Freedom of Association with Whomever We Say

It used to be that your home was considered your “castle.” Among other things, this meant that you did not have to let anyone — whether British Redcoats or an obnoxious neighbor — into your home against your wishes. However, a pair of Madison, Wisconsin, roommates, Ann Hacklander-Ready and Maureen Rowe, found that this truism doesn’t apply when you look for new roommates.

When the pair decided they would be uncomfortable sharing their intimate living space with Caryl Sprague, a woman Hacklander-Ready and Rowe knew to be a lesbian, the would-be renter filed a discrimination complaint with the Madison Civil Rights Commission. An administrative law judge ruled in Sprague’s favor, ultimately awarding her $26,000 for emotional distress, punitive damages, and lawyer’s fees. The roommates also lost their appeal, on the grounds that they gave up their constitutional freedom of association when they “rented housing for profit.” As David Bernstein, George Mason University law professor, said, “The court did not explain how living with housemates to defray rental expenses and make ends meet constitutes housing ‘for profit.’”

The above incident is the latest in an occasional series looking at concrete examples of how our fundamental rights as Americans — those specifically guaranteed to us through the Bill of Rights — are being steadily eroded. These examples were found as a result of research I’ve conducted in support of my role as Development Manager for Donor Relations at the Bill of Rights Institute, which includes writing informational letters and solicitations to our supporters.

St. Anne’s Public House

While I’m on the topic of giving God praise for good alcoholic beverages, may I heartily recommend the ministry of St. Anne’s Public House. This audio ministry aims “to provoke consistent Christian thought that erupts into revelry in the manifold goodness of God.”

I encourage you to sign up for a free subscription to their quarterly audiotapes. I have, and greatly enjoyed the first tape I received from them: “Hearts Made Glad: A Tribute to Wine.”

A Hearty Toast to Boddington’s Pub Ale

Praise God for good beer! Good beer is certainly one of the greater material gifts God has blessed man with. What a crime it is to fail to rejoice in His gifts; rather, we should “praise God from whom all blessings flow” with great thanksgiving.

I was thankfully blessed with two good beers today — Dominion Lager during the Eagles-Falcons game while I snacked on salted pretzels and read my latest copy of RC Sproul, Jr’s “Every Thought Captive” newsletter, and then a pint of Guinness Irish Stout over dinner. Yes, the former doesn’t really belong in the same sentence as the latter, but it’s not a Bud or Miller, either. (Though I must say, I absolutely love Miller’s “Prevent Taste Loss” ad campaign — hilarious!)

But there is one beer that certainly does belong in the same class as Guinness, and it is the one I had hoped to be drinking today. Hoped, because it was sold out at the store. (Bonnie lovingly and wisely substituted the other brands — and they will most certainly do for now. Thank you, Dear!)

What beer am I speaking of? None other than Boddington’s Pub Ale. Not quite as heavy as a stout, this ol’ British ale — known on the Isle as the “Cream of Manchester” — is creamy, smooth, and has a slight touch of honey, with a wonderful aftertaste that (rare find!) matches the first swig. In fact, the hefty head of froth is made possible by a little thingy in the can much like that found in a can of Guinness, which releases millions of tiny bubbles once the can is opened. I discovered Boddington’s a few months ago when it was on sale at Giant and have enjoyed it ever since. In fact, I think it is even better than Guinness. (Note: Goes down best when poured in a frosty mug.)

I’m always open to suggestions. What are your favorite beers? Outside of the commonly-known beers, are there any lesser-known or “hidden gems” you would recommend? If so, post them below in the comments section. In the meantime, raise your glass to the glory of God!

Property Rights, or Not…

On January 11, 2005, Robert Brace went to trial against the Environmental Protection Agency. Brace, a Pennsylvania farmer, has been fighting the government for 17 years to protect his right to farm his land, which has been in his family for three generations. First, he was cited for “wetlands violations.” After expending a large sum to install a standard drainage system, an action advocated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, he was then charged with violating the Clean Water Act. Brace has endured years of expensive bureaucratic maneuvering designed to make him give in to the EPA’s demands, a $10,000 fine, and a stop-farming order on his 60 acres of land that, if fully used, is potentially worth in excess of $3 million.

Despite being deprived use of their property by the government, Brace and his family have yet to be compensated at fair market value, as mandated by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The above incident is the latest in an occasional series looking at concrete examples of how our fundamental rights as Americans — those specifically guaranteed to us through the Bill of Rights — are being steadily eroded. These examples were found as a result of research I’ve conducted in support of my role as Development Manager for Donor Relations at the Bill of Rights Institute, which includes writing informational letters and solicitations to our supporters.

The Steady Erosion of the Bill of Rights

As a result of some things I have written lately in my role as Development Manager for Donor Relations at the Bill of Rights Institute, I’ve decided to begin an occasional series looking at concrete examples of how our fundamental rights as Americans — those specifically guaranteed to us through the Bill of Rights — are being steadily eroded.

