Merry Christmas!

I was pleased to see that my column on Christmas was published in The Sower. I received a lot of positive comments from fellow students about this article.

Recently, the cultural diversity policy for the Lincoln Children’s Zoo prevented three of its sponsors from handing out coupons with a Bible verse printed on the back at an annual fundraiser. Therefore, the three sponsors, Evangelical Free Church, daVinci’s, and Champions Fun Center, withdrew their Noah’s Ark display from the event this year. Apparently, it’s okay to have a display of Noah’s Ark, but quoting the actual Bible story is somehow harmful to children. There is something remarkably absurd about a diversity policy that excludes religious expression. By definition, diversity should be inclusive, with all religions receiving equal footing. Unfortunately, many modern institutions seem to define diversity by subtraction rather than addition.

At no other time in the year does this become more clear than during the Christmas season. Even before Thanksgiving ended, the first shot had already been fired in the 2008 War on Christmas. In an article for the British newspaper The Observer, Rowan Walker reports that Oxford, England has banned the word “Christmas” from their Christmas Festival in an attempt to be more inclusive. Oxford now dubs the event the “Winter Light Festival.”

What is going on here? Who is offended by using the word “Christmas”? Every year, in the days leading up to everyone’s favorite holiday, we hear stories of businesses and public facilities replacing the “Christ” in Christmas with a big “X,” or requiring employees to greet everyone with a strictly secular “Happy Holidays.” It’s as if we are living in the dream world of Ebenezer Scrooge. “Merry Christmas? Bah, humbug!”

The fact is, no one should be offended by Christmas. It is ingrained in American culture: In “A Charlie Brown Christmas”, the single most popular Christmas special ever created, Linus quotes the Gospel of Luke 2:8-14, retelling the whole Nativity story outright!

So, why is there such apprehension to call Christmas what it is, Christmas! The problem is we live in a sinful world which cannot stand being reminded of the good news of Christ’s coming. John 3:20 “Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed” (NIV). So don’t be surprised to hear stories about “Christmas” celebrations being restricted in the name of diversity. It’s just a thin disguise for the world’s hatred of the Gospel message.

By the way, if you’re planning to do any “Christmas” shopping this year, why not spend your dollars at a business which recognizes that you are actually buying presents to celebrate Christmas, not Winter Solstice or some other secularly correct holiday.

(Find Rowan Walker’s article on Oxford’s Christmas Festival at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/nov/02/christmas-political-correctness-oxford-christian.)

Obama and the Surplus Population

I have received a lot of comments about my column from the Sept. 24 issue of The Sower, “Candidate’s Potential Impact on the Supreme Court,” some positive, some negative. Some readers were surprised to learn that I think the Supreme Court is the most important issue in this election, as opposed to the war, global warming, or a tax cut for 95% of Americans (including many who don’t pay taxes). Some readers doubt that the next President really will have much impact on social issues like abortion.

Gerald Ford was President from 1974-1977. The judge Ford appointed to the Supreme Court, John Paul Stevens, is still in office today. As this proves, the influence of a President’s Supreme Court appointments can extend decades beyond the end of his Presidency.

Both Democrats and Republicans agree that there is a very high probability that one or more Supreme Court Justices will need to be replaced in the next four to eight years. It would be irrational for an informed and intelligent voter to ignore this issue when voting for the next President.

Therefore, I would like to further examine Obama’s record on the issue of abortion, since he is likely to impact it if he wins in November.

I am aware that not all Democrats are pro-abortion, but Obama definitely is.

In Dr. Albert Mohler’s opinion, “Abortion is back front and center in the 2008 presidential race.  Sen. John McCain and the Republican Party Platform call for a reversal of Roe v. Wade and against any notion of abortion as a fundamental right.  Both the candidate and the platform call for specific measures to curtail access to abortion and to lead, eventually, to the end of abortion on demand. Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic Party Platform call for a stalwart and enthusiastic defense of Roe v. Wade and for expanded access to abortion.  In the case of Sen. Obama, his advocacy of abortion rights goes considerably beyond where any major candidate has ever gone before.

