Recently, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass) had this to say regarding the Judiciary Committee's vote to recommend approval of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court:

This is the vote of a generation. If confirmed, this nominee will have an enormous impact on our basic rights and liberties for years and even decades to come....

After all, the Supreme Court is the guardian of our most cherished rights and freedoms. They are protected by the most solemn promises of the Constitution and symbolized in four eloquent words inscribed above the entrance to the Supreme Court: "Equal Justice Under Law."

Those words are meant to guarantee that our courts will be an independent check against abuses of power by the other two branches of government. It is a commitment that our courts will always be a place where the poor and the powerless and the underprivileged can stand on equal footing with the wealthy and the powerful and the privileged.

Let's consider these words in light of some Supreme Court decisions:

Kelo vs. New London (Property Rights)

If you're not familiar with last year's case, Kelo vs. New London, you should be. Fifteen property owners (out of 115 lots) did not want to sell their property to the New London Development Corporation, who wanted to build a hotel and new residences on the site. So the city of New London used the power of eminent domain to condemn the property, and turn it over to the private developer.

This is a clear and obvious violation of the fifth amendment, which limits the power of eminent domain for "public use" only. This has always been considered for direct use by the public -- things like roads, bridges, schools, and government buildings. But in this case, the term "public use" was expanded by judicial fiat to include "economic development." The government forcibly takes property from one individual, and puts it in the hands of a private development company, for new residences, hotels, etc. If there was ever a clear violation of the Constitution, this is it. But the liberal wing of the Supreme Court voted in favor of New London.

Who dissented in this case? The dissent consisted of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, along with the justices most feared by liberal Senators such as Kennedy -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas. The conservative wing of the court wanted to protect the explicit promise of the Constitution -- that the government does not have the power to take your property, except for public use. But the liberal wing of the court simply gave the government a free pass, and effectively removed the last phrase of the fifth amendment from the Constitution. As O'Connor wrote, "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Kennedy doesn't seem to be too worried about how the "poor and the powerless" fared under the Supreme Court in the Kelo case, where the liberal wing of the court sided with the "powerful and privileged."

McConnell vs. Federal Election Commission (Freedom of Speech)

If you're not familiar with the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance bill, you should be concerned about it as well. It was challenged in the Supreme Court in 2003 (the bill passed in 2002). In the case, McConnell vs. Federal Election Commission, McConnell argued that the bill amounted to an unconstitutional infringement on first amendment speech. The Supreme Court upheld the legislation.

Liberals have already been pushing to apply McCain-Feingold to political talk radio and Internet blogs (I'm sure mine would apply). As Brian C. Anderson wrote in his recent column, Shut Up, They Explained, "the Founders would have seen in the reformers' utopian schemes, in which the power of government makes all equally weak, the embodiment of tyranny." Of course, liberals have little to worry about, because McCain-Feingold gives the traditional media (which are overwhelmingly liberal) a free pass.

Who dissented in this case? The dissent consisted of Justice John Paul Stevens, along with the justices most feared by liberal Senators such as Kennedy -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas wrote that this was the "most significant abridgment of the freedoms of speech and association since the Civil War."

The reality is that every campaign finance reform passed in the last 30 years has benefited incumbents. Those challenging incumbents need to spend money to mount an effective campaign. The McCain-Feingold bill makes it more difficult for challengers to unseat incumbents.

How can liberals claim to want to protect "our most cherished rights and freedoms," and not be outraged at the eroding of our freedoms in terms of property rights and freedom of speech?

While liberal senators like to claim that the recent judicial appointments would turn back the clock on things like civil rights for minorities, it is rights such as freedom of speech and peaceable assembly that opened the door for figures like Dr. Martin Luther King to have the ability to impact the country the way they did. These are the freedoms we should hold the most dear. Democracy cannot survive without them.

Roe vs. Wade (Abortion)

For some reason, liberal Senators like Kennedy are more worried about imagined rights than they are about actual ones. If they have any indication, whatsoever, that a candidate to the Supreme Court (or any court, for that matter) might not hold the belief that abortion is a "right" they will oppose that candidate to no end. As Ann Coulter puts it, liberals believe abortion is an absolute right "up until the moment the baby's head is through the birth canal." But the very candidates they champion, that are sitting on the court, are eroding rights that are specified in the Constitution. Property rights? Big deal. Freedom of speech? Who cares? But abortion? Don't mess with it!

