Suppose Van Gogh had had a gun...

...I'm not saying. I'm just saying.

Van Gogh, 47, a great grandnephew of the painter Vincent van Gogh, had received death threats after his recent film sharply criticized how women are treated under Islam. He was repeatedly shot and stabbed. "Don't do it. Don't do it. Have mercy. Have mercy!" the Algemeen Dagblad newspaper quoted Van Gogh as begging his killer.

(Or suppose the witnesses, who are reporting his last words, had been armed and ready to defend him...)

UPDATE: Just noticed this bit from further down in the article:

Van Gogh, an award-winning filmmaker, television producer and newspaper columnist, once mocked a prominent Dutch Jew, referred to Jesus as "the rotten fish" of Nazareth and called a radical Muslim politician "Allah's pimp."

So he insults Jews, Christians and Muslims. Pretend you don't already know the answer and ask yourself: which group would you bet would be the first to try to off him?

Uh huh. Thought so. So much for moral equivalence.

Dirt Doesn't Vote (And Other Startling Facts)

Something that has bugged me since the 2000 election is the popularity of the County by County election map. Now we have a new one for 2004. Yes, I know it is a striking image but what does it mean? That Bush won all but a few little blue specks?

Look, those blue specks, though they are small in geographic area, still represent about half of the vote. All of those red counties had Kerry supporters in them. And the whole thing includes about 45% of the population that couldn't be bothered or was ineligible to vote. I voted for Bush. I'm glad he won. I think he needs to take that victory and use it to advance the conservative cause. But lets not get drunk on self-congratulation.

A similar meme that people who ought to know better are touting is the fact that Bush received more popular votes than any president in history. Yeah? And Kerry got more votes this year than Bush got in 2000. And Jimmy Carter got more votes in 1980 than George Washington got in both 1789 and 1792.

The only numbers that matter are 286 and 252.

I Noticed This Too...

..the fact that, on election night, the networks were not calling states for Bush when other states had been called with similar margins and less %precincts reporting. But I am glad to have confirmation from someone like Joe Trippi:

Throughout the day yesterday, Joe Trippi--no Republican--repeatedly expressed puzzlement at the networks' failure to call President Bush as the winner of various states. He would point out that Bush was farther ahead in some states, with more of the vote in and with the trend running toward the President, than other states that had already been called for Kerry.

Actually, even states that had few electoral votes were being called for Bush before other states that had more. My theory is that the networks were trying to keep the drama going so that people would continue to watch their coverage rather than go to bed. But I suspect that would not have been a factor if there had been a clear win for Kerry.

One particularly egregious example was that New Mexico was not called for Bush around 1:00 AM PST even when 103% of the precincts were in. Obviously there was some screw-up with the absentee precincts (this happens frequently) but it is hard to see how such a race could still be in doubt.

The Spectre of Republican Obstructionism

Having defeated Senate minority leader and "Obstructionist in Chief" Tom Daschle the Republican majority in the Senate seems determined to squander any advantage such a victory might entail. Bork-basher and "moderate" Republican Senator Arlen Specter is being considered for head of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

The Republican expected to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee next year bluntly warned newly re-elected President Bush today against putting forth Supreme Court nominees who would seek to overturn abortion rights or are otherwise too conservative to win confirmation.

[...]

While Specter is a loyal Republican -- Bush endorsed him in a tight Pennsylvania GOP primary -- he routinely crosses party lines to pass legislation and counts a Democrat, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, as one of his closest friends.

A self-proclaimed moderate, he helped kill President Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court and of Jeff Sessions to a federal judgeship. Specter called both nominees too extreme on civil rights issues. Sessions later became a Republican senator from Alabama and now sits on the Judiciary Committee with Specter.

OK, I'm all for separation of powers and I don't want the Congress to be a rubber stamp for the White House. Also, I don't think that overturning Roe should be a primary purpose for nominating strict constructionists. (It will, of course be the result!) But anyone familiar with the Bork nomination knows that when people say they want to protect Roe v Wade, they really mean that no judge who adheres to a strict constructionist interpretation will be considered.

Yesterday I said that we would see in the coming months whether the Republican party really believes that conservative principles are beneficial to the country. It looks like I was being generous. Maybe we should just start holding our breaths now?

Via Todd Zywicki at the Conspiracy, who comments:

With Justice Rehnquist ailing, it is always fun to think of ways that Republicans can mess up their current situation, especially on judicial nominations. Let's see, the White House, 55(!) Senators--seems almost impossible to mess up. Now I have to admit that putting Trent Lott in charge a few years back was a pretty inspired move to make sure that Republicans could scuttle their own success, but can they repeat that bold stroke again? Wait, I have an idea--how about making Arlen Specter Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee! First, the President could campaign for him to make sure that he wins his primary against his conservative challenger, then when he gets reelected, the first he could do is to tell the President not to nominate conservative judges. Making Specter Chair of the Judiciary Committee seems like a boneheaded move that only the Republicans could think up in terms of how to blow the benefit of their majority.

