Sabbatical

I will be pretty busy the next couple of week with work, so I probably will not be posting a whole lot...if any. Expect to see some postings the first week of June or so.

Some clarification

Just to clarify, I do not think Democrats are evil people or anything, and like Josh commented on my last post, " I think that the majority of both parties means well. They just have different philosophies and methods to their approach. " I think he is right.

Back to what I was talking about, I am just a little frustrated with the Democratic leadership concerning the Social Security issue. I feel that they have been obstructive when it comes to Bush's plan, without offering any alternative plan of their own, so when Dan mentioned a lack of definitive voice, it gave me something to jump on. Concerning the issue of school choice, while teacher's unions undoubtedly play a factor, the conflict with the issue is probably primarily due to differing philosophies.

The Definitive Voice of the Democrats

You'll have to forgive me. I woke up in a cranky mood this morning, and I am just looking to start a fight.

Dan has a post referring to the lead in polls that Democrats currently have, and how he thinks eventually they will squander it. I think he is right. He states

But knowing the Democrats, they'll mumble and bumble around, fail to come up with a definitive voice that sets them apart from the Republicans, and the races this fall will be closer than they ought to be.

However, I disagree with the statement that the Democrats have no "definitive voice". Sure they do. It's called faith in government. Just say no to Social Security Reform. Just say no to School Choice. Democrats say that Republicans do not care about the poor, about helping people out. Sure they do, they just believe in helping out in a way that reforms broken government systems. Bush's Social Security plan is far from the privatization that libertarians dream of, and it is hardly that revolutionary. Yet the thought of privatization and the free market scares the crap out of Democrats. And to be fair, rightly so, because Democrats believe that such reforms change what Social Security is meant to be. But maybe what Social Security is meant to be is a bad idea. Democrats put their faith in the current system of public schools, Republicans believe in having the money follow the parents. They believe in school choice. Democrats believe in government knows best. Ironically though, the Democrats believe so heavily in the government being involved in so many aspects of our lives, but when it comes to the most important job of government, protecting innocent life, that is when the Dems say the government should step away ("my body, my choice"). Well, not actually step away. They want to ensure that government forces me to pay for an abortion (so much for the idea of not imposing morality on others).

I am not referring to every single person who votes Democrat, or Republican. I am speaking to the overall trend within the parties, with Democrats placing more faith in government, and Republicans putting more faith in people (social security privatization and school choice). Republicans are kind of a compromise between Democrats and libertarians when it comes to government programs. However, in my view, Republicans still put too much faith in government and even betray their principles at times (i.e. regulation of gas prices).


I know this post sounds harsh, and my whole point is not to go Democrat-bashing, because I respect the Democratic Parties concern for the environment and respect for civil liberties. My whole point of the post is to illustrate that Repubs are not all heartless gray-haired white men that care only about keeping more of their money (as opposed to getting more of other people's money, now there is a noble ideal, just ask your local class warfare type). Republicans and libertarians care about helping people, they just believe in doing so outside of/by reforming existing government systems.

Ronald Reagan's opinion on immigration.

The Opinion Journal takes a look at Ronald Reagan's quotes concerning immigration.

I don't have time for any in-depth analysis. However, I tend to agree with President Bush and the late former President Reagan. While I believe in the rule of law, ultimately, I believe in making it easier for those who want to come to America and work.

I admit that I do not know a lot about what's involved in this immigration issue, and I do not like the idea of people coming here illegally and mooching off government welfare, but I think making it easier to become a citizen, or at least work here, could fix part of that. I don't know many factors in this issue, and I need to become more educated, but I just want to say right now that Reagan's vision of America as a "city on a hill" really captures me.

To see or not to see The Da Vinci Code?

I don't know what my plans are concerning this movie. But James Emery White thinks Christians should watch it.

I would also be interested if anyone has an opinion on why Christians should not watch it.

The Problem with Inequality

Many on the economic left often mention the increasing financial inequality between the rich and the poor when arguing against certain aspects of capitalism or arguing for higher taxes on the rich. However, I do not believe the difference in income inequality should matter, for several reasons.

Before I list them, however, I want to mention that I believe it is the government's role to ensure that everyone is equal before the law. Inequality matters when it comes to how people are protected by the law. State employers and state educational institutions should not be able to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, etc... (I am uncertain about the role of the government when it comes to private employers) I do not believe it is the government's role to ensure some sort of equality when it comes to what people have, and what their resources are.

