Haven’t seen it yet, but I’m already tired of the marketing. Evangelicals are stupid. We really are. Here’s why, via Mark Riddle:

I love art, but I’m not a big fan of using art. I am using the word “USE” here in the same what a high school guy “uses” a young teen girl. High school boys have strong tendencies toward using girls for their own purposes. The church is notorious for using art. ok. look. Art speaks for itself. Great art has weight to it. You HAVE to notice it. It talks to you because it has a voice.

When you see Guernica by picasso you don’t need an interpreter. You don’t need any explainations on his thoughts on war. Saving Private Ryan? Writing by Chuck Palahniuk? A song by 100 portraits. The art speaks. it brings life.

more on Users.
This week we are going to see the unveiling of a wonderful new piece of art. in the form of a movie. And there are hundreds of thousands of people waiting outside the gallery where the work is shown to tell you what they think it means. Not only will they tell you what it meant for them… they will tell you what it should mean to you.

no thanks. not interested. Don’t we understand? The art has a voice. Let the art speak. If you believe in God, let God meet you in the art. but please don’t come to me with preprinted brochures using the artwork, fonts and images from the art to sell me something. It cheapens the story. It destroys the voice.

so let’s not ravage beauty with our tracts, coffee mugs and preconceived ideas about how and how God might speak in and around this film…. and let’s keep ourselves passionate about Jesus more than a movie.

SCOTUS ruled today that the State of Washington can deny a taxpayer-funded scholarship to a student based on his choice of academic discipline.

The court’s 7-2 ruling held that the state of Washington was within its rights to deny a taxpayer-funded scholarship to a college student who was studying to be a minister. That holding applies even when money is available to students studying anything else.

“Training someone to lead a congregation is an essentially religious endeavor,” Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court majority. “Indeed, majoring in devotional theology is akin to a religious calling as well as an academic pursuit.”

The case is a departure from recent church-state fights in which the Supreme Court has gradually allowed greater state sponsorship of religious activities. Rehnquist is usually a supporter of that idea.

This is ridiculous. It would be one thing if the state was giving a bonus to students in divinity programs or was excluding all other disciplines EXCEPT divinity. But this is entirely different. The implications of such a ruling are astounding. What if a student were studying education but planned to teach in a religious school? What about studying sociology to become a missionary? What about pursuing another discipline but doing so en route to a career in the ministry? What about students studying comparative religions with no desire to pursue the priesthood or pastorate?

My own father spent two years studying at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago before finishing his BA in Philosophy at Akron University in Ohio. He studied Philosophy en route to graduate work at Gordon-Conwell Seminary where he earned a master’s degree in theology. If he had applied for a scholarship during his time at Akron, should he have been denied because even though he was studying what the Court might deem a thoroughly secular discipline, he was doing so in pursuit of a career in full-time Christian ministry?

I really think SCOTUS is just plain wrong on this one. Scalia and Thomas dissented. Here’s some of what Scalia wrote:

“Let there be no doubt: This case is about discrimination against a religious minority … In an era when the court is so quick to come to the aid of other disfavored groups, its indifference in this case, which involves a form of discrimination to which the Constitution actually speaks, is exceptional … The indignity of being singled out for special burdens on the basis of one’s calling is so profound that the concrete harm produced can never be dismissed as insubstantial.”

We’ll see how far this reaches, especially as it applies to Bush’s work with faith-based programs and school vouchers.

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh has more on this with similar thoughts.

So Ralph Nader has decided to toss his proverbial hat into the ring again. The initial reaction of most Democrats has been pretty negative. They realize that Nader had an effect on the 2000 election in a lot of key states that should have easily been Gore’s. The same could have been said about Pat Buchanan and his effect on Bush to a lesser degree. The big question question now is whether Nader can duplicate the same effort and take votes away from the nominee. It’ll also be interesting to see if Kucinich or Dean decide to go third party.

I caught Nader on Hardball with Chris Matthews last night. Chris really grilled Nader, who came off as an ideologically sound candidate, but one without much passion or dynamism. As long as I can remember, Nader has always been rather subdued, but he came across as barely conscious on the program. As far as candidates go, I much prefer guys like Nader, Sharpton, Kucinich, and Dean to guys like Kerry, Clinton, or Gore. The latter group may never win anything, but at least they’re standing on ideology. The former group are largely opportunists, poaching special interests as far as it will yield electoral delegates.