The fact is that Democrats have been consistently on the wrong side of every major moral issue that's ever faced this country. It was a Republican president who had the courage to sign, and enforce, the Emancipation Proclamation, while Democrats were split over how to maintain slavery in Southern states. It was Democratic senators who attempted all-night filibusters (when filibusters actually required constant debate), trying to prevent civil rights legislation from passing. (And for those of you who don't know, one of the most famous orators fighting against civil rights legislation was Robert Byrd from West Virginia, who is still in the Senate!) It is Democratic senators who continue to wail and moan over any possible restrictions on abortion. They've been consistently wrong in the past, and they will continue to be wrong.

Abraham Lincoln said that you can "repeal the Declaration of Independence -- repeal all past history -- you still cannot repeal human nature. It will still be the abundance of man's heart, that slavery extension is wrong; and out of the abundance of his heart, his mouth will continue to speak." Replace the words "slavery extension" with "abortion", and it wouldn't be any less true. Those who frame every debate, every judicial nomination, and every issue around their requirement of supporting unrestricted access to abortion, only make their own moral depravity more and more clear as they continue. And as they support those who would erode our basic Constitutional rights, and reject those who would uphold our basic Constitutional rights, they only reveal their own hypocrisy.

Further...

I haven't even touched on the freedom to bear arms or the freedom of religion, both rights that liberals do not champion. Liberals would be more than happy to take away everyone's guns, and have repeatedly pressured to have religion taken completely out of the public arena.

Kennedy is correct in saying that "the Supreme Court is the guardian of our most cherished rights and freedoms. They are protected by the most solemn promises of the Constitution." The problem with liberals is that they don't know what "cherished rights and freedoms" are actually guaranteed by the Consistution. They ignore the ones that are explicitly stated, and invent others out of thin air.

Labels: politics

If you haven't read any of John Stossel's columns on education, here's a few for you to enjoy:

From Trapped in the Wrong Government School (25 Jan 2006):

In public education, our land of the free is now a bunch of local fiefs, where petty-bureaucrats-turned-lords-of-the-manor decide whether you can get a decent education, and parents must go to them, begging for their children's future. Meanwhile, in Belgium and much of the rest of the world, students and their parents have the freedom to choose their schools -- and the opportunity that comes with that freedom.

From Myth: Schools Need More Money (18 Jan 2006):

The truth is, public schools are rolling in money. If you divide the U.S. Department of Education's figure for total spending on K-12 education by the department's count of K-12 students, it works out to about $10,000 per student.

Think about that! For a class of 25 kids, that's $250,000 per classroom. This doesn't include capital costs. Couldn't you do much better than government schools with $250,000? You could hire several good teachers; I doubt you'd hire many bureaucrats. Government schools, like most monopolies, squander money.

From Public Schools Are Cheating the Children (11 Jan 2006):

Remember when the Postal Service said it couldn't get it there overnight? Then companies like FedEx were allowed to compete. Private enterprise got it there absolutely, positively overnight. Now even the Post Office guarantees overnight delivery sometimes. Competition works.

Why can't education work the same way? If people got to choose their kids' school, education options would be endless.

Government monopolies routinely fail their customers.

Labels: politics

There are some links floating around the blogosphere where Andy Stanley got involved with commenting on some blogs that were critical of North Point. Overall, some very interesting discussion, and Andy was very interested in what people had to say.

There was something he said, though, that I have to share with you. It connects with some of what Andy talked about at the last session of Catalyst back in October. In my blog post, Accepting Change, I summarized something he had said:

Stanley mentioned that significant improvement often costs money, but that we're usually already stretched too thin financially when we're at the point of needing to do something to generate momentum. He warned us to not spend money on mediocre ministries – we should focus on the core of the organization, and concentrate on the vision. If we would focus on the vision, and abandon areas that are not essential to that vision, momentum will take hold and as the organization grows, the resources will be there to replenish what used to be mediocre with a better quality program. Funding a large number of mediocre ministries gets us nowhere – funding a small number of high-quality ministries will gain sustained momentum.

