THEY CAN JUST PAY THE TAX

Justices Kagan and Sotomayor both suggested that if Hobby Lobby, for religious reasons, didn't like the mandate to provide abortifacients to its employees, they could "just not provide any coverage and pay the tax."

This seems like Jizra to me.  Recall that Jizra is the tax that Muslim conquerors impose on Christians for the privilege of remaining Christian and not being beheaded.  Does anyone think it is acceptable to impose a tax on a religious community for the privilege of abiding by its religious principles?

The Problem of Government by Sinners

Genesis 3 tells the story of the Fall of mankind to the utterly sinful condition in which we find ourselves. Whether a literally true event, or an allegory explaining why we find ourselves in an evil world, it forms the basis of the Christian understanding of mankind.

After God had created man, and then made woman from man to be his perfect companion, they lived in the Garden with all of their needs provided for them.  God had given Adam and Eve just one command, not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  God warned them that eating of that tree, disobedience to God, would make them mortal.  They were tempted to eat of the tree by Satan who first told Eve that God had lied when He said they would die if they ate of the tree.  He went on to tell Eve that eating of the tree would provide mankind with the knowledge of good and evil making them "like God."  This convinced her and she ate and also gave the fruit to Adam.

The consequences were immediate and Adam and Eve hid themselves from God thus beginning the estrangement of God and man.  When God called to Adam, Adam began to make excuses, blaming his wife, that God had given him, for his sin.  Eve, in turn, blamed Satan.  God, almost in sadness and resignation pronounces the "curse" against first Satan and then the humans:

"To the woman he said, 'I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.' And to Adam he said, 'Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, You shall not eat of it, cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.'”

The Apostle Paul, writing by the Spirit, addressed the same issue in the first chapter of his letter to the Romans:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature, namely, His eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. .  . . And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them."

Thus, in both accounts it is the failure to acknowledge God as God, and in a sense to become gods in our own right, that causes the Fall.  Even though they were both written millennia ago, it is hard to believe that anyone reading these two versions of the fall of mankind to our present, sinful state would not immediately sense the truth in them for us today.  Looking back at the story of God's chosen Jewish people in the Hebrew Scriptures, we see a story of God's redemption of His people, followed by their promises to be faithful, followed in turn by their turning away from God, their falling upon hard times, their repentance and finally by God's next redemptive act.  We can look back on the history of the last century and that all the utopian schemes of fascism, nazism, communism, socialism, Maoism ended in tyranny and oppression and see man's stubborn, sinful nature.  And we can look around at the world, and even in our nation, today and see nothing but evil, no matter what civil arrangements are made or system people live under.  As Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

With this history in mind, how could a rational human being ever believe that it were possible for any government to create a utopian society, no matter what system is tried.  Nor can we avoid Madison's conclusion in Federalist 51 (discussed in my last post), that no matter how virtuous a society, it will be necessary to closely limit government.  It should be further obvious that the subjective judgments of men and women on questions involving their own interests, whether political, economic, cultural, moral or scientific, will be subject to suspicion.  And finally, the corruption of mankind is so fundamental that no matter what system you place us in, we will almost always act in our own perceived self-interest, and that the more power anyone is given over others, the more danger there is from the self-interest of those in power.

Conservatives, Progressives and Sin

Michael S. Kogan, a Jewish professor of comparative religion attributes most of the theological differences between Jews and Christians to their respective approaches to the problem of sin.  I would take that further and assert that many, if not most, of the political differences between conservatives and progressives derive from their respective approaches to sin.

In his book Opening the Covenant, Kogan asserts that for orthodox Christians, the problems of sin, that is, the rebellion against God which started in the Garden of Eden, demonstrates that human beings are so evil in their very nature that there is nothing they can do for themselves to resolve the problem of their sin.  Thus only God can resolve the problem by sending His Son into the world to suffer and die for the sins of mankind, and be resurrected to eternal life so that those who have faith in Him will be saved.  This doctrine, of the utter sinfulness of man, while common to orthodox Christians of all denominations, is most closely associated with Calvin and Reformed Christians. The Reformed, Scotts Confession puts it this way:

"By this transgression [rebellion against God in the Garden], generally known as original sin, the image of God was utterly defaced in man, and he and his children became by nature hostile to God, slaves to Satan, and servants to sin. And thus everlasting death has had, and shall have, power and dominion over all who have not been, are not, or shall not be born from above. This rebirth is wrought by the power of the Holy Spirit creating in the hearts of God's chosen ones an assured faith in the promise of God revealed to us in His Word; by this faith we grasp Messiah Jesus with the graces and blessings promised in Him."

The Lutheran, Augsburg Confession goes further to condemn "the Pelagians and others . . . who, to obscure the glory of Christ's merit and benefits, argue that man can be justified before God by his own strength and reason."

Kogan also asserts that, unlike Christians, Jews today believe that God, through the Law, provided the means whereby Jews first, and ultimately all humans, could be reconciled to God through obedience to the moral aspects of that Law.  Sin was a problem, but one to which God had left the solution with us.  It did not require the radical solution Christians believed was necessary, the coming of Messiah Jesus and his death and resurrection.

Interestingly, the Apostle Paul writing in the Ninth Chapter of his Letter to the Romans, says much the same thing, that the Jews who were not being saved were pursuing righteousness by their own efforts and not by faith in Messiah Jesus.  For Jews, God sent the Law, obedience to which would bring righteousness.  For Christians the Law, which cannot be obeyed perfectly, only shows our own sinful nature. Salvation comes, to those who have faith, from the Act of God in sending His son.  Christians, grateful for salvation then seek, as best we can, to follow God's desires for our lives as expressed in the Law.

But what of Atheists?  While they might not call it sin, Atheists still, for the most part, see injustice in our world and seek to remedy it.  But I think they see injustice not as a problem within human beings, but rather a problem with institutions, systems and cultures and, if those things can be fixed by a benevolent government, the problem of injustice can be fixed.  So if only we, that is the enlightened elites, can marginalize or reform institutions that teach the wrong things (such as the churches), abolish or transform evil systems (such as capitalism), and take over the cultural education of children from their parents, we can establish a new, Utopian society where injustice will be a thing of the past.

Our Founders, although not all Calvinist Christians, shared the Calvinist view of the depravity of mankind. Madison, one of the principal authors of the Constitution and one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers wrote, in Federalist 51:

"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices [checks and balances in and limitations on government] should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

Most conservatives, I believe, tend to have the Madisonian, Calvinist view of mankind and thus favor limited, restrained government.  They reject Utopian schemes and seek rather to strengthen institutions which can form a counterweight to government, uphold systems which preserve political and economic liberty and leave cultural education to the people themselves.  Faith based institutions, for conservatives, are essential to the preservation of "ordered liberty" - that is an orderly society without government coercion and oversight into every aspect of life.  And government, being made up of sinful men and women, is always subject to suspicion.

Few Christians who have a Calvinist view of mankind will be progressive politically.  Rather progressives will tend to be atheists, secular or nominal Christians and Jews, or Christians who reject the doctrine of the depravity of man.  Once mankind is viewed as perfectible, or perhaps fundamentally good but oppressed by systems and institutions, there is room for all sorts of grand schemes to "fix" everything - like ObamaCare, the Common Core curriculum, universal pre-school and so on.  Government should have no limits because only government can work these schemes and make sure everyone is forced to go along.

What the Arizona Religious Freedom Bill Actually Said

Before we make up our minds about the Arizona Religious Freedom Restoration Act, let's make sure we understand exactly what it does, and does not, do. See explanation by bi-partisan law professors.

