peter follow up this exhortation to glorify
God through good deeds before unbelievers? Did he say “invite them to your
solemn assemblies” so they can see your good works? No. Take note, Peter told
his readers to submit to “every human institution.” The word translated “institution”
is quite broad. The examples given relate to human government, but the
exhortation is broader. Peter goes on to say that “so is the will of God, that
with well doing you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.” Then Peter sums
up with “Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.” <br />
<br />
Here’s why that passage came to me last night. We came to one house that had a
long table set up in the driveway with several bowls of candy, each with an
address in front of it. One of the adults standing there explained, “When you
come to some of these houses on the street with their lights off, they’re not
being ‘jerks’ (his word), we’ve just combined in this one spot.” (Others of our
neighbors also had gathered together in the street to pass out candy together.)
Then it hit me. Do they think people who don’t participate in trick-or-treat
are “jerks”? What about all my evangelical Christian brethren who are
trunk-or-treating at their churches right now? Is their testimony sullied? Is Halloween
a “human institution” to which we must submit for the sake of our testimony?<br />
<br />
Note the question marks at the end of that paragraph. I’m not being dogmatic
about participating in Halloween. I know some in good conscience cannot
participate, and to violate conscience is neither wise nor safe. But I am
saying that when we withdraw from ordinary human institutions we run the risk
of running afoul of 1 Peter 2. Peter (and Jesus) told us to go into human
society and live the gospel, not retreat into our churches and invite
unbelievers to come in. I know that there are things we simply cannot do with unbelievers.
But there also are things we can do, and we should do. What message does it
send when we isolate ourselves in our Christian enclaves?<br />
<br />
And here’s the other, equally disturbing, side of the isolationist coin. When
we withdraw from society, we still know that we have an obligation to reach the
world with the gospel. So what do we do? We invite the world to come into our churches.
Well what unbeliever wants to sit through a careful exposition of Scripture? What
unbeliever will want to participate in a deep and meaningful song service? No
problem, we’ll just add flashing lights, smoke machines, electric guitars, and
simple, repetitive lyrics. That will make the song service tolerable. As for
those expository sermons, we’ll just tell moral stories instead. We’ll work in “biblical
principles.” We’ll make the sermons both entertaining AND good moral teaching.
Then unbelievers will tolerate them. This is the way of the “seeker friendly”
church. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
What is sacrificed? The full-orbed worship and teaching of
Scripture that we need as believers. We sacrifice our own edification to make
our churches tolerable for unbelievers. The writer of Hebrews tells us that we
must assemble together to inspire each other to love and good deeds. Our
assembly is for our edification, not for outreach. The Bible doesn’t tell us to
make our churches comfortable for “seekers” – we’re supposed to be the “seekers,”
going out into the world and living lives before them that are above reproach. When
we bring the world into the church, the unbelievers aren’t reached (no matter
how entertaining, church can never compete with HBO), and we’re not edified.
The church becomes stagnant and ineffectual. <br />
<br />
Here’s what I’ve concluded. When it comes to evangelism, I need to consciously
keep myself in the world whenever possible. I might have to withdraw sometimes,
but my prejudice should be to hang in there and live the gospel. (Even writing
that is convicting.) But I must come apart from the world from time to time for
mutual edification and support with my believing brethren. I must do both, go
and withdraw. I shouldn’t blur them together, because then I’m doing neither. <o:p></o:p></div>
Louis Henslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391812455324029490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649273055427646444.post-27051398274199286062017-08-17T07:52:00.006-07:002022-01-07T12:44:43.585-08:00Death to the False Dichotomy!<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfawHS8U48OST-ChunxQZW6tDFh_p1VQBT1dnoEwlZNBAOADjz1bwX8jw3zsGAgvaYuXCNpPrMIRTjIF1notsdBEuuVfiZWKQQJpv4HC1hhlKgqlUlap0Y-91fJ4pCm5M0q4zrBwQv6C8/s1600/1598924008804426-0.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfawHS8U48OST-ChunxQZW6tDFh_p1VQBT1dnoEwlZNBAOADjz1bwX8jw3zsGAgvaYuXCNpPrMIRTjIF1notsdBEuuVfiZWKQQJpv4HC1hhlKgqlUlap0Y-91fJ4pCm5M0q4zrBwQv6C8/s1600/1598924008804426-0.png" width="400" />
</a>
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></div><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>The false dichotomy is a menace. According
to Google, a false dichotomy is a [binary division] that is not jointly
exhaustive (there are other alternatives), or that is not mutually exclusive
(the alternatives overlap), or that is possibly neither. In other words, one form
of the false dichotomy presents only two options when in reality there are
more.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Many of us were bludgeoned with the
false dichotomy during the last election cycle: “Failing to vote for X is a
vote for Y.” Because I swim in conservative waters, I was assaulted with “If
you don’t vote for Trump, it’s a vote for Hillary.” That’s a false dichotomy. I
had other options. I didn’t have to choose between a corrupt candidate and a
debased candidate, despite what my Facebook friends kept trying to tell me. I
proved the dichotomy false in the voting booth when I cast my vote for a third
party, and neither of the supposedly binary options got my vote.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
Now
the false dichotomy is rearing its ugly head again. I’m being told that if I
condemn Antifa, then I’m supporting neo-Nazis. I have to remain silent about
the lawlessness and violence to which Antifa is committed, or I’m branded a
white supremacist. Well, I didn’t fall for that fallacy in the election, and I’m
not falling for it now. There’s a third option – I can condemn both groups as
evil and dangerous. I don’t have to choose between the vile, hateful racists
and the violent, lawless criminals. I can (and do) say “A pox on both your
houses.” I don’t have to take sides in the raging uncivil war between armed
camps of extremists.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Here’s why I hate this particular
false dichotomy: If people are pushed to believe that they must choose sides
here, some people will. Some borderline racists, who might otherwise keep their
mouths shut, will be pushed into the waiting arms of the white supremacists.
And some gullible students steeped for four years of college in the propaganda
of the extreme left will decide to join Antifa. After all, who wants to support
neo-Nazis? And if you don’t support Antifa, then you’re supporting the white
supremacists, or so some would have us believe.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">This is a dangerous game our elites,
especially in the media, are playing. In trying to stamp out the false idea of
white supremacy, they’re refusing to condemn lawlessness and violence on the
extreme left. Worse, they’re trying to bully the rest of us into taking sides
and supporting the criminal enterprise that is Antifa. Well, I’m not buying it.
