Tracy July 24th, 2007

I'm surprised that no one else has posted any comments here. Scared!?!

I identify with Steve's position in his statement of strong conservatism. While I don't know that I'd classify Rush as a communist, I will say that Bush is definitely not conservative enough. It's too bad that my first choice eight or so years ago wasn't mainstream enough. It's also too bad that that candidate seemed to fall off his rocker the next time he ran for office.

Speaking of off their rocker, that's Al Gore and his ilk, but I do love trees. A Biblical world view demands that we put people above "the environment". The balancing part of that world view says that we are to be good stewards of it, but it's sheer arrogance to believe we're capable of destroying it (unless that's God's plan for the end). However, I have to give kudos to Ted Turner. I have a feeling he might take this as a back handed compliment, but if you want to preserve the open lands of the west buy them and protect them. Don't expect (or try to make) someone else do it for you.

James Johnson August 5th, 2007

In listening to this highly entertaining and informative podcast, a couple of thoughts came to mind. The first is on economic systems and the second in regard to abortion and voting. Steve proudly contends that he's not a Keneysian, and he asserts that only rich men can create wealth and employment. This sounds too much like an allegiance to "trickle down" for my taste. Steve, how about "percolate up"? Instead of huge tax cuts to the wealhy, maybe the middle class and working poor should get their share too. Placing money in their hands would stimulate demand and fuel economic growth. Economics does not occur in an ethical vacuum. Steve's system as I understand it sees no ethical problem with a basketball player making more money from shoe endorsements than the entire workforce of a sweatshop factory producing the shoes in some foreign land. Steve, can we really justify anyone making more than the President of the United States or less than a livable wage? Any economic system that allows for obscene wealth disparity is wanting and in need of reform. We can do better. I don't think unfettered capitalism is the answer. Apparently, you don't either since you're prepared to agree to government intervention against monopolies, but this seems fairly timid if it stands alone given the systemic problems that are all too apparent. And one further thing; no one man creates all of his own wealth. We are not an island unto ourselves. Wealth creation on an individual or family basis takes place in community and is dependent on others. So, transfers from the wealthy to the poor are not inherently wrong. We all have some social responsibility since we prosper through social means. The wealthy can make no claim that their money is just a creation of their genius and labor alone without society's material input. Prudent and equitable transfers only suggest to me that the ethical trumps the economic. It simply can't be right for a company CEO to make a seven figure bonus while cruelly cutting thousands of jobs just to maximize stockholders' earnings. Share the wealth, Steve. It might not hurt to read TR's position on this subject either.

On the second issue, I am avid pro-life. I believe that all Christ followers will naturally assume this position. The key issue is how does one promote a culture that values the unborn child, and how do we effectively reduce the number of abortions. Is law and politics the best way? True, law in some sense codifies our morality, and certainly abortion is a moral issue. However, I wonder if we might gain more ground by fighting this issue on other ground. Instead of being so zealous for legal coercion and punitive measures, why don't the church and family take the forefront on this issue? Why don't we as a community of believers make certain women who have unwanted pregnancies have care and viable options. Maybe it's time we put our time and money where our convictions are rather than hoping for another justice to retire before Bush's Presidency ends. I personally believe that Americans will never in large part agree to crimilnalize abortions for rape, incest, the woman's life, etc. Perhaps as a people, we someday will for gender selection and as a birth control. In terms of voting, why not vote for a candidate who can effectively reduce the abortion rate and sincerely attempt to create a culture that values life rather than someone who just conveniently plays lip service to the entire issue and uses it as a convenient wedge issue? I'm just wondering, if Prohibition wasn't the optimal response for acohol abuse, is a legal and political remedy the optimal response we should be spending our hopes and resources on in fighting abortion? As a Christian community, is legal coercion the answer, or is moral persuasion coupled with committed care?