Pro-abortion group NARAL (the National Abortion Rights Action League) gives him a 100% approval rating for his voting record. In fact, as a state Senator in Illinois, Obama killed a bill called the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The purpose of this bill was to protect infants, regardless of their stage of development, who survived induced abortions. This bill would only have protected infants who were fully delivered from the womb, and it contained a clause which expressly stated that this would not affect the legal status of an infant inside the womb. Obama voted to kill this bill because he believes in an absolute right to an abortion, a right which extends, remarkably, even beyond the womb.

Obama himself has told us that his views on abortion will affect his appointments for the Supreme Court. At the Saddleback forum, where Obama dodged the abortion question by claiming it was above his pay grade, he promised he would not appoint judges like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. He also voted against Bush’s appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Those four Justices are the only pro-life jurists  presently serving on the court. Although deciding when life begins may be above Obama's pay grade, he has no problem voting against the right to life on every occasion when he has the opportunity. As Prof. Robert George of Princeton concludes, Obama is "the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States,...Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress."

About this time of year, I start looking forward to Christmas, which brings to mind one of my favorite stories of all time, Charles Dickens’ classic A Christmas Carol. Before his miraculous conversion, Ebenezer Scrooge expressed his hope that the poor would just die, and thus “decrease the surplus population.” To Scrooge, the poor were nothing but unwanted members of society, not full human beings.  This same philosophy is expressed today to justify abortion as the right of a woman to terminate an unwanted child. “In the classic form of this argument, a woman must have the right to an abortion at anywhere, any time, for any reason, whether or not she can pay for it,” writes Mohler. As Christians, this is a question we must answer: how is someone with extreme pro-abortion views any different from the unrepentant Scrooge?

And so, this being my last chance to comment on this election in The Sower, I’d like to endorse John McCain. During the Republican primary, McCain was probably fifth on my list of favorite Republicans because he was less conservative than my top choices (the furthest from Bush, you might say). Yet during this election cycle, as I learned more about him, my respect for John McCain increased immensely. Whatever minor differences you might have with McCain on policy issues, you cannot deny that he is a man of character.

(You can find the text of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act at http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ExactBillKilledbyObama.html.)

(Read Dr. Albert Mohler’s post on abortion, http://www.albertmohler.com/blog.php. Two excellent articles by Prof. Robert George of Princeton on Obama's record, and one on infanticide.)

Risk-taking and Role Reversal in the 2008 Election

Just a few weeks ago, the rivalry between Barack Obama and John McCain looked very familiar: the hip, young dude versus the boring old crank. We’ve seen this stereotypical matchup in TV shows like All in the Family (Michael Stivic vs. Archie Bunker) and we’ve seen it in past elections (Walter Mondale vs. Ronald Reagan). But as it turns out, the roles are reversed for this election. Who’d have guessed that John McCain, the “bland white guy,” would be the one making this election exciting with his bold gambles and unprecedented decisions, and that Barack Obama would be running a typical, dull campaign?

A month ago, Dick Morris, a very intelligent Democrat who supports John McCain, predicted that McCain would not be a big part of this election. He believed people will either vote for Obama because they really love him, or vote against him because they really hate him (not because they really love John McCain); therefore, Obama would be the central figure in this election.

Yet, two completely unexpected decisions by John McCain have been game-changers in this election. Obviously, the first is his selection of Sarah Palin for his running mate. That was big news. When I interviewed students for my column on the VP selections, everyone knew about Sarah Palin. Few students I spoke to knew who Joe Biden was, even though Obama had made that announcement weeks earlier, and I can’t blame them. It seems the only time I see Joe Biden in the news is when he makes a gaffe, like when he asserted that if Palin was elected VP, it would be a step back for women, or when he forgot that Herbert Hoover was President during the Great Depression and that there weren’t TVs back then.