Last time I checked, the President still had the power of judicial nominations and the Senate at least vaguely resembled a democracy. It would be ironic if South Dakota tossed Tom Daschle at least in part on his obstructionism on judicial nominations, only to find Arlen Specter serving as the Democrats bag man in the Senate.

UPDATE: Hmm. Specter denies making the comments:

"Contrary to press accounts, I did not warn the President about anything and was very respectful of his Constitutional authority on the appointment of federal judges.

"As the record shows, I have supported every one of President Bush’s nominees in the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor. I have never and would never apply any litmus test on the abortion issue and, as the record shows, I have voted to confirm Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Kennedy and led the fight to confirm Justice Thomas.

"I have already sponsored a protocol calling for a Judiciary Committee hearing within thirty days of a nomination, a vote out of Committee thirty days later, and floor action thirty days after that. I am committed to such prompt action by the Committee on all of President Bush’s nominees.

"In light of the repeated filibusters by the Democrats in the last Senate session, I am concerned about a potential repetition of such filibusters. I expect to work well with President Bush in the judicial confirmation process in the years ahead."

Via McGhee at blogoSFERICS

Arafat: Pining for the Fjords?

What is it about dictators that no one can tell when they are dead? Remember all the Soviet presidents that dropped out of the public eye with "head colds"? Now Arafat is in a French hospital and no one can seem to confirm his status. According to Reuters and the Guardian, Israeli news is claiming he is clinically dead but the Palestinians deny it:

Palestinian President Yasser Arafat was determined to be clinically dead on Thursday in a French hospital, Israel's Channel Two television said citing French sources.
But Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurie denied the report, saying: "I have just spoken to the officials in Paris and they say the situation is still as it was. He is still in the intensive care unit." [Reuters]

President Bush says "God bless his soul". I say, what took so long? And when is Castro's turn coming?

Balance of Power

Well, the Republican party has held on to the executive branch and has increased its hold on the legislative. According to CNN, Republicans gained at least 2 (and possibly 4) seats in the Senate, bringing the total to 53 to 44 with 2 undecided. They have gained 4 seats in the house (231 to 200 with 1 independent and 3 undecided) and had no net gains or losses to the control over state governorships (28 to 21, 1 undecided). And, of course, Bush defeated Kerry with 286 electoral votes and 51% of the popular vote. So it would appear that conservatives now have the capacity to undo a great deal of the damage that the left has caused to this country and no excuses for failing to make the attempt.

Of course, this was largely true four years ago as well. I don't want to dampen the justifiable enthusiasm that Republicans are feeling at the moment, but when the euphoria wears off in a week or two, we will still have a country to run.

I trust President Bush to prosecute the War on Terror and to keep taxes low. But we also need to cut domestic spending and do something to restrain the judiciary (the one branch of government where conservatives are not obviously in control). Now that reelection is not an issue for Bush, he needs to challenge Congress to approve (or at least bring to a vote) his judicial nominees and he needs to lead his majority to return to a policy of fiscal responsibility.

If conservatives really believe that small government is good for the the country, they will see that these moves will ensure a strong prospect for continued political dominance. The actions of the Republicans in the next few months will be the test of whether they actually do believe that.

UPDATE: Eh. While I was writing that, the two undecided Senate seats have come in for the Republicans. The score is now 55-44 with one independent.

Third Party Strategy

I have been registered to vote as American Independent Party (a basically theonomic party which also goes by the name of Constitution or Taxpayers party in other states) for at least 10 years. I don't have much hope that they will win and I usually vote Republican unless the candidate is so bad I can't in good conscience support him/her. But I have always argued that the better strategy would be not to run a presidential candidate but to try to get our people elected to state and US Congressional offices. This would give us some leverage in national elections, especially when it was a close race, and we could use that leverage if not to win the presidency, at least to influence White House policy. An emailer to Ramesh Ponnuru makes a similar point at The Corner:

"Ramesh makes a good point (in his noon post) concerning 3d parties. But, the one thing I don't hear anyone address is why all these 3d parties run for President, but don't (normally, except for California) run for Congress or the Senate. It would seem that a 3d party with a serious long-range view, would concentrate national resources on winning a couple of Congressional seats a year. Then (after 10 or so wins) they would try to get a few senators elected. Think of the power 5 Senators would have if they were conservative (actually, the power would be the same no matter their leanings, I would just like it more if they were conservative), and the Senate was nominally split down the middle. Now, they could run a presidential campaign, and use their electoral votes to influence things."

NOTE: In the interest of precision, I want to point out that I don't agree with all of the positions of the AIP. I think the anti-immigration plank of their (our?) platform is unbiblical as well as imprudent. But I like the idea of Christians forming independent coalitions with the governing party, rather than giving blank-check endorsement by joining its ranks. And I think the above-mentioned strategy makes more sense than continually spending money and effort trying to win a presidential race that everyone knows is currently impossible.

Conservative Ghost Stories?

