Tuesday, March 29, 2005
What an Easter, What Great Chaplans!
The Chaplains
Oliver North (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/printon20050326.shtml)
March 26, 2005
"Blessed Be the Lord ... Who Trains My Arms for Battle" -- Psalm 144:1
"The safest place for me to be is in the center of God's will, and if that is in the line of fire, that is where I will be." -- Father Tim Vakoc, Army chaplain
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- War can bring out the worst in man. The crucible of combat tests one's faith in self, in fellow man -- even faith in God.
It is particularly so in this war on terror -- where at any moment a brutal, suicidal and fanatical enemy can blow himself to pieces just to kill an American. Yet on Easter Sunday in Iraq and Afghanistan, where our troops brave these dangers daily, tens of thousands of young Americans will attend Resurrection services, where they will pray for their enemies. Those who lead those Easter rituals, the holiest in Christendom, are garbed in the same sun-bleached camouflage as the troops kneeling before them. We call them chaplains. They are part of what make us "different" from our enemy -- and they are a remarkable lot.
My wife and I were married before a Navy Chaplain assigned to the Marine Base at Quantico. When I was wounded in Vietnam, it was Cmdr. Jake Laboon, our regimental chaplain, who called out "take this one next," as the triage corpsmen ran in to get another litter patient for emergency surgery.
Chaplains Bob Beddingfield and Don Dulligan spent months in the field with my Marines -- braving enemy fire to minister to them. As our children were born, other chaplains baptized them in chapels around the country. To say that these "men of the cloth" were an important part of my life in the service would be an understatement. And so it is today for the young Americans I see on my trips to Southwest Asia.
The chaplains in Afghanistan and Iraq -- and offshore in the Persian Gulf -- are cut from the same bolt of "cloth" as those I recall from my days in uniform. They minister to a "flock" -- one of the youngest in the world -- full of Americans only a few months out of high school, all of whom are scared, whether they show it or not.
By the time these "parishioners" return to the United States, they will have confronted more suffering and death -- and had more responsibility -- than their civilian contemporaries will experience the rest of their lives. Yet, if the statistics are right, the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan have a lower incidence of "Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome" than any troops in history. Thanks for that should go, in part, to the chaplains.
Two years ago this week, I was covering the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force for Fox News as they battled their way north toward Baghdad. In the aftermath of furious gunfights, I saw chaplains tending the wounded, comforting friends of the fallen and encouraging the weary. On numerous occasions, I've heard chaplains like Carey Cash, Frank Holley and Brian Weigelt remind young warriors that -- despite the horror of combat, the incredible fatigue and the terrifying sights, sounds and smells of war -- the God who made them did not intend that they descend into savagery.
After the capture of Baghdad and Saddam's hometown of Tikrit, the true nature of our opponent became evident. Iraq was flooded with foreign "jihadists" like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who encouraged brutal, inhuman atrocities in an effort to break the spirit of the Iraqi people -- and the Americans who had come to offer them the hope of freedom. The "slaughter houses" in Fallujah -- where American, Iraqi and other hostages were beheaded by masked terrorists posing for cameras -- exemplify the stark difference between "us" and "them."
After a Marine-Army assault liberated the city from the terrorists who had ruled it for months, Chaplain Bill Divine told a group of Marines at a memorial service for their fallen comrades, "There is nothing more Christian than what we are doing here."
Liberal critics of military chaplains take statements like that out of a spiritual context and try to give it a secular intent. But Devine wasn't making a political statement -- nor one intended to enflame the passions of Islamic radicals who hate Christians and Jews. Rather, his words refer to the mission of ridding the country of those who would prevent the Iraqi people from ever enjoying their God-given freedom. Who better to give that message than a chaplain -- and who better to receive it than those who had just paid a terrible price vanquishing real evil?
Thankfully, the detractors have not yet had their day. We've had military chaplains since the Continental Congress created them on July 29, 1775, at the request of George Washington. "By God's grace" -- words Washington used more than once -- we have had great chaplains ministering to our warriors -- and setting an example -- in every war and conflict since. Often, their example reminds us of what Easter is all about.
On Feb. 1, 1943, the U.S. Army Transport Dorchester was torpedoed by a German U-boat off Greenland. Four chaplains -- one Jewish, two Protestant and one Roman Catholic -- distributed life jackets to those unable to make it into lifeboats. When the jackets ran out, they gave their own to the next four soldiers in line. The four chaplains were among the 672 who perished in the icy waters. Their sacrifice allowed others to live and still inspires others to better lives.
Today, Father Tim Vakoc, quoted above, slips in and out of a coma. Last May, while ministering to U.S. soldiers near Mosul, he suffered a terrible head injury when his Humvee hit an Improvised Explosive Device. Vakoc was the first chaplain wounded in Iraq. He, too, was living the meaning Easter.
Oliver North (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/printon20050326.shtml)
March 26, 2005
"Blessed Be the Lord ... Who Trains My Arms for Battle" -- Psalm 144:1
"The safest place for me to be is in the center of God's will, and if that is in the line of fire, that is where I will be." -- Father Tim Vakoc, Army chaplain
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- War can bring out the worst in man. The crucible of combat tests one's faith in self, in fellow man -- even faith in God.
