Category: Politics

Posted on

A Christmas Day Reflection

By Jim Spiegel

On this Christmas day I have been reflecting on our unity in Christ, which seems increasingly threatened by divisions within the American Church, especially due to disagreements over political issues. This prompted me to think about the following possibility. Suppose, upon our arrival in the Next World, we ask Jesus, “Who was right regarding those early 21st century American political issues which divided us so much, even those of us who followed you, Lord? Was it the conservatives or the progressives?” What if Jesus replies, “Both sides were right and wrong about many things” and then he proceeds to itemize the insights and errors on both sides, to which we respond by saying, “Wow, it’s all so clear now. Why didn’t we see this during those days when we were so caught up in all of those political squabbles?” Then what if He says, “because it was not my will that you would see these things clearly but rather to test you and mature you through such disagreements. Those issues, vital and important as they were, served primarily as means of interpersonal engagement, to catalyze the forging of your souls, to build virtues of patience, generosity, perseverance, humility, and grace. In short, your political debates functioned as props on the stage of human life, the main focus of which was always about making you all more like me, though even you, my precious children, at times lost sight of this. But don’t worry about it, guys. For all is well now. And all manner of things is well.”

What if that is how it will go down in the Next World? And suppose we somehow could know now that this was God’s main purpose regarding all of the political strife which currently grips our nation. How might this change the way we approached all of these divisive issues?

Posted on

Politics Gone Viral

By Amy Spiegel

For many years, as a mother of four, I dreaded this time of year. The excitement and cheerful decorations of Christmas are long gone. The green and sunshine of spring seem a still distant hope. When the kids were little, these were long and grey winter days with no snow spent wishing for sledding and igloos to help burn off some of that seemingly endless childhood energy. The long and grey days with lots of snow were spent stuffing kids in and out of snow pants and wishing they would just stay inside. But my greatest dread was sickness. Inevitably, we would schedule a playdate, spend several lovely hours with friends only to have someone throw up all over one of the kids as we were saying goodbye. Okay, that never actually happened, but there did seem to be a proportional relationship between the frequency of playdates and the chances of my kids getting sick. In order to avoid whatever gut-spilling, bowel-emptying plague which was currently laying siege to our circle of friends, I would become hyper-vigilant regarding contact with others. If I saw the slightest hint of illness, runny nose, sneezing, unidentified ooze leaking from any orifice, I would yell “Retreat!” and hustle the kids off as quickly as possible, giving the offending orifice a wide berth large enough to drive the Titanic through…sideways.

This season of political divisiveness and strife has me living in the same nerve-fraying state of alertness. Politics has become a virus from which I would like to be immunized or, better yet, simply avoid all together. I know this is not the way of the informed citizen and might seem a complete shirking of my civic duties, but I’m ready to at least use a few sick days. It isn’t that I don’t care about the issues being debated. Quite the reverse. The stakes have never seemed so high: illegal immigration which encompasses national security, our legacy as a nation of immigrants, and the fate of those caught in the middle; racial equality; issues of religious freedom and tolerance; abortion; gun control; and the list goes on. All matters of vital importance and deserving of our attention. Nevertheless, on a fairly regular basis, I dream of leaving others to solve our problems and packing up husband, kids and dogs (sorry cat, you are on your own) and heading to hill country with a lifetime supply of dehydrated beef stroganoff and the complete works of Sir Conan Doyle.

I know that in the last two hundred plus years of our nation’s history there have been times of greater political division (e.g., the Civil War, Vietnam, etc.). But what I find so maddening about our current political divide, beyond the character assassinations and untethered vitriol on both sides of the aisle, is its ever-pervasive presence. Go to the movies or turn on the television and you’ll have some high school dropout lecturing you about the environment or gun control or the “wage gap.” Try to watch sports and you’ll have it turned into a political exercise about racial prejudice. You can’t even shop for school supplies or buy a cupcake without declaring your support or disapproval of one side or the other. Every corner of our culture has been infected with politics. In other words, there is no common ground. There is no place to meet in the middle and enjoy a laugh or well-played game. Everywhere is a pulpit and everyone a preacher.

