Why Protestants should care

I don’t like Michael Gerson very much, let alone his fellow columnist E.J. Dionne, but I have to thank them for opposing Obama’s latest attack on religious liberty.  Commentary from someone I do like is here.

I am perhaps especially grateful to Gerson for his column, because he is an evangelical Protestant, and I fear that this issue will not get the attention from Protestants that it deserves.  After all, they may think, what do we care if Obama forces Catholic organizations to pay for contraception?  We don’t object to contraception; let the Catholics sort it out.  But an attack on one part of the body of Christ is an attack on all.  Obama’s attempt to give the federal government complete regulatory control over church hiring and firing was rebuffed by the Supreme Court, but it’s clear that eliminating religious freedom is a priority for him, given the extent to which he is taking political risk in order to advance that goal.  Today it is Catholic hospitals and universities, tomorrow it may be evangelical radio stations, or Protestant schools, or reformed publishing houses.

The unity of the body of Christ should be enough reason for Protestants to stand with their Catholics brothers and sisters now, but if that is insufficient, self-interest should fill that gap.  Obama and the left will be coming for you next.

On a dumb question

On tonight’s stupid question, regarding whose wife would make the best first lady, Newt tried to be convivial by saying that all the three wives of his rivals would make great first ladies. I promptly asked my lovely wife if he also thought that about his three wives.

As if I didn’t have enough already

South Carolina Republicans have just given me another reason to be prejudiced against the South.  Seriously, Newt Gingrich?  The man is an incompetent blowhard with delusions of intellectualism.

Libertine Paternalism

It’s been a long time coming, but it appears that our old friend, Mr. Vice Deputy Assistant Condom Enforcement Officer, may finally take his place among the other hardworking government officials ensuring the safety of American workplaces.  The LA city council has approved a measure that would deny film permits to those shooting porn without the proper workplace safety equipment.  But just as applications were presumably being processed for the arduous task of proctoring porn to enforce the long-standing progressive goal of a prophylactic on every penis, the producers are threatening to pack up and move.  What’s a public servant who only wants to watch porn for twenty years and then retire with a pension to do?  Clearly local action isn’t going to cut it on this issue, state or even federal intervention is needed to ensure the success of this libertine paternalism.  Government out of the bedroom and into the bedroom film sets, that’s the liberal spirit!

Belmont, Fishtown, and the Elite

Over at the New Criterion there’s a good article by Charles Murray on the class divergence between different white Americans.  While I’m not thrilled with part of his interpretive framework (does this really need to be cast as a matter of American exceptionalism?) the study itself is good, especially the statical analysis of Belmont and Fishtown (his labels for the white professional class and the white working class respectively).  He also has a discussion of the elite of Belmont that’s worth considering.

“And there could not be such a fantastic creature”

A couple posts ago I wrote that if I converted to Catholicism, it might have as much to do with annoyance at certain Protestants as any certainty regarding the Catholic church.  Oh, hi there, Mr. “I love Jesus but hate religion” Viral Video Dude.  My friend, Mr. J.C. Sanders linked to a couple good takedowns from a Catholic perspective, and I hope there are some from a Protestant viewpoint out there as well (for the sake of my sanity, I’ve come to avoid most of the online evangelical subculture).  Meanwhile, I think his video demonstrates the opposite of what he intends.

It is deeply flawed in its statements and (for lack of a better word) arguments.  Juvenile is a good descriptive of it.  But I will concede that despite  its problems, God may use it (that the devil might also use it is another, less cheerful, possibility).  God can use flawed people preaching flawed messages in a flawed medium.  That’s the premise of the video (unless the creator of it is so arrogant as to deny that there could be any flaws in the areas enumerated).  But if that’s true, then the entire case against religion collapses.  If Jesus makes use of flawed people, preaching, organizations. etc… why would we hate religion as somehow too impure for Christians to sully themselves with?  Wouldn’t we rather consider it the medium through which the gospel is preached and Christian community and doctrine preserved and protected?