This post should have been made on Halloween, but I didn't read John Miller's article in time. But since it deals with Russell Kirk, perhaps it will fit with All Saint's day instead:

As one of the great conservative minds of the 20th century, Kirk is best known as a founding intellectual of a modern political movement. When he wasn't writing books about Edmund Burke or columns for National Review, however, he was scribbling away for publications such as Fantasy and Science Fiction, London Mystery Magazine, and New Terrors. In 1958, T. S. Eliot wrote to him: "How amazingly versatile and prolific you are! Now you have written what I should have least expected of you — ghost stories!"

[...]

Kirk deserves a place alongside the classic authors of supernatural fiction, such as Algernon Blackwood, H. P. Lovecraft, Arthur Machen, Edgar Allen Poe. The books of these writers are still in print, and are usually found on the "horror" shelves at mainstream bookstores.

What sets Kirk apart from most genre writers, however, is a sharp moral imagination. "The better uncanny stories are underlain by a healthy concept of the character of evil," he wrote in a short essay that is included in Off the Sand Road. "Defying nature, the necromancer conjures up what ought not to rise again this side of Judgment Day. But those dark powers do not rule the universe: by bell, book, and candle, symbolically at least, we can push them down under."

Every time I turn around, I find more reasons to like this guy. I have read Roots of American Order and found it to be a book I would like to have written myself. Now, I find that Kirk also shared my other passion for the Horror/Fantasy genre. My favorite quote is the following:

Kirk seemed to think that conservatives especially would appreciate ghostly fiction, given its requirement that readers acknowledge their inability to know all things — a foundational principle of modern conservatism. "Mine was not an enlightened mind," Kirk once wrote, "it was a Gothic mind, medieval in it temper and structure. I did not love cold harmony and perfect regularity of organization; what I sought was variety, mystery, tradition, the venerable, the awful. I despised sophisters and calculators; I was groping for faith, honor, and prescriptive loyalties. I would have given any number of neo-classical pediments for one poor battered gargoyle."

That, in a nutshell, is exactly what this blog is all about.

Post Tenebras Lux

The first Carnival of the Reformation is up at Jollyblogger. Not only has David Wayne done a monumental lot of work in organizing and collating this event, but he has actually found time to comment on each of the entries! Here is what he has to say about my humble entry:

There's a new R. C. in town, in fact, his initials are R. C. S. But this is R. C. Smith, not R. C. Sproul. He has the Jack of Clubs blog and enters this carnival with his post titled Sola Scriptura and Theonomy. He has some affinities with the other R. C.'s in that he speaks his mind plainly and he argues his case very biblically, confessionally and logically. In this post, he is attempting to apply the principle of Sola Scriptura to political theory, and he is applying through the grid of theonomy. If you are not familiar with the term "theonomy" it is a compound of the Greek words for "God" and "Law," and, as a movement has been chiefly concerned with the application of the Old Testament law to modern civil government. Theonomy has suffered at the hands of its advocates and critics. Some of it's advocates have been extremists who are, frankly, rather scary. On the other hand, many of its critics have failed to read the better theonomists and have criticized a caricature of the movement. This is why it is a good idea to read Jack of Clubs. He is a thoughtful theonomist who argues his case very well. In this carnival entry, he offers some good insights into the theonomic movement itself (insights which the critics need to read) and some worthy applications of the doctrine of sola scriptura to politics.

Such high praise (especially from someone who claims not to be particularly enamoured of my point of view) is rather intoxicating. Everyone involved owes David a huge amount of thanks for all his work.

The next Carnival will be on 12/20/04 and, appropriate to the Christmas season, will be on the theme of Solus Christus. Entries are due 12/16 at 6:00 PM EST.

UPDATE: For those curious about the title of the carnival, it is latin for "After darkness, light." It is the caption on the Wall of the Reformers in Geneva.

Counting on Stupidity

A couple of weeks ago, I received an emal pointing to this site asking (ostensibly) for the help of all conservative bloggers in debunking some anti-bush documents:

You exposed RatherGate by proving the CBS documents were fake -- nice work! But now the liberals have found a bunch more documents so our work is not done. Let's get to work proving that these are fake, too!

[...]

Are there any other fake documents we are missing? Please send them to us so we can post them on this site for conservative bloggers to debunk.

Don't lose faith! Some conservatives don't think it is possible to debunk these documents. But real Bush supporters know that anything is possible with a president as great as ours.

I didn't think much about this, but it sounded a bit suspicious. But, mainly because I am usually more critical of the inappropriate tactics of my own side, my first reaction was irritation at my fellow conservatives. It only vaguely occured to me that this might be a ploy by the left to discredit both Bush and the blogosphere in general. Maybe I should turn in my pajamas for not following up on the matter as BlogCritics evidently did.

But now these operatives have gone one step further by sending out the following email, less than a week before the election (my email was dated Thursday, 10/28):

A week ago, we sent you an email asking for help debunking anti-Bush documents. After receiving hundreds of responses, it become clear that all the documents were actually real: the Bush/Cheney DUIs, the Ken Lay letters, and even the bin Laden memo.

