Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News

The Institute For Principled Policy vs. The Clermont County Public Library Board

Some of you may have read that the Institute For Principled Policy is currently one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Clermont County (OH) Public Library Board (CCPLB). Stories appeared recently on World Net Daily, which gives a good summary of the events surrounding the filing of the suit, The Cincinnati Enquirer, which gives a slightly pro-library spin to the story and also several online Christian news outlets.

The Institute along with George Vandergriff and Cathy Vandergriff are suing CCPLB for denying access to public meeting rooms for the purpose of teaching a biblically-based financial management class. Part of the Institute For Principled Policy’ s mission is to promote principled public policy through teaching individuals using biblically-based educational materials and the Bible itself. We are being represented by attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). The Institute and the Vandergriffs assert that the CCPLB is in violation of several sections of the first and fourteenth amendments of the US Constitution and Art. 1 Sec. 7 of the Ohio Constitution which guarantee the rights of freedom of religious practice, assembly, speech, expression and the right to equal protection under the law. Details of the lawsuit are available here and the ADF’s take on the suit here.

You haven’t read much about it on our own pages for a couple of good reasons. The volunteer staff of the Institute has been very busy preparing to teach classes in history, government, economics, etc. at Camp American. The mission of the Institute to educate marches on, even when statist bureaucrats try to stand in the way with illegal and unconstitutional “policies.” Making too much noise at the wrong time on issues like this can often obscure the original objective of the suit, which is to expose an anti-Christian bias on the part of the CCPLB and other library boards. We also believe the old saw that the hen must be the wisest of the animals in the barnyard because she only cackles after the egg is laid. Well the egg is not yet laid, but the hen has settled onto the laying box and conditions are right. As soon as we have an egg, be it fresh or rotten, you’ll know about it.

Question or comment? Head over to the forum and we’ll do our best to answer you.

Commentary, The Vote

Federalism And The Electoral College

1 Comment
This entry is part 3 of 5 in the series Federalism, Democracy And Presidential Elections

Voting MachineThe director of the Institute For Principled Policy recently sent me an interesting article from US News And World Report about a sophomore government class being taught at Lloyd Memorial High School in Erlanger KY. It seems the students in the class drafted a bill for the Kentucky State Legislature which would require a change in the way Electoral College votes are awarded from the current winner-take-all system where the winner of the popular vote gets all of the state’s electoral votes, to an apportioned electoral college award, where the electoral vote is awarded according to the winner by congressional district with the winner of the popular vote getting the two votes representing the senatorial votes.

A quick reminder of how the Electoral College votes are distributed is in order. Each state gets a number of electors equal to the number of representatives it is entitled to in Congress plus two representing the Senate representation. The District of Columbia gets one congressional vote plus the two senatorial votes it would have if it were a state. That’s a total of 538 electoral votes with 270 (50% plus one) required for election.

Most states currently award electoral college votes on a winner-take-all basis. Only Nebraska and Maine award electoral votes according to congressional district. Interestingly, the congressional district method was the original intent of the Constitutional Convention and teacher Jon Davis’s students are working to return their state’s presidential election to a condition more closely resembling the original design. As discussed in a previous article, the founders wished to avoid direct democracy as an unstable form of government ultimately leading to anarchy followed inevitably by tyranny. Their intent was to provide a limited representational republican style of government.

But how do we know for sure that the founders wanted to avoid direct national democracy? The answer to that question is implicit in the design of the federal government. First, the federal government had little or no contact with the average citizen, save for the post office. That’s only fitting, since the purpose of the federal government, as designed, was to act as a specific agent of the states. A study of the US Constitution reveals that the federal government is given the authority to act as a limited agency of the states in three specific areas; defense, diplomacy and trade. Unless called into federal service as a state militiaman in time of war, most citizens simply had no need to be in contact with the federal government. Second, the very structure of the federal government, as originally designed, indicates that direct democracy was not part of the framers plan. Of the 2 houses of Congress only the House of Representatives was directly elected. Senators were chosen by state legislatures until the 17th amendment changed the method to a popular election mandate, thus destroying state participation in the federal government. Judges are appointed by the president and approved by the Senate; under the original design of state government representation in the Senate thus ensured that the individual states interests would be protected. And finally, the president was, under the original design, chosen by electors who were themselves chosen at the discretion of the individual states, usually by the state legislature. Thus, of the 3 separate branches of government created by the Constitution, only one-half of one of them was selected by direct election, albeit the most powerful one. In other words only 1/6 of the federal government was democratically elected.