Here is why I believe the difference between the rich and poor do not matter.

1) Social classes are not stagnant groups. People can move from the poor category to the rich category. When one looks at how the differential between the rich and poor change over time, they are not looking at all the same people in each category.

As Walter Williams states:

Only five percent of families in the bottom income quintile (lowest 20 percent) in 1975 were still there in 1991. Three-quarters of these families had moved into the three highest income quintiles. During the same period, 70 percent of those in the second lowest income quintile moved to a higher quintile, with 25 percent of them moving to the top income quintile. When the Bureau of Census reports, for example, that the poverty rate in 1980 was 15 percent and a decade later still 15 percent, for the most part they are referring to different people. Cox and Alm's findings were supported by a U.S. Treasury Department study that used an entirely different data base, income tax returns...

So, the question should not be, what's the difference between a rich and poor person at any given point in time, but how likely is a poor person going to become rich in their lifetime, or even, how likely are their children going to be better off?

2) Wealth is not a zero-sum game in which one person's gain automatically means another person's loss. At worst, a person getting richer does not harm the poor (Note: I do not consider selling an item or not paying someone exactly what they want as hurting the poor), and at best, some people gain their wealth by helping the poor. Sam Walton is an example of someone who became wealthy by selling products cheaper. The people who invested in computer companies are becoming wealthier while their products become cheaper, making it easier for the poor to have access to a wealth of information.

3) Ultimately, inequality should not matter. Not that I agree, but better arguments against capitalism and for higher taxes on the rich should focus on people receiving their basic needs. If I was playing devil's advocate, I would argue for higher taxes or more government control because of the cost of education and health care. Instead of using the argument "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer", why not say "the poor get poorer", who cares about the rich? I would argue that government control should ensure that people's basic needs are met, not that everyone has the same amount of money.

If someone has their basic needs met, it should not matter what other people have. If I have a shack over my head, why does it matter that my neighbor has a palace? If I have a Yugo that runs, why do I care that my neighbor has a Mercedes and a yacht? Why would I care about his house? Why would I care about his wife? Or his manservant or maidservant? Or his ox or donkey? Or, for that matter, anything that belongs to my neighbor?

I am not dismissing all arguments against the conservative/libertarian ideal of capitalism and tax rates. I think arguments concerning the poor themselves should be considered, and the fact that they have basic needs that must be met. Personally, I think the quality of life for all is improved with a more conservative/libertarian ideal, but we that is another topic. The fact that capitalism produces rich people that have their basic needs met, plus some, is unimportant.

The personhood of the fetus

I don't know if I will say anything new in this post, it is just stuff on my mind.

I said in my last post that being pro-life is consistent with believing in freedom. The whole point of bringing in libertarian ideas was to counter the ideas that being pro-life was being anti-freedom. I am not saying one has to support libertarian ideals, I am just saying that even someone who is for the maximum possible amount of freedom (in my view the libertarians), can consistently be a pro-life person.

The argument really hinges on whether someone believes in the personhood of the fetus. The whole idea of freedom is that mine ends where yours begins. So, does someone's so-called freedom to have an abortion interfere with anyone else's rights? Of course it does. It interferes with the right of the fetus to exist. But, does the fetus have a right to exist? I believe it does. The Bible supports the personhood of the fetus, namely in Psalm 139:13. However, we as Christians, should we use the Bible as our chief weapon in advancing the pro-life movement, or should we resort to philosophical and scientific arguments? One group, Libertarians for Life, focus on the latter. The group contains some atheists, but has some Christian members as well. However, I belief abortion is a moral issue, and therefore, a spiritual one. I'm a little hesitant to rely on secular arguments. Concerning politics, I think Christians should do what they can to outlaw abortion, while still showing love to those who are considering or have had abortions. But concerning the area of persuasion, should Christians simply focus on showing Christ to other people, and hope God will deal with their hearts concerning the abortion matter, or should we focus on philosophical arguments?

Anyway, I'm about done posting about abortion for now(but will gladly discuss in the comments section). I think my next posts need to be less serious. I could change my mind though.

More on the pro-life position

I wrote this in a stream-of-consciousness manner, but I think it still properly spells out my thoughts....