It is particularly so in this war on terror -- where at any moment a brutal, suicidal and fanatical enemy can blow himself to pieces just to kill an American. Yet on Easter Sunday in Iraq and Afghanistan, where our troops brave these dangers daily, tens of thousands of young Americans will attend Resurrection services, where they will pray for their enemies. Those who lead those Easter rituals, the holiest in Christendom, are garbed in the same sun-bleached camouflage as the troops kneeling before them. We call them chaplains. They are part of what make us "different" from our enemy -- and they are a remarkable lot.
My wife and I were married before a Navy Chaplain assigned to the Marine Base at Quantico. When I was wounded in Vietnam, it was Cmdr. Jake Laboon, our regimental chaplain, who called out "take this one next," as the triage corpsmen ran in to get another litter patient for emergency surgery.
Chaplains Bob Beddingfield and Don Dulligan spent months in the field with my Marines -- braving enemy fire to minister to them. As our children were born, other chaplains baptized them in chapels around the country. To say that these "men of the cloth" were an important part of my life in the service would be an understatement. And so it is today for the young Americans I see on my trips to Southwest Asia.
The chaplains in Afghanistan and Iraq -- and offshore in the Persian Gulf -- are cut from the same bolt of "cloth" as those I recall from my days in uniform. They minister to a "flock" -- one of the youngest in the world -- full of Americans only a few months out of high school, all of whom are scared, whether they show it or not.
By the time these "parishioners" return to the United States, they will have confronted more suffering and death -- and had more responsibility -- than their civilian contemporaries will experience the rest of their lives. Yet, if the statistics are right, the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan have a lower incidence of "Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome" than any troops in history. Thanks for that should go, in part, to the chaplains.
Two years ago this week, I was covering the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force for Fox News as they battled their way north toward Baghdad. In the aftermath of furious gunfights, I saw chaplains tending the wounded, comforting friends of the fallen and encouraging the weary. On numerous occasions, I've heard chaplains like Carey Cash, Frank Holley and Brian Weigelt remind young warriors that -- despite the horror of combat, the incredible fatigue and the terrifying sights, sounds and smells of war -- the God who made them did not intend that they descend into savagery.
After the capture of Baghdad and Saddam's hometown of Tikrit, the true nature of our opponent became evident. Iraq was flooded with foreign "jihadists" like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who encouraged brutal, inhuman atrocities in an effort to break the spirit of the Iraqi people -- and the Americans who had come to offer them the hope of freedom. The "slaughter houses" in Fallujah -- where American, Iraqi and other hostages were beheaded by masked terrorists posing for cameras -- exemplify the stark difference between "us" and "them."
After a Marine-Army assault liberated the city from the terrorists who had ruled it for months, Chaplain Bill Divine told a group of Marines at a memorial service for their fallen comrades, "There is nothing more Christian than what we are doing here."
Liberal critics of military chaplains take statements like that out of a spiritual context and try to give it a secular intent. But Devine wasn't making a political statement -- nor one intended to enflame the passions of Islamic radicals who hate Christians and Jews. Rather, his words refer to the mission of ridding the country of those who would prevent the Iraqi people from ever enjoying their God-given freedom. Who better to give that message than a chaplain -- and who better to receive it than those who had just paid a terrible price vanquishing real evil?
Thankfully, the detractors have not yet had their day. We've had military chaplains since the Continental Congress created them on July 29, 1775, at the request of George Washington. "By God's grace" -- words Washington used more than once -- we have had great chaplains ministering to our warriors -- and setting an example -- in every war and conflict since. Often, their example reminds us of what Easter is all about.
On Feb. 1, 1943, the U.S. Army Transport Dorchester was torpedoed by a German U-boat off Greenland. Four chaplains -- one Jewish, two Protestant and one Roman Catholic -- distributed life jackets to those unable to make it into lifeboats. When the jackets ran out, they gave their own to the next four soldiers in line. The four chaplains were among the 672 who perished in the icy waters. Their sacrifice allowed others to live and still inspires others to better lives.
Today, Father Tim Vakoc, quoted above, slips in and out of a coma. Last May, while ministering to U.S. soldiers near Mosul, he suffered a terrible head injury when his Humvee hit an Improvised Explosive Device. Vakoc was the first chaplain wounded in Iraq. He, too, was living the meaning Easter.
What are Evolutionists hiding?
Christianity Today, April 2005
Verdict that Demands Evidence
It is Darwinists, not Christians, who are stonewalling the facts.
Charles Colson with Anne Morse | posted 03/28/2005 10:00 a.m.
It was one of the first—and angriest—post-election hissy fits: In The New York Times, Garry Wills credited White House political adviser Karl Rove for getting millions of religious conservatives (whom he compared to Muslim jihadists) to the polls and sneered, "Can a nation which believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an enlightened nation?"
It's an interesting question, considering the iron grip evolutionists have had over our educational institutions for a century. And at first glance, it seems odd that Americans—among the best-educated, most technologically advanced people in the world—would choose miraculous stories over scientific ones.