And by the way, has anyone taken note of the political blackmail practiced by the NFL - a tax exempt organization - by threatening to move the Superbowl.  It's time to boycott the NFL.

Libertarians, Conservatives and Randians

I was accused by someone who does not know me of being both an atheist and a "Randian", that is, someone who looks to Ayn Rand for his political philosophy.  I am neither, of course.  But I think my accuser was confusing conservative thought with libertarianism and conflating the two.

In terms of the policies they support, most libertarians are more like conservatives with regard to economic policy, but more like progressives with respect to social and foreign policy - though how they get to those positions may differ from both conservatives and progressives.  For example, libertarians believe that trade with our enemies is the solution to our foreign policy problems.  Progressives tend to think that Western Civilization and the U.S. in particular, are the cause of the world's problems and therefor we have no right to have an assertive foreign policy or stand up for our values.

Both conservatives and libertarians believe that smaller, less expensive government will encourage economic growth and freedom which will, ultimately, make everyone better off.  Although Rand, who is a libertarian folk hero, had the reputation, at least, of being unconcerned with the poor, conservatives look more to Adam Smith who argued that everyone in society, particularly the poor, will be better off when economic transactions are voluntary, and so, if they are to happen at all, happen only when both parties believe they are better off entering into the transaction than not doing so.  Even most libertarians I know are not "Randians" in the sense of not caring about the poor.  They share the view that economic liberty helps the poor, just as it has helped hundreds of millions around the world out of poverty.

Libertarians differ from conservatives on social issues because, for them, liberty is the highest value, whether in economics or anything else.  Thus they tend to oppose restrictions on abortions, drugs, prostitution, pornography and so on.  They tend to share many, though not all, of these policy positions with progressives rather than conservatives.  But libertarians tend to do so because of the high value of Liberty - you can do whatever you want as long as it does not hurt someone else.

What I think libertarians miss about these social issues, and that many conservatives get right, is that a society with a strong cultural and moral code which governs these "social issues" less government intrusion is necessary to maintain a coherent and sane society.  Without the social restraints society becomes disordered and there is a temptation for government to step in to "order" it.  Many conservatives are beginning to see that government enforced conservative values are probably not the best thing unless the restrictions protect a third party from injury.  Elective abortion, for example, because the unborn child does not get a choice, should be seen by both conservatives and libertarians to be an exception to liberty - that is, the abortion does, in fact, hurt someone else.

Libertarian thought in the United States has developed primarily among atheists.  And still many of the most prominent spokesmen are atheists.  Most evangelical Christians like me are conservatives, and most conservatives view themselves as Christians or religious Jews.  Libertarians perhaps see these conservative values as relics of superstition and therefore they oppose all of them reflexively, even when it would be more consistent with their philosophy, as with abortion, to support them.

The other misconception of my accuser was that conservatives, and libertarians for that matter, were selfish and did not have regard for the poor.  This is clearly false and a slander.  Conservatives believe that free-market economics and small government help the poor escape poverty.  They believe that giving a poor person stuff (welfare or redistribution) even if necessary in the short run, does not take anyone out of poverty.  Poverty is not a lack of material wealth, but the lack of the ability to support oneself.  You can give a poor person $1,000,000 and that person will not thereby acquire middle-class values and behaviors.  In fact, as with rap stars, many star athletes, and poor people who win the lottery or a big personal injury judgment, having that money given to them may just exaggerate their bad behaviors - not always, of course but the point is that it's not money that gets you out of poverty but a change in culture.

That being said, sometimes society must provide material support to people (1) who for one reason or another simply cannot support themselves, or (2) temporarily to help that person actually escape poverty. My daughter teaches in a charter school and the stories she tells of some of her kids and the homes they come from make one cry.  Every kid needs to get a decent shot.  I think every conservative I know would agree with this paragraph.

But the problem with ObamaCare (or at least one of the problems) and with all means-tested welfare programs, is that they impose outrageously high marginal tax rates on people escaping poverty and thus encourage people not to work, or to work less, because an increase in income causes a loss of benefits.  My preference, and in this I do not necessarily speak for conservatives, is to have a "flat tax" with fewer deductions and a single tax rate for all income (including capital gains which will be indexed for inflation) - and then adding a substantial refundable credit which would provide a "floor" for everyone to have enough income to get by but not feel comfortable in poverty.  Although the marginal rate would be the same at every income level, the effective rate would go from negative (when the tax is less than the credit) to approach the marginal rate.  For Bill Gates or Warren Buffet the marginal rate and the effective rate are essentially the same.  But the value of the credit will be proportionately vastly more valuable to middle class and lower class people whose effective rates go to zero and below.  I suspect that a system could be designed with a tax rate, and a personal credit amount, picked so that, on average, it could replace all our welfare and redistribution programs (and the administrative machinery required to support them) while leaving the amount of support for the poor, and re-distributive effect, essentially unchanged from current law.

This plan would eliminate the disincentives for not working while making sure people had food to eat, a place to live, and basic medical care.  People would still have an incentive to work more and harder to buy better food, housing, medical care and other things they want - thus pushing them out of poverty.  This is a win-win-win.  The poor win by breaking the cycle of dependence.  The rich win by reducing marginal rates giving them incentives to save, invest and work harder.  And society itself wins with greater growth, fewer poor people, and smaller deficits.

ObamaCare and the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance

During the time of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I the English Parliament passed laws requiring all citizens, and particularly those who sought public office, to sign an Oath of Supremacy in which the signer acknowledged that the English monarch was the Head of the Church of England.  In 1606, under James I, an Oath of Allegiance was added which required the signer to agree, among other things, that no Pope could depose a King or absolve the signer from the requirements of the Oath.  Roman Catholics obviously had a problem denying the authority of the Pope over the English Church and limiting the Pope's authority.  Sir Thomas More refused to sign the Oath of Supremacy and was executed for treason.  Although the requirement to subscribe to these oaths would subsequently not carry the death penalty, Roman Catholics and some non-Anglican Protestants, who could not subscribe to them, were for many years excluded from high office in England - that is, except those willing to compromise their principles and sign the oaths.

The American Founders believed these Oaths to be abusive, some of them being subject to exclusion from office under them, and they were forbidden in Article VI, Paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution.

How does this relate to ObamaCare, you ask?  Well, the Little Sister's of the Poor have been told by the Obama Administration that they will have an exemption from the birth control mandate if they just sign a paper which directs someone else to provide free birth control to their employees on their behalf.  All the Sisters have to do is put aside their principles and sign the paper implicating themselves in behavior they believe goes against their Church teaching.  It will cost them nothing except a little bit of integrity.

And what is the point of the birth control mandate anyway?  No person would, in a rational world, buy insurance for birth control if she did not plan on using it.  Therefore, anyone seeking such insurance would be charged a premium equal to at least 100% of the anticipated cost of the product.  The only reason a person planning to use birth control would buy insurance for it is if other people who didn't want it, or thought it was immoral, were forced to pay some or all of its cost.  Indeed, what purpose is really served by this mandate except to potentially implicate every businessperson of faith in conduct he or she considers immoral, and establish the precedent that the government can freely do so despite the First Amendment?

Similarly, the recently announced further delay in the employer mandate for smaller businesses requires an employer looking for an exemption to certify that, if he fired anyone, it was not because of ObamaCare! They could not possibly audit companies claiming the exemption.  And how would you disprove it anyway unless the employer specifically said or wrote somewhere that he had fired people because of ObamaCare? So just like the Sisters, all the employer has to do is tell a falsehood, and then keep his mouth shut, to get the financial benefit. And of course, when Republicans later argue that ObamaCare is costing jobs, the Democrats will respond that the vast majority of small employers have certified that they did not fire people for that reason.  There is no point, and no authorization in the ACA, to require employers to lie to get an exemption.  This also implicates the First Amendment.

