Riverwood Presbyterian Church

Politics

There’s Something Happening Here…

by Clay Staggs

And what it is ain’t exactly clear. Politically speaking, that is.

The supposed coronation of Barack Obama may - just may - not be all that was advertised.

Now, I’m not predicting a McCain win, much though I hope for one. But, I think that several things are happening that no one could have foreseen that just don’t fit with a landslide Obama victory. I think at we’re looking at a close contest.

First, there are the polls. Wow, there are a lot of polls. Having read a good bit about them, I can confidently say that nobody knows what’s going to happen. Pew’s latest poll has Obama up by 13. Rasmussen and Gallup yesterday said Obama +3, which is within the margin of error. How to reconcile this? I can’t reconcile it, but I think I can explain the discrepancy. Every poll weights the respondents by affiliation - a certain number of Democrats, a number of Republicans, and the rest independents. How you weight those groups can wildly affect the outcome of your poll. This year, many pollsters assume that there will be a crush of newly registered voters - many college age - who will upset historical turnout patterns. Pew is obviously weighting the Democrat portion of the sample much more heavily, with the predictable result. Gallup, acknowledging that this year could have an electorate more in conformity with historical norms, has two polls - an “expanded voter” model and a traditional model. But, as anyone can see, it’s all guesswork.

The McCain campaign’s internal pollster has supposedly written a memo seeing the race MUCH differently than the public pollsters. The WSJ published it yesterday. It’s a fascinating read, and it explains why McCain and Palin do not have the same attitude that Dole had in 1996. Go read it here, especially if you’re a Republican in need of a bit of encouragement.

Whether the polls are accurate or not, they definitely show a trend in McCain’s favor. Now, Obama raised $150M in one month (September - more on that below), the mainstream media is totally in the tank for him, and the economy is in the toilet. Oh, and all citizens everywhere seem to hate George Bush and the Republican party. So how is it that McCain is even close? Curious, no?

Some things have come out in the last few days that I think are giving folks some second thoughts. First, Obama’s outsized ego seems to be getting out there more. Last night, he bought 30 minutes of air time on all four broadcast networks and several other cable outlets. With that, he presented an infomercial. Does anybody like those? It also delayed the start of what turned out to be the final game of the World Series. I suspect that will alienate more folks than it attracts.

He’s also begun speculating about the composition of his cabinet. Story here. That doesn’t exactly scream humility.

Then there are some things creeping out that are just kinda shady if not downright illegal. Remember Joe the Plumber? Ohio Democrat officeholders have apparently gone snooping - without probable cause - to see if Joe’s doing anything illegal - like not paying child support. Turns out he doesn’t owe any. The official -who’s an Obama supporter and contributor - explained that his high profile in the media prompted the search. Orwellian, isn’t it? Read about it here and here.

Then there’s Obama’s 2001 public radio interview where he talks about how the Supreme Court under Earl Warren failed to”break free of the essential constraints imposed by the founders” in the Constitution and get around to “redistributive change” as part of the civil rights movement. You can listen to the interview where Obama makes these astonishing assertions here. It really perfectly underscored the “spread the wealth” line of attack by McCain.

But the worst is the utterly outrageous scandal of Obama’s campaign contributions. Apparently, if you go to Obama’s website, put in your credit card number, but give a made up name and address, your contribution will be accepted. Have any of you ever bought anything on the internet with a credit card without having to give the billing address? You haven’t, because there’s a system called Address Verification System (AVS) that the credit card companies have established that verifies that the card number matches the name and address on file with the issuer. Folks have tested this on Obama’s site and had the transaction clear their card. See here for a first-hand report. This basic security precaution has been INTENTIONALLY DISABLED on Obama’s website. Obama also allows contributions via prepaid credit card (perfect for the foreign national who wants to contribute despite those pesky laws against that sort of thing). McCain’s site does not accept prepaid cards and uses AVS. Even the Washington Post has reported on this, though they put it on page two. Of Obama’s $150M haul in September, $100M were internet credit card donations. Reckon who those came from? What’s to stop a hacker from writing a bot to randomly generate credit card numbers with fake names? This is outrageous.

All this is percolating. Whether it will be enough to put McCain over the top remains to be seen. However, this has been easily the most fascinating election cycle of my life.

Culture Wars

God is on the bus, whether you acknowledge Him or not

by Jeff Miller

Dana found this today & blogged about it. I had to repost it on the RB.

London’s red buses will soon have ads on them. Read this article for the full effect.

A few highlights:

“Organizers of a campaign to raise money for the ads said Wednesday they received more than $113,000 in donations, almost seven times their target, in the hours since they launched the project on a charity website.”