Nearly a month before Catalyst, Andy Stanley was commenting on Adam Cleaveland's blog, where Adam related his experience of visiting North Point. A lot of discussion went on, but at one point Andy had this to say:

Small churches should always play to their strengths. Small churches should only do what they can do well. What you can't do well, don't do at all. Sounds extreme, but remember, mediocre never triggers momentum. Ever. Mediocre just uses up resources.

New churches that try to have something for everyone usually end up with nothing great for anyone.

I think too many times we try to act like we're the "big church" because we feel like we have to compete. What we need to do, instead, is play to our strengths, execute our vision, and unapologetically allow people to move on if what we're doing isn't connecting with them. We can't be everything to everyone. If we try, we end up being mediocre, and "mediocre just uses up resources."

Labels: church

We went to go see "End of the Spear" tonight. For those of you not familiar with the story, I don't want to ruin it. Briefly, it's a true story about the group of missionaries who made contact with Waodani tribes in Ecuador in the 50's. The Waodani tribes were known as the most violent ever documented.

If you've ever heard of Elisabeth Elliot (author of "Passion and Purity"), then you're probably familiar with the story about her husband, Jim Eliot. This movie tells the story from the viewpoint of Nate Saint, one of the missionaries trying to find and contact the Waodani along with Jim Eliot.

David Howard, Jr., nephew of Elisabeth Eliott, wrote a great editoral piece for the Wall Street Journal, Triumph From Tragedy, though it does give some of the story away.

This story is extremely applicable to us now, as we try to make sense of the paths our lives are on, and struggle with the sense of being on a mission in the world. Here is a vivid portrait of some young Christians who risked everything to reach out to those who might otherwise have no chance of hearing the gospel. As a movie, while not perfect, I think they did a pretty good job telling the story in two hours. I won't talk more about specifics of the movie yet -- though I might in a week or two. There were some moments in this movie that I thought were extremely well done.

Labels: church, movies

Pat was out of town this past Sunday, and Pastor Eddie Argüelles, the pastor of the hispanic congregation that meets at our church (and with which we are currently moving towards merging with), preached for us. Pastor Eddie is pretty good with English, but he doesn't preach in English, so he had a translator.

I missed some of what was said, but Eddie was touching on so many things that I've been thinking about for months. So I gave a copy of the sermon to Amanda, a member of the worship team who is also a Spanish teacher at the local high school (and is incredibly fluent!) to translate it for me. Thanks a ton, Amanda!

I've put the sermon up on the church website, and you can read the whole thing here in English.

The Bible verse Eddie focused on was:

"Who of you is left who saw this house in its former glory? How does it look to you now? Does it seem to you like nothing? 'Be strong, O Zerubbabel,' declares the Lord. 'Be strong, O Joshua, son of Jahozadak, the high priest. Be strong, all you people of this land,' declares the Lord, 'and work, for I am with you,' declares the Lord Almighty. 'This is what I covenanted with you when you came out of Egypt. And my Spirit remains among you. Do not fear.' This is what the Lord Almighty says: 'In a little while I will once more shake all nations and the desired of all nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory,' says the Lord Almighty. 'The silver is mine and the gold is mine,' declares the Lord Almighty. 'The glory of this present house will be greater than that of the former house,' says the Lord Almighty. 'And in this place I will grant peace,' declares the Lord Almighty." (Haggai 2:1-9)

The picture of God shaking the nations is just awesome. And God promises that when He moves, the glory of the what He's doing will be greater than what was left behind. To me, this is a huge promise, and gives you peace when you have burdens on your heart and you know you need to move forward, but you're scared.

Pastor Eddie's sermon culminated with this challenge:

Is anyone here ready to receive this challenge this morning? Are you ready? Maybe this means you will have to leave the things that you did in the past. Maybe you will have to say "I don't understand what Pastor Pat wants to do, but I am going to try it. I am going to help." If the pastor starts a new program, you be the first one in line, because you learned this morning that this is the year of new beginnings. The old has gone and the new has come. The glory of the past is gone. The past is always more comfortable. But, you know what? The Lord wants to remove us from our comfort zones. He does not want us to be comfortable; He wants to bring you his glory amidst all this.

