Would Evangelicals Support Mitt Romney?

I’ve been impressed this year by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and I’m pleased to see his name being mentioned as a potential presidential candidate. I posted on his judgment on the embryonic stem cell issue here, and on his call for the death penalty in Massachusetts if the standard of “no doubt” is met, here.

Hugh Hewitt points to a good column by Terry Eastland that weighs the merits of a Romney and finds it plausible.

My colleague Matt cites an optimistic NRO column, but he doesn’t believe Romney’s Mormonism will fly in the South or among evangelicals. Mark Daniels doesn’t think Romney’s faith will be a problem unless he pushes it too much.

It is untested ground because there hasn’t been a serious Mormon contender since Mitt’s father, George Romney, and his candidacy crashed for other reasons. My theory is that evangelical conservatives are less inclined to put their faith ahead of their politics in these matters than the secularists believe. That’s not necessary good news, and we’ve decried this tendency in this space.
l
If Romney’s policy credentials look solid to evangelicals, and it appears he could beat Hillary Clinton, I believe evangelicals will focus on his conservative values and not on his Mormonism.
One rationale I would use is the evangelicals’ embrace of Ronald Reagan, by no means an evangelical and not even a church-goer. He carried the banner for many issues of concern to evangelicals.

Mitt Romney could do the same. And if he can win in the northeast, it’s trouble for any Democrat.

--James Jewell

The Moderate Party in the U.S. Parliament

Doesn’t this banding of Democrats leaning right and Republicans leaning left have the feel of a third party? Perhaps the Moderate Party. The Band of 14 throwing its weight around, offering its strength to whichever party yields to its will, resembles the parliamentary system. Get Bill First a powdered wig and lets see where it goes.

Around the ‘sphere: Truth, Marriage, Religious Liberty, and Border Control

Total Truth: Daddypundit blogs for Nancy Pearcey’s Total Truth. This substantial work by my former Prison Fellowship colleague is getting a lot of blog play.

Adventures in Holy Matrimony: Julie Ann Fiedler, whose blog Fidler One the Roof I’ve been reading since my first week of blogging last October, has a new book coming out June 7 titled Adventures In Holy Matrimony. Julie says: “It's a memoir-type of book, about the many, large, bizarre challenges my husband and I faced in the early years of our marriage, and our story of how we came back from the brink of divorce. I wrote this thing because when my own marriage was troubled, I couldn't find any good relationship books that weren't "the white picket fence kind."

What is Valid Religion?: Guess the Alliance Defense Fund should plug its nose and take up for the Wiccans in this bizarre Indiana court ruling, reported by Ed at In the Agora.

Border Control Strategy: Does someone have a cogent explanation of why we do not control our borders? Is the Hispanic voting bloc that strong? Are we sure Hispanics who have come to the U.S. legally don’t want us to guard the borders? LaShawn’s has been on this case for a while. She says, “There is no border control strategy.”

--James Jewell

Runaway Justice: Making Cold Feet and Bad Judgment a Crime

If you’ve followed this blog you may recall that I am a resident of Gwinnett County, Georgia, home of the 2005 heroine (Ashley Smith of the courtroom murder drama) and the female villain (Jennifer Wilbanks, the runaway bride).

I also posted last week about my experience as jury foreman in a criminal trial here in Gwinnett.
I am disgusted that the district attorney forced and a grand jury bit on a two-count indictment yesterday against Wilbanks, with the potential for seven years in prison if convicted.
Oh to be on the jury for the Jennifer Wilbanks trial.

This is an absolute travesty of justice based on public anger at Wilbanks for wasting their time and costing the citizens of Gwinnett some money. This is nothing about the law. At the very worst this should be a civil case to try to recover some of the money spent looking for Wilbanks.
The only folks that would have a potential case against Wilbanks would be the police in New Mexico. She lied to them and caused them to take some action. But they were smart enough to recognize that this was not a criminal at work, but a messed up young woman who needed to go home and get help.

As her story to the Albuquerque police was about to unravel, Wilbanks called the police here in Gwinnett County and related her false story of abduction. But she—-and the fictional perpetrators—-were in New Mexico, not Georgia.

No Gwinnett police officer had to leave a Dunkin Donuts; no district attorney had to leave the golf course. At that point no public employee had to do anything but take a phone message.
And they’ve indicted this space cadet for a felony.

A lot of people are mad at Wilbanks for fooling them, and for costing Duluth, Georgia $40,000. But the call she made to police at the end of the saga didn’t cost anyone anything.

Leave her alone. Let her get help. This has become the case of runaway justice. What an embarassment.

UPDATE: It gets worse. I just read the article on this in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and was reminded that Wilbanks did not call the Duluth police. She called home (or her fiance's home) and while she was on the phone, the Duluth police chief rushed to the house and got on an extension. That's how he got the false report, with which he could do nothing! Sham indictment.

--James Jewell

Capitalism at Work

I am a resident of the state of Georgia and my brother-in-law, a missionary in Russia, is engaged to marry a young woman from the republic of Georgia. So I was drawn to a post by Sean at The American Mind that points to a fascinating piece (titled Georgia is Larger Than Georgia) at Club for Growth. It charts the GNP of U.S. states compared to the nations of the world. (also noted by Karol at Alarming News).