But is there really so little evidence for biblical miracles, and so much for naturalistic evolution?
As historian Paul Johnson notes, Christianity is a historical religion that deals in facts and events. Among those facts is that Jesus, the Son of God, was born of a virgin, in a specific time and place. Johnson cites the mounting archaeological discoveries that have almost universally supported the biblical accounts. And the life of Jesus, he notes, is better authenticated than most other figures of antiquity, like Aristotle and Julius Caesar. As Johnson puts it, "It is not now the men of faith; it is the skeptics who have reason to fear the course of discovery."
All well and good, but Darwinism, at least, has been empirically proven, right?
Wrong. Sure, there's evidence that evolution takes place within a species—but the fossil record has not yielded evidence of one species becoming another, as Darwin confidently predicted. This lack of evidence has not gone unnoticed by sociologist Rodney Stark. Stark calls himself neither an evolutionist nor an advocate of Intelligent Design; instead, he says, he is merely a scholar pursuing the evidence where it leads. In For the Glory of God (Princeton University Press, 2003), Stark offers startling evidence that Darwinists have covered up mounting flaws in their theory. He concludes that the battle over evolution is hardly a case of "heroic" scientists fighting off the persecution of religious fanatics. Instead, from the start, evolution "has primarily been an attack on religion by militant atheists who wrap themselves in the mantle of science in an effort to refute all religious claims concerning a creator—an effort that has also often attempted to suppress all scientific criticisms of Darwin's work."
Committed Darwinists continue this strategy today. For example, nine years ago biochemist Michael Behe published Darwin's Black Box (Free Press, 1996). Behe argued that complex structures like proteins cannot be assembled piecemeal, with gradual improvement of function. Instead, like a mousetrap, all the parts—catch, spring, hammer, and so forth—must be assembled simultaneously, or the protein doesn't work.
Behe's thesis faced a challenge from the nation's leading expert on cell structure, Dr. Russell Doolittle at the University of California-San Diego. Doolittle cited a study on bloodletting in the journal Cell that supposedly disproved Behe's argument. Behe immediately read the article—and found that the study proved just the opposite: It supported his theory. Behe confronted Doolittle, who privately acknowledged that he was wrong—but declined to make a public retraction.
So who's really rolling back the Enlightenment? Those who invite us to follow the evidence wherever it leads—or those demanding that we ignore it? The folks who want both evolution and Intelligent Design taught in school, with all their strengths and weaknesses—or those who attempt to silence any opposition?
The evidence for Intelligent Design has become so persuasive that the 81-year old British philosopher Anthony Flew, a lifelong atheist who once debated C. S. Lewis over the existence of God, recently admitted that a creator-God must exist.
In the final analysis, any objective observer must conclude that belief in either the biblical or the naturalistic worldview demands faith. The issue is not science versus faith, but science (evolution) versus science (Intelligent Design), and of faith versus faith regarding how the universe and life came to be.
So to return to Garry Wills's question—are we so unenlightened to reject Darwin in favor of Christian doctrine?
I practiced law for many years, dreaming every lawyer's dream to take a great case into the Supreme Court. This is the case I'd most like to argue: pitting the common consensus against the Darwinist establishment.
Copyright © 2005 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
April 2005, Vol. 49, No. 4, Page 112
Verdict that Demands Evidence
It is Darwinists, not Christians, who are stonewalling the facts.
Charles Colson with Anne Morse | posted 03/28/2005 10:00 a.m.
It was one of the first—and angriest—post-election hissy fits: In The New York Times, Garry Wills credited White House political adviser Karl Rove for getting millions of religious conservatives (whom he compared to Muslim jihadists) to the polls and sneered, "Can a nation which believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an enlightened nation?"
It's an interesting question, considering the iron grip evolutionists have had over our educational institutions for a century. And at first glance, it seems odd that Americans—among the best-educated, most technologically advanced people in the world—would choose miraculous stories over scientific ones.
But is there really so little evidence for biblical miracles, and so much for naturalistic evolution?
As historian Paul Johnson notes, Christianity is a historical religion that deals in facts and events. Among those facts is that Jesus, the Son of God, was born of a virgin, in a specific time and place. Johnson cites the mounting archaeological discoveries that have almost universally supported the biblical accounts. And the life of Jesus, he notes, is better authenticated than most other figures of antiquity, like Aristotle and Julius Caesar. As Johnson puts it, "It is not now the men of faith; it is the skeptics who have reason to fear the course of discovery."
All well and good, but Darwinism, at least, has been empirically proven, right?
Wrong. Sure, there's evidence that evolution takes place within a species—but the fossil record has not yielded evidence of one species becoming another, as Darwin confidently predicted. This lack of evidence has not gone unnoticed by sociologist Rodney Stark. Stark calls himself neither an evolutionist nor an advocate of Intelligent Design; instead, he says, he is merely a scholar pursuing the evidence where it leads. In For the Glory of God (Princeton University Press, 2003), Stark offers startling evidence that Darwinists have covered up mounting flaws in their theory. He concludes that the battle over evolution is hardly a case of "heroic" scientists fighting off the persecution of religious fanatics. Instead, from the start, evolution "has primarily been an attack on religion by militant atheists who wrap themselves in the mantle of science in an effort to refute all religious claims concerning a creator—an effort that has also often attempted to suppress all scientific criticisms of Darwin's work."