This practice by the Administration is corrosive of religious and speech liberty, business integrity and the political process.  The first breach in principle, no matter how small, is always the hardest. After that each breach becomes easier.

The Obama Scandals Part IV-1 - OMG, Not Another One

While I promised to move on from my list of Obama Scandals, I could not let this one pass.  As Daniel Halper notes on today's Weekly Standard Blog, the Obama-Clinton State Department "deep-sixed" an investigation of a big Obama donor ($500,000 plus) who was appointed Ambassador to Belgium (how do you say quid pro quo?) and then apparently regularly ditched his security detail to hook up with prostitutes, some of whom were underage.  The guy is still in place.  The scandal is actually much broader according to CBS News and infects much of the Diplomatic Security Service which is tasked with protecting our diplomats overseas.  Benghazi anyone?  These scandals are starting to come back on themselves.

The Obama Scandals Part IV - The Others

This will be the last installment listing the current Obama scandals.  Partly it is because there are so many that the list might never end.  And more importantly, it is time to get on with an analysis of why the most transparent administration in history is so mired.  So we continue:

18.  HHS Secretary Sebelius is soliciting money from companies she regulates, and others, to provide funds for the implementation of ObamaCare which Congress has refused to appropriate.  This is not very different from Iran-Contra for which people went to jail.  True, in Iran-Contra Congress explicitly prohibited the expenditures while in HHS Congress simply refused the appropriation request.  But the Constitution already prohibits expenditure of funds not appropriated by Congress.  On the other hand, unlike in Iran-Contra, the person doing the solicitation of funds directly regulates some of the persons from whom she is soliciting funds.  There is clearly the implied threat, even if not explicit, that if you want discretionary administrative decisions to go your way, do what we ask.

19.  ObamaCare itself is a scandal.  All of the promises made to secure passage, that you could keep your coverage, that premiums would not go up, that you could keep your doctor, that it would bend the cost curve down, etc. turned out to be false.  True, Republicans warned people that these were misrepresentations, and to anyone actually thinking about things it was obvious that these promises were false.  But many Americans did believe these promises because they came from the President and because the media did not question them.

20.  Even after all of disclosures, conservative groups are still not getting their tax exemptions while similar liberal groups have experienced no problems.  And it now appears clear that the Administration was lying when it said this was a group of local rogue agents in Cincinnati.  There were problems from other offices, and testimony from Cincinnati people that they were taking orders from Washington.

21.  The disparate impact settlement scandal in which Thomas Perez from the Obama-Holder Justice Department effectively bribed Minneapolis to drop its appeal of a housing discrimination case in which the only evidence of prejudice or discrimination was the fact that the actions attacked - enforcing its race neutral housing regulations - affected minorities more often or to a greater extent.  Perez was concerned that if the case were decided by the Supreme Court, the Court would rule against that dubious theory.  As a result, Justice's ability to threaten local housing authorities with lawsuits would be substantially reduced.  The bride was a result of the offer by Perez to not join in two False Claim Act cases against Minneapolis, at least one of which was thought to have a great deal of merit and was about to be joined by the government.  By not joining, Minneapolis saved money, perhaps a lot of it, and the taxpayers of the rest of the country lost the chance to recover a bunch of money.  Perhaps worse, the persons who brought the False Claims Act cases in the first place themselves lost out on very large sums they would have received from settlement.  So this was not a victimless event.  Frederick Newell and Andrew and Harriet Ellis, who brought the FCA cases, lost sums perhaps amounting to millions of dollars in order for Perez to pursue his ideological agenda.  After all this, the President nominated him for a promotion to Labor Secretary where he could do even more damage with his ideological agenda which matches that of the President.

22.  The Obama NLRB, despite the absence of a quorum, plows ahead in the face of rulings by two Circuit Courts of Appeal that it has no jurisdiction.  And remember this all started with the NLRB filing a case against Boeing for opening a plant in South Carolina even though no current Union employees were affected.

23.  The EPA discriminates against conservative groups, and in favor of liberal groups, in responding the FOIA requests including imposing substantially higher fees on conservative groups.

24.  It now appears, in a little noticed scandal, that Google and its founder are in bed with the Democratic Party and the Administration.  Google's founder started another company to do meta-data analysis similar to what was done by the Obama campaign in the last election, but only for Democrats - seems like a very large in-kind contribution to the Democrats which beats anything the Kochs or any other conservative donor has done.  And how are we to know that Google is not also supplying the data (of which Google has by far the most) to Democrats only, and not to Republicans?  Worse still, do we trust this Administration to keep all the information being collected by the IRS confidential and not "leak" it to this new outfit to benefit themselves politically.  In a way this is the most dangerous scandal of them all because this could give Democrats a lock on elections for the foreseeable future.

25.  The Gibson Guitar scandal where the Feds went after Gibson for importing illegal wood under circumstances where (1) Gibson had every reason to believe the wood was legal, and (2) other less conservative guitar makers doing the same thing were given a pass.

If I continued to think about this I am sure that I would continue to come up with additional scandals.  Some of these scandals might be illegal, particularly the IRS disclosure of information, but illegal or not they are certainly corrupt.  But this is really quite enough to get the idea, and find the commonalities.  That will be the subject of the next blog in this series.

The Obama Scandals Part III - Attacks on the Free Press

The Scandals continue:

12.  First there is the culture, almost from the beginning of the Administration, of demonizing any news organization or commentator who criticized the President, starting with calling FOX News "not a legitimate news organization."  This was, of course, another Alinskyite move (Rule 5 "Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon."; Rule 12 "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.").  While the Administration has backed off somewhat from its direct attack on FOX, it continues to treat legitimate, but difficult, questions as merely political attacks, or irrelevant, or old news, or the like.

13.  Second, there is the persistent insistence of this Administration, the "most transparent in history," of refusing to go "on the record" for much at all.  Everything is on deep background so there is no accountability if it turns out to be false or misleading.

14.  Third, is the overbroad and unnecessarily secret AP subpoena.  Yes, the government has an interest in preventing disclosure of secrets which harm national security.  And yes, sometimes that interest trumps the interests of the free press in gathering information.  And yes, there was,  in this case, a legitimate interest in protecting our sources and methods in this case because the leak endangered our agent within the enemy ranks.  But our pursuit of such leaks from press sources should be carefully narrowed to the minimum necessary.

15.  Fourth, and perhaps most dangerous of these abuses, was the subpoena naming FOX reporter James Rosen an unindicted co-conspirator and/or an aider and abettor of another leak.  In the first place, the leak was of an opinion that the North Koreans would react to UN sanctions by detonating another nuclear device which was embarrassing to the Administration's position.  But it hardly endangered national security in the same way as the leak involved in the AP matter.  More importantly, the affidavit supporting the subpoena, signed off on by the Attorney-General himself, implied that news gathering under these circumstances is a criminal offense!  The AP subpoena endangers the confidentiality of news sources, and is chilling to those sources.  The Rosen matter is a direct threat to reporters themselves implying that they break the law when they seek information which might be classified.  Thus it chills even attempts at news-gathering.  And it exposes an administration that will just about anything to punish those who oppose it.