Say what you like, but I’m not taking sides between these two tiny camps of
despicable extremists. I reject them both, and I won’t be cowed into remaining
silent. Even though I did not vote for President Trump, I’m glad that he has
condemned in explicit terms both the hateful white supremacists and the violent
criminals on the extreme left who clashed in Charlottesville and temporarily
turned that quiet college town into a killing field. Both sides deserve
condemnation, and both will have it from me.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
Louis Henslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391812455324029490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649273055427646444.post-42734662573592079522015-06-23T08:41:00.001-07:002018-03-29T06:55:54.913-07:00Partial Response to Professor Kevin Lee<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">This is an incomplete response to an <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2194034" target="_blank">essay</a> posted to ssrn by Professor Kevin Lee.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The key phrase “Culture of Death”
in the title of Professor Lee’s <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2194034" target="_blank">essay</a> was popularized by Pope John Paul II in
his important 1995 encyclical, <i><a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html" target="_blank">EvangeliumVitae </a></i>(“The Gospel of Life”)<i>. </i>The encyclical is divided into four
chapters. Sections 7-28 comprise the
first chapter, <span style="background: white;">“The Voice of Your
Brother’s Blood Cries to Me from the Ground.”
After a review of the Biblical account of the first murder of Abel by
Cain in sections 7-10, John Paul catalogues in section ten several contemporary
attacks on life on which attacks his encyclical expressly does not
concentrate: threats from nature
exacerbated by human indifference; results of violence, hatred, and conflicting
interests; poverty, malnutrition, and hunger because of unjust distribution of
resources; armed conflict; reckless tampering with ecological balance; criminal
spread of drugs; and promotion of sexual activities involving grave risks to
life. On none of these does John Paul
concentrate. </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Rather, beginning in section eleven, John Paul focuses his attention
on a particular form of attack on life:
attacks affecting life at its most vulnerable, earliest and final
stages. John Paul writes of abortion and
euthanasia. These attacks on life are
all the more serious because they “are carried out in the very heart of and
with the complicity of the family—the family which by its nature is called to
be the ‘sanctuary of life.’” John Paul
then turns his attention to the causes of this situation including moral
uncertainty fostered by many and serious social problems, which leads to
section twelve of the encyclical, the section in which John Paul introduces the
phrase “culture of death,” providing Professor Lee with a catchy title for his
essay.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In section twelve, John Paul
identifies a structure of sin that spawns the emergence of a “culture of
death.” The problem is a “society
excessively concerned with efficiency.”
This “culture of death” amounts to a “war of the powerful against the
weak.” The lives of the very young and
the very old, lives that “require greater acceptance, love and care” are “held
to be an intolerable burden.” The
“culture of death” is a culture that values life only so long as it can
“contribute to the bottom line.” If a
particular life demands more of human society than it can give back, then that
life has no net value and must be eliminated.
This is the “culture of death” of which John Paul wrote. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The phrase “culture of death”
appears eleven more times in <i>Evangelium
Vitae, </i>most of those recurring in the first chapter. The phrase appears for the second time in section
nineteen, which addresses the roots of a “remarkable contradiction” between
contemporary global proclamations of human rights and the practice that the “very
right to life is being denied or trampled upon, especially at the more
significant moments of existence: the moment of birth and the moment of death.” John Paul identifies one of those roots as “a
completely individualistic concept of freedom, which ends up by becoming the
freedom of ‘the strong’ against the weak who have no choice but to submit.” This concept of freedom supports a “culture
of death”: “the taking of life not yet
born or in its final stages.” Section
twenty-one seeks “the deepest roots” of “the culture of death” and finds “a
social and cultural climate dominated by secularism” that “produces a kind of
progressive darkening of the capacity to discern God’s living and saving
presence.” John Paul argues in section
twenty-four that this darkening of the moral conscience of a society that
“encourages the ‘culture of death’ is exacerbated by the media that confuses
“between good and evil, precisely in relation to the fundamental right to
life.”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In section twenty-six, John Paul
notes “signs which point to” the ultimate victory of life over death. These signs appear even in societies that are
“marked” by the “culture of death.” The
phrase “culture of death” appears twice in section twenty-eight, the final
section of the first chapter, in which John Paul sums up the “clash” between
the “’culture of death’ and the ‘culture of life’” and emphasizes our duty to
choose between the “’culture of life’ and the ‘culture of death.’”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The phrase “culture of death”
appears once at the end of chapter two, “I Came That They May Have Life,” which
reflects “on the Christian message about life.”
In section fifty, John Paul analogizes the “dramatic conflict between
the ‘culture of death’ and the ‘culture of life’” to the “cosmic disturbances”
experienced at the Cross on Good Friday.
The phrase “culture of death” appears once in chapter three, “You Shall
Not Kill — God’s Holy Law.” In section
sixty-four, John Paul focuses on end of life issues. John Paul identifies “one of the more
alarming symptoms of the ‘culture of death,’" which is “an attitude of
excessive preoccupation with efficiency . . . which sees the growing number of
elderly and disabled people as intolerable and too burdensome.”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The three final uses of the phrase
“culture of death” are in the final chapter four, ““You Did It to Me — for a
New Culture of Human Life.” In section
eighty-seven John Paul stresses the need for the “service of charity” as “the
‘culture of death’ so forcefully opposes the ‘culture of life.’" In section ninety-five, John Paul again stresses
the “dramatic struggle between the ‘culture of life’ and the ‘culture of
death,’” which presses the “need to develop a deep critical sense, capable of
discerning true values and authentic needs.”
The final use of the phrase appears in section 100 in which John Paul
acknowledges that “[t]here is certainly an enormous disparity between the
powerful resources available to the forces promoting the ‘culture of death’ and
the means at the disposal of those working for a ‘culture of life and love.’"</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Thus, the “culture of death”
discussed by John Paul in <i>Evangelium
Vitae </i>relates entirely to abortion and euthanasia. What does all of this have to do with
firearms? Perhaps nothing – firearms are
used neither to abort babies nor to euthanize the elderly or infirm, at least not commonly. This is not to say that John Paul was not concerned about gun violence, it is rather to say that he did not express that concern in
his “culture of death” discussion in <i>Evangelium
Vitae.</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">The first aspect of firearms consider by Professor Lee is their
intrinsic nature. Professor Lee offers
the opinion that the “firearm is, in its essence, a weapon. It is intrinsically violent since it is
brought into existence . . . to bring about the potential of a violent act.” It certainly is the case that firearms make especially effective weapons of violence, but that is a particular use, not
necessarily inherent to their essence.
