Blogs

Well, I didn’t manage to sleep a wink last night. After two or three times in bed, I pretty much gave up at around 5 a.m. and got up – listened to music until it was really “get-up” time. It was actually good; I had some opportunity to worship the Lord in the still of night.

Anyway, several hours before that, I wrote another piece for Change in the Wind. Working in part from Romans 13, “The Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law” shows how the prologue to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms offers the foundation for true liberty.

There are now five articles on site, as well as a growing list of links and blog posts. Check it out.

Please see today’s post at Change in the Wind, which includes a link to the online consultation form at the Canadian Department of Finance, as well as an outline of how I responded to the survey.

Yes, a Christmas Day launch (of sorts – my official launch took place rather late in the evening).

http://www.changeinthewind.ca

For various reasons, I have recently had occasion to start thinking about matters related to sociopolitical issues.

On a couple earlier occasions in my life, first as a late teen (when I actually contemplated going to university to major in Political Science) and then later when I was in my Reconstructionist period, politics were very high on my interest list. But when, for exegetical/biblical-theological reasons, I moved away from Reconstructionism/theonomy about a decade or so ago, I largely stepped away from those concerns.  I suppose part of that was due to the fact that, upon moving away from a directly theonomic approach, I wasn’t entirely sure how to think about politics.

I certainly do not claim now to have all the answers, but this new site is aimed at becoming an educational/discussion resource to help Canadian (in particular) Christians work through what we should be aiming for on a sociopolitical level,  as well as to help stimulate ideas for how we can serve our country on a less directly political level.

The site features four main sections: (1) Articles section dealing with various matters of principle, policy, values, etc; (2) Special features section for focusing on current events; (3) Categorized links library to help Christians find valuable articles etc around the web, as well as other web sites; and (4) a blog for keeping up conversation and commenting on current events or whatever. I am hoping to draft a few more contributors, as well.

At this point, the articles section has four articles available, dealing with foundational matters as well as economics and a summary piece on marriage/family/sexuality. There are a couple of substantive posts on the blog, and the links library has a modest beginning. As of yet, there are no special features on current events.

Anyway, do check it out, and pass on the news.

…scientists actually studied and approved the U.N. report on “climate change” without dissent?

Er… seven?

Apparently, the U.N. claim that 2,500 scientists were on board with their report is beyond misleading. That number simply refers to those asked to review the report.

Of which… 62 did so. Huh?

And most of those had “serious concerns”!

Granted, of those 55 with “serious concerns,” we’re sure that most are probably on board with the general notion of human-caused global warming.

Still, it’s hard to conceive of this as a “consensus,” given that overwhelming numbers are calling not only the U.N. report per se, but the whole notion, into question. The Herald notes that 68% of Canadian scientists surveyed disagree with the notion that the issue of human-caused global warming is “settled” (and that’s not based on a miniscule sampling – 51,000 scientists were surveyed). Add that to the 31,000 U.S. scientists who have signed the Petition Project… well, you get the picture.

Merry Christmas, everyone. Jesus is still King of the world.

“The proportion of Ugandans infected with HIV plunged from 21% in 1991 to 6% in 2002.
But international AIDS experts who came to Uganda said we were wrong to try to limit people’s sexual freedom. Worse, they had the financial power to force their casual-sex agendas upon us.” And now, “as fidelity and abstinence have been subverted,
Uganda’s HIV rates have begun to tick back up.”
– Rev. Sam L Ruteikara, co-chair of Uganda’s National AIDS-Prevention Committee

… to provide Obama’s invocation should pay attention to the fact that Joseph Lowery is giving the benediction. Lowery, a United Methodist “minister” is an open advocate of gay “marriage.”

One can hope and pray, of course, that Warren will use the occasion prophetically, rather than simply allow himself to be used… but that remains to be seen, does it not?

…and causes near-riots.

… but $1000 per month for families with one stay-at-home parent??

Sorry, people, we need to get out of the trough. We’re already far too socialistic as it is.

Is it costly to have only one career in a home? Of course it is. Doing the right thing always costs something, and if we really believe that having one parent at home is better than the alternative, we need to be prepared to face that cost.

If only the majority group is expected to express shame, then only the majority group is expected to be governed by rules of morality.

Fascinating little piece from Dennis Prager (who happens to be Jewish).

…to Lisa Miller of Newsweek.

It’s beyond amazing what sort of gall both Miller and her editor displayed in this.

Vote with your pocketbook, is all I say. The media is becoming rapidly more contemptible and corrupt (and it wasn’t starting from a very high point to begin with).

How about deflation? Fractional reserve banking?

Perhaps this essay will help.

Reisman opines on where the Big Three would be without the UAW. (Interestingly, this article is two years old.)

