You searched for index.html » Page 43 of 45 | Acton PowerBlog

Blog author: jballor
posted by on Monday, July 11, 2005

Today is the UN-sponsored World Population Day, which most of us have never heard of, I’m sure. From the name, I cynically (and rightly) assumed that rather than celebrating human life, this day would instead address many of the spurious “crowded planet” concerns put forth most popularly in Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb (first edition 1968).

Equality empowers…to do what exactly?

You won’t see Ehrlich’s name plastered all over World Population Day materials, but I’m convinced that his thesis is what underlies the effort. Instead, the campaign has cloaked itself in the language of gender equality and the empowerment of women.

Are we having too many children? One way to address the problem is to acknowledge that “reproductive health and rights – such as the right to decide on the number, timing and spacing of children – are central to women’s empowerment and gender equality, and to women’s enjoyment of other human rights.”

A surface reading of such a statement should be non-controversial. If it means that we are all against forcing women to bear children against their will, so be it. But somehow I think there’s a more insidious meaning beind the “right to decide.”

World Population Day 2005 is a day of measured celebration for those opposed to the expansion of human population. A UN report released in 2004 shows that “because of its low and declining rate of population growth, the population of developed countries as a whole is expected to remain virtually unchanged between 2005 and 2050″ For developed nations, “The primary consequence of fertility decline, especially if combined with increases in life expectancy, is population ageing, whereby the share of older persons in a population increases relative to that of younger persons.”

And there are signs of success even in the developing world, since “in the least developed countries, fertility is 5 children per woman and is expected to drop by about half, to 2.57 children per woman by 2045-2050. In the rest of the developing world, fertility is already moderately low at 2.58 children per woman and is expected to decline further to 1.92 children per woman by mid-century, thus nearly converging to the fertility levels by then typical of the developed world.” (More at the aptly named unpopulation.org)

So if the goal of the UN project is to get the world birth rates to fall below replacement levels (usually averaging 2.1 children per woman), they are well on their way. Developed nations continue to set the pace for non-replacement, where “fertility is currently 1.56 children per woman and is projected to increase slowly to 1.84 children per woman in 2045-2050.”

Blog author: jballor
posted by on Tuesday, July 5, 2005

Rev. Robert Sirico wrote a column in the Detroit News’ Faith and Policy series over the weekend on the Kelo v. New London decision handed down by the US Supreme Court. In “Court reveals conflicting ownership ideas,” Sirico writes,

In the Supreme Court’s “new” ownership society, the very safety and security of God-given, inalienable rights are threatened. Pope Leo XIII was pointing to this when he described private ownership as “a natural right of man” and a right that must be held “sacred and inviolable.” We can only hope the inevitable abuse of this newfound power will not manifest itself before there is a chance to reverse Kelo’s corrupting effects.

Blog author: mvandermaas
posted by on Friday, July 1, 2005

Breaking news for the day: Sandra Day O’Connor has announced that she is retiring from the United States Supreme Court.

Yesterday, Anthony Bradley asked what the President should look for in a Supreme Court Nominee. Join the discussion here.

Now that Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 80, has cancer, coupled with talk that Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, 75, and John Paul Stevens, 85, might also consider stepping down, there is quite a buzz in the beltway about the Supreme Court. Majority Leader Bill Frist said Tuesday he’s been talking to Democratic leader Harry Reid about nominees for a potential vacancy on the Supreme Court.

Reid later offered what he considered good possibilities: GOP Sens. Mel Martinez of Florida, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Mike Crapo of Idaho and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. They "are people who serve in the Senate now who are Republicans who I think would be outstanding Supreme Court members," Reid said. Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, called on Bush to pick a consensus candidate if a vacancy comes open. "Americans want to be brought together around this decision." What should the President look for in a nominee for the court and who would you nominate?

USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios set the record straight at a U.N. conference when he told the gathering that the United States has "no intention" of committing to a goal for foreign aid pegged to a percentage of gross domestic product. Some countries are pressing for the U.S. to commit to an official development assistance (ODA) goal of 0.7 percent of GDP, a figure that would oblige the United States to spend more than $90 billion annually. The Washington Times reported that Natsios "vigorously defended" the American aid policy, and had this to say about pegging assistance to the U.N.’s or anyone else’s "official" number:

"There is ample evidence that ODA is not generally the limiting factor on nations’ development. Development progress is first and foremost a function of country commitment and political will to rule justly, promote economic freedom and invest in people."