16.  And the reaction of the Administration to exposure of these abuses is not to admit that it acted unlawfully and improperly, and vow not to do it again.  No, the Attorney-General asserts that he was merely "wrong" to go as far as he did and promises to change his "guidelines."  But guideline can always be changed or waived in "exceptional" cases.  And if it is the Attorney General who determines whether a case is exceptional, the press will forever remain under the threat of prosecution if they displease the Administration.  We don't need a shield law.  What we need is a simple statement from the Attorney General and the President that what James Rosen did was not, and could not be, a crime under the First Amendment.

17.  And finally, there is the hypocrisy of an Administration justifying these intrusions into press freedom by "national security" while not investigating far worse "leaks" from a national security point of view such as leaks surrounding the bin Laden raid which put the Pakistani doctor who helped us in prison for years, or the leak that confirmed we, along with Israel, had developed and deployed the Stuxnet computer virus against Iran which not only exposed  our, and Israel's, covert operation but also effectively made it far more difficult for us to complain about other countries directing similar attacks against US interests.  The differences between these "leaks" and the leak involved in the Rosen investigation are that these leaks were not only more serious, but they made the Administration look better and appear to have been sanctioned by the Administration - and, of course, there was no leak investigation.

One more installment in the list of scandals to come.

The Obama Scandals Part II - The IRS

Here is the next group of Obama Scandals:

8.  What gave IRS agents the idea that they should slow-walk the applications of conservative and libertarian groups for tax exempt status (until after the 2012 election) while waiving progressive groups through?  How would they get the idea they should ask those conservative and libertarian groups highly invasive, and irrelevant, questions (including what prayers the organizers prayed and what books they read!)  progressive and other groups were not asked?  Why would IRS agents single out prominent conservative and libertarian political donors and spokesmen for multiple audits (joined in some cases by other federal agencies such as the Department of Labor) in the run-up to the 2012 election?  Why was confidential IRS information about Republicans, including Mitt Romney, and other opponents of the Administration leaked to progressive groups, and the Obama campaign, where it was used to hammer Republicans in the last election.  And why, when the top bosses in the IRS were admittedly aware of these abuses in the spring of 2012 was this not brought to the attention of the White House and not disclosed to the American people (indeed the abuses were denied by the IRS Commissioner to Congress) when it might have a made a difference in the election?  Was it not the responsibility of the IRS when it knew the abuses were happening, to order it stopped, bring it to the attention of the President, and disclose it to the American people?

9.  How is it that even now no individuals at IRS have been identified for having participated in the abuses noted above, no one has been disciplined (except the acting commissioner who just left a few weeks early but suffered no financial penalty) and no one has taken responsibility?  How does Lois Lerner keep her job having claimed 5th Amendment protection against questioning regarding her public trust?  Even an ordinary police officer must waive his right not to testify or lose his job!  And how did she get her job at the IRS at all given that in her previous job at the FEC she was known for discriminatory enforcement actions against Christian organizations?

10.  Did the President's campaign diatribes against conservative and Republican "enemies", and Democratic Senators' calls for the IRS to investigate "Tea Party" groups have no effect whatsoever on the decisions of IRS officials to target those enemies?  Did the President really have to explicitly order IRS people to act against people and groups that favored lower taxes, a simpler tax code and, in some cases, the abolition of the IRS?  Was it not enough for them to hear the President's permanent campaign?  Wasn't it enough for the President's campaign to identify eight large Republican donors on its web site and imply that they were less than honest and ethical in their business dealings?  At least one of those eight was targeted by both the IRS and the Department of Labor who found nothing amiss.  Is this not the Alinsky tactic of personalizing an issue run amok?  Just what one would expect from a former community organizer.

11.  Is this culture of politically biased enforcement infect federal agencies in addition to the IRS?  We already know that the Department of Labor also appears to have singled out Republican donors for audits.  Why would the Justice Department give a pass to the New Black Panthers standing outside polling stations in Philadelphia with clubs intimidating white voters?  Was former Democratic Senator and Governor Jon Corzine given a pass in the collapse of MF Global, Inc?

More in the next post.

The Obama Scandals and Corruption Part I - Benghazi

What exactly are the Obama scandals that I referred to in my last post?  Here is a partial listing:

1.  Why was security not increased in Benghazi, and why were military and security assets not closer to Benghazi, on September 11, 2012, despite all the warnings we had in advance?  The Administration has said it was not the money.  Perhaps there is a good explanation, but they have not even ventured one.  And if there is no good explanation, who made the decisions and what discipline has resulted?

2.  Why was help not sent on September 11, 2012 after the attack started.  Those on the ground told Washington immediately that the attack was not a reaction to the video but a planned attack.  In retrospect it may be, though that is not yet clear, that help would not have arrived on time.  But those in charge that night could not have known that when the decision to "stand down" was made.  Do we excuse the 911 operator for not sending help just because, in retrospect, help would not have arrived on time?  Again, the Administration offers no explanation.  Nor has any disciplinary action been taken for the failure to send help.

3.  Where was the President, and what was he doing, during the Benghazi fiasco?  For that matter, where was Secretary Clinton?  What decisions did they make, and if none, why not?  This was their 2:00 a.m. phone call and there is no evidence that they acquitted themselves well.  Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan.

4.  The President, the Secretary of State and many other top officials knew in real time, and directly from the people on the ground, that Benghazi was not a reaction to the video, but a planned attack by Islamists.  Where did that story of the video come from?  How could the Secretary of State give this version to the families of those killed, and the President repeat the story in the United Nations, knowing that it was completely false?  And why would they put the story out at all given it, at least in part, shifts the blame for the incident from, or partially excuses, its Islamist perpetrators.  Rather than being the fault of Islamist ideology and Islamist violence, the incident becomes, at least in part, the fault of American freedom of expression and a "shadowy character" who would be arrested and sentenced to a year in jail for making a video.  This lie was not a victimless crime.  An innocent person, at least innocent of this, went to jail for expressing his opinion.

5.  There was enough information in the news reports in the days following the September 11 attack to at least alert Ambassador Rice that the video story was dubious.  It was not in even the final scrubbed talking points.  Where did it come from?  Why did she not raise some questions about this story before going on the Sunday shows?  And if she did raise questions, how was it that the story was perpetuated?

6.  Why have we done nothing in response to the Benghazi attack?  Granted that it is probably difficult to identify specific individuals, or apprehend them - probably more difficult after the Libyan leader, who said from the beginning, and correctly, that this was a terrorist attack, was publicly contradicted and humiliated by Ambassador Rice and the President.  But we knew, and know, what group was at fault, and we know where they have their camp.  Why did we at least not blow something up?  This attack called out for a decisive response, but there was no response at all.  A great power cannot let this kind of thing go unavenged and remain a great power for long.

7.  How is it that only low-level people who were probably not the ones ultimately responsible the only ones who have been punished?  And why is it that the survivors are being kept from testifying (or even identified to Congress), and potential whistle-blowers being intimidated?

More in the next post.

Progressives are NOT More Corrupt than Conservatives and Libertarians

Romans 3:10-11: ". . . None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God."

Augsburg Confession Article II: "Our churches teach that since the fall of Adam, all who are naturally born are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with the inclination to sin . . . "

Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter VI:  " . . . [Adam and Eve] being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation.  From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all the actual transgressions."

James Madison, Federalist 51:  ". . . But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. . . . "

We conservatives and libertarians should not congratulate ourselves in these days of the Obama scandals that politicians we support are bound somehow to be better, less corrupt, human beings. They are not.  And we are not.  We all suffer under our sinful nature and, given the opportunity, and strong enough motivation, will sin.  Nor should we take joy in the scandals as simply an opportunity to regain power.