Bush should take a lesson from Nader and remember to stand on ideology during the duration on campaign. There have been some rumblings that evangelical Christian voters are frustrated with Bush because of his lack of action on gay marriage at the same time that fiscal conservatives are fuming over Bush’s spending. This may be a lot of talk since Bush has since come out in favor of a Constitutional ban on gay marraiges, but he needs to make sure those kinds of stands are frequent and well-received.

From Warren Kinsella. My favorite:

Public Servants Rule: This is a true story. When I was in government, I would make every new political staffer follow me outside my office door. I would introduce them to all of the secretaries, and the mail delivery people, and the receptionists. “This is the public service,” I would say. “These people have more power than you, because they were here before you, and they will be here long after you are gone. They do good work. Be nice to them.” In the current circumstances, that also means not going on national television to accuse public servants of crimes, destroying their lives in the process. It’s not fair. They cannot defend themselves in the manner, say, politicians can. And remember this: public servants don’t say much, but they always, always have the last word.

To understand the history of marriage is to understand that not until very recently have societies deemed separation of church and state a worthwhile situation. For thousands of years, the state and the church were inextricably connected, and most people liked it that way. In fact much of the weight or authority that laws carried originated in religious teaching. For example, killing is illegal because God thinks it’s bad. Marriage arose out of this arrangement between the state and the church. It was at once civil and religious at the same time. The church ordained it while the state sanctioned it, so to speak.

Over the course of thousands of years, through the Enlightenment and into the modern age, people have become uncomfortable with the relationship between church and state. Consequently, we’ve arrived where we are in America today. The two institutions are now often pitted against each other, with the interests of one in opposition to the interests of the other. When it comes to the question of marriage, and specifically gay marriage, Americans have an uneasy feeling about what bestowing the title of marriage on a same-sex couple. Most people don’t seem to mind giving these couples the same rights as married couples, but calling it marriage seems to strike people in an uncomfortable way. The reason, I think, is because Americans haven’t totally separated church and state in the neat, clean way on this matter that they have in so many other matters.

The solution requires a little accommodation on both sides. First, both sides need to acknowledge that society benefits from two people living in long-term, committed relationships with one another. Whether this means a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple, the benefits of stable relationships seem pretty evident. Everything from child rearing to emotional well-being to physical well-being have been attributed to long-term partnerships. Society functions better when people commit to each other rather than jumping from partner to partner. Therefore, the government has an interest in promoting these types of relationships with whatever legal means it can devise.

At the same time, religions of all types — Christian, Jewish, Islam, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. — have long esteemed marriage as an important and sacred relationship, often viewed favorably in the eyes of God. For Catholics marriage is a sacrament. While Protestants may not use that same word, they certainly ascribe high importance to marriage. The same could be said of Jews and Muslims. It’s only been recently that some religious groups have accommodated same-sex couples, and in doing so, have been forced to re-interpret long-held theological positions. That’s their prerogative. In America, you have the right to believe whatever you want and practice your religion as you see fit. But the point is that the church also has interest in promoting marriage, if for no other reason than to encourage pro-creation of more little Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

The problem that exists in America today is that because marriage has long functioned in a dual role as both a religious and civil institution, when one side or the other — or both — wants to change the rules of the game, people get uncomfortable. In places like Massachusetts and San Francisco, same-sex couples have altogether bypassed the religious aspect of marriage and are simply seeking legal recognition of their relationships. Many conservatives are crying foul because traditionally, the religious component of marriage has held that marriage should be between one man and one woman. The civil component of marriage has taken its cue in such matters from the religious component. The problem now is that the religious component seems conflicted at best and ambivalent at worst when it comes to informing the civil component about what marriage should look like. More importantly, courts and legislatures are beginning to ask what does it matter who enters into these relationships, as long as the legal rights are administered properly, they could care less.

This brings me to my proposition. The states need to begin a full-hearted effort to de-regulate marriage. Because we’ve striven to separate church and state so completely, then let’s get the state out of the business of regulating what is largely a religious institution. The church could really care less what legal rights are attributed to marriage. To them, its a spiritual institution. So the state should cede marriage as such a spiritual institution to the church. The church should be to place couples go to be married. Each faith will require different obligations from a couple seeking to be married, and some may even prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. That’s fine because you are entitled to walk out the front door of your church and find another one that suits you better. But let’s give marriage back to the church. If you want a marriage license or certificate or ceremony, then go to church.