As Lynn Cheney, the wife of the vice-president and an astute observer of the civic health of our nation, said not long ago:

Freedom, as a study of our history shows, is not our inevitable heritage. This realization can make our freedom all the more precious. Were we to lose it, liberty might not come our way again.

If Americans don’t know our history, the value we place on freedom and the principles and sacrifices necessary for liberty to be preserved will fade away.

After several decades of poor instruction in our schools about the Constitution and what it means to be an American, the effects of this ignorance are seen in the halls of Congress, the courts, and in states and local municipalities across America.

I could certainly list hundreds of examples of this creeping tyranny. In the coming months, I will highlight many of these, beginning with the next post.

Though these examples would have appalled America’s Founding Fathers, in at least one respect they would not have surprised by them. The Founders understood very well that it would require more than a Constitution and Bill of Rights to secure America’s Founding principles.

Eternal vigilance by ordinary Americans like you and me is necessary to preserve limited government and such basic rights as the right to bear arms, religious liberty, the rights of the accused, and property rights.

Sadly, the failure of Americans to exercise this vigilance over the educational system the past several decades has resulted in generations of students who have never learned what it means to be an American or how America has become the most powerful, prosperous, and free nation in the history of the world.

Given this ignorance, should it surprise us when individual citizens and government bureaucrats and judges no longer respect our natural rights ’ even though they are supposedly protected by the Bill of Rights?

After all, the rights people do not understand or value are the very ones we are at risk of losing.

Stark: ‘Yanks Blew It On Beltran’

According to ESPN’s Jason Stark, the Yankees had a huge opportunity to get Carlos Beltran at a discount: less one year and $20 million dollars than what the Mets paid for him.

According to baseball men who have spoken with the Yankees, the theory in the Bronx was that Beltran wanted to play for a team where he wouldn’t be the biggest star.

Beltran would have given the Yankees another bonafide superstar that would have actually made the team younger, and by the end of his contract may have ended up looking like a steal, knowing how contracts will, in all likelihood, continue to escalate over the next ten years.

Instead, the Yanks continued to mortgage their future by signing 41-year-old Randy Johnson, thus making Beltran impossible to afford. Bottom line: The Yankees may pay around $100 million in revenue sharing and luxury tax in ‘05. Beltran’s salary would have been on top of that and would have pushed the tax even higher.

Trading Javier Vasquez for the Old Unit, I believe, was a huge mistake. The Yanks are set up for this year with perhaps a better shot at winning the World Series. And then, with a very old team and no farm system to speak of, they risk plummeting for years into an early-’90s-like mediocrity. I believe Vasquez will return to elite form and stay that way for the better part of a decade. Had the Yankees kept Vasquez — who I though was a better pick-up than Curt Shilling was for the Red Sox last year — they could have signed Beltran.

Here’s the core of the roster the Yankees might have had for the next half-decade or so, were they more patient and far-sighted: Beltran, Vasquez, A-Rod, Derek Jeter, Carl Pavano, Mariano Rivera.

Well, here’s to dreaming.

Anyway, I look forward to cheering on the Washington Nationals this year. Go Nats!

“W” stands for “Woodrow”

My thoughts exactly.

C.S. Lewis on Whether Allah = the God of the Bible

In response to my last post, I’ve heard some claim that even though Islam is a Christian heresy, Allah is the same God as Jehovah. Well, I agree wholeheartedly on the heresy side of it, but I completely disagree with the Allah = God = Allah argument.

It is heartening to know that I stand in good company. Certainly, Jesus Himself would disagree (John 6:45-47) with that equation.

But to draw out the argument, I defer to Clive Staples Lewis. Like so many questions of the faith, Lewis creatively addressed this very question in his Chronicles of Narnia. Most pertinent to the question at hand is a passage from the final book in that series, The Last Battle, in which the Narnian King confronts Shift the Ape, the self-appointed mouthpiece for Aslan, the Christ figure of the series, about whether the god of the Calormenes (Tash) is the same god as that of the Narnians (the Lion, Aslan). What makes this passage so much more relevant to the does God = Allah = God question is the fact that the Calormenes bear a striking resemblance to the Muslim Arab peoples of Earth (see The Horse and His Boy):

The Ape jumped up and spat at the Lamb.

“Baby!” he hissed. “Silly little bleater! Go home to your mother and drink milk. What do you understand of such things? But you others, listen. Tash is only another name for Aslan. All that old idea of us being right and the Calormenes wrong is silly. We know better now. The Calormenes use different words but we all mean the same thing. Tash and Aslan are only two different names for you know Who. That’s why there can never be any quarrel between them. Get that into your heads, you stupid brutes. Tash is Aslan: Aslan is Tash.”