But it is an opportunity to instruct the American people that the larger and more secretive the government, the further that government is away from the people, the more discretion and power is given to unelected officials, and the more those in power believe they are morally superior to the other guy, the more likely is abuse and corruption.  This, and not any special moral disability of progressives, is the ultimate genesis of the Obama scandals.

The Real Message of Gosnell

Most of the commentary about the Gosnell trial relates to the failure of the liberal media to cover the trial at all.  Whenever the substance itself is discussed, the left-right debate is about who is to blame for the Gosnells of this world - abortionists who botch the abortion and then kill the baby who is born alive.  Is it too little regulation as some contend?  Or is it too much regulation that drives the competent doctors out of the business?

But I think that misses the significance of Gosnell.  In the partial-birth abortion case Justice Scalia asked what the moral and legal distinction should be between (1) killing a baby in the birth canal and then delivering the "products of conception" (a partial birth abortion), and (2) delivering that baby alive and then killing it. But this was only a hypothetical question by the Justice.  Gosnell confronts Americans with its reality.  Here is a real abortionist who is unable to make the moral distinction between an unborn baby, and one born alive.  NARAL's initial comments, that a mother's "choice" should extend beyond the moment of birth, only compounded the problem.  If NARAL and Gosnell cannot or will not make the moral distinction between an unborn baby and a live birth, then why should the rest of America?  And if there is no moral distinction, how is an elective abortion not murder?

Time for Some Common Sense Pressure Cooker Controls

In light of the recent events in Boston it seems to me that President Obama should immediately propose some common sense pressure cooker controls.  We should not be afraid of the NPCA, the heavily funded, right-wing, evil, pressure cooker lobby which is only out to preserve profits for the pressure cooker companies.  No right thinking person could oppose such common sense measures unless they prefer, for their own reasons, to see carnage at urban sports events and do not care about the children.  I am sure some moderate, non-ideological Republicans will join the President in this.

And come to think of it, we need common sense controls for nails, ball bearings, back packs, baseball caps, cell phones, etc.

The Octave of Christian Unity

I found two articles by Fr. Victor E. Novak (1/18 & 1/25) referencing the "Octave of Christian Unity" and concerning the current state, and way forward, for the Anglican Communion, helpful and thought-provoking.  My perspective is one of an active lay person who has, at one time or another, been part of the Anglican, Lutheran and Reformed (Presbyterian) communities.

When I taught the new members class at my former Presbyterian church, I would tell them that Luther sought to “reform” the Church by discarding everything that was contrary to Scripture, but that Calvin sought to “re-form” the Church in the image of the early church by throwing out everything that was not specifically mandated by Scripture.  It seems to me that the Anglican reformers, such as Thomas Cranmer, were seeking  something similar.  What each tradition sought to do was to cleanse the Church of what Scripture did not sanction and restore (re-form) the Church in its ancient purity based upon the authority of Scripture.  Throughout the 16th and 17th Centuries there were attempts to bring greater unity to the three traditions in the face of Roman attempts to subject them to Rome.  Unfortunately, in my opinion, they were unable to find that unity.  That failure reverberates today in the fragmentation of the Church around the world and the confusion of its messages.

All three of these Reformation traditions (or at least parts of them) have retained the ecumenical creeds of the united Church and are, in that sense, orthodox.  And while Reformed Christians are perhaps more attached to the Westminster Confession, and Lutheran Christians more attached to the Book of Concord, than Anglicans are attached to the 39 Articles, the purposes and practice of the three doctrinal statements are essentially the same.  For the most part, only ordained persons are required to subscribe to these statements.  None was intended to state anything other than what each tradition believed was mandated by Scripture.  And none was intended as a complete statement.  They are best seen as attempts to distinguish each tradition from the others and from Roman Christianity - as is obvious in the numerous statements from each saying not only what was correct doctrine, but also naming and criticizing incorrect doctrines of the other traditions.  All were viewed as ultimately subject to Scripture.  They also serve the purpose of slowing down doctrinal change over time.  They were never intended to create doctrine apart from Scripture.  In legal terms, they were not legislative but merely declarative of Scripture.

All three of these traditions, Anglican, Reformed, Lutheran, believed they were restoring (re-forming) the ancient catholic Church.  None of them believed it was creating something new.  Indeed, the explicit purpose was “Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda!”, an inherently conservative doctrine seeking to restore the New Testament Church and to prevent non-Scriptural future innovations from contaminating the Church.  The authority of Scripture was raised above any authority of Tradition, or of bishops or councils, in order to preserve the reformed church from corruption.  And let me suggest that this aspect of the Reformation is an important aspect of orthodox ancient Christianity which has been lost, certainly by Rome, and I think by Constantinople and Moscow as well.  That is, the orthodoxy of the united ancient Church is more than just the absence of innovations by the Bishops of Rome.  These three traditions preserve something, the authority of Scripture, that would be lost if the orthodox in the West simply united with the Eastern Orthodox and adopted their doctrine in its entirety.  I think there are other aspects of Reformation theology and practice which are part of the ancient Church but have been lost by both Rome and Constantinople.  But space limitations limit me to this, most important, one.

I must also point out that Fr. Novak’s reference to the ancient patriarchal sees does not really reflect reality.  Canterbury was never one of them, yet he implies that the Anglican Communion would still be solid if the Church of England and Canterbury remained orthodox.  Neither was Moscow one of the ancient Patriarchates.  The Turks may essentially eliminate Constantinople by preventing the election of a successor to the current Patriarch.  There are at least six current Patriarchs of Antioch from different ecclesiastical traditions.  Each national Eastern Orthodox church is independent owing only nominal fealty to Constantinople.  Some of these Patriarchal sees, both past and present, do not accept the Nicene Creed and are thus not orthodox in the ordinary sense.  And so on.  While I think that more institutional connectedness is generally better than less, it is not the essential element of being “catholic” or orthodox, which depend on belief and practice, not membership in some human organization.  And if the Anglican Communion needs a Patriarch, may I suggest the election (by the orthodox provinces) of an orthodox Archbishop of Canterbury as an alternative - around whom the orthodox in the UK might rally in a new, orthodox but disestablished Church of England.

Having been a part of, and admiring in some respects, all three of the great Reformation traditions, I believe that, regarding almost every disagreement over faith and morals, the differences are not insurmountable.  Almost all of the differences are 1) matters primarily of semantics and not substance; 2) matters upon which Scripture is ambiguous; 3) matters which are secondary and not essential to salvation; and/or 4) matters which are of importance only for students of the history of the 16th and 17th Centuries and which are either considered insignificant, or are no longer held, by most orthodox Christians within the three traditions.  There remain significant differences in matters of governance, “catholic orders” and the Eucharist.  Within each tradition, there are unresolved differences over, inter alia, the ordination of women.  And finally there are variations in worship practice, giving rise to the so-called worship wars.

Does Fr. Novak believe that these differences among the three traditions, or within the orthodox Anglicans themselves, are really more than the differences between orthodox Anglicans generally and the Eastern Orthodox?  Perhaps he himself, and the congregation he leads, would be easily assimilated into Eastern Orthodoxy.  But I do not think that is true of Anglicans generally.  I think a better direction for the future would be for the orthodox among Anglicans, Lutherans and Reformed to seek greater unity among themselves.  The place to start is probably not with institutional or confessional unity, or even inter-communion.  Rather there should perhaps be a very general statement of the places of theological agreement, starting with the authority of Scripture and the most important places of difference with the “progressive” denominations, and an agreement of co-operation.  These traditions could co-operate by, for example, opening up our places of worship to fledgling congregations from the other traditions.  Anglican and Reformed church plants could especially benefit because TEC and the PCUSA have property clauses so that many orthodox congregations departing those denominations will have to give up their buildings.  A congregation opening up its building to a church plant would also benefit because the church plant would be expected to contribute, according to its means, to the upkeep of the building.  Other ways in which the traditions could co-operate in doing mission would also benefit all three traditions.  Over time, the disagreements over faith and practice which are still significant might be resolved enabling inter-communion and even institutional integration.  And these Reformation traditions should right now cease to think of themselves as “Protestant” by defining themselves by their opposition to the Roman church.  Instead they should define themselves, and ultimately name themselves, as Evangelical, Apostolic and Catholic.