[...]

We also received hundreds of emails from concerned bloggers that
eloquently expressed the problems with the Bush administration. And as we traveled across America campaigning for Bush, we learned more than we wanted to know about Bush's policies. We came to see that this administration is a catastrophe for most people.

As a result, we are abandoning our support of Bush and officially
endorsing John Kerry for President.

[...]

We deeply regret our misguided support and apologize for our previous email. This will be the last email we will send directly to bloggers.

Now, I have nothing against satire, but this seems to pretty clearly cross the line into outright lying. I have plenty of faith that most of my fellow conservatives will not be taken in by this tactic, but it strikes me that the left probably does think we are stupid enough to fall for it. And the blandishments in the first email, praising the blogosphere for exposing the Rathergate memos, is even more insulting.

Democracy can only work if the people have a general sense of confidence that the system works. It doesn't seem to have occured to these people that, if their tactics had worked, they would essentially be destroying the only point in winning the election: the improvement of our government and the betterment of our country.

This whole thing leaves a rather sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. If this is really what we have come to, the God help us. But I'm not quite ready to entertain such a low opinion of my fellow Americans.

NOTE: A commentor at BlogCritics points out that the Republicans are equally guilty of this sort of thing at Communists For Kerry, which was aparently taken seriously by Fox News. I don't think this is quite the same, since the satire is much more obvious and I haven't heard of any similar deceptive email campaigns. But then, I wouldn't have gotten those emails anyway, so you be the judge.

New Blog Alert

My friend Andrew Matthews has joined the blogosphere at Unpopular Opinions. As a fellow Calvinist, Theonomist and Reformed Episcopalian, his blog is almost guaranteed to live up to its name. (That will all have to change, of course, when we take over the world. Bwahaha. But for the forseeable future, I think he's pretty safe.)

Andy has come out swinging with the following list of assertions:

1. Divine government is monarchical.

2. Human authority is derived from and patterned after the divine monarchy.

3. Jesus Christ is now both de jure and de facto King of kings.

4. The New Covenant is a universal administration of God's kingdom that encompasses all human societies, including the nations.

5. Enlightenment revolutionism (whether American, French, or Bolshevik) is the political expression of anti-Christ.

6. Religious sectarianism is the ecclesiastical counterpart to political revolutionism and is the religious expression of anti-Christ.

7. Christendom is roughly equivalent to the visible kingdom of Christ.

8. The Church's task is to disciple all nations in the obedience of Christ. This is an essential aspect of catholic Christianity.

I have already hinted at my response to this view at the end of my Sola Scriptura post in the Liberty sub-section. But I have no doubt that this will be an ongoing debate, to which I certainly look forward.

Welcome to the blogosphere, Andy!

Wake Me When the Worms Start Doing the Research

My friend Pastorius sends this link and asks for my comments:

Estimate for Number of Human Genes Slashed

In a blow to human vanity, researchers now say that people have about the same number of genes as a small flowering plant or a tiny worm. The new estimate is down sharply from just three years ago.

"We (humans) don't look very impressive in the competition," said Dr. Francis Collins, co-author of the new analysis by the international group that decoded the human genome.

I don't think I have much to add to what Pastorius has already said, but here are some of my thoughts.

First, the notion that human vanity is tied up in our gene count is rather absurd. When was the last time you walked into a bar and said "Hey, baby! Want to see my genetic profile?" Unless she is a Nazi lover, I doubt she will be very "impressed". As in most things, it isn't the size that matters so much as how you use it.

Curiously, this very point is made by the article in question. Below the fold, of course, but there none the less:

So how can humans be so complex with relatively few genes?

In comparison to simpler organisms, Collins said, humans benefit more from genes that turn out multiple proteins rather than one, and from complex proteins that do more than one job. And anyway, lots of biological complexity is based not on individual proteins but on combinations, which can create lots of variety from the proteins found in people, he said.

Lander said he's not concerned that the number of human genes has turned out to be so limited.

"To the contrary, I think it's great news," he said, "because what it means is we already know a lot about most human genes."

This is an all-too-common tactic in rhetorical journalism: set the emotional tone you want to create in the first few paragraphs then add any contrary evidence at the end, where most people will not read it or, if they do, will read it in the context of the lead. This gives the illusion of balanced reporting without actually providing its substance.

There would be nothing wrong with this if the absolutist statements at the begining had been flagged as open to dispute. Clearly Collins' statement that "we don't look very impressive" is thoroughly contradicted by the fact that we use the limited genetic material much more efficiently. I guess it goes back to what you are impressed by, but the complexity of the genetic code is a major point in the argument for Intelligent Design. Without going too far off the topic, here is a brief description of how this mechanism works.

