Thursday, November 29, 2007

Briton Convicted in Sudan Blasphemy Case

Today's news just doesn't let up with strange stories, like this one.

Another Reason Peace in the Middle East is not on the Horizon

In case we might think another peace conference has made a difference, read Daniel Pipe's column in the Jerusalem Post to see that Israel's negotiating partners all stumble over the thought of accepting Israel as a Jewish state. There are no surprises, but a good dose of reality nonetheless.

Scientists Turn Human Skin Cells Into Stem Cells

This news, reported by various sources, including this article, is a stunningly important development in the whole realm of stem cell research and cloning. It means that embryos are not the only source of stem cell material. The research is so promising that Dr. Ian Wilmut, the famous embryologist who cloned Dolly the sheep and started the whole cloning frenzy, has announced that he has given up using embryonic cells and is following the lead of the researchers from Japan (and other places) who have shown the promise of non-embryonic cells in creating stem cells.

In short, there is another way to gain stem cell material for research into cures for disease and help for the injured, and it is a way that avoids the harvesting of embryos for experimentation.

UPDATE (12/1/07)
This commentary in the Washington Post by Charles Krauthammer reminds us that the President's choice to oppose continued embryonic stem cell research has been scientifically vindicated, as well as having been the morally correct position to take.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Just Back from Israel, With Thoughts about Middle East Peace

I just returned from leading a group of 43 of us around Israel on a 10 day trip. It was an amazing time, and for me, it marked a return I have wanted to make since my last trip 8 years ago (this was my sixth trip to the Holy Land). Much has changed--archaeological sites have been expanded, roads are improved, and tourism is rapidly growing again. Much, however, remains the same, from the inspiring sites and vistas to the sense that one is walking through both history and prophecy. I'll post later about the many highlights of the trip.

Because of friendships with Christian brothers and sisters in both Israel and the Palestinian territories, I have great sympathy and concern for the people of this region, and great interest in both the current situation and potential developments in the future. I did not find much to make me encouraged about the near term.

Politics made visiting Palestinian areas problematic. Israeli guides and drivers are not allowed to go there, apparently by order of their government. They speak as if it is unsafe to go there; not for tourists, only the Israelis, according to them. Our time in Bethlehem felt as safe as any place else, although some of our women did not enjoy the more boisterous attentions of the many male street vendors and loiterers around the Church of the Nativity.

Conversations with people with insider knowledge paint a bleak picture of life for the Christian Arab population in Bethlehem, which continues to shrink. It appears that many of them would wish Bethlehem was a part of Israel rather than the territories, but that is not likely with the majority Muslim Arabs in control of the town and the region. Frankly, life for all the Arabs in the West Bank is much worse economically and politically than that of Arab Israelis. The Palestinian government of Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank is seen as powerless, and many said that the only reason Hamas is not taking over is the Israeli presence in the region, as well as U.S. efforts to prop him up. Gaza is seething with unrest and barbaric treatment of its residents at the hands of the radical Hamas militia. Don't be surprised to see the PLO lose its grip in the West Bank completely if Israel withdraws as they did from Gaza. Israel should learn from both the Gaza result and their previous unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon that pulling out when there is no one to move in (as Egypt was able to do when it returned to the Sinai) is a disastrous strategy.

Israelis long for peace as few of us can imagine. They are discouraged by the caliber of their political leaders. Prime Minister Olmert is surrounded by scandals. The left wing Labor party's main leaders are people whose records of past failure do not comfort, and the rise of Netanyahu on the right is polarizing to many who remember his scandals and (some say) abrasive ways. One person told me they long for someone with character and vision to lead. Many would give more land, and probably part of Jerusalem itself, if they could be sure that it would lead to lasting peace and security. Such assurance is not, however, available, nor is it likely to be in the future.

Joel Rosenberg's post today, entitled After Annapolis: what now for Arab-Israeli peace? is an insightful evaluation of the recent Annapolis meetings and their potential results. Using "insightful" to describe Rosenberg is almost tautological, as his recent fiction about the Middle East over the last few years has been prescient on many levels. His non fiction best seller, Epicenter, is an excellent analysis of prophetic content related to this region's future. Today's post makes the following points:
1. Sacrificing land for peace is not likely a fruitful strategy.
2. Giving up any part of Jerusalem will not be seen as operating from strength but from fear or weakness, and will only embolden the radicals who will not stop until all of Israel is in their grasp.
3. Russia's Vladimir Putin is inserting himself into this situation with his own conference, and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is calling for a conference as well of those who wish to see Israel destroyed. Since Russia and Iran are moving closer, as Rosenberg has already documented, this only makes the plausibility of prophetic events being on the horizon more clear.