Another serious security hole has been uncovered, and no patch is currently available:

Read the alert.

… and the workarounds either don’t work or can’t be performed as Microsoft themselves explain them.

Wicked unions have thoroughly looted the capital stock of these companies, and the workers themselves are wholly focused on their own well-being rather than that of the company and the consumer. The management is deeply embedded in the regulatory structure of the state, working to effectively turn the American car industry into a public-private partnership of the sort Mussolini would applaud.

You don’t have to be a technician to know that foreign makers – whether building abroad or residing in the United States – make a superior car at a better price, no matter how much the “Big 3″ waste on hopped-up advertising campaigns. In fact, we should welcome their complete bankruptcy. Maybe they can regroup or maybe they can’t. That’s for the market to decide.

In the meantime, not cranking out these endless cars would be a welcome relief, freeing up labor and capital for more economically useful purposes.

To bail them out with tax dollars is an amazing insult to American consumers. What Americans have chosen not to buy, the government is now effectively forcing them to buy. You want a Toyota and paid for it with your money but your government is now saying that you should have bought a Pontiac, so it is tapping into your bank account to make it happen – and then not even giving you a car for your money!

I must add that I’m not a Rockwellian. He is a hyper-libertarian – or rather, an anarchist. While I believe government has grown far too big and intrusive, I am certainly no anarchist; it is God Himself who has delegated these authorities (Rom 13).

But on the particular point in question here… I have a hard time arguing with Lew. I especially love that last paragraph!

Has it ever struck you that the culmination of the wall of Jerusalem going up in Nehemiah 12 is a great music procession (12.27-43)?

Surely this is intended as a reversal of the wall of Jericho going down in response to a great music procession.

This correspondence is drawn closer by the fact that the procession in Nehemiah comes at the dedication of the wall. To my knowledge, no city or its walls had been dedicated (consecrated) before. That is a form of setting apart (sanctifying to Yahweh’s use).

Or rather, one city had been so set apart previously.

Jericho.

The other cities of Canaan were given to Israel to plunder for themselves, but Jericho was the “firstborn,” as it were, set apart for God. The city itself became a sort of ascension offering (otherwise known as a burnt offering); it was burned along with everything in it (Josh 6.24), with the exception of the silver, gold and vessels of metal, which were put into Yahweh’s treasury. Jericho was devoted (a city of cherem, sometimes translated along the lines of “accursed,” but the fundamental meaning is devotion) to Yahweh, which was why Achan’s theft of its treasures was dealt with so severely. (And also, incidentally, why his punishment took the specific form it did in Josh 7.25. Just as Jericho was “stoned” with its own walls and burned with fire, so Achan and his family, who had apparently been in collusion with him, were stoned with stones and burned with fire. By laying hold of the devoted things, the things of cherem, Achan also became cherem.)

Leithart points out that in Nehemiah 12, the whole city of Jerusalem has become “the house of God” (see 12.40). This is confirmed by the anomalous dedication (anomalous in the sense that this was normally something done to the temple or its vessels, not to a city or its walls), as well as by the fact that the returnees from Babylon are chosen by lot to be tithed to God to live in Jerusalem (Neh 11.1-2).

I believe there is a strong correspondence between that “tithing” event and the choice of the Levites to serve as the firstborn in Numbers 3.40-45. (Note again that the “firstborn” in Numbers 3 are set over against the destroyed firstborn of Egypt; a further suggestion that we are on the right track in seeing the chosen in Nehemiah as being set over against the destroyed “devoted” population of Jericho.)

I’m sure that it would be fruitful to reflect further upon this correspondence between Jericho’s destruction and Jerusalem’s rebuilding….

… by being offended on behalf of others.

I’m hearing a lot of talk about a “coup” and I’ve even heard the intended coalition between the Liberals, NDP and the Bloc Quebecois described as “treasonous.” As to the latter term, I think the BQ by its very nature is treasonous, but aside from the that, the term is way out to lunch, and in fact, so is “coup.”

To set things clear at the outset: I find the proposed coalition reprehensible. I find it reprehensible because by and large, I find all these parties and most of what they stand for to be reprehensible; and I’m also well aware that in a coalition, there are a lot of bones to throw, and when you get three dogs in the bone-chasing contest, policy-making will surely end up looking a lot worse than if any one of them had a majority government.

But the act of attempting to create a coalition government is not itself reprehensible. In truth, any minority government is always functioning de facto as a coalition government. Throughout its first term, the Conservative party under Harper was mostly a coalition government with the BQ, although there was not a formal statement of the fact.

And there is no rule nor precedent (nor should there be) that a governing coalition has to include the single party which elected most members to Parliament. (more…)

Of course, this sort of information is widely reported.

… for the fast food industry.

Big Brother just keeps getting bigger.