Firearms are inherently high-velocity projectiles. Many, but not all, high velocity projectile machines are very useful as destructive weapons. For example, very low caliber firearms are
not very effective as destructive weapons.
Of course, people probably have always used projectiles as weapons. Likewise, people probably have always used
projectiles for sport. There is a fine
line between throwing a rock as a weapon and throwing a baseball for
sport. The same physics that permit a
catapult to be used as a weapon permit the lacrosse player to use a stick for
sport. Likewise, firearms can be used in
war and can be used for target shooting.
“Destructive force” is not inherent to the firearm. It is incidental. The power that permits high velocity and
accuracy at great distance also makes many firearms dangerously destructive,
but not inherently so. Of course, a
particular firearm can be designed, more or less, for destruction, which
actually makes the point that destruction is not inherent to the firearm.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Professor
Lee reports that the firing of a firearm is pleasurable precisely because of
its potential for destructive impact. I
certainly am in no position to deny Professor Lee’s personal experience. I can only describe my own. I would compare my pleasure at striking a
target at distance with a firearm to the pleasure of “shooting” (pun intended)
a basketball through a hoop at distance.
In both cases, the level of the pleasure is directly proportional to the
distance. Of course, the firearm
provides the unique opportunity of hitting very, very small targets at very
great distances. I cannot think of
anything that compares to this.
Professor Lee relates the “widely reported sensation” of “a</span><span style="font-family: "cambria" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">
satisfying feeling of the power one gains over the weapon and the target.”</span> Professor Lee expressly declines to cite much in his essay, but I would find at least one citation in support of this widely reported sensation to be helpful to my understanding. <span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">He says that this feeling is intrinsic to the
firearm. This is the firearm “fulfilling
its purpose.” As I have suggested, this experience of the inherent purpose of the firearm is not universal.</span></span><br />
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Finally, it may be beneficial to consider
this subject based on a balanced view of the facts. Professor Lee’s essay indicates that gun
slayings in the United States are growing. But gun slayings in the United States
actually are on the decline. Most
homicides in the United States are committed with handguns. Such homicides are at historically </span><a href="http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf" style="text-indent: 0.5in;" target="_blank">low levels</a><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">.</span></span></div>
<div>
<div id="ftn5">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
Louis Henslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391812455324029490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649273055427646444.post-11098455280333227422013-11-01T07:14:00.001-07:002017-08-29T07:59:03.377-07:00Obamacare: What Might Have Been<div class="MsoNormal">
This is my attempt to learn some hopefully non-partisan
lessons from the Obamacare fiasco. The
overarching lesson is of such long standing in our culture as to have become
almost a cliché, but it is true – that if something is worth doing, it is worth doing
right. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We all know that, and yet with Obamacare, political
expediency was allowed to trump any and all other concerns. To enact Obamacare, recent presidential
campaign promises of transparency, public comment periods, and televised
debates were slain in their cradles and replaced by secrecy, backroom deals,
and midnight votes. Zero buy in was
sought from the other side of the aisle, and none was given. The predictable product of this process was
an unworkable hash of legislation, public response ranging from ignorance to
outrage, and political opposition, especially when the inevitable difficulties
arose, ranging from schadenfreude to
scorched-earth warfare. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We will never know what might have come of Obamacare if
things had been done well. Would the
public have been more accepting? Would
the political opposition have been more willing to reform rather than insisting
on repeal? I’m sure Obamacare’s sponsors
console themselves with the belief that things would have been no different,
but we’ll never know because they, even while they held all the cards, chose
the quick way rather than the right way.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I do see a hopeful contrast in Marco Rubio’s approach to
immigration reform. If he wanted to, he might
be able to take a page from the President’s playbook and ram something through
Congress (with an assist from Democrats).
But he’s so far refusing to do that.
He’s smart. He knows that if his
reform proposal is to succeed in the long run, he will need bi-partisan buy
in. He not only is giving a respectful
hearing to the opposition, he is slowing things down and taking time to assure
that all concerns are addressed. He
firmly believes that our immigration system needs reform, but he knows that
bad, rushed reform is worse than no reform at all. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
How much better off we all would be if we had that kind of
mature, reflective judgment, be it Democrat or Republican, in the White
House. I appeal to both parties to be
careful in your selection of candidates for 2016. Please pick someone who understands that
American public life is more than political power. Pick someone who understands that we all must
live together and that the political opposition is a brother with a different
point of view to be considered, not an obstacle to be hurdled or an enemy to be
vanquished. If two such candidates are
nominated for 2016, then come 2017, we’ll all be better off than we are right
now, no matter how the next election turns out.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
Louis Henslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391812455324029490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649273055427646444.post-88354928359417793122013-10-14T11:34:00.001-07:002023-06-22T07:37:20.795-07:00Why are Rich People so Bad?<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg52ajurl6or_Bpz8cHGvfLjfWr2Xv6z7cBjmBWYKRKuOC8v_wUUBIjVvq2Y5Ig_y7Rnzy-7jhc71vSVPsjVrR4KOAV_i7YQI5B1eAzMWlulQvHBxmZkl1rF2XgAs6bOE6j-edWfK2A6kHLL5dIgKh-hUm-0SShmgjnn570DTZyN2EBV1Rn0x_1mFrbF-w/s1000/TrumpRich.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1000" data-original-width="606" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg52ajurl6or_Bpz8cHGvfLjfWr2Xv6z7cBjmBWYKRKuOC8v_wUUBIjVvq2Y5Ig_y7Rnzy-7jhc71vSVPsjVrR4KOAV_i7YQI5B1eAzMWlulQvHBxmZkl1rF2XgAs6bOE6j-edWfK2A6kHLL5dIgKh-hUm-0SShmgjnn570DTZyN2EBV1Rn0x_1mFrbF-w/w222-h320/TrumpRich.jpg" width="222" /></a></div></blockquote><br />I had a bit of an epiphany this morning. But before I tell you what it was, first let me explain a little about my background so that you can understand how striking this flash of insight was to me. I am a Christian. Many would call me a "fundamentalist." I am one of those many. (You might have to think about that one for a second.) I have been in fundamentalist churches for so long now that I am fairly steeped in certain Christian doctrines, probably none more than the doctrine of the depravity of man. Like a drumbeat, I've heard (and read) for the almost forty years of my Christian life that mankind is fallen. The most common proof text for this sad proposition is <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/isaiah/64-6.html" target="_blank">Isaiah 64:6.</a> But that's far from the only biblical text that focuses on mankind's shortcomings -- from the third chapter of the Bible (Genesis 3) on, it's pretty much all sin, all the time. <br />