In my opinion there are three issues among the Reformation traditions that would ultimately have to be resolved, and one issue within each of the traditions.  The former include the Eucharist, the Apostolic Episcopacy, and the ordination of lay elders, deacons and deaconesses.  The latter is the ordination of women.  Even with these difficult issues remaining, I believe there is hope.

As to the Eucharist, the Augsburg Confession (Lutheran) simply says, “Our churches teach that the body and blood of Christ are truly present and distributed to those who eat the Lord’s Supper.”  The 39 Articles (Anglican) state, in part, “The supper of the Lord is not only a sign . . . [T]he Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.”  The Westminster Confession (Reformed) says, in part, “Our Lord Jesus, in the night that He was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of His Body and Blood, called the Lord’s Supper, to be observed in His Church unto the end of the world . . .”  While I have quoted somewhat selectively to emphasize the commonalities, all three of the traditions explicitly reject “transubstantiation” and all three accept the “real presence” of the Messiah within the elements - though that real presence is expressed differently.  My own preference is the simplicity, and Scriptural reference, of the Lutheran view, but surely there is a way to express these views in a way acceptable to all three groups.

Reformed Christians do not have bishops.  Some Lutherans have bishops while others do not, primarily for historical, not theological reasons.  Luther, I think, hoped that the western catholic church could be reformed and that “Our Churches” would return to a new, reformed, catholic hierarchy.  Anglicans have retained an apostolic episcopacy.  I don’t think this matters from a salvation perspective.  But from an institutional perspective, my preference would be the Anglican view here.  It is a tradition among not only the Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches, but also among the Oriental Orthodox churches and other traditions.  Lutherans, while they may not be attached to the view would not find an apostolic episcopacy difficult to accept in a broader context.  Even Presbyterians now have individuals holding the office of “Executive Presbyter” which functions much like a bishop in many ways.  Having an apostolic episcopacy helps bring us closer to the Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches and may lead to eventual reunification or at least inter-communion.  It also links us with the past, including the church through the ages.  And it would be an additional check against doctrinal drift along with theological statements such as the Anglican 39 Articles and the Lutheran and Reformed “Confessions”.

Unlike Lutherans and Anglicans (and Roman and Orthodox Christians), but, with all due respect, like the early churches described in the New Testament, Reformed denominations ordain their lay leaders as elders (presbyters), deacons and deaconesses.  I believe this tends to encourage the lay leadership of a congregation, give lay-people a greater voice in the larger Church polity and help lay leaders to take their role more seriously.  In Reformed polity, elders (or “ruling elders” along with ministers, called “teaching elders”) serve in the governance of the Church.  Lay deacons and deaconesses help in the ministries of the church to those in the community in need of help.  While, again, I do not believe this is a salvation issue, I believe the Reformed, in this case, have the better view.  The more people are brought into leadership, the more seriously they take their leadership role, and the more lay people take ownership of the Church, the better off the Church will be.

Finally, with respect to the role of women, I think the Anglican Church of North America chose correctly by deciding that, for now, each diocese would decide, for itself, whether to accept women as priests but limited the episcopacy to men.  I believe that, according to the cannons, this compromise cannot change unless pretty much everyone agrees on the change.  Paul’s letters sometimes describe elders and deacons in purely masculine terms.  And there is a paucity of female leadership in the New Testament church.  But it is not clear that it was absent.  Some women are referred to as deaconesses - simply the female form of the word deacon and implying no difference in function.  And Prisca, with her husband Aquilla, seem to have been leaders of the Church in Rome.  There was also, at the time, a paucity of female leadership in the society at large.  So church practice may have simply followed then contemporary societal practice and not represented a theological imperative.  It is also undisputed, however, that within a couple of centuries, formal ordained office was limited to men, and remains so in the vast majority of Christian churches around the world.  And I take seriously the admonition that once women are ordained to the ministry other, more clearly un-Scriptural, departures from traditional orthodoxy follow - though it is not clear what is cause and what is effect.  Christian theologians and leaders, for many of whom I have the greatest respect, have written, stridently, on one side or the other of the issue.

The role of women is disputed as much within each tradition as among the traditions.  Without finding a way to compromise, or at least finesse, this issue unity among the orthodox will never be achieved either within our among our traditions.  Feelings run high.  Each side is confident of its correctness.  The ACNA position, which is impossible in the absence of bishops, preserves (even if strained) the possibility of some sort of inter-communion with Rome, Constantinople and Moscow and allows the respective hierarchies to recognize each other as legitimate.  It allows women to participate in leadership - and women who wish to do so to find a home within the Church.  Yet no one is required to act against his or her own conscience.  For those favoring women’s ordination, the door is open.  Yet there will be places, and offices, in the Church in which women will not be able to serve.  For those opposed to the ordination of women, they must reconcile themselves to the fact that women will be ordained in some parts of the Church, to some offices.  Yet the episcopacy of the Church will be preserved in the traditional form.  For now, and until He comes again or His Spirit provides a clear answer, this seems like the best that we can do.  Nobody wins everything.  Nobody loses everything.  And hope remains for relationships with other orthodox church bodies.

I have suggested that the Eastern Orthodox churches do not represent, in themselves, the entire faith and practice of the undivided ancient church, just as the Roman church does not.  I have further suggested that the Reformation traditions, Lutheran, Reformed and Anglican, were all an attempt to re-form the Western church in its Scriptural, orthodox form, and that they have more in common with each other than these traditions separately have with the Eastern Orthodox churches.  And I have suggested that the Reformation churches, though certainly imperfect, carry within themselves aspects of the New Testament church not fully present in either Rome or the East, particularly the ultimate authority of Scripture, and which should be preserved.  I therefore concluded that seeking unity with the Eastern churches before seeking unity among the Reformation churches was the wrong way forward.  I concluded by proposing ways in which the orthodox Reformation churches might draw closer together.  They might also remember the, very Scriptural, charismatic gifts which have been largely lost in main-line churches, and look for ways to learn from other Christian traditions.

Benghazi Questions

My questions are:

Did the President take charge on 9/11?  If not, why not?

If he was in charge, did he order help for the defenders of American sovereign territory, and our ambassador, in Benghazi?  If not, why not?

If he did order help, why was it not sent?  Who disobeyed the order of the CinC?  And who will be fired as a result?

Why are there no pictures of the President in the SitRoom on 9/11 as there were when the SEALs took out bin Laden or when Sandy came ashore? 

These answers are all known to the White House and the President right now.  No “investigation” is needed.  The American people have a right to know the answers before Tuesday.

 

No Discipline in the PCUSA

I represented the prosecuting committee in the case of PCUSA vs. Rev. Laurie McNeill which was decided by the GAPJC in an opinion issued October 30, 2012 and available on the PCUSA web site. 