DNA uses sequences of four basic amino acids (Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Taurine) to form its instruction set. These four (usually represented as A, G, C and T) make up the "alphabet" of the DNA code. A sequence of DNA might look like this:

AGTTCAACTG

This sequence has 10 characters which would be "read" by messenger RNA three characters at a time to form "words". So the above sequence would be read as

AGT, TCA, ACT, G

Three words with the final incomplete word being ignored. However, if you start reading at a poiint shifted by one character, it is also possible to read this sequence as

A, GTT, CAA, CTG

Similarly we could shift two characters and read

AG, TTC, AAC, TG

This would give us only two complete words and two incomplete ones. Now for some sequences, those alternate readings would be meaningful and for others it would not. But the point is that information can be stored in a very compact way as long as the mRNA "knows" how to get it back out again. Pretty impressive for my money.

But returning to the article, I think the impression they are trying to give is that humans are really nothing special. But, as Pastorius point out, this is certainly not proven by their materialistic analysis. A more instructive comparison of worms and men may be found in Psalm 22:

1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
2 O my God, I cry in the day time, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.
3 But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.
4 Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.
5 They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.
6 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8 He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.
9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.
11 Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.
12 Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.
13 They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion.
14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
19 But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me.
20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.
21 Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.
23 Ye that fear the LORD, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.
24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.
25 My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that fear him.
26 The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever.
27 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.
28 For the kingdom is the LORD's: and he is the governor among the nations.
29 All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul.
30 A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.
31 They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this.

It is worth noting that Jesus quoted this psalm from the cross, when he had taken the worm-like sins of men upon himself in order to defeat them. As I said, it depends on what impresses you.

Logic Monkey

I've been linked (and blogrolled!) by fellow culture warrior Logic Monkey as an additional anti-Chomsky resource. Ironically, he cites my post defending my lack of interest in rebutting Chomsky. Well, I did think that was one of my better written posts, but it is funny that it has generated the majority of my popularity (such as it is) either directly or indirectly. (It was that post which made me aware of JollyBlogger, which eventually led to my joining the League of Reformed Bloggers.)

Logic Monkey is a bit more of a firebrand than I, but, judging by his blogroll, he has very sensible reading tastes including: G.K. Chesterton, Charles Williams and Tammy Bruce. (That last link I didn't know existed!) I don't pretend to be worthy of inclusion in that list, but am glad to be included all the same.

Sola Scriptura and Theonomy

Since I am generally more concerned with political rather than theological issues (with praxis rather than poesis for you Greek buffs) I have decided to focus my Sola Scriptura submission for the Carnival of the Reformation on the application of that principle to political theory and jurisprudence. Obviously such a topic is far too vast for a blog entry, but I will limit myself to discussing the parallels between the doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture and the principles of theonomy.

First some definitions. As an Anglican, I hold to the formulation of Sola Scriptura as described in Article VI of the 39 Articles: "Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation".

Holy Scriptures containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

By saying that I hold to this statement, I am not, of course, denying the validity of the other reformed statements on the subject. The Westminster confession is much more detailed for those that like things nailed down rigorously and I think the Belgic Confession's formulation is the cat's pajamas. But for my money, the succinctness and humility of the English reformers is a major selling point because they say exactly what needs to be said and then stop.

But, speaking of humility, the observant reader will note that the very next article "Of the Old Testatment" states:

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and man. Wherefore they are not to be heard which feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet, notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.

There is a similar discussion in Westminster (Article XIX). So any Reformational understanding of the civil state must take into account this provision that the Law of God cannot be incorporated directly. I believe, however, that a proper understanding of the principle of Sola Scriptura is the key to navigating this strait between Biblical Formalism and Enlightenment Liberalism.

Limited Scope

Note, first of all, what is not said. The most common misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura is that it asserts that the Bible is the only source of knowledge of God or, more radically still, that the Bible is the only truth. But this is clearly not what is intended. The "sola" means simply that scripture is the only necessary authority for learning what we need to be saved.

Similarly, theonomy should never assert that the Bible is the only valid source of civil law or that governments that have non-biblical laws are illegitimate. This is the surest sign of a Kool-aid drinker and has caused untold strife among the Reformed community -- and, incidentally, has given theonomy a bad name. Rather, the assertion should be that the Law of God is the best, and ultimately the only, reliable standard of justice and all human laws should be evaluated in its light.

Reason and Wisdom

Another point worth noting is the phrase "proved thereby". This is an acknowledgement that scripture must be read with wisdom and discernment in order to understand the message. There is a common expression in the evangelical community that we have "no creed but the Bible". This sounds clever, but it is actually a recipe for disaster. If we are not allowed to draw conclusions and general principles from scripture -- that is to apply our faculty of reason to it -- we will be condemned to repeat the theological errors of past generations or, at best, be forced to re-invent orthodoxy in every age. (I think this attitude among Christians is a major reason for the current distress of our culture, but a full discussion of that will take us too far off topic.)