The founders’ vision for the electoral college was for a group of wise men, uncommitted to any party or faction, who would independently vote for whom they believed would be the best possible choice to serve as chief executive. Within 15 years of the first meeting of the electoral college and the unanimous choice of George Washington as the first president the presidential election process was well down the road to domination by the fledgling political parties which arose out of the governmental milieu of Washington’s administration. The bones of contention in that rarified atmosphere were such issues of constitutional interpretation of federal authority, how the economy would be structured and foreign policy, especially regarding the French revolution. The 12th amendment essentially began the process of the institutionalization of special interests, what Madison called “faction” in Federalist No. 10, in the form of party politics. It allowed the running of teams for vice-president and president to ensure “unified government,” a euphemism for one party control. By the election of 1828, only 39 years after Washington’s first non-partisan election, the presidential elections were in the control of political parties at both the state and federal levels. The parties made sure that the federal nature of the presidential election was minimized by changing election laws state by state to adopt what is know as “general ticket” elections, where parties run slates of electors committed to specific teams of candidates for office. In general ticket states all voters statewide vote for the entire slate of committed electors. In states like Maine and Nebraska each congressional district votes for a specific committed elector with the popular vote winner getting the 2 senatorial electors, a far more federal system.

And you might think this author believes the system is broken and in need of repair, as the sophomore government class at Lloyd Memorial High School apparently does. And you’d be right. But it is important to understand that even in its current corrupt condition, the electoral college still works in preserving the federal nature of presidential elections. How? Think about these presidential elections- 2000, 1888, 1876 and 1824. In each of these elections the popular vote winner did not become the president. We’ll ignore the 1876 election since the process was so horribly corrupted both at the state and federal level that it is a complete wash-out in examining the electoral process. In the election of 2000 Albert Gore, Jr. won his support in urban centers by a large margin. George W. Bush won his support in the rural districts, also by a wide margin. The final margin of victory for Bush came down to under 500 votes in Florida. But the real story is that Bush carried several times as many counties as Gore, with fewer popular votes. Bush voters represented, with fewer popular votes, the electorate of a larger portion of the population than did Gore. The counties Bush carried covered more square area of the country by several times, with fewer popular votes. Similarly, in 1888 Grover Cleveland lost the electoral college votes with a higher popular vote margin than Rutherford B. Hayes. Cleveland won in the south by wide margins- 60% or more, but he lost in the north by tiny margins. Southern states at the time were small electoral college totals, so his popular totals looked big, but in fact he got his large overages in regional voting where it made no difference in the electoral college total. In other words, the electoral college did exactly what it was supposed to. It prevented an urban or regional majority from tyrannizing a rural or non-regional minority. It protected the unique properties of federalism in the presidential election process.

So how can presidential elections be restored to the federalist and non-partisan design intent of the founders?  The bill proposed by the sophomore government class is a good start. It would help to reinforce the federal nature of the election if each state awarded electoral college votes on the basis of congressional district. Partisanship could be at least partially removed from elections by running, in each congressional district, at least one non-committed elector. This would be the so-called “none of the above” choice so many have claimed that they want. This proposal could break the stranglehold that the two major parties currently have on presidential politics. If only 10% of the congressional districts chose the non-committed elector, it could throw the presidential choice to the House of Representatives. While some may think this undesirable, it is in fact the original intent of the founders. George Mason, during the debates at the Constitutional Convention said that 19 times out of twenty the choice of president would fall to the legislature under the proposed plan. Most agreed then proceeded to pass the plan. Does anyone believe that Bill Clinton or George W. Bush or a host of other dismal White House residents would have been chosen as the president by the House of Representatives? And what party would spend $100 million on a presidential campaign if there is a good chance of “none of the above” tripping up their groomed and vetted choice for the office? Of course, this is not a perfect solution but it would, probably, tend to increase the caliber of candidate chosen. It would also help remove emotional issues from the front burner in presidential politics and increase discussion of truly pivotal issues.

What do you think? Let us know by commenting or join a discussion on the forum.

Education

We Want You For Camp American!

I Want You For Camp American!Camp American Still Has Room!

…and they’ve extended the deadline for the “Early Bird” special tuition reduction at Camp American! You’ve got to Monday June 9, 2008!