However, if what you really want isn’t for God to ordain your relationship, because you either don’t believe in Him or you don’t really care what He thinks anyway, then you’re likely more interested in what the state can do for you in the way of legal rights. If this is the case, then states ought to be able to authorize civil unions or civil partnerships between any two people. This way couples who have partnered in this way can enjoy all the benefits currently withheld for only married couples — property rights, tax benefits, inheritance, etc. This would allow anyone seeking the legal blessing, so to speak, of marriage to get it without compromising the spiritual role of the relationship. The state would simply no longer recognize “marriage” as a legal term. You’re either in a civil partnership or not. Whether or not you might additionally be married is a matter of religious import rather than legal. The state does not license baptisms, confirmations, or the celebration of communion. Why should it continue to regulate marriage?

The consequence of this would be immediate. All currently married couples would obviously continue to enjoy the current legal benefits that they have since they went down to the courthouse or the county clerk’s office and signed that marriage license. It would allow same-sex couples or ANY couple that has made a commitment to one another to enjoy legal protections not otherwise afforded to them. Couples could then distinguish between their marriage and their civil partnership. For some, it will be the same thing. They will seek recognition of their relationship by both the church and the state. For others, all they really have ever wanted has been recognition by the state.

With this arrangement, the church gets to keep marriage and impose all the restrictions and requirements it wants. The state can continue to promote and foster civil partnerships, bestowing legal rights as it sees fit. Both institutions can so what they do best, and no one is forced to compromise for the sake of making anyone else happy.

After a strong start on Thursday afternoon, the John Kerry intern scandal has fizzled somewhat. The whole thing seemed a little half-hearted, with Wes Clarking outing Kerry initially, then flipping completely and endorsing him. Now, the woman at the heart of the scandal is laying low in Africa, denying the scandal altogether. In the meantime, Kerry has denied everything and is doing his best Clinton impression.

The bottom line is that unless this thing really has legs, which it doesn’t seem to, it’s not worth dwelling on. I know the Republicans, Howard Dean, and John Edwards would all like to see this thing materialize, but I think Kerry has more liabilities than this. A lot of time and energy will be spent dealing with this when, in the end, it won’t mean much — just like Bush’s National Guard record. Move on, nothing to see here …

Great page for N.T. Wright resources.

As Democrats continue to inflict damage on each other as they battle for their party’s nomination, the media has begun sizing up the general election, especially how various combinations of Democrats would do against Bush in November.

One poll released this week pits Bush against Kerry, concluding that Kerry has a clear advantage at this point in the campaign. Never mind the fact that it’s February and the election is nine months away and a lot can change in that time. The poll also doesn’t factor in who Kerry would pick as a runningmate. Would a Kerry/Edwards ticket be more appealing than a Kerry/Dean or Kerry/Clark or Edwards/Dean pairing? It’s a serious concern that should lead anyone to resist the temptation to give much credibility to polls like this.

However, Bush and Karl Rove must be considering the implications of Kerry becoming the eventual nominee of his party. Rove admitted that his dream would be a Dean nomination because it would make his job so much easier. Kerry poses a much more serious threat. Would Bush and Rove consider removing Cheney from the ticket in order to better position themselves against a strong challenge from the Democrats?

There seem to be two competing but parallel goals for the Bush White House when it comes to the question of keeping Cheney. The first goal, obivously, is to win re-election in November. Bush must choose the single strongest runningmate in order to win enough votes to stay in office. In 2000, Cheney was seen as an asset and has very much remained so during the first term. He knew Washington from his days in the House and on previous GOP cabinets. He also has proven to be a fantastic fundraiser for his party. His influence on policy, both domestic and foreign, has been undeniable. However, in light of the problems of pre-war intelligence failures, questions about corporate misbehavior at home and abroad, and the nagging cry of many Democrats that Cheney has a conflict of interest when it comes to shaping energy policy, it might be time to conclude that in the current political climate Cheney has become a liability.

The real question becomes, does Cheney need to be vice president to have the access and influence needed to counsel Bush and help steer the course of the White House? Obviously, he shouldn’t be demoted to a lesser position like Secretary Defense or State, but could he be retained as a special advisor? Could he be kept on the payroll, with an office in the White House, and the access he would need to the president? If so, why keep him on the ticket?

These questions need to be asked because of the second competing goal that the Bush White House must consider. Beyond 2004, what can Bush do to keep the White House in GOP hands? Reagan successfully passed the torch to the elder George Bush in 1988, ensuring what should have been at least sixteen consecutive years of GOP control, if not more. Now, the younger Bush is positioned to give his party another long stretch in power. To do so, he must carefully consider who he chooses to put on the ticket this time around.