You know how sad your own dog’s face can look sometimes. Think of that and then think of all the faces of those Talking Beasts — all those honest, humble, bewildered birds, bears, badgers, rabbits, moles, and mice would have broken your heart with very pity to see their faces. There was only one who did not look at all unhappy.
It was a ginger cat — a great big Tom in the prime of life — who sat bolt upright with his tail curled round his toes, in the very front row of all the Beasts. He had been staring hard at the Ape and the Calormene captain all the time and had never once blinked his eyes.

“Excuse me,” said the Cat very politely, “but this interests me. Does your friend from Calormen say the same?”

“Assuredly,” said the Calormene. “The enlight-ened Ape — Man, I mean — is in the right. Aslan means neither less nor more than Tash.”

“Especially, Aslan means no more than Tash?” suggested the Cat.

“No more at all,” said the Calormene, looking the Cat straight in the face.

“Is that good enough for you, Ginger?” said the Ape.

“Oh certainly,” said Ginger cooly. “Thank you very much. I only wanted to be quite clear. I think I am beginning to understand.”

Up till now the King and Jewel [the unicorn] had said nothing: they were waiting until the Ape should bid them speak, for they thought it was no use interrupting. But now, as Tirian [the king] looked round on the miserable faces of the Narnians, and saw how they would all believe that Aslan and Tash were one and the same, he could bear it no longer.

“Ape,” he cried with a great voice, “you lie. You lie damnably. You lie like a Calormene. You lie like an Ape.”

He meant to go on and ask how the terrible god Tash who fed on the blood of his people could possibly be the same good Lion by whose blood all Narnia was saved. If he had been allowed to speak, the rule of the Ape might have ended that day; the Beasts might have seen the truth and thrown the Ape down. But before he could say another word two Calormenes struck him in the mouth with all their force, and a third, from behind, kicked his feet from under him.

President Bush Embraces the Koran

An entirely underwhelming second inaugural address by President Bush today. His ratcheted-up emphasis on what can only be termed democratic imperialism — despite his lines claiming that “freedom by it’s very nature cannot be coerced” — is alarming. But other than that there was not much that was new or interesting. Just his usual empty rhetoric. Bush has indeed managed to turn libertarian language into almost meaningless cliche.

But one thing that he said was particularly interesting — and disturbingly so:

That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before - ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Are you kidding me?! The Koran?!?! Talk about pandering to the radical multiculturalists and to Bush’s allies in Saudi Arabia. How does the Koran “sustain our national character?” What about the Koran is “good and true?” Where are these “ideals of justice” to be found in the Koran? Does Bush really want us to think these ideals are on the same plane — and do not contradict — the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount?

Of course, I can say, “I told you so.” See my #1 reason Bush is a bad president, originally posted just before the November elections.

Here’s a teaser from that post: “George W. Bush is now officially on record as saying that Christians and Muslims pray to the same god, and that there are many ways to heaven.”

Sigh. Almost every day I am sadly validated in my decision to not vote for Bush. Lord help us.

Scalia vs. Breyer

In case you missed it, there was a fascinating discussion/debate held at American University’s law school last week. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer squared off on the issue of what role foreign law should play in America’s constitutional jurisprudence. I linked the transcript.

Why is the issue relevant?

The Supreme Court’s decisions in recent years betray a trend that rips to shreds our historic notions of federalism, or divided powers, and equality before the law.

For instance, Justices Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have defended the use of racial preferences in college admissions by claiming that their decision was consistent with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

In the controversial case two summers ago that struck down the Texas law and further undermined states’ rights, Justice Anthony Kennedy cited the European Court of Human Rights: “this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries.”

There is reason to believe this trend is growing into a full-fledged agenda.

“Our Justices,” said Clinton-appointed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, in a speech to the misnamed American Constitution Society, “are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives.”

And in an appearance on Meet the Press, Justice Breyer echoed Ginsberg’s words in favor of subordinating the American Constitution to international agreements:

[The world] is growing together. And how they’re going to live together across the world will be the challenge, and whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations, I think will be a challenge for the next generations. 

Now, just what do international conventions and European Courts have to do with the United States Constitution?

The answer is obvious: Not a thing.

These judges have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. But in front of a national television audience, they proclaim that the Constitution should be twisted in order to “fit into the governing documents of other nations!”

Clearly, we can’t rely on the judicial system to preserve the Constitution — especially when judges are “disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT,” as Alexander Hamilton warned against in Federalist #78.

As Justice Antonin Scalia has written elsewhere in dissent of the judicial activism of the present Court:

We must never forget that it is a Constitution for the United States that we are expounding — the views of other nations, however enlightened the Justices of this Court may think them to be, cannot be imposed upon Americans through the Constitution.

When some Justices in our highest court value the accolades of the French more than fidelity to America’s Founding documents, the very fabric of our freedom is at risk. Let’s hope President George W. Bush has the courage to nominate to the Supreme Court more men like Antonin Scalia.