Justice Alito

This morning, Samuel J. Alito was confirmed by the US Senate and was sworn in as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. As one of nine jurists who hold lifetime appointments, Justice Alito will wield power and rule on constitutional issues long after his appointing president has left office. For example, the oldest current member of the Supreme Court, John Paul Stevens, was appointed in 1975 by President Gerald Ford, now in his 90’s and recently hospitalized for pneumonia.

The hearings of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the nomination of Judge Alito, as those for now Chief Justice John Roberts before them, were largely political circuses. It was readily apparent that the only issue that democrats like Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, and Dick Durbin cared about was abortion. Time after time, they tried to grill the nominees and get them to commit to a position that stated that they would never vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that declared all state laws regulating and prohibiting abortion to be unconstitutional. On what grounds? Justice Harry Blackmun, writing for the 7-2 majority, said that abortion was no different than birth control, and was therefore a matter of privacy between a woman and her doctor. 32 years have passed since that ruling. And still it overshadows our nation like a perpetual winter.

Until this summer and the passing of Chief Justice William Rehnquist and the retirement of Sandra Day O’Connor, there had been no vacancies on the Supreme Court for 10 years. Now President Bush has placed two reliable conservatives on the Supreme Court, and has an additional three years in office. Instead of placing on the bench justices who view the constitution as a “living document” that must change with the times and reflect a progressive agenda, conservative justices tend to be originalist in their view of the constitution. This means that they seek to interpret the constitution as it was originally intended by those who framed it, not seeking to create new rights out of “penumbras and emanations” in amendments. With Bush’s appointees, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would advance the agenda of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who advocated that the age of consent (for sexual relations) should be lowered to twelve, that prostitution should be decriminalized, and that the celebration of Mothers’ Day should be banned because it is sexist. It is unlikely that the Supreme Court will follow the lead of the State Supreme Court of Massachusetts and suddenly decide that traditional marriage is no longer the norm and that any people who want to marry (two men, two women) should be able to do so. Instead, conservative jurists in the mold of Roberts and Alito will interpret the constitution as it was originally intended.

The debate over the Supreme court has been a clear example of the colossal struggle between traditionalism and postmodernism. We Christians approach the Bible not as a “living book” in which God’s standards for morality or his promises for eternal life as a free gift of his grace through faith in Jesus Christ are subject to change with the times. This is why it is easy to relate to the approach to justice advocated by the "right wing" of the Supreme Court. When we read the Scriptures, we seek to interpret them by examining them in their historical context to determine what the author originally intended. The word of God stands forever, even if the grass withers and the flowers fall. May God preserve his Word among us as an eternal, objective standard of ethics and morals, and, perhaps even more importantly, as the sure revelation of God’s promises of forgiveness of sins and eternal life through faith in Jesus.

Osama calls for a truce

After an absence of almost 16 months, the world's most wanted outlaw has resurfaced. Osama bin Laden, chief of the Al-Queda terrorist network, released an audio tape to Al-Jazeera television network. In it, bin Laden declared that he was still planning hostile action against the United States, but offered America a truce (terms undisclosed). The predictable response from the Bush administration was that we do not negotiate with terrorists--we hunt them down and defeat them. Most people interpreted bin Laden's olive branch as an indicator that he perceived his position to be weak. After all, what combatant offers a truce if he is close to victory? Others, however, thought that his offer of a truce should be seriously considered.

It is always prudent in wartime to know and understand your enemy. In this case, the Islamist definition of jihad is critical to our decision whether to take bin Laden's offer of a truce seriously or not. Muslims will speak of a "greater jihad" and a "lesser jihad." The greater jihad, or struggle, is that of making one's will conform to and submit to the will of Allah. (Islam means "submission." "Muslim" is one who submits to Allah. Peace is possible only when one submits to Allah. The mission of Islam is to bring the world into submission to the will of Allah.) The lesser jihad is the act of waging war against the infidel who refuses to submit to the will of Allah.