I’m not denying anyone’s right to use whatever platform they have been given to propagate their particular perspective. I only ask they consider the context in which they do so. We watch movies for their artistic and entertainment value, not to be indoctrinated but to be enlightened and uplifted. We watch sports to be amazed and inspired, to feel a part of so larger than ourselves, not to be lectured and subdivided.

Maybe if we spent a little more time on common ground, rooting for the home team, laughing together, enjoying the same musical or theatrical experience, we might find the road to political compromise a little less rocky. Maybe those moments of shared experience will be just what the doctor ordered.

Posted on

Pod Shots

By Amy Spiegel

I have a lot of sitting-at-loose-ends time in my life. Time between one activity or commitment and another; time spent twiddling my thumbs in a doctor’s office and driving hither and yon. Being the task-oriented person that I am, I dislike feeling this time is being wasted. I have become an expert cultivator of zombie killing plants, but one of my New Year’s resolutions was to try to put this time to better use. So I took to Facebook and asked for some podcast recommendations. Below I have reviewed a few of them for your listening pleasure.

This American Life: Given that, according to its website, This American Life airs on more than 500 stations to about 2.2 million listeners and is “often the most popular podcast in the country,” it probably doesn’t need much of an introduction. But in case you have been living in Wi-Fi-less cave for the last ten years or so, here is the basic concept behind TAL: “There’s a theme to each episode…and a variety of stories on that theme. Most logo-v5of the stories are journalism, with an occasional comedy routine or essay.” Pretty sure this was the first podcast I ever listened to. It is my Saturday morning, headphones-in-walking-through-the-grocery-store listening fare. I have made a fool of myself mid-aisle laughing to the point of snorts and awkwardly holding in sobs as well as boring my family and anyone who will sit still to listen to me recap the various episodes. A must-listen to for anyone.

The Phil Vischer Podcast: Being a huge Larry and Bob fan, I was predisposed in favor of Phil Vischer’s podcast, but sadly what works in the produce aisle isn’t nearly as successful without the funny voices and catchy songs. With so many recommendations to get through, I confess that I only listened to this podcast once. It lacked focus and the hosts, Vischer, Christian Taylor and Skye Jethani, seemed more concerned with having a conversation with one another than they did with engaging the audience. I only have so much time and frankly this podcast didn’t seem to respect that fact. Get to the meat and cut out some of the chit chat. The topics covered do seem very interesting though, so maybe I will give it another chance…after I run out of new episodes of This American Life to listen to.

Pass the Mic: Pass The Mic is the premier podcast of the Reformed African American Network which includes “discussions and high profile interviews addressing the core concerns of African Americans biblically.” Hosted by Jemar Tisby and Tyler Burns, this podcast was out of my comfort zone which can be, well, uncomfortable. I don’t like the current trend to constantly segregate people to categories, by race, gender, economic class, political affiliation, etc., but then my race hasn’t defined me in the same way it has defined others so it’s easy for me to say “Can’t we just all be people rather than black people or white people; female people or male people?” I intend to keep this one on my subscribe list. I may have some one-sided arguments with it every now and then, but hopefully listening to the perspective of others will keep me from seeing the world from too narrow a vantage point.

Sheologians: I have really enjoyed this podcast despite the cheesy affirmations and giggles of the hosts, Summer White and her co-host Joy (I worked for about 45 minutes to find her last name and finally gave up.) Their tagline is “Theology for women, no doilies allowed,” and that is a pretty good summary of the show. Jane sheolgians-transparent-logo-smallAusten references abound amidst discussions of a variety of cultural topics including feminism, atheism, and Hollywood’s portrayal of love and atheism. It’s one I am especially looking forward to listening to with our daughter. Love the idea of her hearing strong and well-reasoned women unapologetically expressing their views on important issues. The overall whimsical tone of the podcast balances the seriousness with which they approach the issues discussed and makes it clear that while Summer and Joy don’t take themselves too seriously, they are on a mission to inform and challenge.

The Briefing:  Hosted by Albert Mohler, president of Southern Seminary and Boyce College, The Briefing is a “daily worldview analysis about the leading news headlines and cultural conversations.” The Briefing is like a shorter version of All Things Considered for conservative evangelicals. I like seeing current events through Mohler’s lens and particularly appreciate his thoughtful and rational analysis. Wouldn’t use this as my only news source, but makes for a quick and informative listen.