Are you looking for a summer opportunity for you or your children, ages 12 years and up, to learn about the Christian foundation of their government? Are you looking for an intensive course in-

The US Constitution
The founders’ original intent
The Christian principles upon which the nation was built
The proper role of government
Principles of good government
History, civics and government from a Christian perspective?

This years classes on the Constitution include

The Founders’ Foundations- It’s not enough to know what the founders wrote. You need to know the books they studied to understand them. Taught by Barry Sheets

The Rights And Responsibilities Of A Fully Informed Jury- Just what power and authority does a jury have? Do you know? You will after this class. Taught by Pastor David Whitney

The Electoral College; Original Intent, How It Has Changed And Why It Still Works- In this presidential election year will you know enough about the Electoral College to defend it if there is a close election. Taught by Chuck Michaelis

Global Warming And The New Religion of Environmentalism- This is one of the most important issues confronting us today. It’s not just about biblical stewardship, but about an entirely new/old worship of the created instead of the Creator. Taught by Dr. Michael Coffman an environmental scientist and one of the foremost advocates of land use freedom in the USA

Special Announcement– Dr. Michael Coffman of Environmental Perspectives, Inc and Sovereignty International. will be the guest speaker at a luncheon hosted by Camp American. The luncheon will be held on Friday June 20 at 12:30 PM at Pokagon State Park in the group camp.

Pokagon State Park is located in Angola IN just off I-69. The cost of the luncheon is $10. For information call Noelle Dielman at 502-291-1120. Overnight accommodations (primitive) are available for guests who wish to arrive on Thursday for Dr. Coffman’s presentation to the students of Camp American. There is a nominal charge and space is limited. Call for details.

Are you also looking for fun summer activities like-

Boating
Waterskiing
Swimming
Tubing
Mini-Golf
Go-karting
Bowling
Roller Skating
Board Games
Cabin Competition
More!

If this is what you’re looking for check out our website- www.campamerican.com. This year’s camp is June 15-21at Pokagon State Park in Angola, IN.

This year’s discounted price for the week- Just $250! You can pay the whole $250 fee online with a major credit card. There are also group discount rates available.

To hold your spot you can go to our Camp Store and place your deposit online with our secure check out hosted with Pay Pal. You don’t have to have a Pay Pal account, just a credit card. You can also send a check to Camp American 4635 Southcrest Dr. Louisville KY 40215 or call 502-361-9496

Public Policy Radar

Government takeover of the energy sector?

Maxine Waters, the infamous and incompetent congresswoman from California (surprise), let the genie out of the bottle last week. Congress had one of its many grandstanding sideshows (er, excuse me, “hearings”) where the evil oil executives were subjected to the grand D.C. Inquisition with the cameras rolling. While Congresswoman Torquemada was grilling the CEO of Shell Oil, she made a startling threat that the federal government would socialize the oil and gas industry if prices don’t come down. She quickly realized her gaffe and tried to backtrack amidst the restrained laughter of her colleagues. See video here:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ[/youtube]

However, this is no laughing matter. It is well documented that the radical environmentalist movement is driven by the unholy trinity of worldviews: evolution, paganism, and marxism. The communists have found a new home in the radical green movement, and millions of well-meaning Americans have been duped into destroying their own nation’s prosperity – all the while thinking their doing something good by “saving the planet”. I would estimate that a substantial number of Democrats and probably a few Republicans secretly share Waters’ desire to socialize the energy sector, healthcare, agriculture, and every other facet of our economy.

Socialism is a historical failure every time it is tried, and is antithetical to the revealed Word of God and the U.S. Constitution. Imagine the potential abuses under a government-run energy system. Energy rationing would be a given, consider that smart power grids and thermostats are already being designed and installed in many areas of the country. These “smart” systems are ostensibly designed to help consumers manage their energy consumption by having access to real-time load and price information, but how much of a stretch would it be from encouraging energy reduction to mandating it? As far as gasoline, imagine a secondary card reader at the pump where you must insert your government-issued energy card to have access to fuel. The card would monitor your fuel consumption and cut you off if you over the limit.

Or, what if you are labeled a subversive or “troublemaker” by the government? It would very easy to ensure compliance with tyranny by simply restricting energy access. If you want your energy, just be a good little citizen, keep your mouth shut, and live like a tree-hugger with your cold showers and 50 mph matchbox car made out of aluminum. People would live in absolute fear of protesting government action at any level, and the U.S. could quickly be turned into a socialistic Orwellian nightmare without a shot being fired.