Again there is a parallel here with theonomy. A common charge against theonomists is that we are attempting to create heaven on earth or, more sinisterly, to re-institute the Old Testament theocracy (a thing which never existed, but that is a topic for another day). I admit that there are some theonomists who talk this way, but the fact is they are as full of crap as their critics. The real goal should be to establish as just and peaceful a society as humanly possible. In the words of the Book of Common Prayer "that we may pass our time in rest and quietness" (from the Collect for Peace in Evening Prayer). To achieve such a society, of course, requires a virtuous people and wise and prudent governors in addition to Biblical principles. The clearest example of this principle is found in the reign of Solomon (*ahem* before 1 Kings 11). He had the Law, of course, but his reign was the golden age of Israel because of his further gift of wisdom.

Liberty

The most important thing to remember about Sola Scriptura is that its purpose is the liberty of the Christian. We see this in Aritcle VI in the provision that whatever is not found in scripture "is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith". The concern of the reformers was not to state an abstract epistemological principle, but to correct a specific abuse that had crept up in the church: the multiplying of religiuos obligations and observances that were never required by God. Too often in evangelical and reformed churches this principle is seen as an end in itself; as if the purpose of worshipping God were to avoid any unbiblical practices, rather than the other way around. This back-door pharisaism is particularly ironic because it uses the very principle that ought to free us from fear as a source of anxiety -- the haunting fear that we might do something that isn't found in the Bible.

In the same way, the purpose of establishing God's law in the civil state should not be looked at as a sign of victory for our side or a glorying in the foreskins of the heathen. Rather it should be because the only true liberty comes from obedience to God and trust and respect for one's neighbor. In a just and well-ordered society, the citizen knows what to expect and what is expected of him. I personally believe that the true biblical model is democratic (on the strength of 1 Samuel 8 and the beautiful parable of Jathom in Judges 9:7-15) but, again, that is another discussion. The real crux of the issue, with which I will close, is found in Deuteronomy 4: 5-8:

See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people." What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?

I can't think of a better aspiration for civil government.

Two Posts About Abortion

FIRST: note this page of survivors of abortion attempts:

It's something that is rarely discussed, but sometimes children do survive abortion attempts. It's impossible to know exactly how many survive. However, here are a few stories of individuals we know have survived abortion attmepts. Some of them escaped relatively unharmed. Others were profoundly injured by their abortions. Their stories deserved to be told, regardless. Where possible, a photo of the abortion survivor has been provided so that you can attach a real, human face to the victims of abortions, who are so often dehumanized by efforts to defend abortion.

Is it significant that all of these survivors happen to be women? Probably not, but it's worth noting that when people talk about a woman's right to choose, she may be preventing another woman from ever realizing that very right.
(Food Chain: A Physicist's Perspective -> Blogicus)

SECOND: Is it possible that abortions are actually on the rise under the Bush administration?

I look at the fruits of political policies more than words. I analyzed the data on abortion during the George W. Bush presidency. There is no single source for this information - federal reports go only to 2000, and many states do not report - but I found enough data to identify trends. My findings are counterintuitive and disturbing.

Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year, mostly during the latter part of the decade. (This data comes from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute's studies).

Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.

I found three states that have posted multi-year statistics through 2003, and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky's increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3% from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002. I found 13 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3% average decrease).

(Via Andrew Sullivan)

I don't buy the argument (not included in the above quote) that the rise in abortions is due to the faltering economy. This comes more from leftist speculation than actual data. And the author notes that the data are incomplete, which seems like a pretty serious caveat.

I have often pointed out that people should not be single issue voters on the abortion question, especially at the presidential level where the impact is indirect at best. Ultimately this battle will be won by changing the culture, not changing the laws.

But if this report turns out to be accurate, it is still rather depressing.

UPDATE: Hmm. Looks like the study may not be that accurate after all. This from the National Right to Life:

A piece by a California seminary professor is appearing on the internet and an in several newspapers claiming that abortions have increased under the Bush administration. While trotting out what appear to be detailed statistics from several states, the professor has one basic problem: his numbers don’t hold up.

[...]

There have been no national figures published beyond 2000. Setting aside for the moment the question of whether the sixteen states Stassen uses to support his claim of a reversed national trend are representative of the country as a whole, Stassen’s case falls apart when one attempts to confirm the data he has reported.

[...]

That would leave just 6 increasing versus 8 decreasing states, the opposite of what Stassen claims. Stassen’s case falls apart.
Stassen’s thesis that abortion increases can be linked to job losses and other economic factors doesn’t even hold up to his own data.

While some states where Stassen said abortions increased also saw increases in their unemployment rates over those same years, there are also plenty of counter-examples. Illinois’s abortions dropped substantially between 2002 and 2003, in spite of its unemployment rate being stuck at 6.7%, among the worst in the nation. Ohio’s unemployment rate rose considerably relative to most other states, but abortions there declined. If the economic determinism Stassen assumes was valid, those state results would be reversed.