Posted on

An Open Letter to Two Dots

By Amy Spiegel

Dear Two Dots,

Let me begin by saying that I, as a mother of four busy kids, have very little “me” time. I do have lots of time to kill waiting in orthodontists’ offices and sitting in parking lots waiting to pick up my kids. Since discovering your game a few years back, many of those periods of waiting have been made a little less boring. I love the simplicity and aesthetic of your format and appreciate having my brain challenged a little each day with your clever puzzles.

Two Dots has been a little patch of sunshine in my day…until now. As a political conservative, I was shocked to open my game today and be greeted not by the usual cheery music and playful graphics of your game, but IMG_0580[1]rather by an obvious dig at our President and a plea for my support of the ACLU, a liberal organization which seeks to limit the religious expression of others rather than defend the freedoms of all. I didn’t vote for President Trump and share the concerns of many regarding his moral character, and certainly as a company, it is your right to support a group such as the ACLU if they align with your values and priorities. However, I don’t play Two Dots as a means of entering into political debate. I play it because it is fun.

Have we really reached the point where we have to politicize every aspect of our lives? Does it not concern you that by incorporating a political message and appeal for financial support into the very format of your app that you would be alienating many of your players? I don’t want political slogans included on my grocery or retail bags. I don’t want to get a lecture before being allowed to order at a restaurant. And I don’t want you asking me to donate to the ACLU before I can play your game.

I have deleted your app from my phone. It will be missed, but I guess that is a price I am willing to pay for my principles. I hope you are willing to pay a similar price for yours.

Disappointedly yours,

Amy Spiegel

Posted on

Anticipating a Trump Presidency

By Jim Spiegel

A little more than three weeks out from the presidential election, and the anti-Trump riots have subsided, at least for now. This might be the calm before the proverbial storm, if some predictions are correct. In any case, extreme negative responses on the left continue, as do exuberant responses on the right. Such strong reactions among Christians are especially dismaying—suggesting that there is an inordinate hope and trust in political power for human flourishing in this country. We need to heed Augustine’s important reminder that there is only one reasonable Kingdom hope, and that is in the Kingdom to come where Christ is king. Of course, this does not mean we should be apathetic or unengaged in civil matters and political work. But it does mean that we should not be distraught or desperate when those we vote or campaign for do not win elections.

Slate.com
Slate.com

In 2008 many felt a sense of doom when Obama was elected. They expressed the same sort of desperation and distress that some on the left have been experiencing lately (though I don’t recall any rioting as a consequence of this). Well, those eight years passed, and we’re all still here. Will we survive the next four years under a Trump administration? I think its safe to say that we will, that is unless the populous reacts in severe and destructive ways, which certainly seems possible if anti-Trump sentiments continue to grow.

Often in politics the response to a negative situation can be more dangerous than the negative situation itself—like an allergic reaction to a relatively minor health issue can prompt a serious, even fatal condition. As a nation, we need to avoid such a deadly “allergic” response to the Trump presidency. Many of these responses, by the way, seem to be aggravated by media exacerbation of Trump’s vices, which are numerous, for sure, but hardly out of step with those of past presidents—including the severe racism of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson and the womanizing of JFK and Bill Clinton. I didn’t vote for Trump and am disappointed that he is poised to be our next President (though I didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton and think she would have been an even worse choice). But I do think we owe Trump a chance to govern and we should apply the principle of charity when it comes to interpreting many of his comments. Just as many conservatives gave Obama a fair chance and responded peacefully while critiquing his policy decisions along the way, liberals should likewise give the Trump administration a fair chance, and this includes responding peacefully even while offering well-reasoned and respectful critiques.

Posted on

Refusing to Serve: Moral Dimensions of the Masterpiece Cakeshop Case

By Jim Spiegel

Recently, a Colorado appeals court ruled that baker Jack Phillips—owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver—does not have a right to refuse service for a gay wedding.  The legal reasoning in this case, which affirmed previous rulings, is now the topic of much debate, and many more cases like it are sure to follow, with some perhaps being appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

Setting the legal issues aside, what are we to say about the moral stance of the baker in this case?  Was Mr. Phillips morally justified in refusing to serve this same-sex couple?  A Christian pastor recently posed this question to me:  Assuming that same-sex marriage is inappropriate for moral-theological reasons, does a Christian baker such as Phillips have a duty to refuse to serve for a same-sex wedding?  The pastor went on to explain that he strongly affirms the traditional view of marriage as the union between one man and one woman and that, therefore, same-sex unions are immoral.  Yet, he was not convinced that Phillips would necessarily be doing anything wrong by serving the couple.  After all, the pastor said, he’s just doing his job.  Why not simply take the approach that he will serve whoever asks.  After all, Jesus says, “give to the one who asks you” (Mt. 5:42; Lk. 6:30).

