Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Another court has struck down the partial birth abortion ban. The court struck the law down as unconstitutional "because it does not contain an exception to protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court said is required in laws prohibiting types of abortion." This has been the sticking point for opponents every time the Republicans have proposed this legislation.

Multiple times during the Clinton presidency (election years usually), they passed the bill only to have Clinton veto it. Why did he veto it? It contained no provision for the mother's health, something they refused to add. If they had added this provision, required by the Supreme Court to pass consitutional muster, Clinton would have signed it, or so he implied.

In the version that was finally enacted, they included a conclusion that "partial birth abortion is never medically indicated to preserve the health of the mother; is in fact unrecognized as a valid abortion procedure by the mainstream medical community; [and] poses additional risks to the mother." So, the exception would be meaningless since they conclude it is never medically necessary. If it's meaningless, then they could easily have put it in to pass constitutional muster. But the Republicans again refused.

You see, contrary to the rhetoric, this ban is not about saving lives or stopping an abhorrent procedure. It's about politics and posturing for the Republican base. The Republicans could have easily ended partial birth abortion long ago, and certainly in the Bush years, by putting in the exceptions required by the constitution (as interpreted by the Supreme Court), exceptions that by their own admission are meaningless and irrelevant. But the Republicans apparently don't see any value or gain in actually doing something.

"U Can't B a Christian and B ProChoice"

I read this bumper sticker this morning on a car as I walked to my bus stop. I've tried to preserve the spelling from memory. This really angered me as a believer. I am not going to comment on pro-choice or pro-life. What angers me is the association of being a Christian and a specific political point of view.

When I read explanations of the Gospel in the Bible, whether in John 3, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians 2, etc., the gospel is always pretty simple. The best known verse of the bible is John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." Paul puts it in Romans 10:9 as "if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Interestingly, there is no reference made to one's political views in deciding who is a Christian, at least according to Jesus and Paul. Political views have no impact on one's salvation or standing before God. Politics is not part of the gospel!

If one puts one's faith in Jesus to save him or her, he or she is saved. So the conditions to be a Christian are

1. faith.
   

Stop! Hold it! Whoa! Go no further! End of list! That's it! Faith. Not faith and certain political views. Jesus did not say, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whosoever believes in Him, votes Republican, opposes abortion rights for women, and opposes gay marriage legalization shall not perish but have eternal life." Yet many brothers and sisters appear to believe that is what He said. They insist on adding conditions on being a Christian, as the author and presumably buyer of this bumper sticker is doing.

They go beyond what Jesus said. They effectively put words in Jesus' mouth. These brothers and sisters are following the well-worn path of the Pharisees, who insisted on adding rule upon rule to the rules God gave in the Law. The last time I checked, Jesus didn't seem overly impressed with the Pharisees, so why are these brothers and sisters following their example? To go beyond what Jesus said is to believe didn't fully understand what He was teaching. Do these people really think they have a better understanding of Christianity than Jesus? If we believe Jesus knew what He was talking about, then we must humble ourselves and accept what He said, and if He chose to not include political views in His definition of salvation, then why should anyone else?

Does faith impact one's political views? Certainly. I'm not saying there isn't a "right" view on some political issues from a Christian point of view. But holding a "wrong" view on some political question does not invalidate one's faith, and if one has faith one is a Christian plain and simple.

To those who would put words in Jesus' mouth and redefine Christianity and salvation for the sake of their political agenda, I quote these words of warning.

"But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say...must be put to death." (Deut 18:20, NIV)

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book." (Rev 24:18, NIV)

God is not too pleased with people who put words in His mouth or add to what He has said.

al-Sadr

In Iraq, it appears Moqtada al-Sadr is talking out both sides of his mouth again. "Sadr reverted to his trademark defiance after two days in which he had appeared to be willing to disarm his militia and leave Iraq's holiest Shi'ite shrine." One minute, he promises to disarm and reach a truce, the next he's calling on armed resistance. The new Iraqi government, and the occupation regime before it, has to now shown restraint and a willingness to compromise, allowing Sadr to go free after leading a resistance that has taken many lives. But there comes a time when action must be taken. Sadr has demonstrated that he will not back down, so the Iraqis must take him down.

Is This Democracy?

The United States portrays itself as a leading light of democracy in the world today. But one can argue that democracy, to the extent that it ever truly existed in the US, is decaying.