The GNP of Georgia, the American state, is 21 times larger than Georgia, the country that was formerly part of the Soviet Union ($320B vs. $15B).

The GNP of the United States is nearly double that of China, which has a population three times that of our country. But capitalism is surging in China. Check back in 10 years.

--James Jewell

The Filibuster Deal: Compromise Isn’t Always a Bad Word

I was late in coming to the position that the nuclear option should be used to coerce Democrats into playing fair on judicial nominees. My fear all along has been that the Republicans would regret the day that the power of the filibuster was weakened; on that day when they need it.

This assumes that the Republicans will not always be the majority in the Senate, a bet I’d be willing to make. There is an arrogance that comes with victory, and with having the strong arm in the all three Houses—Senate, Representative, and White.

I came around during the Terri Schiavo case, when an unresponsive and irresponsible judiciary irked me.

So, my approval of The Deal may be suspect. Perhaps I am a Moderate. Oh, my. But on most issues I am probably a moderate only in comparison to a very hard right.Although we'll hear a lot about how The Deal solves nothing and about how the weak-kneed Republican leadership failed, it appears that the potential downsides of the deal are much greater for the Democrats. Although the Republicans may have to fight the same battles again, it is more likely that the Democrats will have to go along with an up/down vote for candidates that they would have otherwise threatened to filibuster. They will look disingenuous if candidates they filibuster meet the Owen/Brown/Pryor standard.

I believe it was wise to compromise, that it is a good deal for the Republicans, and that there some progress on assuring fairness in the President’s appointment of his own judges. If we can continue on that track without messing with Senate rules, that is preferable.

--James Jewell

The New York Times: Seeking Your Trust

The New York Times published an internal critique last week titled Preserving Our Readers’ Trust, conducted by a self-named Credibility Group headed by Allan Seigel.

Most of the report makes recommendations that will help the paper take advantage of new technologies and do better and more accurate reporting. So most of the report misses the mark, because it does not deal with the central issues that have caused the Times to violate the trust of its readers—an insular, elitist worldview and blatant bias.

But on the last page of the report, the study group hits on some of the real issues. (h/t: Terry Mattingly)

In a section titled Diversifying Our Vantage Point, the report reads:

Too often we label whole groups from a perspective that uncritically accepts a stereotype or unfairly marginalizes them. As one reporter put it, words like moderate or centrist "inevitably incorporate a judgment about which views are sensible and which are extreme." We often apply "religious fundamentalists," another loaded term, to political activists who would describe themselves as Christian conservatives.

We particularly slip into these traps in feature stories when reporters and editors think they are merely presenting an interesting slice of life, with little awareness of the power of labels. We need to be more vigilant about the choice of language not only in the text but also in headlines, captions and display type.

Many staff members say that the paper covers breaking news well, but that it needs to take additional steps to cover the country in a fuller way. The national desk is already moving in this direction, but we encourage more reporting from the middle of the country, from exurbs and hinterland, and more coverage of social, demographic, cultural and lifestyle issues. We would also welcome even more enterprise reporting beyond New York, Washington and a handful of other major cities.

Nothing we recommend should be seen as endorsing a retreat from tough-minded reporting of abuses of power by public or private institutions. In part because the Times's editorial page is clearly liberal, the news pages do need to make more effort not to seem monolithic. Both inside and outside the paper, some people feel that we are missing stories because our staff lacks diversity in viewpoints, intellectual grounding and individual backgrounds. We should look for all manner of diversity. We should seek talented journalists who happen to have military experience, who know rural America first hand, who are at home in different faiths.

A candid analysis and recommendations that the Times would be wise to heed.

As Mattingly writes in his weekly column, the cover of the report should have had the famous New Yorker illustration, which demonstrates the self-focus of New Yorkers, but notably also fails to include even one church steeple.

As the Times’ study group has pointed out, the paper—and all of MSM—need to more aggressively seek out the steeples that not only dot the New York and the national landscape but animate the lives and dreams of all of America.

--James Jewell

The Most Dangerous Entanglement of Church and State

The most dangerous entanglement of church and state in the current Administration was not the prayer at the Inauguration, or Christian evangelism at the Air Force Academy, or the lobbying by overtly Christian groups on the issue of filibuster.

It was the establishment of the Office of Faith-based Initiatives in 2001.

This was one of President Bush’s first official acts, and I believe it was prompted by his personal faith and his confidence in the non-profit, and specifically the faith-based, organizations.

The Office was tasked at its inception with leading a "determined attack on need" by strengthening and expanding the role of faith-based and community organizations in addressing the nation's social problems. The President envisions a faith-friendly public square where faith-based organizations can compete equally with other groups to provide government or privately-funded services.

Sounds warm and fuzzy, but we thought this was a bad idea from the start, and that it was short-sighted for Christian organizations and churches to applaud this well-intentioned, but flawed, initiative. It may be that the War on Terror derailed the Faith-based Initiative, because not much has become of the effort.