<br />
I may be a bit more tuned into mankind's sinfulness than most -- memorizing Paul's epistle to the Romans as a teenager was quite formative for me. That first part of the "Romans Road," that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," locked in pretty early with me. Plus there's my personal experience. I might just be more sinful than most. That brings me to another point -- I didn't really need the Bible to tell me that people are less than perfect (to put it mildly). Everything about my existence told me that people are bad. We lock our doors at night; as children, we're told not to talk to strangers; these days, we take extraordinary efforts to "safeguard our personal information" -- all of which is smart because people are indeed unreliable at best, and downright nasty at worst. Of course, not all people are bad all the time, but some people are bad pretty much all the time, and all people are bad at least some of the time.<br />
<br />
So it does not surprise me when people behave badly. But here's the epiphany that struck me this morning: "Poor people are fallen, too." Let that sink in for a second. I don't even know how I thought of it. The controversy over the name of the Washington Redskins had me reflecting on whether it was merely another faux controversy created by political correctness run amok, and somehow that line of thinking led me to political correctness in general, which got me thinking about certain groups of people whom we're not allowed to criticize, and suddenly I realized that poor people are one of those groups. But this post isn't about political correctness. It's about how I had to be surprised to find that poor people fit the universal definition of mankind that I have had drummed into my brain for decades. After all, I've never had to remind myself that rich people are sinners. As I reflected on my own surprise at this realization that poor people aren't sinless saints, I remembered a time when I articulated my own bias against the rich. I was a newly-minted lawyer, and my wife and I were buying our first modest house. That is a dangerous combination. I kept trying to amend the form contract documents, and the real estate agent with whom I was working finally boiled over with frustration and swore at me. Eventually cooler heads prevailed, and I joked with her about how if it was this hard to sell a small house, I can't imagine how much trouble she must have when a million dollars are on the line. Her unexpected answer: "You'd be surprised how gracious rich people can be." And now that I think of it, that's been almost universally true in my own life, too. Pretty much all the rich people I've known have been okay, no worse than the rest of the lot anyway. <br />
<br />
So why did I, of all people, assume that rich people would be harder to work with than someone of modest means like myself? Well, the idea that "rich = bad" is drummed into us by the popular culture. In any movie we watch, particularly including Disney films, if a wealthy character pops up, we can pretty much mark him down as a "bad guy." If a character's poverty is noteworthy, then that character will likely have some nobility about her. This anti-wealth current has become so strong in our society, that one apparently effective way to run against a political candidate these days is to point out that he's rich. And so in the last presidential election cycle, we had President Obama spending millions of Hollywood's money to convince us that Mitt Romney was rich, which we already knew. And this message stuck even though everybody who actually knew Mr. Romney seemed convinced that he was exceptionally kind and generous, as far as people go. And I apparently bought it, too, as reflected by my response to the real estate agent more than twenty years ago.<br />
<br />
So what's the point? I think the point is that when we make public policy, we should do so keeping in mind that all people, including poor people, are fallen and will behave badly, especially if not properly incentivized. We adopt public policy today as though poor people have some kind of inherent nobility that prevents them from engaging in anti-social conduct, even when we make it exceptionally easy for them to fail. For example, giving Obamacare subsidies without income verification. Are you kidding me? <br />
<br />
Anyway, this is a tough subject to write about, as you can tell from the title of this post. I thought about a candid title like "Poor People are Fallen, Too," but I thought "who'd read that?" So I titled this post as you can see. Apologies for the "bait and switch" -- I'm not perfect, either. This topic seemed so problematic to me that I had decided not to write about it, until I read <a href="http://www.ksla.com/story/23679489/walmart-shelves-in-springhill-mansfield-cleared-in-ebt-glitch" target="_blank">this story</a> about food stamp recipients stealing so much food that they cleaned out a Wal-mart in Louisiana when the EBT system temporarily went down. Apparently the limits on those EBT cards are absolutely essential. After my reflection today, I've decided to try to control within myself the societal bias against the rich. I've also decided to remind myself that all of us, rich and poor alike, must be constrained by law to prevent us from taking advantage of our fellows. Bummer. We live in a fallen world, a universally fallen world.Louis Henslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391812455324029490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649273055427646444.post-85030563334175930862013-10-01T07:22:00.001-07:002013-10-01T19:37:16.067-07:00Unseemly Republican BeggingWe humans seem to be natural beggars. We don't need to teach our children to beg. We already know how to beg when we learn to talk: "Please can I stay up one more hour? Please, please, please will you buy me the toy I want?" When it comes to begging, children have no shame. Sometimes we even think it's "cute." But there's usually nothing cute about adult beggars. You know, like the guy who begs his girlfriend to take him back after she dumped him? We're tempted to say "have some dignity, and move on, man!" Well that's what I want to say to Republicans.<br />
<br />
They keep begging the Democrats to talk to them, mostly about the budget. The Republicans dutifully pass a budget every year. They used to try to engage the Democrats in budget talks. But the Democrats, in the person of Harry Reid, have just said "talk to the hand." The Republican budgets end up right where all of the other legislation they pass ends up, on the scrapheap of Harry Reid's ignoring. <br />
<br />
It's easy to see why the Democrats don't like to talk to the Republicans about the budget (or anything else). The Democrats know that it will not be an easy conversation -- the Republicans will want to cut spending. They might even want to balance the budget (eventually). To say the least, that would not be easy. It might even be quite unpleasant. Better just to ignore the budget process altogether (which is why the Reid Senate usually does not even bother with passing a budget) and fund current levels of spending through a "continuing resolution." <br />
<br />