The CEO of Shell wisely retorted to Waters that he’s “seen this movie before” – it’s called Hugo Chavez and Venezuela! People rightfully are looking for solutions to lower energy prices and reduced pollution, but the free market is optimal solution for such. The free market is not a utopian solution, but certainly better than an energy sector run with the efficiency of the motor vehicles department and enforcement tactics of the IRS. Having said that, corporate America is not off the hook either in this mess. Industry and business leaders must yield to the advice of William Penn 300 years ago: Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.

Godless capitalism with its unscrupulous business practices, shady accounting, price collusion, poor stewardship, shoddy quality, market manipulation, etc. will undoubtedly lead to Maxine Water’s vision coming true. Without a moral foundation to commerce, people will scream for socialism as the demand for basic necessitities of life is not going to diminish anytime soon. There is not a line item for morality on a corporate balance sheet – however industry would be wise to conduct itself according to the principles of Proverbs, or it will find itself conducted accourding to the principles of the Communist Manifesto.

Commentary, The Church, The Vote

Start With A Lump Of Blasphemy, Add A Liberal Dose Of Syncretism…

Being a 44 year veteran of presidential campaigns and something of a political cynic, this writer is not very easily shocked or appalled.

The chairman of the Georgia Republican Party, Sue Everhart, has managed to pull it off. A quick read of this short article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution gives ample demonstration of the lengths to which many in Republican leadership are willing to go to pander to the Christian voters. It also demonstrates the incredible ineptitude of those leaders.

What remains to be seen is if “conservative (whatever that means)” Christian voters who have attached themselves surgically to the Republican Party are capable of being outraged at statements like “John McCain is kind of like Jesus Christ on the cross.” Hopefully, discerning Georgia Republicans will not be fooled by Everhart’s nearly instant back-pedal in which she explains “I’m not trying to compare John McCain to Jesus Christ, I’m looking at the pain that was there.” In other words her direct comparison wasn’t a direct comparison, at all.

In an election year in which the presumptive Republican candidate is openly disdainful of evangelical voters and at least one of the presumptive Democratic candidates is claiming that Christ was a socialist while comparing his plan for collectivist redistribution of private wealth by government with what he thinks Christ came to do on earth, this is shaping up to be a watershed year for the Christian voter.

Republicans are trying to lure the Christian voter with short memories and little knowledge of the Constitution with promises of “good Supreme Court” nominees while openly moving to abandon the pro-life plank of the Republican platform and embracing environmentalist syncretism. Democrats promise “social justice,” via the bayonet if necessary, and twist scripture, using what Lenin called “useful idiots,” groups like the Sojourners and the so-called Red-letter Christians (i.e., Christians who deny that Christ said every word in the Bible from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21) as the vanguard.

Will this be the year that “conservative” Christian voters finally cut the sutures binding them to a party which, election cycle after election cycle, year after year, makes grand promises when their votes are desperately needed only to yank them away at the last minute, just like Lucy does with Charlie Brown? Over and over. Year after year. After all, Charlie Brown always tries to kick the ball. Always.

Is this the year that “conservative” Christian voters finally flex their political muscle and do the most productive thing they can possibly do in these circumstances? Will they vote “NO” for president?

Like John Lofton says “If God had wanted Christians to vote, He’d have given them Christian candidates.”

Marriage and Family, Executive Usurpation, Gambling, Commentary, Life Issues

Vacation’s Over! Back To Blogging!

BeachThe webmaster (me) is back from vacation and all caught up with the avalanche of work at his real job. And nobody even tried to post while he was gone.

And wow! What a time to go out of town! The AG, Marc Dann, is revealed as a grafter! Well, no one here was shocked as anyone who has read any of our blog entries on Dann’s very suspicious “Tic-Tac-Fruit” tap dance knows (look under the archives under the “gambling” category). How long has the Governor known that there was a problem in the AG’s office or, even more importantly, the Dann campaign?