Writing in this space in October, Debbie called for the elimination of the OFBI, because it is unfair to taxpayers, and because it is dangerous for Christian ministries.

She wrote:

If the government gives contracts and funding to faith-based organizations, those organizations will of necessity turn into today’s YMCA. (Does anyone even remember that the “C” stands for Christian? I doubt The Village People did.) Faith-based organizations will not be able to witness to those they assist. They will not have the right to refuse to hire people who do no subscribe to the tenants of the stated faith of the organization or church. They will not be able to pray in Jesus’ name before they feed their hundreds of clients. And rightly so, because part of their money will have come from people who do not support those beliefs, and from people who are vehemently opposed to them.

I have heard leaders of faith-based organizations say, “Yes, we’ll take the money provided there are no strings attached.” How arrogant. How selfish. They want the right to take the money from gays and Buddhists, then determine how the money is spent – ways that many gays or Buddhists would despise. They are thinking of only the recipient (themselves) and not the giver (the taxpayer).

Even if the rules for faith-based organizations would be flexible now due to an empathetic Administration, they are likely to change down the road, recognizing that the giver of the money has the right to determine the rules and how the money is spent. Rules that atheists and pro-choicers and Jews can live with. And those rules of necessity will say that an organization cannot preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified with money that came from the personal pocket of the local Rabbi.

And when you are dependent on money that becomes 30% or 60% of your budget, will you be able refuse further issuance of that money, and look in the face of the one you are serving and say, “I can’t serve you today?” Will you have the courage to pay the piper, cut that money you are now dependent on out of the budget--thereby cutting your services--and start a new fund-raising program to replace that government money and rebuild your organization?
Faith-based organizations would do well to take the high road. If money is offered from the government, refuse it and instead rely on the One you say is sufficient to meet your needs, and Who will do so for the purpose of making your ministry prosper. The One who gave you that ministry in the first place.

Tom at NewsWithViews agreed:

"A word to the wise: if you are a faith-based charity performing a valuable service providing for those in need, stay away from federal funds. Your program will survive on willing private contributions. If you accept federal dollars to pay for your program then you deserve what you get."

Much more on this topic, with many links here at FailureIsImpossible.

The liberals and secularists oppose the OFBI, but for the wrong reasons. When church and state become enmeshed, it is the church, not the state, that is endangered.

--James Jewell

Trial by Jury

A tall, soft-spoken, 62-year-old Jamaican immigrant spent last night in the Gwinnett County Jail because I joined 11 other citizens of the county in convicting him of aggravated assault in a March 2 attack on his wife of two years, when an argument over money got out of hand.
After two days of intense testimony and deliberation, I was the foreman of a jury of mostly young people who found “Alfie” guilty of grabbing his short, stocky and combative wife by hair, punching her, and wielding a knife and waving it threateningly.

His wife’s daughter-in-law jumped on him and no one was stabbed. The overly dramatic and reasonably obnoxious defense attorney (as a jury we joked about asking the judge for permission to indict him for being a drama king) said the slight Vietnamese daughter-in-law could never have stopped Alfie from stabbing Dolores, if he’d wanted to. That’s possible; we’ll never know. What is clear is that he was holding her down on the stove by the hair and waving a knife in her face.

There was a 911 tape that made the case for the prosecutor, in that it captured the terror of the two women. It really defined terror. And it corroborated the testimony of the police officer and the daughter-in-law.

The two Jamaicans were a disaster on the witness stand. Neither could answer questions directly. It’s probably a cultural trait, although perhaps it was just these two individuals. The wife was particularly maddening. She was the last witness the first day of the trial, and I think we all went home thinking we’d acquit the guy, and in our minds figured we’d count living with this overbearing woman as “time-served.”

But the defense brought the defendant, Alfie, to the stand the next day. Although he was much more likeable, his story was ridiculously fictionalized. It didn’t match any of the other evidence and made it sound like he and his wife were discussing poetry in the kitchen on the afternoon of the incident.

Bad decision by the defense. Another bad move by the defense counsel was in his closing argument. His central argument was that his defendant was 62, and that the rules are different for someone 62. He really said that, several times. “When you’re 62, the rules are different.” I still can’t figure out what he meant by that. It sounded like the argument for some government program, where the rules are different for some groups that are old or poor or illegal immigrants, or gay.

No, we compared the evidence to the indictment, and the rules weren’t different for Alfie, although he was 62, affable, and simple.

As a jury we didn’t think the prosecution was able to prove three other counts—aggravated assault on the daughter-in-law and two counts of making dangerous threats, called “terroristic threats.”

We were unanimous on one count of guilty, and three counts not-guilty. No jury room arguments or stubborn hold-outs. No arm twisting.

So Alfie went to jail to await sentencing, and we went home for dinner.

But the trial will not go away in my mind. Surprisingly, it is a heavy weight to stand in judgment on another human being. There was a solemn responsibility that we felt to rule justly. We recognized that we would be altering the life of this generally likeable man—he didn’t have any previous convictions—if we found him guilty. But he had clearly snapped, and may do it again and put these women in further danger if he was not punished for what he had clearly done.

I prayed for Alfie last night, that God might be with him and redirect his life. And I prayed for peace in the family.