In response, one might note that Jesus’ maxim here is not intended to be unqualified.  Thus, for example, presumably Jesus would not want you to strictly abide by this instruction when an inebriated friend asks you for the keys to his car so he can drive himself home.  Similarly, one might say that a business owner should not refuse anyone service unless doing so would constitute support for an immoral act.

The problem with this general qualification, the pastor pointed out, is that, as American consumers, it is virtually unavoidable to indirectly support immoral systems and policies, such as manufacturing sweat shops or environmentally hazardous practices, via our clothing and food purchases.  So how is this any different?

This is a common response to the situation, but I think it confuses the issue by comparing a clear case of problematic moral complicity with less clear “gray area” cases.  To make my point, I countered with a hypothetical case of my own:  Suppose a Christian baker is approached by members of NAMBLA (the North American Man/Boy Love Association) with a request to bake cakes for one of their meetings.  Since the baker believes, for theological reasons, that pedophilia is immoral, he refuses to serve them.  The pastor thought this would be reasonable.  And he said the same regarding another scenario I presented where a similar request is made by a Skinhead group.

So the question is this:  Is the Denver baker case more like these scenarios or is it more like cases of inadvertent support of sweatshops and other injustices through one’s purchases?

In response, I would note, first, that in many of the latter cases, we should likewise refuse to lend our support through our purchases, because it constitutes moral complicity with an immoral act.  However, it can be difficult to know when such support is significant enough to warrant our refusal to make certain purchases on those grounds.  Thus, we may want to consider two relevant moral criteria:  1) how significant is the immoral conduct in question?  And (2) how direct would be one’s support of the immoral conduct, if one acted on the request?  The reason most of us would grant that a baker is morally justified in refusing service to NAMBLA and the Skinheads is that such service would directly support these organizations, and the immoral aims of these groups are highly significant–pedophilia and ethnic hatred are serious moral crimes.

So let’s apply these questions to the Denver baker case.  Does Phillips have grounds for thinking that same-sex unions are significantly immoral?  As a Christian who takes seriously both Scripture and the unified voice of nearly two millennia of theological history, he certainly seems to.  And would the requested service directly support this conduct?  Again, the answer is yes—at least as directly as the same service would support NAMBLA and the Skinheads in the parallel cases.

So whatever legal fate might befall Mr. Phillips for refusing to serve a gay wedding, his choice is morally appropriate, given the traditional Christian sexual ethic.  However one might want to quibble with that traditional doctrine or shift focus to the political-legal dimensions of the case, Phillips’ actions are morally coherent and warranted.  Active complicity with an immoral act is wrong, and the refusal to be so complicit is morally justified.

Posted on

Post-Obergefell: What Might be Next for LGBT Activists and Marriage Traditionalists

By Jim Spiegel

Now that LGBT dreams of “marriage equality” have been fulfilled with last week’s Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, what comes next for LGBT activists?  In this New York Times piece, Jodi Kantor reports a “twinge of loss” that comes with this historic victory for their cause.  After all, theirs is a community that has defined itself in terms of its oppression and thus as an “outsider culture.”  While Kantor’s article merely contemplates this question, I think it is worth considering the likely next step for the LGBT activists: counter-oppression.  As we have seen over the last several decades, with each victory in the legislatures and courts, LGBT activists have only more aggressively sought further legal changes in their favor.  Should we expect them to proceed any differently now?  On the contrary, I think it is more realistic to expect that with the backing of federal law, they will be emboldened to ensure that their “oppressors” (i.e., proponents of traditional marriage) be made the new “outsider culture,” even if this must be done by force.