Yet, the U.N. and E.U. continue to push these arbitrary ODA goals. Reminds you of the way that French farmers force feed geese to produce foie gras. Only, with superabundant foreign aid, the only ones getting stuffed are people like Nigeria’s Sani Abacha and his kleptocrat fraternity.

Blog author: mvandermaas
posted by on Monday, June 27, 2005
Sani Abacha – Strange, I don’t recall you being a multi-billionaire when you took power…

In a number of previous posts, I have expressed concern over new efforts to increase the amount of government-to-government aid to Africa (see here, here, and here for background).

Today brings another bit of news that should give pause to anyone advocating for massive increases in government aid to Africa. From Saturday’s London (UK) Telegraph :

The scale of the task facing Tony Blair in his drive to help Africa was laid bare yesterday when it emerged that Nigeria’s past rulers stole or misused ꌢ0 billion.

That is as much as all the western aid given to Africa in almost four decades. The looting of Africa’s most populous country amounted to a sum equivalent to 300 years of British aid for the continent…

…Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, has spoken of a new Marshall Plan for Africa. But Nigeria’s rulers have already pocketed the equivalent of six Marshall Plans. After that mass theft, two thirds of the country’s 130 million people – one in seven of the total African population – live in abject poverty, a third is illiterate and 40 per cent have no safe water supply…

…The stolen fortune tallies almost exactly with the ꌢ0 billion of western aid given to Africa between 1960 and 1997. That amounted to six times the American help given to post-war Europe under the Marshall Plan.

General Sani Abacha of Nigeria is an example of an African leader who did pretty well for himself at the expense of his nation, stealing “between ਱ billion and ਲ਼ billion during his five-year rule.”

Nathan Elawa: Debt relief is good, but civil society is vital.

The importance of building strong institutions of civil society and establishing the rule of law before dispensing aid cannot be emphasized enough. If debt forgiveness is an appropriate first step for the west to take in assisting Africa, the next step must not be to simply flood the continent with aid once again without preparing it to appropriately use the funds.

At the recent Acton Summer Symposium in Grand Rapids, Michigan, we spoke with Nathan Elawa, a native of Nigeria and a participant in Acton’s Toward a Free and Virtuous Society Conference. He commented on the issue of debt relief and the need for stronger foundations of civil society in Africa. (Click here for video.) For more information, check out Acton’s Aid to Africa special section.

Blog author: jballor
posted by on Monday, June 27, 2005

I have to admit that I’ve never been able to get that fired up about the controversies surrounding the various public displays of the Decalogue. It no doubt has to do with my view that it is far more important for the law to be written on our hearts rather than on stone (see for example Jeremiah 31:27-40).

It’s all (on both sides) struck me as a little to much like public posturing, and for the Christian conservatives who support the displays (sometimes rabidly), the zeal seems misplaced. After all, the function of a public display of the Ten Commandments could only at best be as an expression of the “civil” use of the law, “as an external discipline, necessary to restrain those who are not saved (and in some cases those who are saved, because of their remaining temptation to sin).”

But the “external” matters of discipline have overwhelmingly been viewed as relating to the second table of the Decalogue, the laws for relations between neighbors. The relationship between God and the individual person stands outside the realm of the magistrate, as emphasized again and again by the reformers.

No doubt a firestorm will ensue following today’s Supreme Court decisions (No. 03-1500, van Orden v. Perry and No. 03-1693, McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky), which seem only sure to spur more debate on the issues. But no doubt much of the controversy arises because of the explicitness of the first table commands with respect to the identity of God.

For example, Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting in the Texas case (No. 03-1500, Van Orden v. Perry), which upheld the public display, notes that in large letters the monument proclaims ‘I AM the LORD thy God,’ and argues, “The message transmitted by Texas’ chosen display is quite plain: This state endorses the divine code of the Judeo-Christian God.”

The words of an editorial in this month’s Christianity Today are valuable here, regarding claims by some Christian leaders that we need to reclaim the nation’s Christian foundation:

The not-so-subtle equation of America’s founding with biblical Christianity has been shown time and again to be historically inaccurate. The founding was a unique combination of biblical teaching and Enlightenment rationalism, and most of the founding fathers, as historian Edwin Gaustad, among many others, has noted, were not orthodox Christians, but instead were primarily products of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment, we should recall, has never been much of a friend of biblical Christianity.