--James Jewell

Evangelism, the Left, and the Air Force Academy

From time to time it seems as though there can be no meaningful discourse in American public life, particularly between those of diverse philosophies, faiths, or worldviews. It is easy to diagnose this as an inability of the Red States and Blue States to communicate, because red values and blue values are so drastically different. And there is some truth to that.

But perhaps more accurately, we are many red and blue islands, not necessarily geographic, but spiritual, economic, racial, and social. The islands have their own communications channels; their own books, magazines, and newspapers; their own churches, social gatherings, television shows, and political parties.

I’ve seen this kind of an island for many years in the evangelical Christian community. Having been raised in a Christian home, educated in a Christian college, and working much of my career in Christian organizations, I have met many, many believers who cannot identify one non-Christian friend. Or even a non-Christian acquaintance with whom they’ve had a meaningful conversation. In fact, many conservative Christians have never knowingly had a conversation with a homosexual person.

I confess all of this because I know that the flip side is also true—secular elites and many unchurched folks don’t have an evangelical friend or acquaintance. They’ve never met a authentic evangelical person. Most have never had a decent conversation with a serious Christian believer.

This all came to mind when I wrote a post on the criticism of Air Force Academy Christians. Seeing some of the visceral reaction on liberal blogs, I wondered who these bloggers were describing when they wrote about evangelical Christians.

The aggressive, take-no-prisoners evangelical zealots described in media coverage of the Air Force controversy bear no resemblance to 90 percent of the evangelicals I have met and played with, learned with, worked with, and worshipped with. I have been an evangelical Christian for 36 years. And since I have been working in what we call the evangelical cocoon, I have not been isolated from the trends and teachings of the evangelical community.

There are at least three things that we are taught within the evangelical cocoon about evangelism, or sharing your faith. (Never once have I ever heard it called prosyletizing by the church. It’s a word critics use to make it sound scary). First, in order to be obedient to instructions from Jesus Christ, we are taught, we must be a witness of our Christianity to others who are outside the faith. And it’s a joy—although most of us are uncomfortable with intruding on others’ personal privacy—because we believe we have the best news in the world.

Second, we are taught that individuals come to faith in Christ as a result of the moving of the Holy Spirit in them and it is our task only to present the good news with logic, emotion, anecdote, or personal reflection. We don’t bring anyone to faith in Christ. God does that.

Third, we learn that people who are turned off by us personally are not going to be receptive to what we are presenting. Converts at the edge of the sword are converts in name or number only. No one teaches us to badger seekers or use threats or intimidation. That’s a crazy evangelistic strategy.

Because the message of Jesus Christ is unwavering—“no one comes to the Father but by Me”—the Christian message is often characterized as arrogant. The message is clear and unchanging, but not boastful. When Christian believers are arrogant in their manner or words, they do damage to that faith. At those moments, they are an embarrassment to the Kingdom.
All that said, what is it that Americans for the Separation of Church and State, the New York Times and other MSM, and Yale Divinity School are talking about when they describe the activities of Christians at the Air Force Academy?

The NY Times describes what it sees at the Academy as “unconstitutional proselytizing of academy students by evangelists whose efforts were blessed by authority figures in the chain of command.” What is that? Is proselytizing unconstitutional? No, in fact it is unconstitutional to be” prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. Is it unconstitutional for the leaders of a military academy to bless the efforts of those who share their faith on campus? It would be only to the extent that it established one religion as the official religion of the academy or the military.

To avoid the appearance of the establishment of evangelical Christianity as the religion of the Academy there are legitimate lines that should not be crossed. No one should have their rights abridged because they are not adherents to a particular faith or if they have no faith at all.
But the free expression of faith, the open dialogue of all faiths, is not what is at stake here. My hunch is that Christian witnessing—Christians explaining the truths and benefits of trusting Jesus Christ—just grates on those who detest Christianity, or are repulsed by certainty.

The critics have mentioned several incidents:

Chaplains
In its analysis of the Academy’s actions, the Los Angeles Times quotes the Yale report: “During Protestant worship services, cadets were encouraged to proselytize to others and ‘remind them of the consequences of apostasy.’”

Wait. This is during the Protestant worship services! Is Yale suggesting that the administration of the Academy control the worship services? And look at their incendiary message: Go tell it on the mountain that Jesus Christ is Lord and that rejecting Him will have negative consequences.

We are in trouble as a nation if Christians cannot share that message everywhere and anywhere. The report continues: “Protestant Cadets were regularly encouraged to witness to fellow Basic Cadets.” Welcome to Evangelism 101. What a threat to the Republic. As I said earlier, this is what we are taught from our earliest days as Christians. Why did it become so shocking just because the men and women are wearing uniforms?

Passion of the Christ
The Times says there were flyers on dining hall chairs inviting cadets to view The Passion of the Christ. What strong arm tactics! How could these impressionable, vulnerable airmen resist such pressure?

Name Calling
Evidently, a Jewish cadet was called a “filthy Jew” by someone. That’s stupid and childish. But if it was an evangelical Christian, denigrating the Jewish people is totally out of line with the teachings of the church. There isn’t a faith group that has more respect for Jews and for Israel than evangelicals. Anyone who would take a little time to learn about evangelicals would know this. To include this in an analysis of the lines between church and state indicates the bias of the reporter.