In October, 2009 Rev. McNeill, who was then Pastor of the Central Presbyterian Church and a member of Newark Presbytery, traveled to Massachusetts to “marry” her same-sex partner in a religious ceremony held in an Episcopal church, using an Episcopal marriage rite, presided over by Episcopal and UCC clergy, and legal under Massachusetts civil law.  She returned to New Jersey to proudly announce to her congregation and presbytery that she was “happily married.”  She followed that up by giving numerous interviews with local media proclaiming her new status, deploring the fact that her denomination did not “recognize” her marriage, and indicating she expected that charges would be brought against her. 

Charges were indeed brought that Rev. McNeill had violated the Constitution of the PCUSA (Book of Order and Confessions) as a result of her having purported to “marry” her same-sex partner contrary to the definition of marriage in W-4.9001 and GAPJC precedent in the Benton and Spahr cases.  She was also charged with violating the Constitution by being neither single nor married to a man as required by now repealed G-6.0106b.  Rev. McNeill moved to dismiss the charges in the Presbytery PJC claiming, among other things, that the Directory of Worship only governed what happened in Presbyterian worship services.  In response, the prosecution argued that Presbyterian worship, service and witness are inextricably connected and that the Directory of Worship therefore governs the worship of Presbyterians in any context.  The prosecution also argued that W-4.9001 was merely declarative of Scripture and the Confessions citing Genesis 2, 1 Corinthians 7, Matthew 5 and 9, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, the Second Helvetic Confession, the Westminster Confession and the Confession of 1967.  The prosecution’s response also specifically referred to a Teaching Elder’s ordination vows to fulfill her office in obedience to the Scriptures and to be instructed by our Confessions.  The Presbytery PJC decided to hear the motion with the trial of the case in early 2011 and, after all the evidence had been heard, acquitted Rev. McNeill of all charges and ruled the motion to dismiss moot. 

 

The not guilty verdict was appealed to the Synod PJC and affirmed in December 2011.  Before Notice of Appeal could be filed, and in violation of D-10.0105, Newark Presbytery, through its Committee on Ministry, transferred Rev. McNeill to Hudson River Presbytery over the objection of the prosecution and the GAPJC refused to stay the transfer claiming that it was without jurisdiction to protect its own jurisdiction.  After several delays in the GAPJC proceedings which pushed the decision past the recent General Assembly, appellate arguments were held on October 26, 2012 with the decision being issued October 30, 2012. 

The prosecution devoted the bulk of its appellate brief and oral argument to the Scriptures and Confessions upon which W-4.9001 was based and to which Rev. McNeill’s counsel did not respond except to disdainfully describe this analysis as a “rant” against homosexuals.  Even if W-4.9001 were not applicable outside a Presbyterian worship service, the Scriptures and Confessions, including those cited in the prosecution’s response to the motion to dismiss, clearly apply to all aspects of the life of those in ordained ministries.  Nevertheless, and even though they were part of the record on appeal, the GAPJC refused to consider these arguments because they had not been discussed at the trial itself, and perhaps, had not been specifically referred to in the charges brought against Rev. McNeill.  This is in clear distinction to the recent Davis case from 2009 in which a Presbyterian Teaching Elder was accused of viewing pornography on a church computer.  There the charges were as unspecific as to what had been violated as in this case, citing the ordination vows generally, there being nothing at all in Scripture or the Constitution which addresses pornography.  Nevertheless the GAPJC had no trouble sustaining the conviction on the general grounds that viewing porn disturbed the peace, unity and purity of the Church. 

The GAPJC in the McNeill case went on to narrowly limit the provisions of the Directory of Worship to Presbyterian worship services only thus eviscerating the Benton, Spahr and Southard cases.  All a Teaching Elder need do to avoid running afoul of W-4.9001 is to conduct the same-sex “wedding” in the context of a UCC or Episcopal worship service, so long as it is not a Presbyterian service.  Furthermore, a Presbyterian Teaching Elder can now bless such a wedding in the name of Allah rather than the Triune God and depart from the baptismal formula of “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” all so long as it is not in a Presbyterian worship service.   

In addressing the second charge, under now repealed G-6.0106b, and despite stipulated evidence that Rev. McNeill had “married” her same sex partner and was living with her in New York, the GAPJC essentially determined that because there was no direct evidence of sexual activity (pictures or a witness), there could not be a conviction.  This also is at variance with prior cases involving sexual misconduct other than homosexual activity and, if followed in the future could lead to a complete abandonment of any ability of the Church to discipline consensual sexual conduct such as adultery, pornography and consensual sex with a minor.  For example, in the Davis case, the evidence that pornography had been used by Rev. Davis was circumstantial only.  That is, once he had left the church porn was found on a computer he had used.  Yet the GAPJC applied a much higher standard in this case of homosexual misconduct.  Does anyone doubt that it should be enough to prove adultery that a male Teaching Elder and a female parishioner had stayed in the same room at a mission conference and had written each other romantic, though not sexually explicit, e-mails?  And if that is not enough, have we not abandoned any attempt at discipline for consensual sexual misconduct? 

The GAPJC altogether failed to address the prosecution’s alternate argument that G-6.0106 permitted only two statuses for ordained persons, single or married to a person of the opposite sex.  Rev. McNeill was, by her own admission, neither, being, as she proudly announced, married to a person of the same sex.  And the witness of her actions was far more strident than if she had merely presided over the “marriage” of a same-sex couple.  By participating in a same-sex “wedding” that she could not provide for her parishioners, she was essentially telling them, do as I say, not as I do. 

The decision in this case is extremely disappointing.  Most disappointing was the failure of the GAPJC to apply or even discuss the Scriptural and Confessional passages that deal with homosexual conduct and so-called “gay marriage.”  The Scriptures, as interpreted by our Confessions, should be the basis of all the Church’s decisions.  Further, the decision, by limiting the Directory of Worship to Presbyterian worship services only, opens the floodgates to all sorts of irregular worship by ordained Presbyterians having nothing to do with the homosexual issue, so long as it is conducted outside a Presbyterian worship service.  Finally, requiring direct evidence of sexual misconduct renders proof of consensual sexual misconduct of all kinds virtually impossible.   

Orthodox Presbyterians should see this as a collapse of the disciplinary process within the PCUSA.  It is already nigh on impossible to successfully bring charges for heresy, that is, departure from Biblical and Confessional theological standards.  This case provides evidence that when the conduct at issue is subject to political disagreement, the GAPJC will find every technical loophole to avoid enforcing existing standards of conduct.  Thus, even though the General Assembly this summer refused to change the definition of marriage, the GAPJC refused to enforce the existing standard and instead urged the GA, “in light of the convoluted grounds on which such cases are . . . decided [by the GAPJC]” to “provide a definitive position” on same-sex ceremonies.  Apparently the definitive positions of Scripture and the Confessions, and the GAPJC’s own past decisions such as Benton, are not enough.  We must accept the fact that, until the GA changes the standard to allow “gay marriage”, the GAPJC will, as in this case, use whatever “convoluted grounds” it finds necessary to refuse to enforce the existing standard.  So even when the orthodox position prevails at the GA, as it did this summer, no discipline will be enforced.

Chick-fil-A and Zoning Laws

The outrageous attempts by Chicago and Boston, among other locations, to prevent Chick-fil-A from opening stores in those locations, in blatant violation of the First Amendment, and solely because of the owners' theological beliefs - that homosexual behavior is sinful - point up a problem with the current structure of building and zoning laws.

While the use of these laws to prevent a business from opening because of the religious beliefs of its owners is obviously abusive, it is the existence of overly restrictive and arbitrary zoning and building laws which enable the abuse in the first place.  And these laws are used constantly in less obvious ways to stifle business and growth, increase the cost of development, and enable petty tyrants to impose their personal preferences.