I’m not saying Biden is stupid; everyone slips up now and then, including McCain and Obama. In fact, I think Joe Biden is a good man. For example, Biden criticized his own campaign when it released an ad, approved by Obama, which suggested that John McCain isn’t prepared to be President because he has never sent an e-mail. The ad didn’t mention that the reason McCain can’t send an e-mail is the same reason he can’t tie his shoes, comb his hair, or lift his arms above his shoulders: injuries he sustained as a POW in the infamous prison camp, the Hanoi Hilton. Kudos to Biden for speaking out against this despicable ad which ridicules McCain’s war injuries.

Still, Biden was a boring pick. He’s old, and he’s been in Washington longer than John McCain, which means that Obama can’t use these points to attack McCain without looking like a hypocrite. The reason Obama picked Biden is that he’s a safe bet. Hillary Clinton would have been a riskier choice, but a much more exciting one. On the other hand, McCain hasn’t been afraid to take risks.

On Sept. 24, President Bush gave an address to the nation, explaining his plan to help our struggling economy. According to the President, “We've seen triple-digit swings in the stock market. Major financial institutions have teetered on the edge of collapse, and some have failed…Financial assets related to home mortgages have lost value during the house decline, and the banks holding these assets have restricted credit. As a result, our entire economy is in danger. So I propose that the federal government reduce the risk posed by these troubled assets and supply urgently needed money so banks and other financial institutions can avoid collapse and resume lending.” This bailout would put seven hundred billion dollars of taxpayer money at risk.

Days before the first Presidential debate, McCain decided to suspended his own campaign and go to Washington and fix this bill! According to Dick Morris, “The Democrats had already cut their deal with Bush. The Dems agreed to the price tag while Bush agreed to special aid to families facing foreclosure, equity for the taxpayers, and limits on executive compensation. But no sooner had McCain arrived than he derailed the deal. Knowing how unpopular the bailout is with the American people, the Democrats are not about to pass anything without broad Republican support even though their majorities permit them to act alone. Instead of signing on with the Democratic/Bush package, the House Republicans are insisting on replacing the purchase of corporate debt with loans to companies and insurance paid for by the companies, not by the taxpayers. That, of course, is a popular position.”

It’s hard to tell whether taking this course of action has helped or hurt John McCain. Some voters think this was just a political stunt. Here’s why I disagree: it doesn’t make sense to me that McCain would jeopardize his campaign when he and Obama are so close in the polls just so he can pose in front of the cameras. I think John McCain suspended his campaign because he thought it was the right thing to do. He once said that he would rather lose this election than lose a war. What McCain’s bold action shows us is that he would also rather put his campaign at risk than let the hard-earned money of the American people be used to bail out Wall Street.

When he felt he had done all he could on Capitol Hill, McCain agreed to go ahead with the Presidential debate. Though the questions were supposed to cover foreign policy, about thirty minutes were devoted to questions about the economy. Both candidates did very well, but I’d say Obama did a better job talking about his views on the economy. Dick Morris thought McCain blew it. In his opinion, McCain should have talked more about why he had suspended his campaign, and how he opposed both President Bush and the Democrats; it would have been a crushing blow for Obama. Morris is right. John McCain simply is not as sharp as Obama at these debates. Obama is a smooth-talking lawyer who is very slick at presenting his views.

However, I think McCain clearly beat Obama in the section on foreign policy. When McCain pointed out that he had visited Afghanistan and Iraq multiple times and Obama hadn’t, Obama’s response was that, though he hadn’t visited these countries, Joe Biden had, and he could rely on his input. Essentially, Obama was admitting that Biden has more foreign policy experience than he does. (In that case, it should be Biden at the top of the ticket, making the actual decisions on foreign policy.)

John McCain may not have the presence of mind Obama has during a debate, but he is running an exciting campaign full of risks, while Obama is playing it safe. That’s a role-reversal no one expected. Perhaps a better way to frame our Presidential choice in 2008 is “a man who talks about action vs. a man of action.”

(Find Dick Morris’ article “The Brilliance of McCain’s Move” at http://www.dickmorris.com/blog. Find the transcript for Bush’s speech at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/bush.transcript/index.html.)

Candidates' Potential Impact on the Supreme Court

This political column was published in The Sower, Sept. 24, 2008. Pictured below is far-left, pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, brimming with her usual youthful energy. This scene actually occurred!