The prophet Muhammad himself is considered infallible. Thus, his actions of offering the people of Mecca a ten-year truce, and then breaking it after 18 months, provide a great deal of insight into the mind of bin Laden. Any offer of truce with the infidel is useful to the jihadist only to allow the forces of Allah to recuperate and rejuvenate. Thus would bin Laden's truce offer be of little worth. It would be seen as a delaying tactic to help him rebuild his forces for further attack.

Like the source of his doctrine (Satan), bin Laden is in league with the father of lies. He cannot tell the truth. Theoretically, he might say something that is not false, but when he says it, it always has the purpose to mislead and to destroy.

It is vital to learn the politically incorrect truth about the religious philosophy that drives jihadist Muslims in their global terrorism. The naive may "imagine" no religion and nothing to live and die for (John Lennon), but wishing and hoping that someone like bin Laden is interested in anything other than bringing the world into submission to Allah and that he just wants to live in peace and harmony is utter foolishness.

Boys will be...college students?

How would you answer the following questions?
1. Are you likely to go to college?
2. How likely are to you find a job in the field of your choice?
3. Do boys and girls have equal opportunities to find the job of their choice?
4. Do you believe that boys encounter difficulties because they are not motivated enough?
5. Are boys discouraged from pursuing their goals?
6. Do your parents actively encourage you to pursue your goals?
7. Do your teachers actively encourage you to pursue your goals?
8. Do you like school?
9. Do boys or girls get called upon more often in class?
10. Do you feel that teachers listen to what you have to say?

Having thought about your own answers to those questions, I'd like you to follow this link to the results from a Met Life survey on gender equity. How do your answers compare with the results? Did anything surprise you?

A week or so ago I bought the book Women Who Make the World Worse by Kate O'Beirne, the Washington Editor of National Review magazine. The jacket of the book reads "The Modern Women's Movement is totalitarian in its methods, radical in its aims, and dishonest in its advocacy. Kate O'Beirne is fed up with women who make the world worse. Women who see "gender discrimination" in every office, in every classroom, on every sports field, and on every military base. If you read this review from National Review Book service," you would find this assertion as the main thesis of the book:

Yet O'Beirne proves here that it is actually men - and boys - who are bearing a considerable amount of the actual suffering. Millions of schoolboys are being feminized in American classrooms; boys' sports are in retreat in schools everywhere; the "gender gap" deforms local and national politics; millions of husbands and fathers (and wives and mothers) believe that men are not needed in the raising of children; and worst of all, transforming the American military into a laboratory for large-scale social engineering puts us all at risk.

O'Beirne establishes that the feminist agenda is at its core not pro-female at all; it's merely anti-male. She demolishes the prevailing myth among feminists that men are the enemy of women's progress.

Back to the results of the MetLife survey. Contrary to popular belief (or should we say "truth" according to radical feminists), girls are not suffering, oppressed victims in school. Rather,

Findings from two nationwide surveys of teachers who teach these grade levels, indicate that: 1) contrary to the commonly held view that boys have an advantage over girls in school, girls appear to have an advantage over boys in terms of their future plans, teachers' expectations, every day experiences at school and interactions in the classroom; 2) minority girls hold the most optimistic views of the future and are the group most likely to focus on education goals; 3) minority boys are the most likely to feel discouraged about the future and the least interested in getting a good education; and 4) teachers nationwide view girls as higher achievers and more likely to succeed than boys.

Beyond these findings, striking gender differences emerge suggesting that girls have an advantage over boys in terms of their future aspirations. Compared to boys, girls appear more definite about going to college and more focused on education as one of their top goals. They are also more likely than boys to receive encouragement from their teachers and friends and to feel their teachers are good role models for them to learn from and emulate.

The present study indicates that teachers consistently express a more optimistic view of girls than of boys. They believe girls are more likely than boys to graduate from college, to set higher goals for themselves and to exhibit more inner confidence in their ability to pursue their goals. Teachers' higher expectations for girls may explain, in part, why girls are more focused than boys on their education goals. There is a commonly held belief among educators and social scientists alike that teachers' expectations shape students' expectations. Thus, girls appear to be benefiting from their relationship with teachers in ways that boys are not.

These findings clearly indicate the presence of a positive relationship between girls and their teachers, one that reinforces aspirations and encourages girls to aim high.