Committed Darwinists continue this strategy today. For example, nine years ago biochemist Michael Behe published Darwin's Black Box (Free Press, 1996). Behe argued that complex structures like proteins cannot be assembled piecemeal, with gradual improvement of function. Instead, like a mousetrap, all the parts—catch, spring, hammer, and so forth—must be assembled simultaneously, or the protein doesn't work.
Behe's thesis faced a challenge from the nation's leading expert on cell structure, Dr. Russell Doolittle at the University of California-San Diego. Doolittle cited a study on bloodletting in the journal Cell that supposedly disproved Behe's argument. Behe immediately read the article—and found that the study proved just the opposite: It supported his theory. Behe confronted Doolittle, who privately acknowledged that he was wrong—but declined to make a public retraction.
So who's really rolling back the Enlightenment? Those who invite us to follow the evidence wherever it leads—or those demanding that we ignore it? The folks who want both evolution and Intelligent Design taught in school, with all their strengths and weaknesses—or those who attempt to silence any opposition?
The evidence for Intelligent Design has become so persuasive that the 81-year old British philosopher Anthony Flew, a lifelong atheist who once debated C. S. Lewis over the existence of God, recently admitted that a creator-God must exist.
In the final analysis, any objective observer must conclude that belief in either the biblical or the naturalistic worldview demands faith. The issue is not science versus faith, but science (evolution) versus science (Intelligent Design), and of faith versus faith regarding how the universe and life came to be.
So to return to Garry Wills's question—are we so unenlightened to reject Darwin in favor of Christian doctrine?
I practiced law for many years, dreaming every lawyer's dream to take a great case into the Supreme Court. This is the case I'd most like to argue: pitting the common consensus against the Darwinist establishment.
Copyright © 2005 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
April 2005, Vol. 49, No. 4, Page 112
Rick Santorum CHRISTIAN!
Sen. Rick Santorum: I Draw No Line Between My Faith and My Decisions
The Pennsylvania Republican speaks on legislating morality, why he was right about anti-sodomy laws, and his 2006 opponent-apparent, Bob Casey Jr.
Interview by Stan Guthrie | posted 03/28/2005 10:00 a.m.
Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania's junior U.S. senator, was first elected to the Senate in 1994. It has been widely reported that the Catholic Republican and outspoken pro-life advocate will face challenge from another pro-life Catholic, Democrat Bob Casey Jr.
Senior associate news editor Stan Guthrie spoke with Santorum.
President Kennedy tried to draw a bright line between his Catholic faith and his decisions as a public official. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, another Catholic, said much the same thing recently during an interview with George Stephanopoulos. What role does your faith play for you as a senator?
I draw no line, much less a bright one. I think your faith molds and influences tremendously your worldview—just like, by the way, a whole lot of other things that are in your life. But to me, faith is source of morality; it's a source of virtue; it's a source of reason. It's a tremendous influence on my worldview. And while obviously there are other things that influence my decision-making and how I look at the world, it's certainly an important part of it.
The idea that we cast aside our faith and don't replace it with something else to influence your worldview is ridiculous. If you don't have faith, you replace it, I assume, with some secular concepts, or with some other belief system, which goes unidentified. I think that really is—I won't say dishonest, but I think it certainly lacks intellectual honesty to say that by removing your faith as a component of how you conduct yourself that you somehow can do so neutrally. You don't. You just do so with another worldview or another set of values that come from another source.
How do you respond to those who might accuse you of attempting to legislate your morality on others?
I would say that everyone does. The idea that when you make decisions that have moral implications, you're not legislating morality! When you're going to allocate funds for contraceptive services, are you legislating morality? Of course you are. Now the question is, what moral code are you applying, or what values or virtues are you applying to the situation? What worldview do you see?
It's important to understand proper civil discourse, where people are invited to bring all their ideas, irrespective of their origin, to the public square to be debated and hashed out and for compromises and agreements to be made and the majority to proceed forward. That's how democracy and civil affairs are to work.
The idea that only ideas without religious overtones, or religious perceptions, are allowed in the public square—the founders would not only turn in their graves, they'd be spinning.
As the No. 3 Republican in the Senate right now, the Democrats seem to have you in their sights, even to the point of tapping Bob Casey Jr., who's another pro-lifer, to run against you. As someone with a strong pro-life voting record, how do you view his candidacy?
You know, every candidate you run against has strengths and weaknesses. I don't know if he will ultimately be the person who runs against me, but if he is, I'm sure he'll have some positive attributes and negative ones from the standpoint of the voters of Pennsylvania, just as I will. It's a matter, from my perspective, of looking at, more importantly, what I've done [as senator] over the last 10 years—at that point, 12 years—to serve the people of Pennsylvania, and what my plans are in continuing to serve them over the next 6. That really is the more relevant issue. People end up voting in these kinds of elections, high-profile elections like Senate races, based on: 1) does the incumbent deserve to be re-elected, and then 2) if that's not the case, is there a reasonable alternative? My first obligation is just to let the public know what I've been doing and how effective I've been for the commonwealth, and what my plans are for the future.