I am Mitt Romney

Such should be the theme to counter the inevitable attack ads featuring Romney’s comment that he “likes being able to fire people.”  The comment will of course be taken out of context, which was that

Answering a question about health care Monday morning, Mr. Romney said he would allow individuals to have their own insurance because it would provide the insurance company with an incentive to keep its clients healthy.  “It also means that if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them,” Mr. Romney said. “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.”  He added: “You know, if someone doesn’t give me the good service I need, I want to say, ‘You know, I’m going to get someone else to provide that service to me.’”

Still, this context may need a snappier response.  My suggestion, in the event that the Democrats go all in on this line of attack, would be ads along these lines.

“Hi, I’m Nathanael Blake and when our insurance agent wasn’t doing a good job, my wife and I got a new one.  When a person or company treats us badly we don’t have to continue to give them our money, but can take our business elsewhere.  This freedom is so basic that as Americans we don’t even think about it most of the time, we just do it.  Why then is Barack Obama attacking Mitt Romney  for praising this freedom and saying he likes being able to take his business to those who give him good service?”

 

Rethinking the Inquisition

To my various Catholic friends who want me to convert: you’re most likely to succeed by making me hang out with certain sorts of Protestant.  For example, I bet I’d crack after two weeks in a pentecostal church.

Gun myths

In what looks like a case of suicide by cop, a teenager was shot and killed by police in Texas after apparently causing trouble at his school and then pointing a (handgun-looking) pellet gun at officers and making threats.  This seems to have brought some of the classic gun myths out of the woodwork.  First, some background.  “They [fellow students] could hear police charge down the hallway and shout for Gonzalez to drop the weapon, followed by several shots.  Two officers fired three shots, hitting Gonzalez at least twice, police said.”  Second, his idiot parents, “Both he and his wife, Noralva, questioned why police repeatedly shot at their son and called the shooting unjustified. “Why was so much excess force used on a minor?” he asked. “Three shots. Why not one that would bring him down?”  His wife, who demanded that the officers be punished, added: “What happened was an injustice.””  I understand that they’re distraught, but this is ridiculous, and it’s a folly that’s echoed in many of the comments on the story.

The reality is that only three shots from two officers is remarkable restraint in this sort of situation.  This isn’t TV, where it’s easy to incapacitate someone with a gun.  In the real world, someone who’s wounded may return fire and bullets can miss.  Training for this sort of situation doesn’t teach a magic leg shot that gets the perp to drop his gun and surrender, it focuses on ending the threat, which means shooting to kill.  If I were in the cops’ shoes, I would have probably entered the clip, center mass.  That’s certainly my plan if I ever have to pull a gun to defend myself, because in that sort of situation I will have made the calculation that it’s me or them, and I don’t want to be the one who dies.  The goal in a situation where one is threatened with potentially lethal force is involved is not to win with the minimal amount of force required, but to remove the threat as quickly and safely as possible, and that means shooting to kill.  All that to say that only three shots is remarkable restraint, not overkill.

Winter Roundup

The Dr. Who Christmas special was (spoilers!) weak.  Really weak.  Cats in traffic weak.  The Narnia references were kinda cool to start, then the script went straight into preachy, maudlin, predictable mode.  Bleh.  And while Dr. Who is soft sci-fi, can the writers at least try to have the gibberish make a perverse sort of sense at times?  Given that the entire previous season was a bit of a disappointment, I’m worried about this year’s effort.

Notre Dame lost the Maybe Next Year Bowl on (what else?) an interception thrown into double coverage in the end zone.  Surely somewhere there’s a booster who can pay Heisman winner RGIII to take his last year of eligibility to Notre Dame…  But seriously, the QB situation this year was the difference between 8-5 this year and a BCS bowl, and next year will be the same.  Yes, there will be other areas to address (the secondary, who will replace the best receiver in school history) but the Irish will live or die based on whether Brian Kelly can put the position in good hands.

Meanwhile in Iowa the results were surprisingly good.  Romney and Santorum in a dead heat, with Ron Paul following.  I think Romney will be the nominee (and he should have it wrapped up by the time I get to vote in the VA primary), but I agree with Ross Douthat that Santorum and Paul will sharpen him better than the other candidates.