Christians are not the persecuted minority in America and we shouldn’t act like it. But Christians are, interestingly, the constantly belittled and criticized majority.

When it comes to matters of faith, there is too much whining on the left and too much hand wringing on the right.

Frankly, if we—-as evangelicals—-took all of the opportunities presented to us each day to authentically and sensitively communicate our faith and our concern for others, the rapid expansion of the Christian community might scare the daylights out of those who think the armed forces that we rely on to defend our nation can’t possibly resist the spiritual entreaties of their colleagues.

--James Jewell

The Darfur Collection

Catez at AllThings2All is presenting The Darfur Collection, a number of posts on the genocide in Darfur, including one written here last week. Please check this out and do what you can to keep this issue alive in the blogosphere.

--James Jewell

The Savage Nation Falls Prey to Longstanding Urban Legend

Michael Savage fell prey to a longstanding internet Urban Legend when he read a piece sent by a listener and identified it as something Andy Rooney had delivered on 60 Minutes “a few weeks ago.”

You can read it at Loadmouth Soap.

But Andy Rooney never gave this commentary. As Snopes.com explains, Rooney denied that it was his material in 2003 and "whoever created this version appears to have lifted some parts from an earlier piece known as "Yes, I Guess I am A BAD American" and falsely credited to comedian George Carlin. Here’s the list from the psuedo-Carlin."

Snopes traces the origin of much of this material back to a bootyist-monk at Free Republic in September 2000.

A lot of this is quite true, plenty of it blatantly insensitive, and a little of it too crude. Enough of it is really funny.

So: Michael Savage meet bootyist-monk. And beware of the urban legend.

--James Jewell

The Assault on Christians at the Air Force Academy

The artificial controversy concerning overzealous Christians at the Air Force Academy is a textbook example of how liberals influence public opinion. In this case, a renowned anti-Christian liberal group (Americans for the Separation of Church and State) visited the Academy, talked with 15 students and staff, wrote a 13-page report, sent it to the Department of Defense, and announced it through the AP and others.

The MSM (here and here) picked up the charge and gave liberal ink to the “high level investigation” that “uncovers Christian bias” at the Air Force Academy. Now, the MSM says, the military is investigating.

Congratulations to the AFSCS. It was a wonderful exhibition of using the media apparatus available to them to create a crisis that exists only in the minds of people who hate to see strong Christians in positions of authority in any part of the government, including the military.

It is clear that faith is quite important to the cadets at the Air Force Academy. When life is about to involve screaming through the sky at unimaginable speeds or landing a plane on a piece of steel bobbing in the middle of an ocean, I’m not surprised that airmen want to be acquainted with their Creator and Sustainer.

It may be that their have been some who have been too aggressive in spreading the Word. And guidelines are fine. But don’t base anything on a bogus public relations campaign by a biased group seeking to wipe Christian influence entirely from the public square.

In Family News in Focus, Tom Clemmons, an Air Force Academy graduate and former officer, said it's really an attempt to quash the free speech of Christians.

"I totally disagree with what they're saying. I applaud any chaplain that would encourage students to know the Lord. This is a free country, even in the military. If I did experience a bias in the Air Force, it was against Christians. Now, while we do have Christians at the Academy and in the Air Force, it's definitely a minority."

If you’ve ever visited the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, the most striking structure is a dramatically designed modern chapel in the center of the campus. Those who risk their lives each day to protect America have always looked to God to protect them and guide their perilous steps. For decades, the centrally located chapel has been a symbol of that dependence of God. May it always be.

--James Jewell

A Heart of Courage

I received an email today from a longtime friend and former colleague. Her 16-year-old daughter Esther had surgery on a badly weakened heart this week at the Cleveland Clinic. The surgery was perilous and the outcome uncertain, but Esther pulled through and she seems to be out of immediate danger. But there are great struggles—and probably more surgery—ahead.
But today, her daughter has a grin as wide as her face because she is keeping food down and there’s hope that she may have the strength to ride a bike again, something she has been unable to do since 2nd grade.

Esther was diagnosed with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy at the age of seven and she has lived a limited life physically. But although the muscles of her heart are diseased, Esther’s spirit is strong, encouraging, and illuminating.

Esther and her family are faithful followers of Christ, deeply spiritual as they approached this ordeal years ago, and attuned now to every lesson and every provision from the hand of the Lord. Every challenge is for growth, every personal contact an opportunity, every provision—from an ice chip to a new medicine—is a blessing of God.

The Cleveland Clinic provides a personal blog for each patient to update family and friends as often as they would like. What a wonderful use of blogging.

The posts of this personal password-protected blog show us the courage of a young person, emboldened by faith in God to confront deadly illness with purpose and confidence.
There are lessons for us, too.

1. Life is a precious and delicately balanced gift.

2. Life’s struggles have a purpose. At times the purpose may be the witness of persevering through trials, yielded to God.