So what do the Republicans do? Do they say, "No, let's stick with the orderly budget process -- you Democrats pass a budget and we'll work our differences out in conference"? No. The Republicans acquiesce, as they always do. If the Democrats want to scrap the budget process and fund the government by continuing resolution, so be it! At least the Democrats will have to talk about the continuing resolution! <br />
<br />
That's where you're wrong, oh you groveling Republicans. When it comes to the continuing resolution, the Democrats say it's "<a href="http://henslerisms.blogspot.com/2013/09/non-negotiables.html" target="_blank">non-negotiable</a>." You Republicans just agree to fund present spending levels or "talk to the hand." So what do the Republicans do? They beg. In recent days, they've passed four continuing resolutions to fund the government, each one requiring successively smaller concessions from the Democrats. Most humiliatingly, the Republicans' latest version would require the Democrats to talk with them. Seriously, look it up. The Republicans just proposed a <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/congress-fails-to-reach-deal-on-federal-spending-and-obamacare-as-government-enters-partial-shutdown/article/2536634" target="_blank">law</a> begging the Democrats to talk to them in a special conference committee. What do the Democrats say to all this? "Talk to the hand." They've already declared it dead on arrival.<br />
<br />
Now perhaps I'm being a bit too hard on the begging Republicans. I can see why they feel vulnerable and weak. They repeatedly try to compromise to fund the federal government. The Democrats repeatedly say "talk to the hand," and what does the mainstream media say? They <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/09/30/brit-hume-people-think-republicans-blame-shutdowns-because-media-keep" target="_blank">say</a> "the Republicans are shutting down the government!" And so the Republicans beg to avoid blame. They seem not to understand that the begging is pointless. It's pointless because the Obama administration and the Democrats in the Senate doing his bidding <i>wanted </i>the government "shutdown." They knew that CNN would "blame" the Republicans, so the Democrats were going to shut down the government unless they got a "clean" (i.e. everything they wanted and nothing they didn't) continuing resolution, and that's what they did. <br />
<br />
Well, hopefully the embarrassing begging is over now, Republicans. Your worst fears have been realized. The Democrats have ignored you and shut down the government. CNN and MSNBC are blaming you and will continue to blame you. You can't change that now, and you never could. So, please, have some personal dignity. Get up off your knees. <br />
<br />
The Democrats have done their worst to you. That's a fact. That can't be changed. So get up, and move on. Why not try this -- how about playing the cards you've been dealt? Pass a series of funding bills, funding various parts of the government, not necessarily at current levels, but at whatever levels you think appropriate. Let those bills pile up on Harry Reid's desk. If CNN squawks about some side effect of the "shutdown," just point to the bill that would fund that part of the government and say you've already solved that problem. It won't be long before the Democrats will be anxious to talk to you.<br />
<br />
You see, you earn the respect and cooperation of opponents, not by begging and appeasement, but by saying what you mean, meaning what you say, and standing on principle. Try it, you'll like it. But whatever you do, PLEASE stop begging!Louis Henslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391812455324029490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649273055427646444.post-16911518494170153682013-09-20T07:26:00.000-07:002017-11-09T08:58:25.479-08:00Non-negotiables: Handling my personal #debtlimitI hate to publicly air my family's dirty laundry like this, but here goes. Our family finances are in trouble. I make less money today than I did in the late 20th century, but our expenses have skyrocketed since then. Predictably, we've accumulated a debt that we may or may not be able to repay, but that's not the worst of it. The real problem is that our debt is growing at an unsustainable rate. And the bank has taken notice. We are almost out of credit. When we hit our limit, circumstances will force draconian changes on us. <br />
<br />
The solution is obvious. There is only one thing to do. We must convince the bank to raise the credit limit on our credit card. <br />
<br />
Things have gotten so bad that my wife, bless her heart, suggested a family conference to discuss what to do about it. I have to give her credit for "thinking outside the box," but when I heard what she had in mind, I had to put my foot down. She had a long list of ideas: 1) maybe we could eliminate or scale back our cable and cell phone services; 2) perhaps we could choose the higher deductible health insurance option to lower our premiums; 3) maybe we should temporarily scale back or suspend the money we've been contributing to the local boy scout troop; 4) maybe we should cancel the lawn and maid services and start doing our own cleaning and yard work; 5) perhaps we could eat out less often or not at all; 6) maybe we should cancel the new furniture that we just ordered yesterday. <br />
<br />
Apparently she doesn't understand that I am a man of principle. When I make a commitment, I stand by it. Each of those expenditures she wanted to cut were decisions that we had made together. I'm willing to talk about scaling back future purcha<span style="font-family: inherit;">sing decisions, but I told her in no uncertain terms that the one thing I will not negotiate over is whether we should <span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22.1875px;">pay the bills that we have already racked up.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">She quickly agreed that we had to pay back our accumulated debt, b</span>ut she tried to convince me that cutting ongoing expenditures is not the same thing as reneging on financial commitments. If only it were that simple. For example, we've had cable tv and cell phone service in our house for decades. Can you imagine how disruptive it would be to eliminate some of the channels that we've grown accustomed to watching? The same goes for all those other expenditures. She tried to argue that we might not have ANY cable tv if we don't choose a plan that we can afford before it's too late. But I stuck by my guns. We've already made those spending decisions, and those are in the past. There's nothing we can do about that. Those expenditures must continue to go forward as they have for years. Principle demands as much, and I am a man of principle.<br />
<br />