Let me discuss my last posting a little bit. As you can guess, I am adamantly pro-life. I understand that not everyone is. However, some pro-choicers annoy me more than others.

First of all, why am I pro-life? Because, quite simply, I believe a fetus deserves the right to live. Many liberals and libertarians talk about a woman’s right to choose. What is ironic about this is that many times they supposedly use libertarian principles to support their right to choose. However, a libertarian argument is more convincing when an action only directly affects the person engaging in the action. Examples of this would be drug use or the act of prostitution. I am not saying I support the legaliziation of these things, I am saying that when someone states that it is “my body, my choice”, it makes a lot more sense when discussing these types of things. When it comes to abortion, this argument does not really work, because the abortion action ends the life of another being, other than the woman.

But this is where the crux of the argument is. It is not an issue of “civil liberties”. It is an issue of whether or not the fetus deserves the right to live. Either you are pro-life, believing that the fetus has a right to life that should be protected by the government, or you are pro-choice, believing that the fetus should not be protected. It is as simple as that.

I understand that some people do not believe the fetus is a human being. I have more compassion for those people’s arguments than someone who says abortion is especially heinous, yet supports abortion rights anyway. Jimmy Carter says that he does not think Jesus would support abortion, yet still supports the law of the land. I understand that some people simply do not think the fetus deserves the right to live, even though I hate that opinion and adamantly disagree. I hate even more those who go on and on about the horrors of abortion, yet, support it anyway.

I can’t quite get out what I am trying to say. I have many libertarian ideals, but I am not a Libertarian. I am limited government due to my belief in the corrupting nature of power, that the evil things people do when they are free is a better alternative than the evil committed by those in power. I will come out and say it. I think when it comes to debating abortion in the political arena, I think it must be done so on the stage of libertarian politics. Why do I think this? Because abortion is one of the few issues where a liberal will wax libertarian, talking about the right to control one’s own body, and the right to make a decision for themselves on whether abortion is okay or not. Conservatives do not meet this argument head on. I don’t think they really address the liberal’s argument. To a conservative, abortion is wrong, so, quite simply, it should be outlawed. A conservative thinks abortion should be outlawed, but they state the argument in the same manner that they think tattooing should be wrong. I am not saying conservatives see these as the same, but that they use the same argument. They need to say “look, we respect individual liberties of the woman, but we respect even more the right of a fetus to live”, and some do this to some extent.

Here is what I am trying to say. The liberals think that laws against abortion limit personal freedom, and that conservatives are trying to limit personal freedom by passing laws against abortion. I think we need to show that outlawing abortion is still consistent (in reality, a prerequisite for) a society of maximum individual liberty. One must show that individual liberty can still be respected while respecting the life of the fetus, and in fact, that respecting the life of the fetus is necessary in respecting individual liberty for all.

Let me say this again. Pro-lifers need to demonstrate that laws against abortion are compatible with a completely free society (in reality, they must go together, but we must crawl before walking).

The Law of the Land

"This was an issue that I had to face when I was campaigning 25 years ago. I have always been against abortion; it's not possible for me in my own concept of Christ to believe that Jesus would favor abortion. But at the same time, I have supported the Supreme Court ruling of our country as the law of the land. And the present arrangement, whereby a woman is authorized to have an abortion in the first trimester of the pregnancy, or when the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest -- these are the things that moderates who have beliefs like mine can accept as the present circumstances in our country. The liberality of abortion is anointed by the laws of our country, including the ultimate ruling of the Supreme Court. " Jimmy Carter

Other people have said the same thing. Many people claiming to be "against" abortion also argue for the respect of the law of the land. I was watching an interview with Representative Harold Ford Jr. (D-Tennessee) on Hardball with Chris Matthews, and he said something similar to what Carter said above.

This is what I have to say...It's about time! Its time that we finally respect what the established law of the land is. For too long, we have simply been changing the established law for our own moral reasons, with devastating consequences. I am glad we are finally learning from our mistakes.

Slavery was the law of the land for over 100 years. Ever since the formation of the union, many states affirmed the right of a person to own slaves. The Supreme Court affirmed that a black man was nothing but property. Many people let their Christian convictions get in the way of their respect for the law of the land, what the Supreme Court had decided on in several instances. If only they could have been more moderate in their beliefs, but they had to stick their nose in the rights of other people to own a slave! Then, Lincoln decided to totally disregard the law of the land through the Emancipation Proclamation!