Hints of this direction appeared in another New York Times article a couple months back, this one authored by Frank Bruni.  In this op-ed, Bruni quotes gay philanthropist Mitchell Gold as proposing that church leaders should be made to “take homosexuality off the sin list.”  Bizarre as this suggestion is, Bruni declares that “his commandment is worthy — and warranted.  All of us, no matter our religious traditions, should know better than to tell gay people that they’re an offense.”

From www.cathnewsusa.com
From www.cathnewsusa.com

Perhaps this will be the next rallying point for LGBT activists—to fight for censorship of those who would question the moral legitimacy of same-sex relationships.  If achieved, this would entail severe proscribing of religious freedom.  Perhaps this is why four of the Supreme Court justices issued such dire warnings in their dissenting opinions in the Obergefell case, announcing the dangers this decision represents for religious traditionalists, with Judge Scalia even calling the decision “a threat to democracy.”  Strong, chilling words.

In a Time Magazine piece in response to the Supreme Court ruling, Rod Dreher has suggested that Christians “must now learn to live as exiles in our own country.”  What this amounts to, says Dreher, is taking the “Benedict Option,” as described by Alasdair MacIntyre in his prescient 1982 book After Virtue.  In other words, we must essentially go underground in order to preserve the values of our community.  The trouble is, of course, that things are very different for 21st century U.S. Christians than they were for 6th century Benedictines.  Socially, economically, and technologically, we are too entangled to achieve anything like a true Benedict Option.  To paraphrase the great boxer Joe Louis, we can run but we can’t hide.

What this means is that if LGBT counter-oppression is coming, we’ll simply have to face it—with as much courage and integrity as we can manage.  For many, such courageous resolve will be too demanding.  And this will undoubtedly mean a sudden realization that, well, the sexual pluralists were right after all.  For 4000 years of Judeo-Christian history all of the greatest ethicists and theologians in our tradition were mistaken about same-sex relationships, as are the overwhelming majority of orthodox Christians, Jews, and Muslims today.  With this admission, the forbidden conviction will be “off the sin list,” just as ordered, and gone will be any worries about persecution from legal authorities.

For others who stand firm, this may mean loss of jobs, the death of businesses, the end of educational institutions, jail time or even worse.  There is, after all, a price to be paid for certain convictions in a culture where the “oppressed” become the oppressors.  And where decades, even centuries of suffering under the tyrannical rule of a majority opinion can justify imposing even greater suffering on those who persist as proponents of that same opinion when it has become, at last, a vulnerable minority view.  Or so some may reason.  All for the sake of “justice,” of course.

Posted on

Thoughts on the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act

By Jim Spiegel

Recently there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).  This act declares, “a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion…[unless it] (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”  The law is very similar to more than twenty other such RFRA laws in other states, as well as a 1993 federal law, which states, “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”

A few days ago I participated in a panel discussion of the issue at Taylor University.  In addition to some substantive Q&A with the audience, those of us on the panel addressed several prepared questions.  Below are my responses.

What is the nature of ‘religious freedom’?  

Legally speaking, religious freedom is the right to practice one’s faith without interference or censure by the government or fellow citizens.  The First Amendment says Congress cannot “prohibit the free exercise” of religion.  Morally speaking, we may agree that such freedom should be granted by governing authorities just to the extent that practicing one’s religion does not violate the basic rights of other people.  (This is also essentially affirmed in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789.)  And it is here that things get messy.  For some religious practices could be construed as violating someone’s rights.

What do laws like the Indiana RFRA aim to affect as far as religious freedom is concerned?

Although the principal context of the 1993 Federal RFRA concerned government encroachment onto Native American sacred land, this law and similar state laws have more generally been taken to aim at protecting a religious person’s freedom to abide by their religion’s core moral convictions.  In more recent years, as regards the whole issue of same-sex marriage and religious folks affirming the traditional Judeo-Christian view of marriage, this has been taken to include not being forced to commit the sin of complicity with immoral acts.

What does this legislation actually allow? 

This legislation allows a person the freedom to practice their faith without “substantial burden” being placed on them by the government.  And, in the legal context, a business or corporation may be construed as a “person”.  In last year’s landmark “Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores” Supreme Court decision, it was decided that for-profit corporations may hold religious beliefs.

What is it about the Indiana RFRA as opposed to the federal 1993 version that has provoked such ire?