There may be much value in arguing for the implementation of law based on a Christian recognition of the civil use of the Decalogue. But that validity does not carry over into attempts to institute worship, reverence, or adoration for the Christian God into American law. That simply is not the role of the civil magistrate, and the church should jealously guard its role in proclaiming the Gospel. And the church should certainly not petition the government to take over any aspect of this task.

“Winning isn’t everything.” Whatever happened to this slice of wisdom? In Columbus, Ohio, a team of baseball players has been ejected from their league for being “too good”! (Read the story here). The parents of the teams being slaughtered by the better team complained that losing was seriously detrimental to their kids’ self-esteem. Therefore, the league decided to reward the hard work of the winning team with expulsion. Winning isn’t everything, but apparently, losing is.

What this league and the supporting parents are in fact saying into their children is this: “If someone is better than you, they don’t have a right to be around.” Apparently, competition is only a good thing as long as it doesn’t lead to winners and losers. Perhaps the league ought to enact a ‘run subsidy’ program. Everytime the better team scores ten runs, the losing team is spotted ten runs; you know, to stay competitive.

The parents and the league here are undercutting one of the prime values in sports: the experience of humility. Sure, “having fun is what’s important,” but fun is not the only important thing. What about craft, dedication, work ethic, perseverance? But by eliminating the better team from the league, the league has said to all the children involved that the only thing that matters is winning; Instead of kicking out the kids who have worked hard, why doesn’t the league remind everyone that there is more to their league than who wins and who loses? By cultivating a ‘competition-free’ culture, this league has undermined the very lessons sports exists to teach. What happens when this culture works its way into the market? (For a more general discussion of how competition is discouraged in education, see "The Competitive Edge" by Joseph Klesney.)

Courtesy the Evangelical Ecologist, “A group called ‘Operation Noah’ has re-written parts of Scripture to fit their climate change message,” and goes on to compare two “versions” of Psalm 24.

I suppose this is just the next logical progression; if Scripture can’t be twisted by some perverse hermeneutic to fit your agenda, just change the text!

Author Ruth Jarman writes, “I hope it doesn’t look sacrilegious to re-write the word of God according to Ruth.” No matter if it actually is sacrilegious…just so it doesn’t look like it.

Otherwise, how would this bit of (unaltered) Scripture apply?

Having been tagged by Kathryn at Suitable for Mixed Company, I duly submit my list within the guidelines of the following (and pledge not to repeat any placed on my initial list):

Imagine that a local philanthropist is hosting an event for local high school students and has asked you to pick out five to ten books to hand out as door prizes. At least one book should be funny and at least one book should provide some history of Western Civilization and at least one book should have some regional connection. The philanthropist doesn’t like foul language (but will allow some four-letter words in context, such as expressed during battle by soldiers). Otherwise things are pretty wide open. What do you pick?

  1. The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis – A must read for anyone currently involved in education, has ever been educated, or has ever thought anything about education.
  2. The Invisible Man, Ralph Ellison – The most formative book of my high school years, I will try to sneak this one past the censors (I can’t recall if the profanity, if there is any, meets the requirement of appropriate “context”).

  3. Sand County Almanac, Aldo Leopold – “A classic of nature writing,” I’ll submit this as one with some regional connection (Wisconsin).
  4. Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, Twentieth Anniversary Edition, Ron Sider – This applies to the twentieth anniversary update only…a challenging, authentic, and worthy call to Christian living, with at least some economic sensitivity.
  5. A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, Kate Turabian – A necessary resource for any student.
  6. Ecumenical Creeds and Reformed Confessions, CRC Publications – This one I submit as providing background primary texts for the formation of Western civilization.
  7. Clan of the Cave Bear, Jean Auel – The first in Auel’s fiction series, Earth’s Children.
  8. The Art of Rhetoric, Aristotle – An oft-overlooked classic text.
  9. The Boy Who Looked Like Shirley Temple, Bill Mahan – Read this as a youth, and it stands out as one of the funniest books I’ve ever read (this one too might have trouble making it past the censors, however. I recall the boy having a foul mouth).
  10. A Wrinkle in Time, Madeleine L’Engle – Although a children’s book, worth reading at any and all ages.

I tag Bunnie Diehl, Stacy Harp, and Josh.