Do you think Mr. Casey's candidacy would take abortion off the table in your campaign?
I don't think you can run a campaign without having those issues addressed. Our positions may be similar, [but] my understanding is he's never really taken much of a position on the issue beyond a questionnaire or two. But when you're running for a state auditor and state treasurer, those are not necessarily positions where this becomes an important issue.
There may be nuance differences between the two of us; I don't know. But in either case, I think I have a record. He does not. Certainly [my] record has been one of leadership and a variety of different important issues that have actually been issues that have brought people together on the issue of abortion. That's an important thing. I'm known as a pro-life leader on issues where we've gotten people from the other side of this issue to join us.
What are a couple of for instances?
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act are just three that I can think of off the top of my head. We've gotten strong bipartisan support on all of those.
You've heard the recent comments of Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton about the need for Democrats to reach out to pro-life voters. What areas of compromise, if any, do you see with Democrats on life issues?
One of the bills that I'm circulating now and trying to get some sponsorship for is the Women and Children's Resources Act, which is to give funding for alternatives to abortion. In other words, [it would] provide money for centers that would help mothers through unplanned pregnancies to carry the child to term—everything from maternity clothes, diapers, and food to prenatal and postpartum health care. Those are the kinds of things that if you're not pro-abortion, and you have concerns about abortion and its impact on women and you want to provide a real choice to someone who discovers she has an unplanned pregnancy and feels in a panic because she can't possibly figure out how to raise and nurture that child through pregnancy because she may not have health care, and how she's going to be able to afford the cost of delivering the baby, or what she's going to do after the baby is born.
In many cases, poor women are not left with a lot of choices—[and not just] poor women, but a lot of middle to lower middle income people who may not qualify for Medicaid, but this could be a tremendous financial burden for them that they weren't anticipating. What we need to do is offer compassionate alternatives. Again, if you're really about giving women choices, this is something you should be supporting.
What do you think of the approach used by some Catholic bishops during the presidential campaign saying that Catholics really shouldn't be voting for John Kerry because of his position on abortion?
There were some that were very clear about what the moral imperatives are from the standpoint of applying our faith to the political arena. I think the church has always said that faith is not an abstract; it's to be lived out. I think all Christians would agree … that this is not simply a theoretical concept, but one that affects every aspect of your life. They're just following through in describing what they believe the consequences of the faith would dictate. And candidly, I think that's certainly a proper role for the church to take.
In 2003, you spoke out against the Supreme Court's Lawrence decision [overturning state anti-sodomy laws].
Yes, I did. And I also turned out to be right.
Do you feel vindicated?
Well, I was right. The bottom line in what I said was, this is going to lead to a whole lot of consequences. I had to assume the justices understood what they were doing. And of course, the decision was cited in the Goodrich decision in Massachusetts [in which the state Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on homosexual marriage]. I knew that's what courts would say. So this is, again, the problem with courts usurping democratic powers, powers that were clearly given to the legislatures and to the Congress. This judicial activism is a very, very scary thing for the future of this country.
What hope do you see for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which failed to pass in Congress last year?
My guess is, at this point, that it's certainly going to be introduced and we're going to try and get as many sponsors as we can. I don't know whether we're going to have the votes to be able to pass it or not. But one of the things I found out a long time ago is, just because you don't have the votes to win, doesn't mean that you don't accomplish a lot by having the debate. I would use the example of partial-birth abortion as an example of that. Look at the fact that we brought the marriage amendment forward, had a debate as a result of that, we highlighted the issue, and several states ended up putting it on referenda that passed with on average over 60 percent of the vote in the states, and some as high as almost 80 percent.
You are rolling out the Senate Republican Poverty Alleviation Agenda. Many people don't see the Republicans as serious about this issue.
That's because the press likes to pretend that somehow or another Republicans only care about rich people, which is just ridiculous. Republicans care about a growing economy, which employs people from all ends of the economic spectrum. In fact, the faster the economy grows and the stronger it is, the more people are employed at better and higher quality jobs. The best welfare program is a job. I believe that, and everybody else in our party believes that. You do that by being competitive in a global economy and being in a position to employ people at high-quality, good-paying jobs. So that, to me, is the fundamental precept of how we view the economy.
Having said that, I will acknowledge that Republicans have not done, in the past, any kind of a job as a party articulating how we help [poor people] by the policies of growth and development and increasing standards of living. That's what these programs are designed for.
For a long time, Republicans have said that rising tides will lift all boats. That's a Kennedy phrase, but I think Republicans embraced it. That's fine, unless the boat has a hole in it. If the boat has a hole in it, then it's not going to be lifted.