And isn’t it interesting that the Ohio Republican Party continues to do its best to commit political suicide, in a presidential election year where the national party stands poised to nominate a candidate that is sure to cause a significant percentage of the so-called “values voter” block to shrug its collective shoulders and stay home in the fall? For instance, what’s up with Republican State Senator David Goodman pushing a bill that would force places like Christian schools and day care centers to hire open homosexuals, cross-dressers, “trans-genders” (still don’t know how an XY can change to a XX or vice-versa; can someone explain it to this degreed biochemist?)? And what about Republicans working double-overtime to kill a human cloning ban bill? And how about the Republicans being so accommodating in the Governor’s plan to take advantage of the lack of inhibition of those who have over-imbibed by expanding gambling with keno slots in bars? I thought Ohioans had said “NO” repeatedly to these moves by private industry. Apparently, the constitutional restriction on gambling only counts for private industry, not government.

Yes, indeed, a bad time to go on vacation.

Watch this space.

Education, Commentary, The Vote

It Must Be True, I read It In The LA Times!

This entry is part 2 of 5 in the series Federalism, Democracy And Presidential Elections

One-term George. Who knew?

In a recent article in the Los Angeles Times written by Mary McNamara, the Times television critic. we are informed of a little known fact of history.

According to McNamara

George Washington (David Morse) so quickly tired of the infighting among his Cabinet and vagaries of public opinion that he stepped down from the presidency after a single term. (emphasis added)

Of course this “fact” is utter nonsense. George Washington served two terms from 1789-1797. He was unanimously elected to both terms by the electoral college. Only a few states held popular elections for president in either of these elections. The electoral college delegates were mostly chosen by state legislatures at the time. This was the case because the constitutional architects feared and despised direct democracy at least as much as they feared and despised monarchy. That’s why structures like the electoral college exist and why modern democrats (note small “D”) hate the electoral college.

And it is in this fact that the author displays an even wider gap in her knowledge than just the historical facts surrounding the election and terms of the first two presidents. She demonstrates that she does not understand that the United States was designed by the framers of the Constitution as a limited federal constitutional republic, not a democracy. She says about the HBO series John Adams, about the second President of the United States, the following

“John Adams,” which comes to a close Sunday night, has devoted seven beautifully shot hours to defying the often overly patriotic legends of our past with a toothache-and-all portrait of a man who helped define modern democracy, albeit grumbling every step of the way (emphasis added).

Just to be clear, the writer is referring to the same John Adams who said

Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.

Doesn’t sound like Adams was a big fan of democracy. Neither were most of the constitutional framers and founders of the nation. In fact, the design of the federal government demonstrates that the framers intended to avoid democracy. James Madison, in Federalist #10, for instance wrote

Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths… A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.

The writer’s first mistake, that Washington served only one term, is inexcusable because a 45 second self-check on Google would have given her the correct facts. Also, how did a gaffe like this get past an editor, any editor worth the name? The fact that she is a TV critic speaks volumes, but serves as a very poor excuse.

Her second mistake, that John Adams was one of the architects of “modern democracy,” is inexcusable because it is virtually impossible to find a teacher or college professor who

  1. knows that the framers designed the United States as a republic
  2. understands why the framers feared democracy
  3. knows the difference philosophically between a republic and a democracy
  4. cares about the difference

A very sad commentary on our current educational system, indeed.

Commentary, General, Education

Milestones

milestone

From time to time God provides milestones that allow us to evaluate how well we’re doing in our stewardship responsibilities. I was recently provided with one of these milestones. But first a little background.

Four years ago my wife and I came to the decision that the Westerville School District was not providing the kind of education we wanted our 3 girls to have. Sure, they got good instruction in math, science and English. History is another story, however. One of the first things I always checked was my daughter’s history textbooks. In my children’s last year at Westerville I learned from my daughter’s history text the circumstances of the first Thanksgiving celebration. According to the text, the Pilgrims held the celebration not to give thanks to God but to the Wampanoag tribe. Thus, historical truth was swept under the rug of political correctness in order to maintain supposed religious “neutrality.” My daughters were subjected to constant but subtle attacks on the moral training my wife and I provided. In history, “social studies” and even English classes my children were subjected to training in situational ethics, moral relativism, post-modern and existential philosophies and religiously dogmatic treatment of the “forces of naturalism” as the only possible explanation for life.

Yes, I’ve heard the arguments for why I should have kept my kids in the Westerville school system. The district has many Christian teachers, my kids needed to be in the school to be salt and light, they won’t be properly “socialized” and so on. Well, it is clear that the district could have a faculty consisting of 100% Christians and it would not matter because of federal, state and district mandated policies and curricula. Most children aged 5 to 18 are not equipped with the education, training or willpower to counter the constant assault on their faiths that they encounter in the modern public education system. Most Christian kids are particularly poorly suited to standing up to teachers who single them out since they are trained to respect authority. As for socialization, I’ve never run into a homeschooler who didn’t have lots of friends, both in and out of public schools.