3. Courage is often exhibited in small packages. We have much to learn from the courage of a young person such as Esther, finding meaning in the midst of great pain and fear. Her Mom is showing a lot of courage, too!

4. There is, of course, the gift of perspective. What problems are you facing today? Perhaps they are as serious as Esther’s. I know mine pale in comparison and that I need to be as grateful for a good night’s sleep or a new project as Esther is that she can walk down the hall and back.

We pray that God will mend Esther’s heart and give her many more years. We pray that she’ll be able to ride her bicycle, and dance and sing and celebrate a full life. And we pray that we would have her courage to see God in each detail of the day, and to lean on Him when we find it hard to stand on our own.

--James Jewell

WHO WILL STOP THE GENOCIDE IN DARFUR? FRANCE WON’T; WILL WE?

In Darfur, destruction moves quickly across the African Sahel, marauders terrorizing defenseless villages too far from anywhere to expect help. With hundreds of thousands dead and almost two million people now squatters in refugee camps in neighboring Chad, hope moves with alarming reticence, the world too busy to scare away this apocalypse of darkness that’s descended on the Christian and other non-Arab peoples of western Sudan.

Prior to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, the UN called the Darfur conflict the world's worst current humanitarian crisis. When the tsunami devastated Asia, the focus of the humanitarian community necessarily shifted to the East.

It is time for the United States to stop the genocide in Darfur. How many times are we going to look the other way as hundreds of thousands of African families are decimated. Did we learn nothing from Rwanda?

This should be a job for the United Nations (yeah, right). Darfur is a failure of the international community, but its doubtful that anyone but the United States has the moral will and the ability to do anything.

Potential Progress Thwarted by France?
It is time to accelerate the diplomatic, and if necessary, the military, action. Even the slightest progress has us pitted once again against France, which wants to do nothing on its own.

This is the latest news:

The latest piece of a solution is a decision last week by the African Union (AU) to triple its troops in Darfur to 7,700 and ask NATO for logistical support. Even that additional foreign presence in a region the size of France wouldn't be enough, but it shows confidence is growing that outside intervention can be effective.

Sudan's government tacitly approves NATO's potential role in Darfur, but France, which has preferred a strictly European role in Africa's crises, may be ready to shoot down this request of NATO by African nations.

So far, France has preferred to deal with Darfur by weaker measures, such as UN Security Council steps to impose sanctions on Sudan and put Darfur's attackers on trial (if they can be caught). These have been inadequate. Only by backing AU troops with essential NATO planes and other equipment can the Arab militia, known as Janjaweed, be intimidated to give up for good.

NATO's post-cold-war role has yet to be defined. It wasn't included in the antiterrorism invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now it has a chance for a limited role in an African conflict. The US would like more NATO intervention on the continent - perhaps with the AU leading - to keep failing states from becoming home to terrorist groups. If France again fails to back the US in such ventures, NATO itself may wither and bilateral ties worsen.

The Coalition for Darfur maintains a daily blog kof actions on Darfur.

Mark Daniels points us to a strong column on Darfur by Nicholas Kristoff.

From the Financial Times:

The failure of the international community to halt the ethnic cleansing, mass rape and killings in Darfur in western Sudan is a disgrace to our time. For two years the world stood by while Darfur burned. In place of action there was a grotesque debate over whether we should call it genocide.

A little over a month ago the United Nations Security Council finally agreed to refer Darfur to the International Criminal Court. This was an important breakthrough. But the promise of justice in the future is not enough. The people of Darfur need protection now.

If we cannot move NATO, we need to support the AU on our own. We didn’t overcome the failures of Somalia by invading Iraq. We’d accomplish that by intervening with what would be a relatively small contingent of U.S. military.

Of course there isn’t much oil in Darfur. Saving the lives of African villagers probably doesn’t advance the war on terror. But there weren’t many good reasons for intervening in Kosovo, either,except to stop genocide. Why not now, in Darfur?

Another blog resource.

The Darfur Conflict
Here’s a summary of what’s happened:

The Darfur conflict is an ongoing conflict in the Darfur region of western Sudan, mainly between the Janjaweed, a government-supported militia recruited from local Arab tribes, and the non-Arab peoples of the region. Note that both sides are largely black in skin tone, and the distinction between "Arab" and "non-Arab" common in western media is heavily disputed by many people, including the Sudanese government. The conflict has been widely described as "ethnic cleansing", and frequently as "genocide". In September 2004, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated 50,000 deaths in Darfur since the conflict's beginning, mostly by starvation; in October, its head gave an estimate of 71,000 deaths by starvation and disease alone between March and October 2004. While a recent British Parliamentary Report estimates that over 300,000 people have already died[1] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4268733.stm), the United Nations estimates that 180,000 have died in the 18 months of the conflict [2] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4349063.stm). More than 1.8 million people had been displaced from their homes. 200,000 have fled to neighboring Chad. The refugees include non-Arab victims of non-Arabs, Arab victims of non-Arabs, and Arab victims of Arabs; however, the large majority are non-Arab black Africans fleeing Janjaweed attacks [3]

Last month, a U.S. envoy received assurances from the government of Sudan that they would step in and stop the slaughter. No one believes them. Or about as much as the fox in the henhouse.