How does this play out in reality? Perhaps the expectations of students while in high school change, and boys once again become the majority in college? Again, the trend in the past decade or so has seen the ratio of females to males in US colleges move to its current 60-40. Here is a recent piece that appeared in the Washington Post. In commenting on the trend, author Michael Gurian cautions about the inevitable societal disaster lying on the not-so-distant horizon:

If we don't reverse it soon, we will gradually diminish the male identity, and thus the productivity and the mission, of the next generation of young men, and all the ones that follow.

The trend of females overtaking males in college was initially measured in 1978. Yet despite the well-documented disappearance of ever more young men from college campuses, we have yet to fully react to what has become a significant crisis. Largely, that is because of cultural perceptions about males and their societal role. Many times a week, a reporter or other media person will ask me: "Why should we care so much about boys when men still run everything?"

It's a fair and logical question, but what it really reflects is that our culture is still caught up in old industrial images. We still see thousands of men who succeed quite well in the professional world and in industry -- men who get elected president, who own software companies, who make six figures selling cars. We see the Bill Gateses and John Robertses and George Bushes -- and so we're not as concerned as we ought to be about the millions of young men who are floundering or lost.

But they're there: The young men who are working in the lowest-level (and most dangerous) jobs instead of going to college. Who are sitting in prison instead of going to college. Who are staying out of the long-term marriage pool because they have little to offer to young women. Who are remaining adolescents, wasting years of their lives playing video games for hours a day, until they're in their thirties, by which time the world has passed many of them by.

If you young men have adult male role models who set an example and who encourage you to be serious-minded about your education and the hard work it involves, if you are supported in the pursuit of your life goals--realizing that your "dream job" isn't going to be handed to you but you're going to have to work for it--then that is a cause for joyful thanksgiving. The days are long gone when a high school student could either drop out at 16 or graduate and walk into a unionized factory job and earn a comfortable living for his entire career. So make good and positive choices now to work for your goals, to be serious students, to refuse to take shortcuts, to own up to your responsibilities. In short, be a man.

UPDATE: Laura Bush, advocate for boys! Read the article.

Is Big Brother watching...or someone more powerful?

On December 15, the day on which the citizens of Iraq went to vote for their parliamentary representatives, the New York Times decided to go to press with another story. The “Grey Lady” published a scoop they had been holding for a year—the news that the Bush Administration had been eavesdropping on telephone conversations involving people (including, presumably, US citizens) in the United States and suspected Al Qaeda operatives abroad. When the news broke, it released the usual storm of protest from the President’s political enemies about how civil liberties were being violated and that we are one step away from a dictatorship. Some extreme voices, including one who ran for president (and, I hear, was in Vietnam), started to call for impeachment. However, most Americans, including most Democrats, seem to support Bush’s efforts to protect the country by preventing terrorist plots from reaching full fruition.

The ultimate question is going to be a constitutional one. What, specifically, are the powers of the executive branch during wartime? To what extent can the legislative branch limit the powers of the executive, as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (1978) attempted to do? Can the legislative branch demand that the executive receive permission from the judicial before wiretapping the phones of suspects? It also should be noted that, even though the FISA legislation was passed during the presidency of Democrat Jimmy Carter, both Carter and Clinton conducted surveillance of suspects without warrants, and Clinton associate attorney general John Schmidt has written that what Bush’s administration has done is within the law.

Try to consider this question from the personal privacy point of view. Would you want someone examining your e-mail, or your on-line journal or blog comments, or listening in on your cell phone conversations? What about tracking the web sites you view, or the books you check out of the public library? Most people would be uncomfortable with what they perceive to be an invasion of privacy. On the other hand, if someone is checking on web sites that are operated by Al-Qaeda, and posts “death to America” comments on a blog, and exchanges e-mail and text messages with suspected terrorists, I think most Americans would feel that their government had failed them if such a person was able to commit violent terrorist acts, and was able to plan and conspire to do so using normal media of communication.