I've been thinking a lot lately about how much of an expectation there is for a new pastor to do things our way. We want a new pastor to come and do exciting things, but only if they fit our mental model of what church is supposed to be like. At this point, Pat has been here five years, and I know that he is burdened, in many ways similar to the things I've been thinking about, and in some ways different (and probably better!). At what point does a church give the pastor the benefit of the doubt and follow his lead? Pat has given our church five years, and in some ways I think we owe him the same! I'm glad that, in some ways, Pastor Eddie said very similar things. "If the pastor starts a new program, you be the first in line!"

Labels: church

This is something you have to read. A blog I often read linked to an booklet written a few years ago by Pastor Dennis Rosker of Duluth Bible Church in Minnesota titled "Seven Reasons Not to Ask Jesus Into Your Heart."

The seven reasons listed were:

It is never found in the Bible.

It is not how one is saved.

It requires no understanding of the gospel of grace to do it.

It confuses the means of salvation with the results of salvation.

It either results in no assurance of salvation or brings a false assurance to people.

Revelation 3:20 does not teach it.

It does not clarify the condition of salvation, it confuses it - especially with children.

I'd recommend you read Heath Casey's summary of the article first, he did a great job summarizing it. You can also view the original PDF booklet (22 pages).

Labels: church

-- posted by Derek at 1/14/2006 09:51:00 PM  

2 comments

John Stossel has quickly become one of my favorite columnists. His recent column, Government: The Real Thug in New York, provides a refreshingly different view about the transit workers' strike in New York last month:

Suppose you want a raise. Your boss offers you less than you think you're worth, so you tell him you won't work unless he makes a better offer. He responds that if you stop working, he'll force you to pay him thousands of dollars -- and maybe he'll send you to prison.

Who's the thug, you or your boss?

The analogy between a union and an individual should not be missed -- unions should have the same rights as individuals, but should also be taking the same risks:

A strike is simply an organized refusal to work for less than the strikers think they're worth. The principle is the same whether one individual or a union walks off the job: It's the principle of self-ownership, the underlying principle of the whole capitalist system, the principle that we are all free individuals dealing voluntarily to mutual advantage...

Of course, just as workers have a right to strike, employers -- morally, at least -- have a right to fire them. Under President Reagan, the federal government dismissed striking air-traffic controllers and let eager new employees take the jobs. That might have been a good response to New York's transit strike.

But, of course, most government unions are prohibited from striking, and most politicians are afraid of doing what Reagan did -- fire them all -- for fear of the political backlash. But if the primary tools of both the employer and the employee are taken out of the equation, what's the point of the union at all?

The New York transit strike illustrated two of the dangers of an overgrown government. When you let government monopolize something, you invite stifling disruption when government fails, and you invite it to try to force people to work -- and call them thugs for acting on their freedom.

Labels: politics

In Why We Don't Trust Democrats With National Security, Coulter sums up the wiretapping "scandal" quite well:

The Democratic Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American citizen who happens to be a member of al Qaeda is not allowed to have a private conversation with Osama bin Laden. If they run on that in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president takes even the District of Columbia.

On this one, I'm pretty sure Americans are going with the president.

If the Democrats had any brains, they'd distance themselves from the cranks demanding Bush's impeachment for listening in on terrorists' phone calls to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (Then again, if they had any brains, they'd be Republicans.)

To the contrary! It is Democrats like Sen. Barbara Boxer who are leading the charge to have Bush impeached for spying on people with Osama's cell phone number.

That's all you need to know about the Democrats to remember that they can't be trusted with national security. (That and Jimmy Carter.)

Labels: politics

Once again the holidays have wrapped up, the credit card bills are paid, and the pictures have been updated. Here are some peeks, but click on any of the pictures to go and see a LOT more stuff. Enjoy!


The cowboy hat generated a lot of cute moments back in August, after McKenna got it at Madison's birthday party.


Two trips to the beach this year means... more beach pictures!


Pictures of McKenna outside always turn out awesome.


Here's our princess (Cinderella, actually), and our frog prince. ("Jeremiah was a bullfrog!")


This shot reminds me an awful lot of those pictures of Britt and I as kids with the same exact smile.

Labels: life