Friday, November 02, 2007

How To Vote

Sometimes I get accused of being too partisan by some of my friends whose political ideology is far from my own. I admit, looking at my voting record may leave people with the thought that I am as committed a Republican as could be. My votes, however, are not simply a matter of party loyalty. Had I been alive in the early 1800s or the late 1800s, it is very possible my votes would have been overwhelmingly Democratic. I have voted for Democrats at times in my life (the gasp you just heard are my conservative friends who cannot believe that such a thing could have happened). Let me share two principles that drive my voting preferences.

I am an American Christian. The noun in that descriptor is "Christian." This is my first loyalty. I will vote for candidates who I believe will most likely promote values and morals through the crafting of policies that are compatible with Christian teaching. Thus, I am not in favor of those whose "law and order" campaigns simply create mandatory sentencing and offer no opportunity for either common sense or consideration of special circumstances to judges and juries. Neither do I favor candidates that promote greater governmental dependency through welfare type programs that discourage people from working at lower paying jobs because the aid they receive would be a better paycheck. The Bible says that those who will not work should not be fed by those who do. Work is part of what humans were created to do. To diminish or discourage work is to diminish humanity. I value human life, therefore I vote for candidates more likely to limit or end abortion, and in protecting innocent life favor capital punishment for those who murder.

Now it is possible that there could be a Christian running for office against a non-Christian, and the Christian's politics may not be, in my view consistent with biblical standards, ethics, morals, or economics. If the non-Christian is closely aligned with those principles, I will vote for the non-Christian, since I am choosing one who will shape society, not who I like or feel closer to.

May I also say, some issues must then trump others. If my choice is between a prolife and a proabortion candidate for the State Legislature (where abortion laws can be effective), and the proabortion candidate happens to belong to a more conservative party and lower my taxes, while the prolifer is the opposite, I would vote, in almost every case for the prolife candidate. My taxes will go up or down (usually up, right?), but sanctity of life is an eternal question.

Finally here, character does count. I want to vote for candidates who have integrity, honesty, and loyalty. Current conditions at every level of politics show me that this is sometimes hard to find or determine. Don't be fooled by rhetoric, or sadly, someone claiming to be a Christian. "You will know them by their fruits" is a good piece of advice in politics as well as the weightier issues of salvation.

I am a political pragmatist. "What works" is not a good measure of morality. However, it is the reality of politics. No politician and no government will ever be perfect. In our system, we will never get 100% of what we want. Some would say, "stick to your absolute position, no matter what." In some cases, that may be possible. However, it may be better to compromise to get half of what you want rather than refuse and get nothing. For example. Some abortion opponents refuse to accept any legislation other than a ban. I would say that if we could pass a law in the U.S. banning all third trimester abortions, but allowing them in the first two trimesters, we should do it. Then, when that is in place, you can work on the second trimester, and then the first--we may not get them all, but wouldn't saving some babies be better than saving none while we stayed true to our belief in a total ban?

Similarly, some have said that they would never vote for a pro-choice candidate (read "Giuliani" this year), but would vote third party in a Presidential election instead. I cannot agree that this would be wise or good. First, no third party candidacy ever has won the Presidency, so you are choosing to lose. Second, a third party candidate winning 10% or more of the vote would give the election to one of the other two candidates, and in this particular season, that would mean a candidate much more likely to choose judges who would uphold abortion rights and strike down any attempts to limit it. So, the people who are protesting would then be accomplishing the very worst thing for their cause. Similarly, if "peace" advocates were to decide that their major party candidate (read "Hillary" this year) was not strong enough on immediate withdrawal from Iraq and all voted for the Green Party candidate, the net effect would be to guarantee a victory for the other side.

Applying these principles does not guarantee we will all vote alike. But it will mean we will all have voted purposely and honorably before God and our fellow citizens.

There is more I could say, but I'll stop there.

"Co-ed Combat and Cultural Cowardice"

This is a great article by John Piper at his Desiring God blog (the article also appears in World Magazine), and says what too few would have the courage to say today. No wonder I like his writing, and preaching, so much!

Thursday, November 01, 2007

Politics...Big and Little

It is a very political time of year, with a few months before the Iowa caucuses nationally, and a few days until our local elections. I've always followed political matters, so of course I have opinions. Here are a few.