This question commits the fallacy of complex question.  Did this law in particular provoke “such ire” or were there other factors that initiated and fanned the flames of controversy?  Since there is the 1993 federal law and more than thirty states have similar laws and legal provisions, many believe it is the latter.  Some speculate that the Indiana law was simply chosen by LGBT activists for practical reasons to generate national public attention to this issue—perhaps to prime the pump of public opinion as the Supreme Court is currently deliberating a case pertaining to the same-sex marriage issue.  And much of the controversy also seems to have been media driven.

Does the language of this particular version legally permit the service discrimination of certain minorities beyond the circumstances of participation in religious ritual and ceremony?

I don’t see how it could, since there is nothing about being a minority per se that presents a challenge to any reasonable religious practice.  Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the RFRA has not, until now, been controversial or faced any fundamental court challenges in the 22 years of its existence at the federal or state levels.

Do individuals have the moral right to treat individuals differently due to their sexual orientation or gender identity if such treatment is based on religious reasons?

I don’t think there is any theological basis for moral discrimination against people.  But I do think there are strong moral-theological reasons for discriminating against certain behaviors.  For example, a refusal to participate in some activities may be necessary to avoid moral complicity with behaviors essentially proscribed by one’s religion—for instance, if I am asked to support a same-sex wedding by providing a service such as a photography or baking.  But notice that even this doesn’t amount to discriminating on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation so much as it discriminates against the action of performing a same-sex wedding or, more specifically, the lifestyle choices that such a ceremony celebrates and even religiously enshrines.  Keep in mind that when performed by a minister in a church context such weddings are religious ceremonies.  So to insist that any person, such as a baker or photographer, lend their professional support to this sort of religious ceremony is essentially to insist that they embrace or approve of a particular religious practice.  So, ironically, in such contexts the RFRA actually protects people from religion or certain religious practices.

Should we be concerned about the manner in which the Indiana government responded to social pressure, ultimately amending the bill in the wake of serious backlash from national business? Isn’t this undemocratic?

Some say it amounts to public blackmail.  I would say that, generally speaking, the freedom to exert such pressures is part of the democratic process.  But that doesn’t mean they are always reasonable or coherent.  In this case, there are reasons to think it is arbitrary, because so many states and the federal government have similar laws, and hypocritical, because so many business leaders who have protested already do business in states that have such laws.

Is the ability of large businesses to effect such change a dangerous precedent regarding freedom of expression in general?

I think the more dangerous precedent is how such hysteria and duplicitous public criticism of the RFRA has gone unchecked and critiqued by major media and journalistic groups.

The ACLU has remarked that this legislation is a “solution in search of a problem” – Is there good reason for this legislation to exist in Indiana at this time?

I think so.  The GLBT movement and its rhetoric has advanced to the point that those who even voice dissent on the morality of same-sex relations are demonized or ostracized without any discussion or debate.  We’re approaching a state of dogma (again, about the moral issue) in the American cultural centers of power (federal government, state and local government, major media, public education, and entertainment industries) that would terrify and astound (the great proponent of liberty) John Stuart Mill, not to mention the U.S. founding fathers.  Where there is public suppression of views, political oppression of people is never far away.

Today we seem to be moving toward a situation where public expression of the traditional Judeo-Christian view of marriage and sexuality are essentially censored (suppressed via public pressure), and this is creating by contrast a new form of heresy.  If you don’t tow the line regarding the new progressive sexuality, then you are a moral heretic (never mind that your view has been affirmed by the overwhelming majority of scholars and ordinary folks in the East and West, both down through history and in most of the world today).

Posted on

The Best and Worst of 2013

By Jim Spiegel

It’s been another exciting year, and we want to thank you all for reading and, if applicable, posting comments on our blog.  Once again, we would like to close out the year with some summary remarks about good and bad stuff related to film, music, books, politics, and family.

Best and Worst Film Experiences:

Jim:  This was a slow year for me in terms of watching films.  Probably the best movie I watched all year was a very old one—The Killing Fields, a classic from 1984 featuring Sam Waterston in his signature role.  As for the worst film I viewed this year, that would have to be Gravity.  Though visually dazzling—the special effects are perhaps the best I’ve seen—it was almost entirely bereft of character development and a real story.  Even  Pacific Rim—also with brilliant special effects—had a far better story than Gravity, which is saying a lot (or, I should say, very little).