Isn’t there a global economic meltdown? $113,000 for bus signs in hours? Of course, $9,000 of that came from Richard Dawkins.

“The money will be used to to place posters on 30 buses carrying the slogan, “There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

Now, let’s see. I’m on a crowded street in London waiting on bus to take me to a job that I may not like (or to look for a job). Maybe I have no money in my pocket. Maybe I have just found out that I or someone I love has a life threatening disease. Maybe I’m a mom with young kids in tow trying to get out for a bit. There are any number of things that could be going on in people’s lives.

But, I read a bus sign proclaiming that there is “probably” no God, to stop worrying and enjoy my life. Ah, things are looking up already. (By the way, Richard Dawkins wasn’t thrilled with the choice of words—but they had to throw in the probably to avoid offending the religious British.)

Seriously, the very idea that, with all the concerns and worries that someone may have in today’s world, being assured that there is probably no God by a bus sign is going to make anyone think about their life any differently is laughable. Fellow atheists already believe there is no God, that this is their one shot. Religious people probably aren’t going to care what is written on the side of the bus. For those wondering or searching, what does proclamation that there is probably no God do for them? Should they try a little harder to enjoy their existence a little more? How, exactly, should they do that?

One of the organizers came up with the idea after she saw a Christian poster on one of the buses. She stated that she visited the website promoted on one sign and found that it told nonbelievers that would spend eternity in torment in hell.

“I thought it would be a really positive thing to counter that by putting forward a happier and more upbeat advert, saying “Don’t worry, you are not going to hell.”

Depending on one’s circumstance in this life, the thought that this is all there is may or may not be a more upbeat thought!

From Richard Dawkins, “This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think—and thinking is anathema to religion.”

Do the atheists really want people to think, to dwell on the fact that this is all there is? That they should just quit worrying, put on their happy face and enjoy this life because that’s all there is?

There better be a website or toll free number—or directions to the nearest bar—for those who read the sign, think and don’t end up committing suicide!

Politics

A Taxing Question

by Clay Staggs

By profession, I am a tax lawyer. So perhaps these questions interest me more than others. Please bear with me as I explore the depths of my dorkiness here.

I ran across this post by Ed Morrissey, one of my very favorite bloggers, who writes at the excellent Hot Air blog. The subject of the post was a comparison of the tax plans offered by McCain and Obama, with an emphasis on how many taxpayers would be taken completely off the rolls of the federal government.

Despite what anyone may claim, the tax burden in this country (for the federal government - Alabama is a completely different story) is steeply progressive. That means that the wealthy pay far more in taxes than the not wealthy do. According to the Tax Foundation, under current law, in 2009, an estimated 47 million people will either pay no tax or pay a negative tax (i.e., get money back despite having paid none in - through the magic of refundable credits). That number will represent a full one-third of the population.

For the most recent year available (2006), according to the IRS, the top 10% of earners (that is, folks with adjusted gross income over $109,000), paid almost 71% of all personal income tax paid. There are some really interesting charts giving further details here.

Now, my question is whether this is a good thing or a fair thing. Morrisey (who is a Christian, BTW) makes the argument in his post that except for the very poorest among us, all should contribute something to the functioning of the government, because all benefit from it. His idea is that everyone should have a stake in it. Moreover, if current trends continue - especially under the plans proposed by Obama and McCain, the realm of the taxpaying public will be a minority of its population.

I think I agree with Morrissey. I do not mean to suggest that I think the poor should be taxed heavily. In fact, I think that the truly poor ought to be exempt. But after that, everyone ought to pay something.

In my ideal world, I’d support a Steve Forbes-style flat tax, with an exemption for the first $35K or so of income for a family of 4, and then a flat 17% on all income above that. The only other exemption would be for (unlimited) contributions to traditional IRAs or 401(k)s. This actually would result in a consumption tax, because all income earned is either spent or saved, and if you get to deduct what you save, then all that’s being taxed is what you spend. This would put me, as a tax lawyer, out of business, but there’s lots of other law I can practice anyway.

I’d be interested to hear anyone else’s perspective on this issue, particularly with regard to the basic propositions of fairness with regard to the low and high end earners.

Church and Worship

Saturday Evening Post

by Clay Staggs

A couple of thoughts I wanted to post this Saturday evening. It may seem as though I’m going to harsh on the Methodists; this is purely coincidental. It just so happens that these anecdotes, showing the modern church’s two frequent errors, both come from Methodist churches.