Recently my oldest daughter went with some of her friends (see what I mean? Plenty of socialization) to see the movie “21,” about college students who develop a card counting system to beat the odds at casino black jack tables. I told her that I had read a review of the movie which stated that the audience’s sympathy was with the students because they saw the casinos as corporate thieves and asked her what she thought. Her answer was definitely a milestone. She said, “Dad, I couldn’t root for either the students or the casinos. Both of them were dishonest. It was like watching two thieves fight over a stolen wallet. There weren’t any heroes in the movie, even though the director tried to make the students the heroes.”

My daughter showed me that my wife and I made the correct decision to pull our children out of Westerville City Schools 4 years ago. Her answer revealed not a hint of moral relativism, situational ethics or post-modernism. Unlike her public school trained contemporaries, she was able to see through a direct appeal to her emotions to the crux of the dilemma that the director was trying to convey. She was also able to see that the underlying question was not an “either/or” choice and that she was free to reject both sides as immoral.

Could she have come to the same conclusion had we looked the other way as she was trained in a system of moral thinking that is not just “morality neutral” but openly hostile and antithetical to a Christian worldview? The answer to that question can be found in examining the worldviews of the millions of Christians who have been trained in America’s public schools. In a recent survey performed by George Barna, only 9% of adult professing Christians had anything close to a Christian worldview. We think the answer to the question is “No!”

As much as I would like to, neither my wife nor I cannot take any credit for this. God planted the seed within my children. My wife and I have been entrusted by Him with the care and nurturing of that seed so that He may eventually harvest the crop and use the resultant seed to plant more. In this way does Christ grow His Church. We are merely the conduits through which He works.

Thus we have been given a milestone to measure our stewardship. Thank God!

Warning- Blatant plug ahead.

If you’re looking for good Christian worldview training, especially in the civil government realm, then consider sending your teens to Camp American

General, Commentary

Book Review- Quiet Strength

Book Stack

QUIET STRENGTH by Tony Dungy – Tyndale House Publishers, 2007
Forward by Denzel Washington (301 pages).

It seems most Christian Sports books are full of fluff often focusing on athletic success or the powers of the athlete to overcome great odds to achieve success in some miraculous manner. Seldom do they focus on the daily challenges that all normal humans face. This often makes the successful athlete’s experience unrealistic and something to which the amateur athlete or non-athlete cannot personally relate. This is not the case with Tony Dungy’s autobiography, Quiet Strength. This book is different in that it connects the faith journey of Tony Dungy, the coach of the 2007 Super Bowl winning Indianapolis Colts, to the life experiences and challenges many of us encounter. This book is primarily about life and faith so the person who is looking for a pure sports book might be a bit disappointed. But there is plenty about football though covering Dungy’s college days as a quarterback and the lack of opportunity as a professional quarterback because of his race, his emergence as a coach, and exciting football moments in his coaching career. It is also insightful to see how Dungy is connected to many of the great coaches of all-time such as Chuck Noll and Bill Walsh, and current coaches such as Lovie Smith and Herm Edwards (two of Dungy’s closest friends). But the book is not primarily about sports.

This book’s main character is seemingly Coach Dungy, however the true central character is really Jesus Christ. Dungy clarifies how he was raised in a family of faith but that it was necessary for him to learn to trust Christ through the various trials he experienced in daily living. He describes in detail several specific challenges where he experienced the sovereign hand of God directing him, such as his college career, his professional teammates who were a testimony of faith to him, his failures as a professional athlete leading to the discovery of his profession, his failures and firings as a coach, his eventual meeting of his future wife, dealing with his son’s suicide, and his eventual winning of a Super Bowl.

Dungy’s most difficult experience was his son Jamie’s suicide. He does not sensationalize the situation, nor does he placate the voyeuristic desires of the readers who want to know the whys and hows of the suicide. Instead he elaborates on the support he found from Christian friends, his Church’s care, and on his own words at the funeral service including some stirring anecdotes about Jamie. Dungy concluded his remarks at the funeral with the following, “The last and most important thing I want to leave you with is this. Despite my having shed a few tears here, this is really a celebration in the midst of tragedy. When Jamie was five years old, he accepted Christ as his Savior. When Lauren and I would talk to him about his identity, about who he was and who he wanted to become, that was one thing we could tell him for sure, for certain—that his identity was in Christ. The apostle Paul wrote that nothing can ever separate us from the love of God that’s in Jesus Christ” (p. 255). The one constant through all these experiences is the theme that God is ultimately in control directing the events of life and that faith is the appropriate response to every situation.