This is quite a relief. And note that they confirmed my earlier caveats about the incompleteness of the data and the bad-economy explanation. Of course, National Right to Life is not going to be perceived as an unbiased source by the general public, but I am less concerned about how this affects the election than about the overall effectiveness of the pro-life movement. I have been arguing lately that we are winning the abortion debate and I would hate to see that proved false.
(Via The Corner)

Boldness and Blunders

A US Marine emails Andrew Sullivan the best defense of Bush's record in post-war Iraq that I have seen. I quote the message in its entirety:

"I was stationed at a base (Al Taqqadum) South-West of Fallujah that we took over from the 82nd Airborne. Your writing about the Abu Graib prompted me write this. It is an explanation of why so many in the military favor Bush, even though we are the ones suffering the most because of his mistakes:

It is an old military maxim that blunders can be forgiven, but a lack of boldness cannot. There will always be blunders. The simple becomes difficult in war. Take for example the following question: what is 2+2 equal too? An easy question right? Now imagine I gave you 15 such questions and you had 2 seconds to answer them. Most likely you would answer some and leave the rest. Looking at those questions you missed in isolation I might say, "What kind of blathering idiot are you? You can't even answer simple questions like 2+2=4". That is why Armchair Generals are so annoying. They look at one thing in isolation with all the time in the world to think about it and say confidently "the answers obvious". But when you are out in the fight everything looks different. Nothing is ever seen in isolation. You never have enough time. You never know more than 1/10 what you need to know. There will always be blunders.

But the job has to get done anyway. And to get this kind of job done boldness is essential. A leader who never blunders, but who doesn't take the fight to the enemy is worthless. A leader who sets about to win - win ugly if needs be - is priceless.

One thing the Marine Corps taught me is that a 70% solution acted on immediately and violently is better than a perfect solution acted on later. My experience has proven this true time and again. The sad fact is however, that a 70% solution is a 30% mistake. And those mistakes can be hard to take. In WWII for example, 700 soldiers drowned in a training accident in preparation for D-Day (that is about how many combat deaths we've experienced so far in Iraq).

There is a scene in the movie "We were Soldiers" that says it better than I can. In the scene a young soldier on the ground is giving directions on enemy positions to aircraft flying overhead. The aircraft then dropped Napalm on the enemy. At one point the soldier gets the directions wrong and stares horrified as the Napalm is dropped on his own unit. The soldier is shaken beyond belief. He sat there doing nothing - paralyzed by his mistake. Then his Commanding Officer gave him the confidence to carry on. The CO told him to "forget about that last one" and "you're keeping us alive here". And so the soldier swallowed his guilt and kept doing his job and thereby saved the unit. That is what a 70% solution looks like in real life. And those are the 70% solutions that win wars.

Most people and events are beyond your control. Most questions you don't have time to answer. Most facts you will never know. But you have to press the attack anyway. No matter how ugly it gets, you keep going until you win.

Kerry doesn't understand that. Everything he did during the Cold War and everything he says about this one states as much. He represents those who would never blunder, but who would not take the fight to the enemy. He would just sit there - like the soldier in the movie - paralyzed by America's mistakes."

Lets Not Make This About Hair, People

Michelle Malkin is spot on about John Edwards' hair video:

It's all icky creepy. But that's TV for ya. I don't hold it against John Edwards that he cares about how he looks when appearing in a visual medium. Every one of the politicians running for high office (with the possible exception of Ralph Nader) does. Big deal.

And before Bush supporters get carried away with the Edwards video, remember that this is a cheap Michael Moore-ish tactic. He used the same kind of clandestine footage of President Bush preparing for a televised speech--as well as similar outtakes of Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz getting ready for TV interviews --to mock the Administration in his crockumentary, Fahrenheit 9/11.

If you want to have a fair laugh at Edwards' expense, forget the hair video and just watch his debate performance again.

I'm no fan of TV and I have the kind of hair that could get me kicked out of your better homeless shelters. But even I know that this sort of preparation is necessary for a visual medium.

I really wish we could have had a better Democratic ticket so that this election would be decided on principle rather than image. And I wish we were the kind of country that decided things based on principle rather than image. But the lack of such an ideal world is no excuse for rushing to the lowest level. Leave that sort of tactic to the Democrats and lets focus on the weaknesses of the Kerry/Edwards platform.

Wikipedia as a Proxy for Left/Right Integrity

The Proprietor at NDegrees makes an interesting observation:

I'm a fan of Wikis and the Wikipedia in particular, but as Orin Kerr points out on Volokh, it's important to know the limitations of the genre. In general, the reliability of the Wikipedia information on a particular topic is inversely proportional to the level of controversy and passion elicited by that topic. Kerr uses the Patriot Act entry as an example and points to major factual errors in the current entry. And if he corrects the problems, Kerr asserts, "someone else will come along and 'correct it back.'" No doubt this is true.

Perhaps the most egregious example of this is the Wikipedia page on George W Bush. When I went to visit this entry a few minutes ago, the primary picture of Bush had been replaced with a subtle, yet vile, photoshopped version. Being the upstanding citizen that I am, I went in and edited the page and removed the picture (I would have done the same if it were the Kerry page). Within 5 minutes, the photoshopped version was back. I checked the history page and there have been 59 modifications of the page so far today. Of these modifications, the comments on about a third of them read something like "removed vandalism"; another third appear to be substantive changes to the page; the remaining third, one can assume, are responsible for inserting the vandalism.