Now, hopefully, she'll end her unprincipled obstructionism so that she and I can work together on a real solution -- convincing the bank to extend us more credit. One thing is for sure: I won't engage in any more family conferences to talk about that other stuff. I'll maintain my integrity to the end.Louis Henslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391812455324029490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649273055427646444.post-21996887223406193172013-07-15T09:11:00.002-07:002020-02-05T07:55:11.557-08:00No Justice for Trayvon<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As most trials do, the Trayvon Martin case involves the clash of two perspectives. Martin's perspective clashed with Zimmerman's, with deadly results. From Martin's perspective, he was being following by a "creepy *ss cracker" (<a href="http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/saturday-night-card-game-would-zimmerman-case-have-been-filed-if-creepy-ass-cracker-comment-known/" target="_blank">Trayvon's words</a>). From Zimmerman's perspective, he was keeping an eye on a dangerous stranger who looked like he was "on drugs or something" (<a href="http://www.motherjones.com/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman" target="_blank">Zimmerman's words</a>). Both probably were right.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Martin found Zimmerman to be creepy. The prosecution, which managed to prove little else in the case, might just have raised a jury issue on Zimmerman's creepiness. Finding both the law and the facts arrayed against proving the crime they had charged, the prosecutors (<a href="http://jonathanturley.org/2013/05/28/zimmerman-loses-key-evidentiary-battle/" target="_blank">with assists from the judge</a>) resorted to putting Zimmerman's character on trial. They portrayed Zimmerman, with at least some success, as a <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57593345-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-zimmerman-was-a-wannabe-cop-who-profiled-trayvon-martin-prosecutor-says-in-closing-argument/" target="_blank">frustrated cop wannabe</a> on a power trip. Maybe he was. One could understand why Martin found being followed by such a man to be "creepy." </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">From Zimmerman's perspective, Zimmerman thought he was keeping an eye on a dangerous stranger wandering around in his neighborhood. He may have been right. While the jury didn't get to hear this, we know that Trayvon was outside his home neighborhood at the time because he was on his <a href="http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/26/10872124-trayvon-martin-was-suspended-three-times-from-school?lite" target="_blank">third suspension</a> from school, this time for drug possession. An earlier school suspension for writing obscenity on a locker also involved a search of his <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html" target="_blank">backpack</a> which turned up a watch, a bag of women's jewelry, and a "burglary tool" i.e. a screwdriver that Trayvon claimed belonged to a friend whom he refused to identify. We also know that Trayvon bragged about engaging in (and winning) <a href="http://www.newser.com/story/168441/trayvons-texts-reveal-fistfights-eerie-warning.html" target="_blank">multiple fights</a> and that he was seeking to obtain a <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/23/justice/florida-zimmerman-defense" target="_blank">firearm</a>. Martin's brags about his macho exploits caused his friend to text Trayvon some good advice: <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/23/v-fullstory/3413343/weed-fights-and-guns-trayvon-text.html" target="_blank">"Boy don't get one planted in ya chest."</a> Tragically, that wise advice went unheeded. Finally, and the jury was allowed to hear this part, Zimmerman's observation that Martin appeared to be "on drugs or something" was correct -- marijuana (the very substance he had been suspended from school for possessing) was <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/08/Judge-Rules-Trayvon-Martin-s-Marijuana-Use-Admissible" target="_blank">in his system</a> at the time. In summary, contrary to the picture painted by the media, Trayvon was not a young man that you would want to meet in a dark alley, yet that is pretty much what Zimmerman did.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
So what happened when these two perspectives clashed? The overwhelming evidence indicates that Martin confronted Zimmerman and <a href="http://www.torontosun.com/2013/06/28/eyewitness-describes-trayvon-martins-fatal-struggle" target="_blank">beat him while Zimmerman screamed for help</a> until Zimmerman finally shot Martin to death. So what would "justice" look like when the creepy cop wannabe meets the young punk thug? Only Heaven knows for sure. Our criminal system cannot make "justice" out of these circumstances, and it doesn't even try. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">What our criminal justice system does is draw some bright lines that the creepy cracker and the young thug must not cross in their interactions with each other. Zimmerman felt threatened by seeing Martin wandering through his neighborhood, but even assuming that Martin was the dangerous figure Zimmerman thought he was, there is nothing illegal about a young thug wandering through a gated community. Martin crossed no legal line by being there. Similarly, Martin may have been creeped out by being watched by Zimmerman. But, again, Zimmerman's watching Martin crossed no legal line. Those who are clamoring for Zimmerman's head must be doing so because they think it SHOULD be illegal for a private citizen to be armed while keeping an eye on a stranger in his neighborhood, but it's not, at least not there. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The legal lines designed to allow the creepy cracker and the young thug to coexist were crossed when the first punch was thrown. The jury apparently thought that punch was thrown by Martin, and the evidence amply supports that conclusion. So Zimmerman was found "not guilty" beyond a reasonable doubt, which clearly was the correct legal result. Was it "justice"? I'm sure it doesn't feel like justice to Martin's family and friends, but it's the best our criminal legal system can do. </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhG_z3wx3EIrafxW-4jFPJAu1bVbNNH3J5WfKbsJaoS4nEEKr0ckVrafLiOuGAzJOP0CPm0ES4sD12tGHCDjpbGnU-0ZLFn3s5aijJeht0o0oZ6A2fio3C4-vLUN4CqIjazSFnU1OloXw/s1600/Trayvon+Martin.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="201" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhG_z3wx3EIrafxW-4jFPJAu1bVbNNH3J5WfKbsJaoS4nEEKr0ckVrafLiOuGAzJOP0CPm0ES4sD12tGHCDjpbGnU-0ZLFn3s5aijJeht0o0oZ6A2fio3C4-vLUN4CqIjazSFnU1OloXw/s320/Trayvon+Martin.png" width="320" /></a></div>
Louis Henslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391812455324029490noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649273055427646444.post-14974012416771246472013-04-19T11:48:00.001-07:002013-11-18T20:23:14.530-08:00The Boston bombers were Chechen terrorists? Oh, never mind!<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
“And maintain good conduct among the non-Christians, so that
though they now malign you as wrongdoers, they may see your good deeds and
glorify God when he appears.” (1 Peter
2:12 NET Bible)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
On Monday, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/boston-marathon-timeline-2013-4">April 15,
at 2:50 p.m.</a> a bomb exploded near the finish line of the Boston marathon. A
second bomb exploded a few seconds later.
I heard about it shortly thereafter and posted the following <a href="https://www.facebook.com/louishensler3/posts/10201206431985745">facebook status</a>
at 3:38 p.m.: “At the Boston Marathon?
What's wrong with people?” Not one of my
better posts – just a gut reaction on the spur of the moment. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I reacted quickly, but the left reacted even more
quickly. By 3:22 p.m. <a href="http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/boston-marathon-bombing-041513">Charles
Pierce</a> of Esquire.com had already “cautioned” us against “jumping to
conclusions about foreign terrorism” and warned us “to remember that this is
the official Patriots Day holiday in Massachusetts.” The implication was clear enough – this looks
like the work of right-wingers. Pierce
did not have to speculate alone. Later
that evening Michael Moore initiated a series of <a href="http://twitchy.com/2013/04/15/michael-moore-puts-two-and-two-together-after-boston-marathon-bombing/">tweets</a>
implying the same thing that Pierce had.