So Who Will Stop the Killing?
From the Los Angeles Times:

So who will stop the killing? That question should trouble any tender soul who has ever mindlessly muttered, "Never again." That incantation is repeated after every genocide — after the Holocaust, after the Cambodian killing fields, after Rwanda — and yet the next time mass slaughter breaks out, the world conveniently averts its gaze. The major exceptions in recent years have been Kosovo and Bosnia, which had the good fortune to be on Western Europe's doorstep. The rest of the world is treated to high-minded cluck-clucking and, maybe, ex post facto prosecutions.

The only way to save Darfur is to dispatch a large and capable military expedition. But Security Council members France, China and Russia have blocked a U.N. decision on armed intervention because they covet trade ties with Sudan.

That still leaves the possibility of civilized states acting independently of the U.N., as they did in Kosovo. But the only nation with a serious military capacity, the United States, is overstretched in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The European Union should step into the breach. Its economy is as big as the United States' and its population is even bigger. But it has chosen to spend its euros on extravagant handouts for its own citizens rather than on the kind of armed forces that might bring a ray of hope to the "heart of darkness." Although the European members of NATO actually have more ground troops than the U.S. — about 1.5 million soldiers — only about 6% are readily deployable abroad. The Europeans could still scrape together the 25,000 to 50,000 soldiers it would take to pacify Darfur, but it would be a stretch for them given their existing commitments, and not one they're willing to make.

As a last resort, even if they're not willing to send their own troops, the U.S. and the EU could offer to provide much more logistical support to allow the African Union to dispatch more of its own peacekeepers to Sudan. That's not asking a lot, yet it's more than anyone has been willing to do so far.

Aside from a handful of journalists and human rights activists, the only Westerners who have shown any sustained interest in the Sudan are evangelical Christians, who've been exercised primarily about the fate of their coreligionists in the south.

Little solace to hundreds of thousands of people still suffering. We have the might to stop genocide in Africa at the same time we establish democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. We must see to it that it is done.

--James Jewell

Disadvantages of Pissing Off America

This is very funny, but with a lot of truth in it.

(h/t to Doug at Considerettes)

God Bless America, Land That Loves to Eat

America is eating itself to death. Obesity is rampant. The sweet land of liberty has more desire for sweets than liberty. When the advertisements said: “Have it Your Way,” we choose the double cheeseburger and lots of fries.

Indeed, this may be a new long-range strategy for Al Qaeda. In the pursuit of vascular terrorism, the nefarious characters may be buying stock in McDonalds, Burger King, and Pepsico. Advertising for Ryans and Golden Corral—all you can eat until your arteries are completely clogged and they carry you out in a cattle wagon. Starting blogs that constantly reinforce the notion that heavy people are just big-boned and suffering from glandular disorders.

Fatitude is not a respecter of party or ideology. Rotundity is transcending the great political divides from Michael Moore to Rush Limbaugh (yes, I see he’s again the round mound of sound), and from Teddy Kennedy to Dennis Hastert.

Just when we thought there was no hope, two from the South--where there’s nothing that cannot be deep fried and you can get enough cholesterol for breakfast to last you the whole day--are introducing a new campaign to fight fat. Former President Bill Clinton and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee on Tuesday announced the launch of a 10-year initiative to combat childhood obesity, calling it a national epidemic. (h/t: Broken Masterpieces)

It’s a worthy effort from two who have something to say on the matter. Clinton has always had bad eating habits, and paid for with by-pass surgery. Huckabee was huge and lost 110 pounds in the last couple of years. He said in a Newsday interview:

"Two years ago I would not have been asked to be here today to speak to this issue, for the simple reason that I would have been about the worst role model you could have had. My doctor sat me down and said if you don't change your lifestyle you're in the last decade of your life."

Yesterday, Limbaugh said that the campaign needs a new slogan--something like Mrs. Reagan’s anti-drug line: “Just Say No”—-and for Clinton it could be “Just Don’t Swallow.”

Or maybe: "Fight Terrorism. Eat a salad."

--James Jewell

Runaway Morality

We’ve wondered about this, too.

Could we have an explanation concerning the failure of the Baptist church in Duluth, Georgia, to make any reference at all to the fact that the Runaway Bride and her Live-in Groom shared a home without the benefit of marriage?

In all of the newscasts that I saw on the story here in Atlanta, the fact that the marriage had been consummated before the wedding was presented as commonplace. We’ve come to expect that of popular culture, but we’d like to believe that evangelical churches would require a bit more from their Sunday school teachers.

--James Jewell

Public Schools Telling Us “Who’s in a Family”

Michelle Malkin writes about a David Parker, father of a 5-year-old boy in Concord, Mass., was arrested Wednesday at his son's kindergarten over a disagreement about the appropriateness of the book, "Who's in a Family?." It teaches preschoolers about "multicultural contemporary family units" including nuclear, intergenerational, mixed-race, and lesbian and gay arrangements.

At Blogicus, Tim says:

Christian parents are concerned about the promotion of homosexual marriage in the classrooms of their children, and they should be. However, this latest controversy reveals something much worse: the ethical bankruptcy of the school system, the forcible indoctrination of students and the illegitimate acceptance of the government as the source ethical truth.

