The problem with idols has always been that they have an importance assigned to them that simply cannot survive reality. The stone falls from the pedestal, the emperor’s clothing is finally critiqued. As it was, so it is these days as the politician who had built a nearly messianic aura around himself turns out not to be above the fray, contrary to his promises.
Perhaps Sen. John Edwards is right to claim there are two Americas – or maybe four or six would serve as a fairer assessment. As the final reckoning for many presidential hopefuls approaches – surely most of the contenders will be eliminated in the aftermath of Super Tuesday, early next month – we found no single candidate we could come to a consensus on to endorse. Some clearly are more aligned with the interests of the people and the nation than others, however, and it is these that we will highlight.
Every year, Americans gather around their dining rooms to have holiday dinner. Unlike other special days of the year, however, this holiday is a holiday of intolerance. Of course, you know what holiday I am talking about, right? What day could I be referring to other than Thanksgiving?
At first glance, one might think that the fight over whether to provide amnesty to “undocumenteds” is a fight between those who are selfish and greedy and those who care about people desperately wanting to improve their situations. In the aftermath of the failed Senate immigration bill, one might be tempted to ask why a nation that was built by immigrants seeking a better life should shut the door on people searching for the same thing? Unfortunately, this viewpoint makes the issue look deceptively simple: what if by granting amnesty we actually failed hopeful immigrants and present citizens alike?
With the number of uninsured Americans and the costs of providing medical care to an aging country increasing, the issue of medical reform is settling in as a long-term key issue in the country’s national political dialogue. What does not seem to arise, unfortunately, is a serious attempt to take the free market sentiment of many Americans and put that to good use to drive down health care costs. Creating a massive government regulation system to force costs down is not the only way – or even a good way – to insure a future that allows all people affordable access to medical services.
Archbishop Raymond Burke is not the type of man you would label as a conciliator. Since he came to St. Louis a few years ago, he has inflamed via his vocal opposition of politicians who support abortion, his suppression of a parish that ignored his orders and now his resignation from a charity board after it brought Sheryl Crow, a supporter of embryonic stem cell research, to play at a benefit concert. The common wisdom says he must be wrong, but is he really?
Last year, a number of prominent Evangelicals gathered together to release a statement of concern about global warming, Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action. Some parts of the media, as well as individuals, have been misled to believe this was an “official” Evangelical position on the matter and the confusion has led some of those people to judge Evangelical groups by whether or not they are resisting their “leaders” rather than if they are actually being, well, Evangelical and preaching the Gospel.
It's no secret the thirteenth chapter of Paul's Letter to the Romans has been much abused. Those seeking support for oppressive regimes use it to bludgeon believers into a love affair with the ruling regime. For them, let's be clear the passage says "submit," not "support." The same passage has been read by many as describing the requirement of governments to ensure they are enforcing actual good. Frankly, this is not supported by the grammar. Twisting it around backwards to provide an excuse for active resistance to that same regime won't do. However, while I reject the most common understandings of this passage, I agree it's often taken out of context, at the very least.
Dennis Prager wrote an article on Townhall.com titled “America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on.” In brief, the article argues that every congressman should be made to take their oath of office on the Bible, not on any other book. Jason Franklin, a pastor, considers the the validity of this assertion.
A few years ago, I took a biology course in college to fulfill a general requirement for a degree. I never expected that in just a few years I would see a key, seemingly clear, topic we studied in the middle of a major political debate that tried to misinform the public about science. If you think I am referring to the “intelligent design debate,” think again. I am referring to Missouri Amendment 2, the so-called “Life Saving Cures” amendment that focuses on protection of certain forms of embryonic stem cell research. It may be an election issue specific to Missouri, but its repercussions will likely play a role in future promotion of similar amendments elsewhere.