Government is controlled by two established political parties. The current slate of parties has remained unchanged since the 1850's when the Republican Party was born out of the ashes of the Whig party. Increasingly, as evidenced by the response of both parties to the security policies of President Bush, Iraq in particular, these parties are failing in their responsibilities to the people of the United States, choosing political strategy over the good of the nation. Both are increasingly beholden to special interest groups in their respective cores. This is demonstrated by the gridlock in judicial appointments, which started in the Clinton years with Republicans blocking nominees and continuing today with Democrats blocking Bush nominees. These nominees are not blocked because they are weak or unqualified candidates, but rather because their views on specific issues, e.g. abortion, are in conflict with the opposition party's big special interest campaign contributors. The "representatives" of the people in the Senate prefer posturing themselves (i.e. groveling) before these money-men and money-women to actually doing their jobs. So the people are excluded from government.

The Center for Voting and Democracy has published statistics on the voter turnout for every presidential election since 1924. Their results shows a surprisingly consistent turnout over the decades with an average of 52.6%. In the last presidential election, which was so hotly contested and close, only 51% of voters actually cast a vote. The Center has also published a table showing voter turnout in 34 countries around the world. In this listing, the United States has the 4^th lowest average turnout (45%, including midterm elections), only beating out democratic bulwarks in Guatemala, Colombia, and Switzerland. Turnout in US elections is especially dismal in the mid-terms where turnout does not even break 40%.

Is this any surprise? Voters are dissatisfied because they see the unresponsiveness of government to regular people. The establishment parties do not make too much effort to court these disenfranchised voters. Keeping turnout at 50% is what keeps the establishment the establishment. Power is left securely in the hands of activists and special interest groups who finance each party, with no voice left for the people.

How do the parties choose a nominee for president? Through primaries and caucuses early in the election year. But because of the way the parties run these primaries and caucuses, the nominee is chosen quickly, before most people have even had a chance to cast a ballot. Effectively, if a candidate does not put in a good showing in New Hampshire or Iowa, their campaign is doomed. The 2004 campaign saw both parties have the "fastest wrap up to a primary season in history". If the people didn't choose these nominees, at least not the Democrat since that was the only competitive race, who did? The party bigwigs and the media decided. Both decided early on to portray Kerry as the leader, even when his campaign was fumbling miserably and Dean was roaring in the polls. In the 1992 race, the slate of candidates was quite undistinguished at first, until the media decided to crown then Governor Clinton the front-runner (because he won a meaningless straw poll in Florida) and covered his campaign thenceforth as such. Unsurprisingly, with the media endlessly extolling Clinton as the man to beat, his campaign went from obscure to winning the nomination and the White House.

So we see that the people have little voice in deciding who is nominated for major offices, that most people are so disenfranchised with the system that they choose not to participate, and that the elected officials care little for the interests of the United States. This is not democracy.

Quincy Carter and NFC East Predictions

In my preseason predictions for the NFL, I reluctantly chose Dallas to win the NFC East. Now the Cowboys have shocked everyone and released Quincy Carter without explanation, just a few days after Coach Parcells said, "[Carter] has a leg up on pretty much everybody because he was the guy that played the best and started last year. Obviously I have that in mind. He is in a good position to be improved. And that is what I'm looking for.'' So, will Dallas still win the East with Vinny Testaverde as the starter? I don't think so.

Vinny has done good things over the years. He is a member of the very exclusive club of quarterbacks to have thrown for over 40,000 years in his career. But he hasn't had too much success since the 1998 season, when he led Parcells' Jets to the AFC title game. Last year, he took the reins of a defending division winner and went 2-7. One of the weaknesses of the Cowboys is the offensive line, who gives up a lot of sacks. Carter was at least mobile. Vinny is a statue who will be toppled repeatedly. Such abuse raises the specter of injury, and the Cowboys now have no depth at quarterback. Vinny was the depth. They have Tony Romo, an undrafted player who has never taken a snap in the NFL, and Drew Henson, a 6th round draft pick who has been playing minor league baseball the last few years.

The Cowboys have now lost last year's starting running back (Troy Hambrick), quarterback (Carter), and one of the leading receivers (Joey Galloway). They have all been replaced by older, some might say over the hill, players: Eddie George, Testaverde, Keyshawn Johnson respectively. While all three bring talent and experience, they are new to the system and their talent is very much in decline. Add that to the fact that they play behind a creaky offensive line and one is forced to conclude the Cowboy offense isn't going anywhere this year.

So if Dallas is out, who will win the East? As I said originally, all the other teams in the division have the capability of winning it, and all have considerable question marks. The Giants and Redskins have the biggest question marks of all. How well will a veteran team like New York respond to an authoritarian coach like Coughlin? (Remember how well the Redskins responded to Marty Schottenheimer?) Does Kurt Warner have anything in the tank? For Washington, there's little question about how the team will respond to Gibbs and there's little question that they have good players on both sides of the ball. The question mark is the offensive line, which was abysmal last year and has the same personnel this year. So I'm left going back to Philadelphia. Yes, I know what I said the first time. I don't think they will be as good as they were last year (or the previous two). But they won't fall so far as to lose out to the more questionable teams in their division.