McCain, Obama, What Difference Will they Make?

For all that has been said about John McCain’s old age, he’s a whippersnapper compared to some of the members of the Supreme Court. John Paul Stevens, the most liberal member of the Supreme Court, is eighty-eight years old. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is seventy-five, and has battled with cancer in her life. At seventy-two, John McCain is the same age as both Antonin Scalia and the all important swing-voter Anthony Kennedy. David Souter, who just turned sixty-nine, and Clarence Thomas, sixty, may be a few years younger than McCain, but they are also entering the “golden years.” Chief Justice John Roberts, fifty-three, and Samuel Alito, fifty-eight, were appointed by President Bush, and both demonstrate the impact the President can have by his choices for justices.

I asked my dad, Richard Duncan, the professor of Constitutional Law at UNL, how each Presidential candidate’s choices for Supreme Court justices would affect America. He believes that the next President will have far more influence on social issues than any recent President. “The next President may have an opportunity to fill two or three vacancies on the Supreme Court in the next four years, and if he serves for two terms, as many as five or six vacancies. Therefore, the most important issue in this election may be the Court, not the war, and not taxes, and not global warming. “

Abortion is just one in a litany of social issues that the next President may affect. Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor, is convinced that the fate of Roe v. Wade will swing on this election. “…McCain, if elected, might well be able to get what the antiabortion movement wants – and more fundamentally, numerous changes in other areas of constitutional law as well,” he wrote in a column for the Boston Globe. Though others, including me, think that the reversal of Roe v Wade is highly improbable, the issue of abortion is not off the table. Stuart Taylor, Jr. is a reporter for the National Journal, who leans towards the pro-abortion side. Taylor quoted Obama, who said in July 2007 that “the first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” Despite his pro-choice views, Taylor is deeply concerned by the sort of judges Obama will appoint due to his far-left stance on abortion. “That nineteen-year-old proposal, which has never passed Congress, would nullify the popular law against federal funding of abortions; end the even more popular federal ban on ‘partial-birth’ abortion; and sweep away the broadly popular state laws requiring parental notification or consent (or judicial approval) before a minor can obtain an abortion and 24-hour waiting periods before any woman can obtain one.”

Though Prof. Duncan doubts that a McCain court would overturn Roe v. Wade, he is confident that an Obama court would “affirm and expand abortion-on-demand as a constitutional right, including a right to partial birth abortion. Furthermore, such a court would “create a constitutional right to homosexual marriage, a ‘right’ that would invalidate Nebraska's traditional marriage law as well as those of states across the country; interpret the Establishment Clause to forbid even passive religious symbols in public parks and schools, and perhaps even to forbid equal access for student Bible clubs to meet on campus in public schools; and expand the power of Congress to regulate in areas traditionally reserved for state and local government.”

On the other hand, a McCain court would probably be moderately conservative, without the drastic changes to the current law one would see under the Obama court. For example, even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, that would not outlaw abortion. It would merely return the issue to the state level, where compromises could be reached by our elected officials. Furthermore, according to Prof. Duncan, “Homosexual marriage would not be constitutionalized by a McCain court, but rather the institution of marriage would be left to the democratic process in each of the fifty states.” Do you think the moderate restrictions on abortions the American people have supported for the past 30 years should be respected? Do you believe in the traditional model of marriage, one that has served society well for thousands of years? Do you believe that the free exercise of religion includes the right to express our faith in the public square? Then bear in mind that “a McCain Court would likely adopt a view of the Establishment Clause that would forbid states from coercing citizens to participate in prayer or religious activities while allowing passive religious displays, such as Nativity displays and Ten Commandment monuments to be erected in parks and schools and courthouses.”

If you care deeply about any of these issues, know that the candidate you are supporting will affect these social issues dramatically. One way or the other.

(You can find Cass Sunstein’s article at http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/, and the story by Stuart Taylor, Jr. on http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/)

In Defense of Sarah Palin: A Concordia Bulldog in Lipstick

This column was published in The Sower, September 8, 2008.

This election year will be a historic one for both major parties.