Moore suggested that he could put “2+2” together, a backhanded insult to
anyone who didn’t reach the same simple conclusion that he had.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And so it went for days. You probably saw the same coverage that I did
– the talking heads perched on the edges of their chairs atingle with the
anticipation that some right-wing nut might have been responsible for
this. Typical was the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/16/us/boston-marathon-lone-wolf">April 17 CNN
piece</a> asserting that the pressure cooker bomb formula has been used, not
only by Islamic terrorists, but also “has been adopted by extreme right-wing
individuals in the United States.”
Seriously. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Well, now we know that the bombers were Chechen terrorists
after all. So should we expect the
sheepish apologies to start flowing as fast and furious as the slanderous innuendo? Of course not. I guess Michael Moore has “apologized” in his
own way – he tacitly acknowledged that he had slandered the right by <a href="http://twitchy.com/2013/04/19/unbelievable-michael-moore-tweets-i-guessed-correctly-about-bombing-perps/">tweeting</a>
a lame joke about his error. I guess the
victims of his false speculation aren’t worthy of a real apology. It’s almost as though the left-wing media
apparatus is channeling <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3FnpaWQJO0">Roseanne
Roseannadanna</a> with a collective, “Oh, never mind!”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So be it. We all have
a tendency to assume the worst about those who differ from us. We even have words for that tendency—words like
“prejudice” and “bigotry.” I’m certainly
not immune, so I suppose that I shouldn’t throw stones. But I do pray that the next time I publicly
assume the worst about a group and am proven wrong that I will have the decency
simply to apologize, without jokes and without excuses. Now that I’ve written this, I suppose there
might be someone there to help keep me honest.
I hope so.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjf2PQSMjKL2nqGdG_qREu9kePTU776iZvOL2AvYm1xX3SaUa8SjzdI2eJVS8CF6uxLKwzHWqnl_fcdEU2ggRWbT3ZgcAFVgCEIL0NLNVNfxyTGILgD8DFQmDXOy2GVgIc8YfA2drffbAo/s1600/Boston+bombers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="228" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjf2PQSMjKL2nqGdG_qREu9kePTU776iZvOL2AvYm1xX3SaUa8SjzdI2eJVS8CF6uxLKwzHWqnl_fcdEU2ggRWbT3ZgcAFVgCEIL0NLNVNfxyTGILgD8DFQmDXOy2GVgIc8YfA2drffbAo/s320/Boston+bombers.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Louis Henslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391812455324029490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649273055427646444.post-39328104195471035062013-03-07T07:55:00.001-08:002013-03-07T07:55:11.062-08:00I think I just saved the White House Tours!No need to thank me -- the smiling faces on thousands of kids around the country is thanks enough. Here's how I did it.<br />
<br />
As we all know by now, President Obama came up with this brilliant idea (known as sequester) that he and the Republicans would agree to slow the rate in federal spending (mostly in defense spending, which is why Obama likes the idea) if they could not agree in the meantime on a fiscal deal. The Republicans thought they would be negotiating over spending cuts, especially to our unsustainable entitlement programs. But the President fooled them by insisting on tax increases instead. The Republicans went along with one giant tax increase on January 1, but when the President insisted on a second (apparently monthly) tax increase in February, they balked. The President kept the pressure on by flying around the country on Air Force One railing against his own sequester idea (and playing golf with Tiger Woods). But the Republicans called his bluff, and now the rate of growth in federal spending must be slowed.<br />
<br />
Well, there's nothing that ticks this President off like slowed federal spending, and now he's mad. To demonstrate his displeasure at not getting his second tax increase, the Obama administration has been implementing the reduced spending increases (sounds oxymoronic, doesn't it?) in the most painful ways that it can imagine. Now my impulsive response to these vindictive and petty moves generally is: "Do your darnedest, Mr. President. We can take it." After all, unlike the federal government, I've actually had to cut my spending before (not just slow its growth), so I figured I could stomach any "slowed growth" that the White House could dish out.<br />
<br />
Then they canceled the White House tours. Oh the humanity! Kids from around the country are finding out that they won't get herded through the executive mansion by volunteer tour guides after all, and all because the mean Republicans won't agree to raise taxes (again). The initial reaction of some was, "How does eliminating tours by volunteer guides save ANY money?" The White House was ready for this rhetorical thrust and parried it by explaining that the Secret Service has to step up security during the tours. After all, you never know when one of those school kids (some of whom are even HOME SCHOOLED) might be a closet paramilitary commando bent on bringing down the Obama administration.<br />
<br />
As it turns out, presidential protection does not come cheap, and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=f-MW96aOKnE" target="_blank">ABC News</a> reported that the extra security to make sure that the school kids don't blow up the White House would cost $18K/week. Yikes! Frankly, that seems a little high to me, but lets go with it. I searched high and low to find $18K/week in alternate cuts that would allow the little children to see the White House, and I think I found it. In fact, it was the President himself who showed me the way. Remember all that flying around the country on Air Force One fighting his own sequester idea (and playing golf)? I got to thinking, I wonder how much that costs? And here's the answer: Travel on Air Force One costs, wait for it . . . <a href="http://www.hawaiireporter.com/residents-alerted-to-obamas-hawaiian-holiday-plans/123" target="_blank">$180,000/hour</a>. That's right. One less hour on Air Force One = White House tours for ten weeks. Five fewer hours pays for the tours for the whole year. Basically, if the President could find it in his heart to avoid one unnecessary campaign trip on Air Force One (or to spend Christmas in the continental US instead of Hawaii), then all tours can be restored! You're welcome, kiddies!Louis Henslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391812455324029490noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649273055427646444.post-71285939317421214392013-02-27T14:49:00.003-08:002013-02-27T14:49:44.209-08:00Can President Obama Break His Own Record?<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">The <a href="http://budget.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=276880#sthash.j1sCGSsV.dpuf" target="_blank">Budget</a> and Accounting Act of 1921 requires the President to submit his budget request for the upcoming fiscal year no later than the first Monday of February. Obviously, President Obama has missed the deadline this year. But this is not the first time. Or the second. Or the third. In fact he's one for five in complying with this statutory mandate. In only his first term, President Obama set the record for the most missed budget deadlines by a single president. Now, every time he misses the deadline (again) he merely pads is own record. But that's not the record referenced in the title to this post. Rather, I'm talking about the number of days by which the deadline is missed.