The question is, what's government's role? A lot of Republicans have said it's really the role of local institutions and the family to do it. The problem is that the Democrats decided that wasn't the case, and so they instituted a bunch of government programs that provided individual entitlements and direct, dependent relationships of individuals upon government. Republicans believe in a different philosophy, one that says that the role of government is not to empower individuals, but to strengthen families and community organizations and faith-based organizations so they can help nurture those individuals through the difficult times of their lives.
What are the key features of your new plan?
Welfare reauthorization is going to be a very, very important part of it. We have two major initiatives: One is the fatherhood initiative, which is to try to reunite fathers with their children and with the mothers of their children, and second, the marriage initiative. We need to encourage and promote marriage within communities where there are high rates of out-of-wedlock births, talk about the benefits of marriage, educate women as well as men on the benefits of marriage, not just to themselves but to their children, and actively work in counseling and support for men and women who have children out of wedlock to make sure that they have the nurturing and support and counseling to be able to stay together and potentially marry for the benefit of themselves and their children.
In earlier decades, probably right up through the New Deal, many Christians historically were economic populists who were suspicious of big business. William Jennings Bryan was an example.
That was during the days when people thought communism was actually something that could work. I don't think anybody now looks at society here in America [that way]. I mean, the Left does, and there are probably some Christian activists who certainly believe that, but I think capitalism has won. It's won around the world. It's winning in places that no one ever thought it would win. The idea of markets, properly governed and refereed, is really the way for growth and prosperity that's been beyond anything that anyone could have envisioned. The battle has been won with respect to the West, that capitalism is in fact the fairest, kindest, and most equal treatment that we can provide for the average citizen.
The book by Thomas Frank, What's the Matter with Kansas?, says that many people vote against their own economic interests when they vote for Republicans on the basis of social issues.
That's just the kind derogatory, elitist pablum that you get when people don't realize that there's a lot of people who don't put their treasure in this world and look for something more than just "how much more money I can make." They understand that life is more than a bank account. That's the postmodern view of the world, which is it's all about me; it's all about how much I can get now for me. There are a lot of people who worry about, not just their economic well being, but they worry about their kids, they worry about the culture their children are going to be raised in, they worry about the pervasive incivility that we see in this country. They worry about national security issues. They worry about a lot more things than just me and how much money I'm making. It's certainly important, and I would say that's one of the factors people should consider. But there are a lot of folks who have not bought into the Greenwich Village view of the world.
Thank God for Kansas.
There's a perception among religious conservatives and in the dominant media that Republicans run on social issues and govern on economic issues. How true is that?
Well, all I can say is that I try to do both. The problem with social issues is that in many cases we're increasingly limited as to what we can do by the courts. … The biggest social issue I thought in this [last] election was judges. Unless we get the courts back within the four walls of the Constitution again, we're going to have an increasingly difficult time having democracy work to determine what the moral consensus is with respect to our society and our social values.
What is the right balance between social and economic issues? Or would you even divide it that way?
I think it depends on the time. Obviously, in times of great prosperity, economic issues tend to be [subordinated]. … If you're in the middle of a war, obviously, that happens to trump everything else. But there is, and will continue to be, a constant undercurrent in society about the concerns about the long-term cultural impact of a society that treats marriage the way [our society] treats it; that treats families the way [our society] treats it; treats pornography the way it treats it; treats abortion and children the way it treats them; and treats the disabled and the helpless the way it treats them.
You are the Senate sponsor of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. Why is it necessary?
If passed, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act will require employers to make reasonable accommodations for an employee's religious practice or observance, such as time off and attire. While most employers recognize the value of respecting religion in the workplace, sometimes employees are forced to choose between dedication to the principles of their faith and losing their job because their employers refuse to reasonably accommodate certain needs. This legislation creates a balance for people who want to have their religious convictions respected at work and an employer who is trying to run a business.
Copyright © 2005 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
The Pennsylvania Republican speaks on legislating morality, why he was right about anti-sodomy laws, and his 2006 opponent-apparent, Bob Casey Jr.
Interview by Stan Guthrie | posted 03/28/2005 10:00 a.m.
Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania's junior U.S. senator, was first elected to the Senate in 1994. It has been widely reported that the Catholic Republican and outspoken pro-life advocate will face challenge from another pro-life Catholic, Democrat Bob Casey Jr.
Senior associate news editor Stan Guthrie spoke with Santorum.
President Kennedy tried to draw a bright line between his Catholic faith and his decisions as a public official. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, another Catholic, said much the same thing recently during an interview with George Stephanopoulos. What role does your faith play for you as a senator?
I draw no line, much less a bright one. I think your faith molds and influences tremendously your worldview—just like, by the way, a whole lot of other things that are in your life. But to me, faith is source of morality; it's a source of virtue; it's a source of reason. It's a tremendous influence on my worldview. And while obviously there are other things that influence my decision-making and how I look at the world, it's certainly an important part of it.
The idea that we cast aside our faith and don't replace it with something else to influence your worldview is ridiculous. If you don't have faith, you replace it, I assume, with some secular concepts, or with some other belief system, which goes unidentified. I think that really is—I won't say dishonest, but I think it certainly lacks intellectual honesty to say that by removing your faith as a component of how you conduct yourself that you somehow can do so neutrally. You don't. You just do so with another worldview or another set of values that come from another source.