When Sen. Barack Obama was declared the Democratic nominee for president, many of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s supporters felt discouraged, and a significant percentage may now support Sen. John McCain. At the Democratic National Convention, Hillary Clinton urged her supporters to rally behind Obama. “Whether you voted for me, or voted for Barack, the time is now to unite as a single party with a single purpose. We are on the same team, and none of us can sit on the sidelines.” On Thursday, August 28, Barack Obama gave his speech before the DNC, repeating many of the promises he had made on the campaign trail, and accusing John McCain of running for Bush’s third term. “This moment, this election, is our chance to keep, in the 21^st century, the American promise of life,” Obama said. He also officially accepted his party’s nomination, making him the first African-American Presidential nominee in history.

The very next day, John McCain made his own historic announcement. On Friday, McCain introduced his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, the first woman ever on a Republican ticket. This surprise choice dominated the news channels that night, and few pundits were talking about Obama’s speech from the previous day. The New York Times selected part of Sarah Palin’s speech as the Quote of the Day: “It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America but it turns out the women of America aren't finished yet and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.”

A reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer called McCain’s choice “a bold gamble.” On the upside, Palin’s strong conservative credentials have also helped energize McCain’s Republican base. “It’s exciting!” exclaimed Matthew Kuske, who supports McCain.  Sophomore Sara Holle, who as yet is undecided, predicted that Palin “will attract a lot of the Hillary Clinton supporters.” Her introduction has energized the race, and many Democrats and Republicans are impressed by her strength and intelligence. 

However, some observers believe McCain’s decision to run with Palin is a risk because they question Palin’s ability to be President should John McCain pass away while in office. Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter believes that Palin “knows little or nothing about the major issues of the day beyond energy.” Concordia freshman Tony Fugett bluntly stated that McCain’s decision “will come back to bite him."

Or will questioning Palin’s experience come back to bite the Obama campaign? While discussing Palin’s readiness to step into the Presidency, Sara Holle pointed out that Obama himself lacks experience. As a first-term Senator, Obama has had just four years of Washington experience himself, a full year of which has been spent campaigning for the Presidency.

“Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency,” said Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama. This response glosses over Palin’s many accomplishments. Sarah Palin was elected mayor of her hometown, and later was appointed to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, where she served as ethics commissioner and chairman. In 2006, she was elected the Governor of Alaska, the largest state in the United States of America. As a former mayor and a Governor, Sarah Palin has more executive experience than any man on any ticket. More than Biden and Obama, and maybe even more than John McCain, who worked in an executive position in the military. Sarah Palin does lack experience in foreign policy, but she would learn a lot from John McCain.

One way to judge if Palin is ready for the Presidency is to look at her accomplishments. Though it’s true that her time in the political sphere has been short, Palin’s success during that time has made her the most popular Governor in the United States.  When interviewed by Ron Allen of MSNBC about Palin’s qualifications, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich starkly contrasted Palin’s record with Obama’s:  “She’s been a real mayor, he hasn’t. She’s been a real Governor, he hasn’t. She’s been in charge of the Alaskan National Guard, he hasn’t. She was a whistle-blower who defeated an incumbent mayor. He has never once shown that kind of courage. She’s a whistle-blower who turned in the chairman of her own party and got him fined $12,000. I’ve never seen Obama do one thing like that. She took on the incumbent Governor of her own party and beat him, and then she beat a former Democratic Governor in the election. I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write.”

The pressure of addressing a national audience did not phase Palin. According to reporter David Bauder of the Associated Press, over 40,000,000 viewers tuned in to watch her speech at the Republican National Convention, nearly the same number who watched Obama’s speech at the DNC. If Palin continues to display the same level of confidence and poise during the election and the Vice Presidential debate, it will be impossible to make the case that McCain’s choice was not justified. That is one reason why I plan to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket in my first Presidential election.

(You can find transcripts of the speeches from the DNC at www.zimbio.com, and a transcript of Sarah Palin’s speech at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/palins_vp_selection_speech.html. David Bauder’s article can be found at apnews.myway.com.)