There are other horrendous instances where the law of the land has been completely disregarded when it comes to how one person treats another person. Women's suffrage totally turned the Constitution upside down! The Civil Rights Act in the 1960s totally disregarded the law of the land.

I'm so glad that people today are more sensible, respecting what the Supreme Court has already decided and putting their Christian convictions on how one person should treat another on a lower tier than the law of the land.

Is Pride what separates us from God?

I'll preface this by saying that I am far from a theological expert; these are just thoughts I have after watching a video.

In our church small group we were watching a video from Abiding Life Ministries. The director, Mike Wells, says many interesting things, and I don’t completely agree with them all, but I think many good things can be extracted from his messages.

He said something of note: “Pride is what sends us to hell…not sin.”

Is this a correct statement? Yes and No. Technically, it is sin (and pride is a sin) that separates us from God. We break one letter of the law, we are deserving of damnation. However, God created a way out for us, and it's not like a loophole, it's that the punishment for breaking the law is satisfied through Christ’s death. Mike argued that it is pride that prevents us from accepting Christ. So, I guess it depends how you look at it. It is sin that got us in the mess in the first place, but it is pride that keeps us from accepting the way out. A guy in my small group stated. “It is as if you had a deadly sickness, and you had the pill that would cure you in your pocket, but you refuse to take it. Is it the sickness that kills you, or your refusal to take the pill?” I suppose you could argue either way.

Another thing to note is that pride played a role in original sin, or the fall of man. The typical interpretation of Satan's rebellion states that it was the pride of Satan that caused the rebellion in heaven, and it was the desire to be like God that caused Adam and Eve to eat the apple in the garden. Now, in the garden, there was also the lust of the eyes and the lust of the flesh, so pride may not be the source of all of man's sin.

The point was, that a threat in our spiritual life is not only sin, but our pride. Even if we are “holy” by some standard, we can still give the glory to ourselves, and not to God, which Mike argued was just as bad as sin.

The battleground for public schools

Currently, the California state legislature is considering the addition of gay studies to the curriculum.

Predictably, and understandably so, conservative Christians do not like this, and many are fighting it. In my personal view, whether or not someone is discussed in history textbooks should really depend on the contribution they made to history, not what their sexual orientation happened to be. Concerning the overall battle, however, I cannot help but wonder if the battle is being fought in the wrong way.

I believe that the best way for Christians to fight the culture wars is not through the public schools. I think many Christians understand that you can't teach exclusively Christian values in the public schools, but they want their children to be free of the secular philosophy pervading public schools. But I think conservatives and/or Christians need to think outside of the box. The battleground is not our public schools, but how our children our educated in general.

The idea behind public schools is that it is a secular state system, and it is available to all. In theory, socialized institutions appeal to a certain side of me, despite my libertarian nature. The idea of school for all, healthcare for all sound like a good idea. Unfortunately, I believe the empirical data shows that market health care works far better than socialized health care, and many conservatives who keep up with financial matters would agree. The idea of socialized schools is not so hotly contested, and really, only libertarians support the abolition of public schools. But I digress.

As mentioned above, public schools are secular, and ideally, suppose to remain value free. The idea is that the public school system is supposed to be immune from religious influences. Whether “freedom” from religious influences implies freedom from moral values is not so clear. Many claim that a school can teach grammar, mathematics, and even history without them being entwined with moral values. Some claim that schools can teach children values, just not those influenced by religious teachings, such as the value of diversity and tolerance and all the things public schools focus on these days.

There are several points I would like to make.

1) Schools cannot be value free. They just can’t. As with the gay studies, value judgments must be made on whether homosexuality is even an acceptable lifestyle or not, and public schools will say that it is, and to say otherwise would be due to an influence of religious values. And maybe this is the case. The same issue with intelligent design vs. “unguided” evolution. I say unguided to mean theories of evolution that reject the existence of a creator. Critics of ID argue that it is just creationism light. However, “unguided” evolution outright rejects an intelligent force, based on a materialistic view of science. I understand that current science is based on what can be observed, but I argue that science does not have to outright reject what cannot be seen, or even dismiss the unseen as a possibility. The materialistic view of science does not have to be the only way. Finally, I was having a discussion with my wife about sex ed. I realized the need for teaching sexual education in schools, but the problem I have is that this subject has to be intertwined with more value judgments. Should abstinence be encouraged, along with, or in opposition to safe sex? Should sexual education include the teaching and promotion of alternative lifestyles? Sex ed cannot be taught without making some statement on the appropriate time to even have sex.