How do you respond to those who might accuse you of attempting to legislate your morality on others?
I would say that everyone does. The idea that when you make decisions that have moral implications, you're not legislating morality! When you're going to allocate funds for contraceptive services, are you legislating morality? Of course you are. Now the question is, what moral code are you applying, or what values or virtues are you applying to the situation? What worldview do you see?
It's important to understand proper civil discourse, where people are invited to bring all their ideas, irrespective of their origin, to the public square to be debated and hashed out and for compromises and agreements to be made and the majority to proceed forward. That's how democracy and civil affairs are to work.
The idea that only ideas without religious overtones, or religious perceptions, are allowed in the public square—the founders would not only turn in their graves, they'd be spinning.
As the No. 3 Republican in the Senate right now, the Democrats seem to have you in their sights, even to the point of tapping Bob Casey Jr., who's another pro-lifer, to run against you. As someone with a strong pro-life voting record, how do you view his candidacy?
You know, every candidate you run against has strengths and weaknesses. I don't know if he will ultimately be the person who runs against me, but if he is, I'm sure he'll have some positive attributes and negative ones from the standpoint of the voters of Pennsylvania, just as I will. It's a matter, from my perspective, of looking at, more importantly, what I've done [as senator] over the last 10 years—at that point, 12 years—to serve the people of Pennsylvania, and what my plans are in continuing to serve them over the next 6. That really is the more relevant issue. People end up voting in these kinds of elections, high-profile elections like Senate races, based on: 1) does the incumbent deserve to be re-elected, and then 2) if that's not the case, is there a reasonable alternative? My first obligation is just to let the public know what I've been doing and how effective I've been for the commonwealth, and what my plans are for the future.
Do you think Mr. Casey's candidacy would take abortion off the table in your campaign?
I don't think you can run a campaign without having those issues addressed. Our positions may be similar, [but] my understanding is he's never really taken much of a position on the issue beyond a questionnaire or two. But when you're running for a state auditor and state treasurer, those are not necessarily positions where this becomes an important issue.
There may be nuance differences between the two of us; I don't know. But in either case, I think I have a record. He does not. Certainly [my] record has been one of leadership and a variety of different important issues that have actually been issues that have brought people together on the issue of abortion. That's an important thing. I'm known as a pro-life leader on issues where we've gotten people from the other side of this issue to join us.
What are a couple of for instances?
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act are just three that I can think of off the top of my head. We've gotten strong bipartisan support on all of those.
You've heard the recent comments of Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton about the need for Democrats to reach out to pro-life voters. What areas of compromise, if any, do you see with Democrats on life issues?
One of the bills that I'm circulating now and trying to get some sponsorship for is the Women and Children's Resources Act, which is to give funding for alternatives to abortion. In other words, [it would] provide money for centers that would help mothers through unplanned pregnancies to carry the child to term—everything from maternity clothes, diapers, and food to prenatal and postpartum health care. Those are the kinds of things that if you're not pro-abortion, and you have concerns about abortion and its impact on women and you want to provide a real choice to someone who discovers she has an unplanned pregnancy and feels in a panic because she can't possibly figure out how to raise and nurture that child through pregnancy because she may not have health care, and how she's going to be able to afford the cost of delivering the baby, or what she's going to do after the baby is born.
In many cases, poor women are not left with a lot of choices—[and not just] poor women, but a lot of middle to lower middle income people who may not qualify for Medicaid, but this could be a tremendous financial burden for them that they weren't anticipating. What we need to do is offer compassionate alternatives. Again, if you're really about giving women choices, this is something you should be supporting.
What do you think of the approach used by some Catholic bishops during the presidential campaign saying that Catholics really shouldn't be voting for John Kerry because of his position on abortion?
There were some that were very clear about what the moral imperatives are from the standpoint of applying our faith to the political arena. I think the church has always said that faith is not an abstract; it's to be lived out. I think all Christians would agree … that this is not simply a theoretical concept, but one that affects every aspect of your life. They're just following through in describing what they believe the consequences of the faith would dictate. And candidly, I think that's certainly a proper role for the church to take.
In 2003, you spoke out against the Supreme Court's Lawrence decision [overturning state anti-sodomy laws].
Yes, I did. And I also turned out to be right.
Do you feel vindicated?
Well, I was right. The bottom line in what I said was, this is going to lead to a whole lot of consequences. I had to assume the justices understood what they were doing. And of course, the decision was cited in the Goodrich decision in Massachusetts [in which the state Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on homosexual marriage]. I knew that's what courts would say. So this is, again, the problem with courts usurping democratic powers, powers that were clearly given to the legislatures and to the Congress. This judicial activism is a very, very scary thing for the future of this country.
What hope do you see for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which failed to pass in Congress last year?
My guess is, at this point, that it's certainly going to be introduced and we're going to try and get as many sponsors as we can. I don't know whether we're going to have the votes to be able to pass it or not. But one of the things I found out a long time ago is, just because you don't have the votes to win, doesn't mean that you don't accomplish a lot by having the debate. I would use the example of partial-birth abortion as an example of that. Look at the fact that we brought the marriage amendment forward, had a debate as a result of that, we highlighted the issue, and several states ended up putting it on referenda that passed with on average over 60 percent of the vote in the states, and some as high as almost 80 percent.
