Sunday, April 19, 2009

A New Direction

I started this blog to post, among other things, political stuff to free up my facebook space. I have tried, and failed, to shake politics but it's in my blood now. As a result, it's easy to get discouraged at the recent events and rant incoherelty. Phil J. at my church felt similarly, but knew a better way. So we did someting not done in the recent history of our small church: we held a prayer meeting.

Silence. Long prayers in that silence, together with others praying silently for each other, the church leaders, and for our national leaders.

The thing about asking God for solutions is being willing to be part of the solution. Wether in politics, or life in general there is still work to be done. But, the focus must be right. Focus on the Kingdom of God, and the little things with which he entrusts us(including local politics, which more people should pay attention to). Jesus taught that if we are faithfull with a little, we will then be entrusted with more.

However, He is more than capable of handling those bigger things untill then.

Saturday, April 4, 2009

Marriage Unconsitutional in Iowa?

Yet annother state ban on homosexual mariage was savagely ripped from the books by a State Supreme Court, this time in Iowa. Erick at RedState is annoyed, because this was the express will of the people's representatives in the legistature. He accuses these judges of jucicial activism, substituting personal prefferences for legitimate legal precedent. Ace of Spades disagrees, citing the rather vague Iowa State Constitution:

Article I, section 6 of the Iowa Constitution:All laws of a general natureshall
have auniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to anycitizen
orclass of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the sameterms
shallnot equally belong to all citizens.
The real question then becomes, how can any right completely belong to all citizens? Married people, Gay or Straight, are obvioulsy put in a “different class” than the rest of us and accorded certain priveliges and immunities. Then, is the *entire concept* of marriage unconstitutioonal in Iowa?

Your honor, I smirk in your general direction and rest my case.

Many libertarians, Glenn Reynolds included, think that may just be the case. I for one think that as diversifying culture, we can no longer expect such unifying traditions to be upheld by law. Personally, since there seems no longer to be a unified tradition, I think we shouldn’t bother with laws propping up those traditions. Still, I see where they’re coming from. “Equal protection” in any document is a ridiculously vague sentiment, and easy to bend to whatever will you happen to favor. Redstate commenter evanm highlights this disconcerting passage from the rulling:

The framers of the Iowa Constitution knew, as did the drafters ofthe United
States Constitution, that “times can blind us to certain truths andlater
generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in factserve
only to oppress,” and as our constitution “endures, persons in everygeneration
can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom”and equality.
See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578–79, 123 S. Ct. 2472,2484, 156 L. Ed. 2d
508, 526 (2003) (acknowledging intent of framers of FederalConstitution that
Constitution endure and be interpreted by future generations). . .
Times can bind us to certain truths? Each thier own search for greater freedom and equality? Relativistic hogwash. What about freedom from something such as some atheists and anti-smokers claim? At some point the law may just have to throw it hands up and say "Deal with it!"Perhaps this is the kind of thing for an amendment anynow. Not only is that then permanently enshrined, no muck about legislator clauses can get in the way, and it’s completely F(r)ederalist!

As an aside, if there is enough non-assimilation into a unified "American" culture, there will be no United states, but a multi-cultural empire doomed to crumble like all its predecessors: Austria-Hungary, Poland-Lithuania, the Soviet Union, and all the colonial empires who had no loyalty for what was to them a "Foreign" government. So shall we become.

Pence rejected as speaker for Indy TeaParty

Being a fan of Mike Pence, and also a fan of the TeaParty Protests, I wondered if Pence was supporting/attending one. After leaving such a note on Pence's Facebook page, a supporter of his named Meredith sent me a note saying that he has been turned down from addressing the Indianapolis rally. I am is still waiting for a response from the rally organisers themselves to my email:

Dear sir,Thank you for taking the time to organize this outlet for Americans to
voice their frustrations with out out-of-control government. I myself hope to
attend the event up here in Elkhart. It has come to my attention that when he
offered, Rep. Mike Pence was denied the opportunity to address the crowd in Indy
because "that's not what this is about."

The event should not be about parties or specific elected officials. However, at some point this movement must have a goal besides opposition. We know what we do not want, but what shall we replace it with? I believe that as an individual, aside from parties and electioneering, Mike Pence is an excellent example by which to contrast those we oppose. He is one of the few politicians that I have seen to actually *believe* in the root sentiments of this movement, and I believe excluding him from the main event of this movement in our state is a huge mistake.

Regardless, I hope your event will be a success.

Good Luck and God bless.

I was listening to talk radio this morning, where complaints about lacking conservative recruiting and involvement were answered with "These protests are bringing [recruits] out of the woodwork." Hopefully we will come to the point of embracing these people that stand for something rather than clinging to a wandering mob mentality.