The point is, value judgments are going to be taught one way or another. Many will argue that public schools are value free, or whatever values that are taught are okay, because disagreement with those values would only (supposedly) be based on religious reasons. But one thing I believe for sure, education cannot be value free.

2) Ideally, institutional education should be an extension of parental education. We, as Americans, have accepted the idea that there are different spheres of children’s education. There is the home, where the child is taught or exposed to religious values, political values, etc… then they go to school, where they are supposed to be taught in some neutral environment free of these values. Why does this have to be? Why does there have to be a dichotomy between what the child learns at home and what he/she learns at school? Who said that schools have to be value-free? Now, I understand that public schools cannot be this way. But parents should take this into consideration.

The point here, I am making, is that education should ultimately be up to the parent. The above paragraph could, I imagine, trigger several objections. When the parent’s ideas are a little off-kilter, some would say that public school would somewhat normalize what the child is exposed to. I believe that this can still happen, however, with a private school. I see the objections as reasonable towards homeschool, where the child is not exposed to a more diverse array of viewpoints, but even in this instance, many homeschools form co-ops. Even then though, I believe socialization of the child should be up to the parent, not the government.

Now, there are two main ideas being proposed as alternatives to the typical public school system, well, three if you consider the idea of throwing more money at the public school system.
1) School choice within the state system. This is currently done through the pushing of school vouchers, or through charter schools, in which parents have a more direct role in the school’s policies. Parents still receive state money, but they can simply choose where they direct this money.
2) Outright separation of school and state. A much more radical approach, no doubt.

Option 1) of course, ultimately means that education is still state-funded, but the money follows the parent. Some school vouchers are even transferable to private schools. Liberals have issues with this due to separation of church and state issues. Personally, I do not, because in this instance the child is not forced to attend a religious school. Since the child has a choice, I do not believe there is an “establishment of religion”, but this leads to a bigger debate.

Many conservatives support option 1), but many do not. There are liberal arguments and conservative arguments against vouchers, which can be summed up here.

Liberals typically reject options 1) and do not consider 2) as an option.

Libertarians, I believe, ultimately support option 2), for the same reason that they reject state involvement in anything. Some support option 1) because it is a transition step, or at the least, something more acceptable to the general American public.

So my point is, concerning the Christian's involvement in changing the education system, I really think they need to focus on school choice issues, and give less priority to reforming the public schools.
For right now, I support the voucher system. I don’t know what would happen if the state completely got out of education. As I said in a previous post, I am still a sucker for the poor in some instances, just because, like I said, we are used to government taking the responsibility for educating our children. I support using vouchers as an intermediate step, if anything.

Why are oil companies making more profits?

No, I won't let this issue die just yet. As long as Congress keeps considering measures to punish oil companies for making "windfall" profits, I will keep talking about this issue.

With the price of crude oil going up, it is obvious why the overall cost of gas is increasing, but it is not so clear why profits are actually increasing. Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute explains it this way

The oil industry holds a lot of inventory, and we should be glad it does. If an oil company stockpiled a lot of oil at $40 -- before it rose to $60 -- that will look almost as good (on the books) as the sorts of windfalls we've seen on home sales in Las Vegas. Since gasoline prices also rise when crude does (partly because crude accounts for half the cost), products refined from the cheaper $40 crude will also be unusually profitable for a while. But this is like making money on the house you sold but needing every dollar to buy a replacement home. Prices of oil likewise must reflect replacement costs, and the resulting one-time surges in inventory profits are not a problem but part of the solution.

In other words, the oil company profits that are calculated are based on the price of the purchase of crude whenever it was purchased some time back (I'm not sure what the time period is from purchase of crude to finished product). It's not like Exxon Mobil uses all of their profits to go on fancy cruises or trips to Disney Land. If they want the company to actually last, they will have to reinvest their profit into the purchase of more inventory, in the form of crude oil. So, because the price of collecting inventory goes up, so do the profits needed to afford the inventory. But since the reported profits are based on the price of the crude oil used in the product being sold today, the profits will be high for some time.