In the book of Romans, the apostle Paul writes, “Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.” I may be completely off base with this, but it seems like the ones who are most concerned about “privacy” and its “invasion” are those who have something to hide. Would you care if someone looked into your locker at school? Would you care if your parents read your instant message conversations, or are you one of those kids who use abbreviations like “POS” (parent over shoulder) to make sure your chat partner doesn’t say something your parents would give you the third degree about? Do you clean your history every time you log off from the family computer, or can a tech-savvy parent find out what you’ve been looking at? Ultimately, we must surely know that nothing we say or see, write or do escapes the notice of our omniscient God.

I believe that part of the sad legacy of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, was to create a belief that the constitution has a guarantee of a right of privacy that supersedes all others. I also hope that we can all strive to live lives of which we are not embarrassed to expose to the light, and that nothing we do in secret is something we would be ashamed to have others aware if in public. And shouldn’t parents be on the lookout for influences that endanger their children’s souls?

Comment either on the controversy regarding the Bush surveillance or on the general issue of privacy. You can also comment anonymously if you want to share something regarding yourself and your parents and whether the issue of privacy has ever provoked conflict in your home.

The right to privacy?

When students enroll at a Christian school, there are certain expectations and conditions of that enrollment. Each student must agree to a code of Christian conduct, and even if they are not Christian, they must also be open to instruction. The non-Christian in the Christian school must be aware that every effort will be made to bring them to salvation through faith in Jesus.

In 2004, United Artists released the film "Saved," ostensibly about life in American Eagle Christian High School. A girl named Mary (what else?) sees a vision of Jesus, who told her to have sex with a boy who was expressing gay feelings so that he could be “cured.” Of course, she becomes pregnant. What I recall about the movie is that the principal is found to be in no position to judge Mary and expel her, because he himself is carrying on with a married woman who is part of the youth ministry team at his church.

If you’ve seen “Saved,” you know that it perpetuates the worst stereotypes of evangelical Christians, especially self-righteousness and intolerance, wanting to take the speck out of a neighbor’s eye while ignoring the beam in our own. There is a Jewish character who feels “out of place” and is always the target of zealous born-again Christian classmates to lead her to accept Christ. The school assemblies (chapel?) are outrageous in their pep-rally, enthusiastic atmosphere. But the situation that forms the premise of the plot is just fiction…or is it?

I’d like you to read the linked news story very carefully. It tells about an evangelical Christian school in southern California (California Lutheran) against which a lawsuit has been brought by two expelled students. The two students, both junior girls, allege that they were expelled unjustly because they admitted to having strong feelings of love for each other that were interpreted by the principal as being of a lesbian nature. The girls’ attorney makes the case that, because the school charges tuition and accepts even non-Christians (Jews) into its student body, that they cannot expel someone for failure to live up to their “Christian code of conduct.” Of course, the school makes the case that it is a private school and can admit or expel any student it chooses. What is not so apparent is that the girls were rather brazen in their behavior—that they had taken photos of themselves in compromising positions and that they had shared them with other members of the student body.

The headlines call this story “groundbreaking,” because it marks the first time a Christian school is being challenged in court under these circumstances. ACSI (Association of Christian Schools International) has offered its legal assistance. With 4000 Christian schools nationwide belonging to ACSI alone, not to mention the thousands of Catholic schools as well, the case is certainly one that bears watching.

The assumption that public school teachers and administrators have about private schools is that they can just expel their problems, but the public schools must educate everyone. I consider that to be an oversimplification of reality. I have taught at LCS three years and do not recall a single expulsion for moral reasons. One student who was involved in drugs was offered continued enrollment if he would consent to 4 weeks of rehab and counseling, and that student chose to withdraw instead of meeting those requirements. A school that has part of its mission the training of students in living a moral life cannot “tolerate” willful and public immorality. If it does, it invalidates its verbal instruction by actions that conform to the pattern of the world by condoning wickedness.

In this link, the story is followed by reader comments. I suggest you take a look at as many as you have time for before making your own comments. They are a real sampling of how people “out there” think.

If the lawsuit against the school is successful, it would mean that the government is going to compel private, religious schools to conform to the world's view of morality. Is this too high a price to pay?