<br /><br />Before President Obama took office, Bill Clinton was the holder of that record. In 1993, he missed the budget deadline by sixty-six days -- more than two months! President George W. Bush with his very first budget missed his deadline (the only deadline he missed) by a whopping sixty-three days! Impressive you say? That's child's play for President Obama. In his very first attempt, President Obama missed his budget deadline by, wait for it . . . ninety-eight days. While he also has missed three deadlines out of his other four opportunities, he has not yet matched the length of that first prodigious miss. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Some think that President Obama's ninety-eight day overage is a record that will stand forever, but I'm not ready to give up on him just yet. Records were made to be broken, and never one to shrink from a challenge, President Obama already has blown through the lengths of his other two budget deadline misses. So we know for sure that his latest deadline fail will be at least his second longest to date (with three more chances to come)! True, he'll have to push his budget proposal well into May to break his own record this year, but all evidence suggests that he may be up to the task. </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">The key to his success appears to be an almost uncanny (lack of) focus: Don't get bogged down in the details of doing the job. Instead, travel around the country on the taxpayer dime (racking up more deficits and debt -- another record!) </span><i style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">talking about </i><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">budgets. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">In fact, I think President Obama just might mean never to relinquish this particular record. I can't confirm this, but I suspect that President Obama, taking a page out of Harry Reid's playbook, may just intend </span><i style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">never </i><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">to submit a proposed budget. And, after all, why should he? What has happened to the other budgets he submitted? The last two haven't garnered a single positive vote. In either the House or the Senate. And the Senate has been controlled by the President's own party! If his own political allies are going to disrespect his budgets like that, why should he submit them?</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Anyway, if President Obama pulls a Harry Reid and never proposes another budget, then his own record never can be broken by any subsequent upstart president! Pure genius. This president continues to find ways to write himself into the record books. I don't think anyone can stand in his way this time. Hail to the Chief!</span>Louis Henslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391812455324029490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649273055427646444.post-80538311473639534952013-02-07T09:59:00.002-08:002013-09-20T09:21:51.458-07:00Skewed PrioritiesSome people are working hard to reduce their credit card debt, and that sounds like a good idea, but I'm going to suggest that they are wasting their time. That credit card debt is a drop in the bucket. Americans owe <a href="http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/credit-card-data/average-credit-card-debt-household/" target="_blank">$858 billion in credit card debt</a>. Sounds like a big number you say? Worthy of your attention you think? Try this on for size: The national debt is <a href="http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/" target="_blank">$16.5 trillion</a>. That's almost 20x all of our credit card debt combined. Yet those of us with credit card debt fret about it and keep electing officials who are running us into the hole faster than we ever could pay our way out. The national debt has increased almost $6 trillion during the Obama administration. That means that every year of the Obama administration, we have added to our national debt almost double our total credit card debt. So if the entire country had, over the last four years, worked extremely hard and had paid off ALL of our credit card debt, we'd still be about $5 trillion behind where we started. My point is this: If you're not worried about the national debt, then forget about your credit card debt -- that's chicken feed by comparison. If your credit card debt is keeping you up at night, then you should really be pulling your hair out over the national debt. Quit wasting your time trying to reduce your credit card debt and get yourself educated so that you can turn out the bums who keep running up your much larger national debt. Better yet, get started paying off both.Louis Henslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391812455324029490noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649273055427646444.post-4782356697042584832012-11-16T09:24:00.001-08:002013-03-06T06:30:32.304-08:00Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword<br /><br />There are plenty of lessons for republicans to learn from the recent election defeat, and I hope this is one of them: Reagan’s <a href="http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0402/0402eleventhcommandment.htm">eleventh commandment</a> must be obeyed: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."<br /><br /><br /> The key to President Obama’s ultimately successful campaign strategy was a summer spent “carpet-bombing” Romney with <a href="http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-11-07/news/34977495_1_obama-campaign-attack-ads-independent-republican-groups-romney-aides">attack ads</a>. Were the ads fair? No. Were they even truthful? No. Did they violate the <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/video/2012/07/flashback_2008_obama_pledges_no_negative_ads.html">principles</a> Obama announced when he ran four years ago? Yes. Were the ads effective? Yes. And Romney is hardly in any position to complain.<br /><br /><br /> Rewind to the Republican primaries. Newt Gingrich stung the Romney campaign with an important victory in South Carolina. How did Romney’s supporters respond? They assassinated Gingrich’s character with vicious ads. No great campaign of ideas – just savage attacks. The ads that were run against Gingrich weren’t fair, just like the ads Obama ran against Romney, and as Obama’s ads were effective over the summer, the ads against Gingrich were effective during the republican primary.<br /><br /><br /> And then it happened. Unfairly attacked, Gingrich predictably hit back. Gingrich went after what should have been a strength for Romney -- Bain Capital. Gingrich’s negative attacks against Romney gave the Obama campaign free market testing for its own unfair negative ad campaign. Now I don’t think for a second that Gingrich’s attacks caused Obama to attack Romney – Obama was going to character-assassinate Romney in any event. Smearing Romney was the only way for the incumbent in the midst of a failed presidency to win. But I am suggesting that when Obama ended up saying the same things about Romney that Gingrich had been saying earlier, it lent an air of credibility to Obama’s attacks that they did not deserve. Obama ended up reinforcing false charges that had first been leveled by those of Romney’s own party. But, again, Romney is in no position to complain. His supporters started it – they carpet-bombed Gingrich at the first sign of trouble. What did they think would happen?<br /><br /><br /> Perhaps a campaign of ideas will never work, at least not in this day and age. Perhaps the only way to win today is by paying for lies on television. I hope not. In any event, I hope that three years from now, when republicans start this process all over again, that they remember the wisdom of the Gipper. Leave the vicious lies to the left next time.Louis Henslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391812455324029490noreply@blogger.com0