The easy answer is to get your kids out of public school. But that is also a cop-out answer. We should not capitulate so easily, for it is our tax dollars at work. And private schools or homeschooling is not an option for all parents. These are issues worth some civil discourse and, like Mr. Parker, even civil disobedience.

--James Jewell

Runaway Gwinnett County, Georgia

I live in Gwinnett County, Georgia, which up until this year was best known as a poster child for runaway suburban sprawl. Now, the county is nationally known for the Runaway Bride.

And earlier this year, judge killer Brian Nichols ran away TO Gwinnett County to elude justice, and ran into Ashley Smith, who used Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Life, her gritty life and strong faith to talk him into allowing her to escape his grasp and call the police.

Both the runaway bride and runaway killer stories were in Duluth, the Georgia one that’s not frozen half the year.

But now Jennifer Wilbanks is back, and the Gwinnett County DA is deciding whether or not to charge her with a felony. Oh, please.

First of all, she’s already been punished. Think about it. She rode a Greyhound bus all the way to Las Vegas, and back to Albuquerque. No wonder she was pleading for help.

The only thing Wilbanks did that was illegal was call 911 in Albuquerque and lie about being abducted. She didn’t stick with that story very long, and the police there wisely just put her on a plane home.

It isn’t illegal for an adult to run away from home. She didn’t ask for the police or anyone else to look for her, so don’t sue her for that!

Have you ever had an experience where someone you love is late getting home and doesn’t call? When the person finally shows up—just forgot to call—you’re so relieved to see the person that you’re filled with joy, for a while. Then you get very angry about their inconsideration.

Now the second shoe drops for Jennifer Wilbanks. But it shouldn’t be the District Attorney’s. The Come to Jesus meeting should be sponsored by her family. They’re the ones who had to suffer through all of this.

As for fiancé. Time to runaway.

--James Jewell

But Can They Beat Hillary?

The social security and filibuster debates boring you to tears? How about a little banter on the 2008 election?

Jason at Antioch Road says: "Please Tell Me the Field Gets Better Than This."

David at Swiftly and With Style says “Run, Rudy, Run.” I love Rudy, but he's not conservative enough on social issues. As the campaign heats up it will be more than five years after 9-11. I don’t think America’s Mayor will be able to ride his performance in NYC all the way to the nomination. And he’ll get killed by the social conservatives. Remember McCain in South Carolina? Someone will hire Ralph Reed to make Guiliani look like Chuck Schumer in the South and he’ll be finished.

My favorite at the moment is Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. A Republican who is socially conservative, has a great GOP pedigree, and got elected in Massachusetts. He’s sharp, well spoken. I’ve been impressed with his leadership in recent months. He’d be popular with the evangelicals, but he isn’t one—-he’s Mormon. Watch his stock rise.

-James Jewell

Total Truth on Christian Political Activism

Catez at AllThings2All is writing some thoughtful material on politics and faith, in response to Nancy Pearcey’s new book, Total Truth.

Catez writes: The point I wanted to bring out was we should not toe the party line if it means overriding conscience. I want to expand on that. Firstly I'd like to bring in a quote from Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey, in which she comments on Christian involvement in political activism:

"This heightened activism has yielded good results in many areas of public life, yet the impact remains far less than most had hoped. Why? Because evangelicals often put all their eggs in one basket: They leaped into political activism as the quickest, surest way to make a difference in the public arena - failing to realize that politics tends to reflect culture, not the other way around."

It's easier to get a conversation going on this topic among evangelicals, now that the bloom is off the rose of the November election and there is more disappointment in Republicans, even amidst the recurring disgust with most Democrats.

--James Jewell

Gordon Smith Reported to be Fristian on Filibuster

Jan at A World Of Speculation reports that moderate Republican Gordon Smith will vote to end the filibuster for judicial nominees, citing Sid at New Frames, who writes: “Smith is Fristian after all.”

Fonda’s Faith

Tony at A Red Mind in a Blue State is sick of seeing Jane Fonda out on her book tour. I haven’t seen her at all—my TV time has been short—but I haven’t seen any comments from the Christian community about her declarations of faith out promoting the book. Here in Atlanta the big news a few years ago was when Ted Turner left her because of her new Christian faith.

Here’s a little more detail on Fonda’s faith.

--James Jewell

Deliver Us From WalMart’s Critics; Give Us WalMart Alternatives

Like many people I know, I hate the experience of shopping at WalMart, but find myself there a few times a week because it is so convenient, and so much cheaper than the alternatives.
But is WalMart acting Christianly? That’s the question examined by Jeff Sellers at Christianity Today. He’s focusing on issues such as low wages and benefiting from sweat shop labor.

What you’ll find, however, is that the shots being taken at WalMart are the same fired by liberals at any major corporation—writ large because of WalMart’s size. I believe WalMart is more sensitive to the Christian market than any retailer out there.
I will continue to shop at WalMart, while I wish for competition that will provide a more pleasant experience and shopping alternatives that will be both practical and enriching.

--James Jewell