Today, we drove past a rural United Methodist Church. The signboard said “Confessing your sins is not as good as forsaking them.” Kimberly and I laughed out loud. Now, I don’t mean for anyone to read this and think that I’m urging anyone to sin. However, the clear implication of this sign was that if folks would just stop that pesky sinning, they wouldn’t have to do all that ugly confessing. This is one extreme.

The other is represented by the Rev. Jenny Cannon of Bethesda, MD. Rev. Cannon’s church is participating in a national event called “Don’t Go to Church, Be the Church.” I am not making this up; if you can’t believe this - and that would be an understandable reaction for any Christian - read the whole sorry thing from the Washington Post here.

Apparently the Bethesda United Methodist Church has canceled Sunday school and worship services, so that its members can go and perform community service work - like cleaning up a park or assembling supplies for victims of the floods of Hurricane Ike. Here’s the money quote from Rev. Cannon:

[The event] is meant to communicate that the church is “more than coming together for worship.”

So there are the two extremes. On the one hand, the church whose sign we saw clearly believes that the problem with humanity is that stubborn refusal to quit sinning. On the other, a church that believes that community service is more important than worship.

They both, though, have one thing in common: both seem to not have much need for Christ.

Politics

Mr. Ramirez Gets It

by Clay Staggs

Political Cartoonist Michael Ramirez sums up the current financial mess and the government’s response. I can’t add a thing:

Culture Wars

Great thoughts on Gresham Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism

by Eric Venable

So I was just reading a review by Carl Trueman, a British church history prof. at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia. (read anything you can get your hands on by Carl Trueman. He’s a lot of fun to read due to his brilliance, clarity and characteristic British wit that drips sarcasm). Trueman wrote a great review of Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism (a book I’ve been told that is on the future reading list for Riverwood’s book group). Check out the entire article here: http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/33-2/minority-report-the-second-most-important-book-you-will-ever-read.

I love reading about Machen because I always find the issues Machen fought back in the 20’s and 30’s to still be alive and well in the church today. There truly is nothing new under the sun. For clarity’s sake, Gresham Machen was a seminary professor at Princeton and eventually left the school because of its drifting towards theological liberalism and founded Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia. Machen is also important for us PCA folk because he foreshadowed and was a forerunner in many of the battles that southern presbyterians fought later in the 60’s and 70’s that would eventually lead to the formation of the PCA. Machen essentially attempted to reform the mainline northern Presbyterian church and was actually deposed as a minister for his efforts and then would later create the OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church), a conservative Presbyterian denomination very similar to our own.

Anyway, many viewed Machen’s brand of orthodoxy as contentious and exclusive. Machen and many others would contend that the confessional orthodoxy he was advocating was none other than the doctrines that Protestants had traditionally held for centuries, doctrines that are organically connected to the teachings of the Bible. Check out Trueman’s words concerning Machen’s “contentious orthodoxy,” his words are worth considering and quoting at length:

In an age like ours, of course, where fuzzy boundaries, vagueness, doubt, and caution are supreme virtues, Machen’s thesis is likely to appear both arrogant and overstated. But, as Machen himself says in the opening paragraphs, “In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight.” There is insight here. Before we see Machen as too intolerant, too much a man of a bygone age, let us reflect on the fact that we live in an age that is remarkably certain and intolerant on a whole host of fronts, from racism to poverty to cruelty against animals to homophobia. Regardless of where we come down on each of these issues, very few of us will be indifferent on them, or particularly laissez-faire towards those with whom we disagree on these matters.

Thus, it is not really that Machen is a man of a bygone, intolerant age which makes this little book so offensive to modern ears. We should not flatter our own enlightened times so easily, for it is not the reality of intolerance in itself that has changed. Rather, it is that we now have a different set of issues that arouse intolerance, and this change reflects not only shifting values in society but also in the church, to the extent that she no longer stands intolerantly for her truth as she once did. The question is thus not whether we are intolerant: we surely are. The question is rather: Are we intolerant of the right things? As the value of religious truth has become negligible, so the passions aroused by such in the wider world have died down. That we do not fight over these things is not a virtue; it is rather be a sign that we just do not care about them any more, and that is the result of the downgrading of the Bible in our thinking. We no longer look on it as a book of divine truth and thus of almost unbearable importance; it is now a ragbag of disparate religious reflections, or a collection of texts reflecting on religious psychology, or simply a cacophony of ancient near-eastern tribal mythology.

I really resonated with Trueman’s words here, especially what he says about the fact that we live in age that is just as intolerant as any other and that the issue is not whether we are intolerant, but what are the issues that arouse such strong opinions and reactions in us. What are the issues that we feel are worth being intolerant over? Football team loyalties? Economic bailout plans? Presidential politics?
Thoughts?