Local land use laws (the building and zoning codes) are most often so restrictive that nothing can be built without obtaining some sort of exemption, special use or other discretionary exception.  And the process for obtaining those exceptions is so expensive and time consuming, and so completely without any objective standards, that the board making decisions on the exception can never be reversed or held to account for its decisions.  As a result, persons seeking to build, renovate or locate in a local jurisdiction essentially require permission from the municipality to do so.  And there is virtually no appeal from an arbitrary decision. 

Sometimes these arbitrary decisions are relatively harmless, such as a zoning board requiring a brick exterior as a condition for some variance even though the Code has no brick requirement.  Sometimes the results are far more serious than an increase in costs, however.  Our law firm has represented numerous churches and religious organizations around the country which have been denied permission to locate in a municipality under circumstances which indicate that the reason was racial or religious prejudice, or simply antipathy toward religion itself.

In Chicago, as a practical matter, any special permission, and therefore any development, requires the approval of the alderman for the ward in which the property is located.  And there is no appeal.  Thus a single individual can prevent a project for any reason or no reason, including some pretty reprehensible ones.

The solution is for building and zoning laws to be simplified, and made less restrictive, so that most projects can be built without seeking an exception or exemption as long as the rules are followed.  Where there is a need to have an exemption or special permit, the exemption should be granted based on clear, objective standards that avoid discretion on the part of the municipality.  And finally, there should be a clear path to appeal any arbitrary or incorrect decision by the municipality, or in the case of a municipality that engages in selective enforcement of its standards.  This is what the rule of law requires.

And, of course, the land use laws should explicitly prohibit any content related discrimination.  So the political or theological opinions of the owners, or espoused by the organization, would not be relevant, and churches are treated the same was as any other assembly, or similar, use.

Five Big Issues – Tax Reform

Mitt Romney, who will almost certainly be the Republican nominee for President, needs to develop a message that shows his vision for America.  He will not be able to rely on being a better manager than the current occupant of the White House.  I would suggest a five point plan for restoring America: (1) Tax Reform, (2) Health Care Reform, (3) Spending and Entitlement Reform, (4) Regulatory Reform, and (5) Energy Policy Reform.  I hope to discuss each one in turn.

Americans overwhelmingly want their tax system to be fair.  This means, for most, a system, which is the same for everybody.  That is, it should not be rigged in favor of high-income earners who can hire accountants and tax lawyers to find ways not to pay taxes.  Similarly, most agree that having half the population pay no income taxes at all to support government programs is not healthy.  The claim that every worker pays Social Security and Medicare taxes, while true, does not address this issue because both programs are designed so that, if there are no changes, these same lower income workers will receive back far more in benefits than they will pay in payroll taxes.  Thus, any money they pay in payroll taxes will come back to them and none will go to support the rest of government.  These individuals have no incentive to oppose additional government spending and tax increases because they only benefit from bigger government at no cost to themselves.  This is not healthy for them because it fosters a culture of dependency, or for the broader nation.

Gov. Romney should propose a flat tax applicable to all income, including capital gains and dividends, and the elimination of all personal deductions except the charitable deduction (at every income level) and, for people conducting businesses as individuals and not through a corporation, partnership or other business organization, the same deductions to which the business organization would be entitled.  More on the charitable deduction below, but the business deductions are necessary to equalize treatment between taxpayers who do business as individuals and those who use a business organization.  The standard deduction would be replaced by an individual, refundable credit equal to the flat tax on an income equal to the highest average income of people who today pay no income tax.  I would index the credit to overall per capita personal income so that as the economy grows, and high-income individuals earn more, the credit becomes larger. 

Under this system, people who pay no income taxes today would still pay no income taxes, but if the flat rate increased, or they earned more income, any refund they received would become smaller.  Eventually, they would start paying taxes.  The economic incentives would thus be similar to people who are paying taxes, even if lower income individuals are receiving a net benefit from the government.   

I suspect that higher income individuals will end up paying more (and higher effective rates) than today, but have a lower marginal rate, which is the rate that most affects incentives to work, save and invest.  Overall, the distribution of taxes through society will still end up with high-income earners paying the lion’s share of income taxes.   

This is simple to describe, easy to understand, obviously fair and economically beneficial.  It also has other benefits.  First, simply eliminating “many” deductions, but not virtually all, will not, in the long run, be a lasting reform.  As long as a substantial number of special deductions are there, there will be lobbyists waiting to ask for just one more for their special interest.  The only way to do reform, and keep reform, is to establish the principle of no special provisions for anyone.  Let economic incentives, not tax breaks, drive economic decisions.  Second, the cost of compliance will go down, and voluntary compliance will go way up because people will perceive the system as fairer, correct tax treatment will be easier to determine, and compliance will be easier and less expensive.  Third, it will provide equal treatment among taxpayers no matter the source of their income, and to married and unmarried individuals and couples, and those married individuals who file separately.   

But why keep the charitable deduction?  Some conservatives and libertarians would prefer the government, and particularly the federal government, stay out of doing charity altogether.  That is unlikely to be a majority opinion.  There are strong political interests in favor of the charitable deduction, and most Americans think that supporting education, the arts, religious organizations, help for the poor, and so on are worthy causes and should get some government support.  If we can eliminate, or substantially reduce, direct government support for many of these causes, and instead spur private support through the charitable deduction, it will be far preferable as public policy.

The charitable deduction is far better than direct government support for charitable causes for a number of reasons.  First, a dollar given to a charitable cause only costs the government that dollar multiplied by the flat tax rate, while direct support costs the government 100% of that dollar.  That is, if the flat tax rate is 20%, each dollar of charitable giving only costs 20 cents while direct government support costs $1.00.  Thus, charitable giving is highly leveraged.  Second, taxpayers can decide where their charitable dollars are going rather than having someone else decide.  This will be popular, and will avoid the problems of taxpayers objecting to certain charitable programs by government which they do not like. Let those who like pictures of Christ dipped into urine support that kind of “art” but leave the rest of us out of it.  Similarly, lobbyists will have less to do because the charitable dollars will be allocated by individual dollars not be special earmarks and other budget provisions. Third, private charities can administer their charitable programs far more efficiently and effectively than the government, thus providing more bang for the buck.  Fourth, because every government program becomes, in some sense, an entitlement, it is far more difficult for government programs to cut off undeserving recipients than it is for a private charity.

For those who object to higher taxes on capital gains and dividends because they will reduce needed investment, there need to be two other wrinkles in the system.  First, capital gains should be considered income only to the extent they are actually based upon an increase in the value of an asset sold.  That is, to the extent a sales price higher than the purchase price is due, in part, to inflation, no capital gains tax should be due.  This will encourage long term investing while still keeping a fair and simple system.  In addition, to keep equal treatment among business entities, dividends paid should be deductible to the corporation.  Thus, there will be no double tax on dividends, dividends will be encouraged, and there will be equal treatment of equity capital and debt which will encourage equity investing.

This system is simple, understandable, fair, and can be designed to provide the same revenue as is being provided under the current system while reducing the marginal rate for high-income taxpayers and the effective rate for low-income taxpayers.  That sounds like a win, win, win to me.

Is the current split in Christianity a Bigger deal than the Reformation?

See the article from Bob Munday making the point that there are now two religions calling themselves Christian, and we have to choose which one we will be part of.

I think I agree with him.  At the very least, the issues at stake are at least as important as the Greek/Latin split and the Reformation, if not more so.