Near the end of the book Dungy summarizes, “And so we press on. We press on with our memories, our hearts buoyed by a God who loves us and wants us to know him deeply. We press on with our sense that life’s not always fair. And we press on with the knowledge—and—assurance that even though we can’t see all of God’s plan, He is there, at work and in charge, loving us. We press on with the conviction that even though we don’t deserve the gifts and blessings we’ve been given, He gives them anyway. We press on with the conviction that even though we don’t deserve the gifts and blessings we’ve been given, He gives them anyway. We press on into an abundant life on earth, followed by an eternity with God” (p. 297). Dungy understands the appropriate roll of sports, something that all athletes and parents of blooming athletes should understand. He writes, “But football is just a game. It’s not family. It’s not a way of life. It doesn’t provide any sort of intrinsic meaning. It’s just football. It lasts for three hours, and when the game is over, it’s over” (p. xiv).

The book is chronologically structured, practical, and well-written. The central theme is the need to put one’s priorities in order and to consistently live out these priorities as a role model for others. Often Dungy pauses to raise great questions and usually provides his own answers. At one point pondering the issue of fame Dungy asks, “What will people remember us for? Are people’s lives better because we lived? Did we make a difference? Did we use to the fullest the gifts and abilities that God gave us? Did we give our best effort, and did we do it for the right reasons?” (p. 144). In response he states, “God’s definition of success is really one of significance—the significant difference our lives can make in the lives of others. This significance doesn’t show up in win-loss records, long resumes, or the trophies gathering on our mantels. It’s found in the hearts and lives of those we’ve come across who are in some way better because of the way we lived” (p. 144).

Reviewed by Mark Hamilton

Public Policy Radar, Commentary

Return First Salvo

1 Comment
This entry is part 3 of 3 in the series Can A Christian Be Deceptive In The Political Arena?

RadarThe axiom is true that “he who frames the question wins the debate”! The presupposition of the thread title is that crossing over in a primary is deception. It’s not, but more on that later.

Some definitions first:

Deception by definition is misleading other people. A strategic tactic by definition is not necessarily misleading, but a crafty maneuver to achieve victory.

My contention is that:

  1. Deception is used in the Bible on numerous occasions for God’s purposes or for a greater purpose. Deception is used by necessity in warfare, athletic competition, and games of skill. Strategy (not deception) is employed by necessity in competitive business. Therefore, strategic tactics are certainly not “off limits” in the political realm which is certainly a form of warfare and infinitely more important that games and sports.

  2. Crossing over in an open primary is not deception by any stretch of the definition. The tactic in certain situations is a justifiable strategy and violates no scriptural principles.

Without going into full-blown exegesis, here some scriptural examples where trickery and outright deception are used either by direct command of God or to fulfill a greater purpose:

Genesis 44: Joseph (a type of Christ) tests his brothers by not revealing his identity and making them think that Benjamin was a thief.

Numbers 13: God affirms the Israelites’ desire to send spies into Canaan.

Joshua 2: Joshua’s spies in Jericho hide out in a prostitute’s house; she then lies to the king about their whereabouts. She is not only spared from destruction, but she ends up in the Messianic line.

Judges 3: The deliverer Ehud uses false pretenses to enter Eglon’s presence and get him alone. He then proceeds to thrust a knife into his belly.

Judges 4: Jael pretends to offer Sisera protection, then proceeds to hammer a tent peg into his head while he is asleep. This act is honored in the next chapter by Deborah’s victory song.

Ruth 4: Boaz (another type of Christ) lies by omission to the kinsman by describing Ruth as “Moabitish widow”, not exactly a tempting offer for the kinsman. Boaz neglected to mention that Ruth was young and attractive!

You can certainly argue that God can use whatever means he desires to fulfill his divine plans, however in four of the five examples I see no admonition or command from God for the deception to take place. I also can’t find a condemnation. So we can at least establish that by scriptural examples and by necessity, deception is warfare does not violate scripture.