Amy:  Going to see Hunger Games: Catching Fire with our two oldest boys on opening night ranks as my number one theatrical experience of the year.  While decidedly not the most intellectually stimulating film I saw this year, I am enjoying Bailey and Sam’s maturation into appreciating more complex story lines and mature content in film.  Since Jim stole my pick for worst film of the year, I will go with my second worst, which was City of Bones.  I didn’t think it was possible for the film to be worse than the book, but I was wrong.  However, I might have missed a few aspects of the film, since—after realizing it was reeeaaalllly bad—I speed watched the DVD in about 30 minutes.  Ugh.

Jim’s Best and Worst Musical Experiences of the Year: 

Topping my musical list this year are Vampire Weekend’s Modern Vampires of the City and Arcade Fire’s Reflektor.  Coincidentally, both of these bands have a strong spiritual perspective, but this aspect of Vampire Weekend did not emerge until Modern Vampires, which is their third album.  Musically, it is every bit as rich and textured as their first two albums, but now they are tackling sublime themes, and the result is beautiful.  As for Arcade Fire, they’ve taken another dramatic musical turn, this time into a dance-funk direction, but it works.  Somehow, for all of their stylistic explorations, this band always sounds like they’re playing to their strengths.  As for the biggest disappointment of the year, it was the Killers’ Battle Born album.  Somehow this once magical Las Vegas DuranDuran-inspired foursome has lost their edge and inspiration.  Let’s hope they get it back.

Amy’s Best and Worst Eating Experiences of the Year:  

When I think of the good dining experiences I had this year they have a lot less to do with the food we ate and more to do with the people with whom we shared those experiences.  The worst experience of the year was not really an eating experience but rather our assistant pastor’s sermon on gluttony which has me doing some soul-searching regarding my relationship with food.  Perhaps this shouldn’t be categorized as a “bad” experience, but I haven’t reached the spiritual maturity to call it “good” either.

Jim’s Favorite Sports Moments of the Year:  It had to be watching Michigan State (my alma mater) defeat Ohio State in the Big Ten championship game.  I’ve always really, really disliked the Buckeyes (because I’m also, and more fundamentally, a U-M fan, despite my love for MSU).  Seeing the Detroit Tigers win their division for the 3rd consecutive year and also return to the American League Championship was a highlight as well.

Amy’ Favorite Sports Moments of the Year:  My favorite sports moments are a little closer to home.  I enjoyed watching Andrew’s and Bailey’s soccer teams go undefeated for the year and win their championships.  Its fun to now have all of our kids playing at a level that is actually enjoyable to watch.   Also, watching Andrew hit a home run in his coaches’ pitch league was fun, as well as seeing Sam play goalie on his soccer team—a role he embraced with relish.

Jim’s Most Disappointing Sports Moments of the Year:  It’s a three-way tie between (1) watching the now predictable Detroit Lions’ late season swoon, (2) seeing the eventual NBA champion Miami Heat slip by the Indiana Pacers in the Eastern conference championship series, and (3) watching the Tigers falter to the bearded Beantowners.  Big Poppi’s grand slam in game two turned the series, and the Tigers never recovered.  But there are reasons to be hopeful again on all three counts:  the Lions will be getting a new coach, the Pacers are much improved from last year and now have the best record in the NBA, and the Tigers have improved their roster considerably with some smart off-season moves.  Hope springs eternal for this Detroit/Indy fan.

Satisfying Reads of the Year:

Jim:  One would definitely be Thomas Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos.  This long-time naturalist philosopher has shown fair-mindedness throughout his career in pointing out serious flaws with the naturalist paradigm.  This penchant comes to full fruition in this book the subtitle of which is Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False.  Another is Herman Bavinck’s The Christian Family, which I reviewed on this blog recently.  Profound, practical and, now after 100 years, rather counter-cultural.

Amy:  With the kids in school and no home school prep to be done, I had a bit more time to read, so I was able to read over thirty books, which felt good.  Among the highlights were Elizabeth Gaskell’s Ruth, Charles Mann’s 1491 and 1493, and Tolkien’s The Hobbit.  In an upcoming post I will have more to say about all of the books I read.