Nationally...
I am amazed that so many people seem to be convinced that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. I mean, this woman has so little charm and so little political charisma, and so little to say of substance that I find it hard to fathom that this is seen as the best hope for America from the Democratic Party. If you listened to (or read transcripts) of the most recent debate, she was terrible--never answering a question and not doing a very good job of hiding that fact. Negatives in the high 40% range mean that she has a nearly Herculean task of persuading people not to dislike her. And I would think nothing would bring out the opposition quite like her name at the top of a ticket. No matter who her running mate might be, she will bring the wrong kind of attention to her campaign. UPDATE: GO HERE FOR A DEVASTATING CLIP PUT TOGETHER BY THE EDWARDS CAMPAIGN OF THE DEBATE

The only other Democrat polling in the same zip code is Barack Obama (yes, I know that Edwards leads or is close in Iowa, but no one seems to think he has a shot nationally). Obama is much more likable, much more intriguing, but it kind of scares me that someone on the national scene for all of two years is making a serious run for the presidency. Of course, some might argue that another Illinoisan (is that the right word) came from relative obscurity, having only held a seat in the House in national government before becoming President, but Senator Obama, you're no Abraham Lincoln. In fact, it is hard to distinguish Obama on paper from any run of the mill left (some say far left) of center Senator. People see him as a "new" kind of politician, but reading his positions one finds much that is not only old, but outdated. The only "new" aspect is the messenger, and I admit he is an appealing spokesman for what are, to me, unpalatable views.

The Republicans have a declared "top four," that I think should be five, or else a different fourth place. Rudy Giuliani is leading nationally, but disturbs many of us with his less than conservative credentials. He's (as I read in an interesting column) pro-choice but anti-abortion, meaning he says he'll select the kind of judges pro-lifers would want, but would not act to make abortion illegal. He's favored gun control and civil unions for homosexuals, and before 9/11, he didn't have much that would have moved him forward. Now he does, thanks to his image as a leader in crisis, added to an impressive resume of cleaning up New York City--once thought ungovernable.

Mitt Romney would be a much more palatable conservative candidate, if he just didn't belong to a religion that has, in its past or present doctrines, advocated polygamy, stated that black-skinned peoples were cursed in their pre-existent state, that Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers, that God has a wife, and that special underwear gives you spiritual protection. It is hard for me to take seriously his intellectual gravitas because of that--I know some would say exactly the same about a Bible-believing Christian. But at least orthodox Christianity can go back further than Joe Smith in western New York. His relatively recent "conversion" to pro-life and anti-homosexual marriage/civil unions positions may be genuine, but they certainly were convenient.

I was intrigued when Fred Thompson entered the fray, and quite honestly hoped he would prove to be of the mold of Ronald Reagan. There have been a few moments when he seemed close, but generally he has been uninspiring, and while I have little trouble considering voting for him, I do not see him catching fire. Maybe I'll be wrong on that front. I wouldn't mind. If he is close to Reagan on most days, then that would be good enough for me.

My number 4 in the race is not John McCain, whom I admire for his service but do not understand as a politician. He seems to enjoy antagonizing people who would be his normal supporters, and his most noteworthy (or at least nameworthy) achievement, the McCain-Feingold bill, has led to incredibly more complex cheating in the funding of national campaigns. No, my number 4 is hard to peg conservative former governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee. I don't like all his positions, but I like most of them, and hardest for me to discount, I really like him. And not just because he is a Baptist preacher (or at least was). I don't even know if we would agree on church stuff. But he has administrative talent and likeability, and expresses himself well on every issue, even his mistakes. He's not real high in the polls, but he may surprise us all. I'm not endorsing, but I am impressed.

Locally...
Our village and township are electing all sorts of local officials. I'm outside the village, so my personal endorsement of Jim Phipps for re-election as Mayor carries even less weight. What I find interesting is all the signs--per capita more than I've seen in most elections everywhere else I have lived. We'll see next week if signage translated into votes, because some people seem to have gone all out on that front. I'm bothered though, that local politics gets dirty just like national campaigns. People have been defacing or damaging signs. In one contest, I've been told that one camp has started rumors about one opponent's status and another's fitness. If it's true, it wouldn't surprise me, and I've only been in town a few years. Ah well, sinners and saints are to be found in little villages and big cities, and everywhere in between. I know who I'm voting for in the races in which I cast a ballot. I hope everyone who has this opportunity uses it, and does so wisely!