Reynolds compares it to the selling of houses:

If you sell your house for much more than you paid for it, you will receive a "windfall profit." When you take that windfall from selling your old home and go shopping for a new one, you'll discover prices of replacement homes have gone up, too. That may explain why the Senate has not yet contemplated an extra "windfall profits tax" on windfalls homeowners receive when selling their homes. Since 1997, in fact, couples can pocket half a million dollars of such windfalls tax-free.

Responsibility and Freedom go hand in hand

I have for a long time believed that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. Examples are evident in everyday life, especially in the transition from childhood to adulthood. When you are a kid, people tell you what to eat, when to go to bed, what you do with your time... but you also have no responsibility. You have someone to feed you, buy you clothes, and as you grow up into a teenager, you take on more responsibility, and with that, more freedom. You have a car you can drive around, but this is an age where most have to get a job to support their time hanging out with friends. Finally, as an adult, you can spoil your appetite with cookies, you have your own place, and you can stay out as late as you want. However, you have to pay that rent or mortgage, and get up every day for that job to pay your rent or mortgage. Now, I am just referring to responsibility for oneself, when you take care of children, you have all the responsibility, and no freedom.

I have been trying to find a corollary on the national level. The government has taken more responsibility in feeding us, helping us save for retirement, educating us, etc... Now, I believe with this responsibility being shifted from our shoulders to that of the government, somewhere, there is a payoff in terms of personal freedoms. To be honest, however, I always had problems finding what that was.

The obvious thing is increased taxes. We take less of our money home. However, I have issues equating keeping more of our take home money directly with freedom. For one, saying that keeping our money is a right is a debatable statement, simply because we all have our own idea of what a fair amount is to give in taxes. Only those who believe "all taxation is theft" have a concrete line in the sand, but I disagree with this concept, simply because Christ and Paul affirm the right of a government to collect taxes, and by issues of practicality. The point is, how much we are taxed and what it is used for is so open to debate among people, that using the idea of less taxes as freedom is not always effective. Secondly, when I think of freedom, I typically think of liberty in choosing our own behavior and path for our life. Now, I am not saying that taxes are not a freedom issue, its just that I believe that when we give up our responsibility, we sacrifice freedom in the broader sense, not just in less take-home pay.

However, of late, I have found the payoff. When government foots the bill, they have more of an interest in our behaviors. Once simple example is helmet laws for motorcycles. This links to a news story in which politicians justify having a helmet law, since the state of Tennessee pays the medical bills of many of those injured. In the link, Glen Dean asks

Isn't it convenient the way government justifies taking away your liberty? Can you not connect the dots here folks? Are you not able to see how a government's policies of taxing and spending ultimately makes you less free?

Another example is fast food taxes or food restrictions, in which the government bribes us or penalizes us to eat healthy. After all, if they are paying our Medicare or Medicaid, don't they have an interest in reducing those bills by making sure we eat right. Walter Williams discusses the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and how they justify their actions:

CSPI has long called for excise taxes on fatty foods, cars and TV sets. Their justification is that obesity adds to Medicare and Medicaid health costs. They want some of the tax revenue used to fund exercise facilities and government fitness campaigns.

Now, some may be okay with passing seat-belt or helmet laws for people's personal safety. But this is a slippery slope. Some of us are even fine with passing anti-smoking legislation, but then it gets into fast food and TV watching, and it makes us less comfortable. It can also get into the safety of our own home (John Stossel had a piece on 20/20 about regulations in at-home offices).

So there you have it. As we pass the responsibilities for the choices we make onto government, our personal freedoms go as well. Now, many may ask, "Is the freedom to eat all the fast food we want and ride a motorcycle without a helmet really freedoms we want?" That goes along with freedom. Freedom includes the ability to make bad choices, as well as good ones.

Now, you do not have to believe in the abolition of welfare alogether, and that is not even what I am proposing, I am just pointing out that as the welfare state grows, our liberties shrink. The idea that when one loses responsibility, they lose freedoms, is a truism that cannot be denied.

What do people think of businesses in churches?

I am curious to know people's opinions on this topic. What I am referring to is not the operation of the church overall, but the church's operations concerning in-church stores.