You are rolling out the Senate Republican Poverty Alleviation Agenda. Many people don't see the Republicans as serious about this issue.
That's because the press likes to pretend that somehow or another Republicans only care about rich people, which is just ridiculous. Republicans care about a growing economy, which employs people from all ends of the economic spectrum. In fact, the faster the economy grows and the stronger it is, the more people are employed at better and higher quality jobs. The best welfare program is a job. I believe that, and everybody else in our party believes that. You do that by being competitive in a global economy and being in a position to employ people at high-quality, good-paying jobs. So that, to me, is the fundamental precept of how we view the economy.
Having said that, I will acknowledge that Republicans have not done, in the past, any kind of a job as a party articulating how we help [poor people] by the policies of growth and development and increasing standards of living. That's what these programs are designed for.
For a long time, Republicans have said that rising tides will lift all boats. That's a Kennedy phrase, but I think Republicans embraced it. That's fine, unless the boat has a hole in it. If the boat has a hole in it, then it's not going to be lifted.
The question is, what's government's role? A lot of Republicans have said it's really the role of local institutions and the family to do it. The problem is that the Democrats decided that wasn't the case, and so they instituted a bunch of government programs that provided individual entitlements and direct, dependent relationships of individuals upon government. Republicans believe in a different philosophy, one that says that the role of government is not to empower individuals, but to strengthen families and community organizations and faith-based organizations so they can help nurture those individuals through the difficult times of their lives.
What are the key features of your new plan?
Welfare reauthorization is going to be a very, very important part of it. We have two major initiatives: One is the fatherhood initiative, which is to try to reunite fathers with their children and with the mothers of their children, and second, the marriage initiative. We need to encourage and promote marriage within communities where there are high rates of out-of-wedlock births, talk about the benefits of marriage, educate women as well as men on the benefits of marriage, not just to themselves but to their children, and actively work in counseling and support for men and women who have children out of wedlock to make sure that they have the nurturing and support and counseling to be able to stay together and potentially marry for the benefit of themselves and their children.
In earlier decades, probably right up through the New Deal, many Christians historically were economic populists who were suspicious of big business. William Jennings Bryan was an example.
That was during the days when people thought communism was actually something that could work. I don't think anybody now looks at society here in America [that way]. I mean, the Left does, and there are probably some Christian activists who certainly believe that, but I think capitalism has won. It's won around the world. It's winning in places that no one ever thought it would win. The idea of markets, properly governed and refereed, is really the way for growth and prosperity that's been beyond anything that anyone could have envisioned. The battle has been won with respect to the West, that capitalism is in fact the fairest, kindest, and most equal treatment that we can provide for the average citizen.
The book by Thomas Frank, What's the Matter with Kansas?, says that many people vote against their own economic interests when they vote for Republicans on the basis of social issues.
That's just the kind derogatory, elitist pablum that you get when people don't realize that there's a lot of people who don't put their treasure in this world and look for something more than just "how much more money I can make." They understand that life is more than a bank account. That's the postmodern view of the world, which is it's all about me; it's all about how much I can get now for me. There are a lot of people who worry about, not just their economic well being, but they worry about their kids, they worry about the culture their children are going to be raised in, they worry about the pervasive incivility that we see in this country. They worry about national security issues. They worry about a lot more things than just me and how much money I'm making. It's certainly important, and I would say that's one of the factors people should consider. But there are a lot of folks who have not bought into the Greenwich Village view of the world.
Thank God for Kansas.
There's a perception among religious conservatives and in the dominant media that Republicans run on social issues and govern on economic issues. How true is that?
Well, all I can say is that I try to do both. The problem with social issues is that in many cases we're increasingly limited as to what we can do by the courts. … The biggest social issue I thought in this [last] election was judges. Unless we get the courts back within the four walls of the Constitution again, we're going to have an increasingly difficult time having democracy work to determine what the moral consensus is with respect to our society and our social values.
What is the right balance between social and economic issues? Or would you even divide it that way?
I think it depends on the time. Obviously, in times of great prosperity, economic issues tend to be [subordinated]. … If you're in the middle of a war, obviously, that happens to trump everything else. But there is, and will continue to be, a constant undercurrent in society about the concerns about the long-term cultural impact of a society that treats marriage the way [our society] treats it; that treats families the way [our society] treats it; treats pornography the way it treats it; treats abortion and children the way it treats them; and treats the disabled and the helpless the way it treats them.
You are the Senate sponsor of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. Why is it necessary?
If passed, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act will require employers to make reasonable accommodations for an employee's religious practice or observance, such as time off and attire. While most employers recognize the value of respecting religion in the workplace, sometimes employees are forced to choose between dedication to the principles of their faith and losing their job because their employers refuse to reasonably accommodate certain needs. This legislation creates a balance for people who want to have their religious convictions respected at work and an employer who is trying to run a business.
Copyright © 2005 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