[...]

For comparison, I checked the John Kerry page as well. As you would expect, it has also seen a lot of activity (18 changes today) and some vandalism but not as much as the Bush page.

Now the point is obviously that unregulated populism is unreliable on controversial topics. That is pretty much what "controversial" means -- lack of popular consensus.

But I find it interesting that the Kerry page got fewer modifications, therefore, presumably less vandalism. Could that be taken as a rough indication of the greater self-control and respect for opposing views? Especially since the conventional wisdom is that the demographics of internet users skew to the right?

Well, the first objection would be that this is simply anecdotal information, which doesn't generally prove much. Granted.

A more subtle objection would be that, even if it is significant, the event in question may just indicate that Kerry supporters are less likely to correct the vandalism against their guy, thus requiring fewer actual vandalism attempts from the right. I don't in the least buy this, but without further data it can't be dismissed a priori. But still, this seems to comport with lots of other anecdotal, unscientific impressions I have gained over the years. And quite a lot of my fellow converts from the left seem to have similar impressions.

Anyway, food for thought.

Leftist Uprising?

Pastorius at Christians United Against the New Anti-Semitism (CUANAS) notes the following disturbing post at Winds of Change:

Talk of violent "resistance" is common on campus when the possibility of a Republican victory is raised. I know for a fact that after 2000 they will never simply accept the democratic process in this country and wait 4 years for another chance; rather, they will do all they can to de-legitimize the entire American process itself. And as philosophers have understood for a long time, the power of any institution can only remain in power as long as it remains quasi-mystical in the minds of its subjects. That is, as soon as the democratic process is questioned, it no longer works. We used to tolerate being governed by those we don't agree with because of the legitimacy conferred upon them by democratic elections. The fact that we are appealing to the UN, the organization with Libya and the Sudan on its human rights committee and Syria on its security council, to monitor OUR elections, in the country where modern democracy was born, terrifies me. Once our process has been besmirched, why should we be content to remain within the system? The hate-filled ideologues at my university gain self-satisfaction by thinking of themselves as "dissidents," and I know several who intend to bring anarchy if the election doesn't go the way they want.

Pastorius comments:

I think it is worth taking Gonzalo's warning under advisement.

While I do to some extent believe Gonzalo's warning to [be] legitimate, I don't believe there is much of a threat of mass physical violence emanating from the halls of academia. Call me naive, but

1) I don't believe the competing ideologies of the left can create, organize, or sustain violence on a mass scale.

2) I don't believe that academia possesses the actual surge of masculine energy required to carry out an organized war.

And, finally,

3) I don't believe they have a large plurality with the strength of conviction required to get anything done. (Of course, the academic left has been a seminal influence in the creation, organization and sustaining of violence in countries where they did have a base with strength of conviction.)

I would add:

4) They aren't armed. We are (for the time being).

But I digress. Pastorius continues:

To put it bluntly, I think the academic left is a whole population of children at play. They are not real people participating in a real world. Their ideas boil down to "how can we mug the power structure so we can get something for nothing" and thus do not contain any real weight. There is no there there. They are purely anti-structural. All they can really do is say "no," in the manner of children playing in a room who are suddenly interrupted by a parent telling them it is time to do their homework.

What the academic left does best is create chaos. They do this very well. They have now educated several generations of people, who have moved into positions of power in business, media and law who's agenda is generally how to verbally riot and collect booty. Their angry words and pretty "let's share everything - we're entitled" values continue to appeal to new generations of young people who feel hopeless and afraid of the prospect of having to become responsible.

The academic left is winning the slow war against responsibility and accountability by introducing ever-increasing chaos into the systems of the West. They will continue to file motions and write articles and stage P.R. events. They will continue to use clueless Hollywood stars to give themselves an aura of hipness. They will continue to, like Moloch, feed on the children whose lives they destroy by starving them of reality. That's what they can do. That's what the left is good at.

But, actually organizing a real resistance? Hah.

But, of course, in the final analysis an organized resistance isn't really necessary. The Rodney King riots in L.A. and the WTO riots in Seattle show how much damage the left is still capable of inflicting, even if they aren't organized. And the signs do indicate a serious level of rage among leftists, even those not on the fringe. So this is certainly worth keeping an eye on.

Sexiest Woman Promotes Family Values

Sort of:

Angelina Jolie, who manages to mesmerize men -- and fight off robot invaders -- with just one eye in her latest movie, has been named the "sexiest woman alive" in the latest edition of Esquire magazine.

[...]

She also reveals that she recently bought an airplane and is taking flying lessons, a hobby she embraced because she and her 3-year-old adopted son share a fascination with planes.

"I have to concentrate on my son," she said. "That's why I have lovers right now and not a boyfriend. I don't want my son to start calling somebody Daddy unless that person's gonna stay."

How heart-warming. No really, I'm touched. Where do you even start with the Consitutional ammendment for this one?