Cheney has said often that he has no ambitions of running for the White House in 2008. He should be believed. Aside from his health problems, the man lacks charisma and the outward dynamism required of modern American presidents. He will certainly be happy to return to the corporate world or the golf course when his time in Washington comes to an end. Therefore, it makes sense that Bush would begin looking for the Republican who can be the heir apparent. Several names seem prominent on that list — Condi Rice, Rudy Guliani, and Bill Frist.

Rice would be the most demographically attractive. Besides being a brilliant scholar and student of foreign policy, she’s a black woman — two groups that Republicans would love to attract more of. It’s conceivable that Rice would maintain the same level of ethos that Cheney currently enjoys but would also appeal to a broader group of voters. Some within the party have already begun the campaign to promote Rice as a viable candidate. It’s obvious that Bush respects her tremendously, and she has thus far avoided the taint of war mis-steps that seem to plague Cheney and others in the cabinet. The downside of Rice is that she doesn’t have any campaign experience, so she’d have to hit the pavement this summer and earn her stripes if she wanted to make a run at the White House in 2008.

Rudy Guliani didn’t make a very convincing candidate for the U.S. Senate when he ran against Hillary in 2000. Then again, that was before 9/11. He proved then that he has what it takes to be a leader. He gained the respect of millions of Americans through his actions during that time of crisis. I’d guess that a Guliani vs. Hillary race today would look a lot different than it did four years ago. A Bush/Guliani ticket would provide a certain geographic balance that would nicely counteract a Kerry/Edwards ticket, if one does materialize. Obviously, Rudy represents a more moderate stripe of Republican than Bush does but that might be a positive as well. He has campaign experience of the grittiest kind, having won the mayoral race in New York City. The downside of Rudy is that he’s been out of the spotlight for a while now. Would voters remember him as a heroic leader? Hard to say. There’s no doubt that he’d help the ticket this year and position himself for a run in 2008.

Lastly, Senate majority leader Bill Frist has quietly risen through the ranks of Senate Republicans in the last several years. He’s smart, polished, and knows how to play the power games of Washington. Just ask Trent Lott. Frist is also a medical doctor, which seems to have become a pedigree popular among voters if Howard Dean’s popularity is to be perceived as accurate. Frist isn’t as geographically or demographically helpful as Rice or Rudy, but he’s got the same types of connections in Washington that Cheney does. He’d be the kind of person that could raise money, make backrooom deal when called on, and serve as a great spokesman for the administration. Of the three, Frist seems to have the greatest political ambition looking ahead to 2008. While no one has publically said anything about their aspirations for 2008, First would seem to the one candidate who would step up and run.

Will Bush shuffle the deck and bump Cheney off the ticket? It’s too soon to tell. But I wouldn’t be surprised if we hear of Cheney’s worsening health sometime between the Democratic and Republican conventions this summer.

Well, the first half was pretty bad. The halftime show seemed pretty tame until then end, of course, and the second half actually provided some exciting football.

Regarding the Janet Jackson / Justin Timberlake stunt at the end of the halftime show … No doubt that it was premeditated. The real question is who knew about it beforehand. I’d guess that at least some of the MTV people who produced the show knew about it, because for Jackson and Timberlake to freelance something like that would have been pretty unlikely. I’m sure that some of the CBS standards people also were clued in on it. Second, Jackson’s wardrobe obviously was gimmicked for just such a stunt, so there was no “malfunction” as some have called it.

The NFL is obviously pretty upset, as they should be. CBS is feigning outrage, even though I’m sure there were executives who didn’t get the memo. The real problem is that the FCC is on this pretty quickly. There’s been a lot of recent debate about indecency on TV and radio, and Michael Powell at the FCC and others in Congress have been quick to talk tough about clamping down on foul language. Now, they might be put to the test.

The real problem here is that the FCC regulates broadcast licensees, which are individual television and radio stations. While some of the stations are owned by networks, many are not. So if the FCC is going to levy a fine for an incident like this, they will have to fine all the CBS affiliates that carried the broadcast. That might be fine for WCBS in New York or WBBM in Chicago which are owned and operated by Viacom which owns the CBS network (and MTV), but for the smaller affiliates that are independently owned in places where this kind of stunt doesn’t play well (read red states), this kind of fine will really make stations think twice about carrying certain CBS programming.

It will be very interesting to see the reaction of CBS, its affiliates, the NFL, and the FCC. Not the kind of PR the NFL wants the morning after the Super Bowl.