Political High Point of the Year: 

Jim:  Watching Ted Cruz stand his ground in an effort to defund Obamacare.  He was excoriated for this, of course.  But now he’s being vindicated in what is, well, a political low point.

Amy:  The federal government shutdown—because it seemed like there was a glimmer of hope that Republicans would stand their ground.

Political Low Point of the Year: 

Jim:  Obamacare.  And it appears the worst is yet to come in 2014.  Gulp.

Amy:  Obamacare—especially the fact that so much has been made of the botched website when that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Best 2013 Memories of Our Kids:

Amy:  Our whole family and my dad kayaking the Hiawassee River in Tennessee, as well as camping at the Indiana Dunes with the kids.

Jim:  Taking each of the kids, one at a time, out to breakfast.  Something I try to do every summer.  Also, I enjoyed (nearly) all of the baseball and softball practices I conducted with the kids.

Best Kids’ Quotes of the Year:

Andrew:  “What’s so fun about life?”
Maggie:  “Don’t you hate it when scientists just guess?  I like knowing things.”
Sam:  “You need to brain up.”
Bailey:  After attending a seminar concerning sex and being asked what he learned: “I learned that when you’re married and you want to have sex with your wife, you have to talk to her for two hours beforehand.”

Most Satisfying Shared Experiences of the Year:

Jim:  Purchasing our brand new 9-year-old Toyota Sienna was a highlight, though it was done under duress (our Honda Odyssey having just broken down).  And refinishing the floor in what we are now calling our “den” was another highlight—domestic teamwork at its best.  However, I fear I lost millions of brain cells in the process.  Probably too much polyurethane for both of us, but just look at that shine!

Amy:  Enjoying quiet moments together after dropping the kids off at school and watching Jim transform an old dresser into a bathroom vanity for my birthday.  My ideas plus his elbow grease—a consistently strong combination when it comes to our home improvement.

New Year’s Resolutions:

Jim:  To spend a week in the Bahamas with Amy (as well as the Taylor baseball and golf teams) in January.  Okay, so that’s not really a resolution so much as a professional commitment.  Hmm…how about I resolve to post more frequently on this blog—especially book reviews.  Yep, that’s what I’ll do, Lord willing and the creek don’t rise.

Amy:  To be in the best shape of my life when I turn 40 next December.  Might not be saying much, but that’s my goal.

Happy 2014 everyone!

 

Posted on

Ominous Writing on the Supreme Court Wall

By Jim Spiegel

The recent Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor found that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) deprives same-sex couples due process and equal protection under the law, thus violating the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution.  Writing for the majority in the 5-4 opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy declared that traditional marriage laws “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” and “demean” same-sex couples.  Furthermore, Kennedy claimed that the intention of DOMA was to “impose inequality,” to “impose . . . a stigma,” and to deny homosexuals “equal dignity” under the law.  Members of the LGBT community, of course, are celebrating this decision.  Traditionalists, on the other hand, are worried about the eventual ramifications of this decision.  Justice Antony Scalia, writing for the minority, explained why in a powerful rebuttal that is worth quoting at length:

I am sure these accusations are quite untrue. To be sure (as the majority points out), the legislation is called the Defense of Marriage Act.  But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions.  To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement.  To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” ”injure,” “degrade,” ”demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual.  All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence—indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history.  It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

Remember that when it comes to Constitutional law, precedent is everything.  With this decision, the Supreme Court has effectively declared that there are no rational grounds for the traditional view of marriage, that the only basis for affirming the traditional view is, well, hate.  So this decision not only overturns DOMA but also provides powerful momentum for state legislatures to fall in line.  Some are predicting that in less than five years all fifty states will have legalized same-sex marriage.  So, apparently, we are heading for a new national orthodoxy when it comes to marriage.  And for those who don’t agree, it spells trouble.  What will happen to pastors who affirm the traditional view in their sermons?  That’s hate speech.  Or wedding vendors (bakers, florists, banquet hall owners) who refuse to serve same-sex weddings?  That’s illegal discrimination.  In fact, such cases are already in the news.  But when the new orthodoxy is in place, it will be ramped up considerably.  This is a good example of what Alexis de Tocqueville called the “tyranny of the majority.”