The church I attend has a small coffee bar on Sunday mornings, and the Saturday night service for young adults has a drink and snack bar. The biggest church in town has a full-fledged cafeteria. I went there for a passion play for Easter, and I was amazed at the selection they had. They had a full-blown coffee and espresso bar, and you could get a full cooked lunch, such as a cheeseburger with fries. Large church bookstores are also very common.

Now, there have been several concerns with a church operating a business next to the sanctuary. Can running a business distract from the purpose of the church, even if the profits go towards the church's mission? Are churches becoming too commercial?

My own view is that this is okay, provided that it is handled properly. I think as long as the church is not too focused on the business, and that there are people devoted to running the business aspect, so that ministerial staff do not get bogged down with details.

However, I know there are varying opinions on this topic. I know my blog doesn't attract a mass audience, but feel free to post your thoughts on the subject.

The trap of self-righteous politics

I'm as guilty of anyone of being self-righteous concerning my views, and this post is not addressed to anyone I know of, but it concerns myself.

Being libertarian-minded, I tend to hold some views held by a minority of people, or have views concerning issues that are not discussed heavily in the political arena (i.e. local or state licensing laws, state funding of ballparks, etc...). Now, in the past, I was a typical Republican, and I still am, but I now hold libertarian views on off-spotlight issues, or I take a more-libertarian approach to the majority of issues. As I became more interested in libertarian ideas, I began to develop an elitist type attitude. Fortunately, as I have matured, I have become more humble with these ideas. In fact, I am the most humble person I know! My humility would put yours to shame!

Anyway, anytime someone is really passionate about politics, they are more likely to be more obnoxious, self-righteous, or whatever. I always got annoyed at some of the liberals who have tons of bumper stickers on their car, or who make everything a political issue, or who wonder how one can watch a sports game while there are starving children in Sudan, or wherever, but really, as I grew passionate about my own beliefs, I was doing the same, at least in my attitude. Political passion is valuable, but it can make one undesirable to be around. A counter-example is one of my lifelong friends. He is someone who is passionate about politics but seems to keep a pretty level head.

Some of the extreme right, extreme left sites that I have come across in my time are very self-righteous, but some of the worst are the extreme libertarian sites (those that consider themselves anti-state, and some anti-war), including those with Christian commentators. While disagreeing with the government is a staple of limited government types, many of the anti-state sites seem to have a total disrespect, maybe even a hatred, for those in authority. I suppose that such a distrust of government (whether it be that of the opposite political party, or gov't in general) can easily lend itself to a judgmental, self-righteous attitude, but it does not have to.

Thoughts on democracy and equal rights

There is a discussion on Glen Dean's website about democracy, and universal voting rights. Glen brought up whether the right to vote should be limited based on being able to pass a civics test, then it was decided that it would be best not to limit the right to vote. That is an interesting question: Should voting be an unalienable right, or should it be something attained only by demonstrating some kind of knowledge about the government? However, this can potentially be a dangerous thing to consider. I suppose if some type of test was administered, it should be done so based on the Constitution. However, I think it best that voting be universal. Even if one knows the Constitution front and back, there is still some room for interpretation.

Considering democracy, it probably is the best form of government, simply because it keeps those in charge accountable to the people, and it tends to distribute power more evenly and fairly. Why should someone rule simply because of their bloodline? It seems natural to have a leader elected by the people, rather than simply being born to a prior ruler.

However, even a democracy can trample on people's rights, and that is why we have the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. The Constitution has been stretched however, and many presidents, legislators, and a certain 1973 Supreme Court have stretched the Constitution to justify their actions, or have outright ignored it. Now, is this because of flaws in the Constitution? Should the Constitution have been written more explicitly in declaring the powers of government and the rights of the people? Maybe so. Or maybe, no matter how the Constitution was written, it would be abused, no matter how clear it is.

I suppose every man-made government is subject to corruption, and all we can try to do is to institute a form of rule the best we know how. I support limited government, because the less power in the hands of a select few, the less likely it is to corrupt. However, even in a government limited to only protection purposes (not saying this is the ideal, but I am using the extreme limited government case), corruption can still occur, and limiting the power of government is only one aspect of having a just form of rule.

Note: I had some other comments in here, but they veered of topic, so I will save them for another day.

Really, the only perfect form of government would be one in which Christ rules the people directly. Fortunately, this will happen someday.