Let’s look at the games of football and chess. Victory in these contests depends 90% upon successfully deceiving your opponent! Are we to seriously contend that those who excel in football or chess in danger of divine judgement? Assuming no, we can establish that deception (not cheating) in leisure competition does not violate scripture.

What about in competitive business? Now in this case the argument can be made that deceiving customers, stockholders, the general public, government regulators, etc. violates scripture and is destructive to advancing the kingdom. However, is there a problem if you can employ a legal and ethical strategy to gain advantage over a competitor?

An example would be if a customer shares with you your competitor’s pricing. Outside of a nondisclosure agreement, there is nothing immoral about this. Especially if the competitor is providing substandard service. What if a former employee of a competitor comes to work for you and shares some of that competitor’s methods? Outside of a nondisclosure agreement or outright stealing of intellectual property, there is nothing immoral about this either.

I suppose one could invoke the golden rule here, however that cuts both ways. If you don’t want your customers or employees to do these same things to you then treat them right in the first place. It’s amazing how customer and employee retention rates increase when this happens! In any case, we certainly must concur that employing strategy to gain advantage in a competitive business environment is ethical and moral.

Now we come to all-important political realm. Again, outright deception here is definitely forbidden because it almost involves bearing false witness. Lying to voters about your stances, breaking campaign pledges, embellishing your experience, etc. would qualify. HOWEVER, if outright deception can be used in warfare and football and strategy can be used in business to gain competitive advantage, then it stands to reason that strategic tactics can be employed in politics without violating principle. Examples would include:

  1. Using advanced knowledge of Roberts Rules of Order to steer a meeting to your advantage,

  2. Using IRS loopholes to set up a 501c3 “charity” in order to collect tax-exempt donations for eventual use in electioneering or lobbying,

  3. Compromising on critical legislation in order to get 90% of what you want,

  4. Threatening a lawsuit in order to intimidate an enemy.

Modern American Politics is a form of warfare. The damage that socialism can do to a nation’s populace at least as dangerous as the danger from a foreign invasion, maybe even more so. I submit that as believers we are justified in using ANY strategic tactic outside of lawbreaking or outright deception that will cause confusion in an enemy’s camp or gain an advantage in the battle.

Now we come to the crux of the debate which of course is that crossing over in a primary is NOT deception and it NOT diminishing the stewardship of your vote. (For sake of debate we will assume there is no loyalty oath and that a stellar candidate has a lock on the GOP nomination). For there to be deception, by definition, there must a recipient of the deception. The quarterback has to fake somebody out. If as a republican you vote democrat in an open primary, who exactly are you misleading? It is common knowledge that crossover voting occurs in primaries, so the democrats aren’t being deceived in any way.

You can argue that you’re intruding on the other party’s “sacred” process of choosing their own nominee, but if this process is so sacred then why is there an open primary in the first place? The parties could easily move to a caucus/convention system. For democrats to complain about crossover voting would be like you complaining about racoons in your backyard after stubbornly refusing to build a fence.

The bottom line is that you have every right by state law to walk into a primary election, request your enemy’s ballot, and cast of a vote for a candidate for whatever reason you like. If you want to vote for Hillary because you believe she’ll be easier to beat in the general election, or just to keep her in the race in order to make the democratic party implode, then it’s a great strategic tactic to either defeat your enemy outright or cause confusion in their camp. You’re not voting for Hillary to occupy the presidency, you’re voting for her to run for the presidency. Assuming that you’re not foreiting the opportunity to vote a 100% purist candidate on your own party’s ballot, I can’t see how this holds water in the voting stewardship argument either.

Beyond all this, where is the scriptural admonition that every vote cast must be for 100% purist reasons? Because if there is one then we have a lot of repenting to do!

Regarding trickery, deception, and strategy – several factors must be looked at. The chief of which is what is your intention? Boaz didn’t lie by omission and Joseph didn’t deceive his brothers for malicious reasons. What about deceiving Nazi soldiers at your front door looking to kill the Jews hiding in your basement? Certainly the noble intentions of protecting innocent life is the overriding concern here. Another factor is what does it do to your witness? In the case of crossover voting, this is not applicable because again nobody has been deceived.

Crossover voting is a tactic used to cause the confusion and defeat of an enemy that wishes to dishonor God, destroy your nation, harm its citizens, and perpetuate the killing of innocents. Will God look at your legal crossover voting as violating His principles or destroying your witness for Him? The answer is self-evident.