A Great Disappointment from Ohio

On Tuesday, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts in upholding the Mount Vernon City School District's termination of 8th-grade science teacher John Freshwater. (If you missed the background of my involvement with this case, click here and here.)

A "loss" was the expected result, at least before the oral arguments last February. But the great disappointment is that the Ohio Supreme Court disposed of the case without ruling on its core, substantive constitutional issues--whether or not Mr. Freshwater "injected his personal religious beliefs into the classroom" by allowing his students to critically examine the evidence for and against evolution theories. Instead, the Court decided the case based solely on the narrow, subsidiary issue of "insubordination."

The insubordination allegation stems from a principal's order for Mr. Freshwater to remove certain religious items from his classroom, including some book covers that listed the Ten Commandments, some posters quoting from Proverbs and Confucious, and, most importantly, Mr. Freshwater's personal Bible, which he often read quietly during his own free time, when students were not in the classroom.

Mr. Freshwater responded to the order by removing everything mentioned except for his personal Bible (which he purposefully refused to remove) and a poster behind his desk which depicted President George W. Bush and Colin Powell in the Cabinet Room with bowed heads (which he was never instructed to remove). Mr. Freshwater had also checked out two school library books--an Oxford Bible and Jesus of Nazareth, which investigators found strewn among papers, boxes, and films on a table in his personal work area.

Interestingly enough, the Ohio Supreme Court found that the order for Mr. Freshwater to remove his personal Bible from his desk was a violation of Mr. Freshwater's Free Exercise rights under the First Amendment (this part is a big win!). But the presence of the George Bush poster--which, incidentally, he had received from the school office and was hanging in at least 4 other classrooms at the time--and the religious school library books constituted "insubordination."

The decision was 4-3, and two of the three dissenting Justices wrote scathing dissents. Justice Pfeifer may have summed it up best:

"John Freshwater is not today’s big loser, because he fought to prove that he actually followed the rules, that he taught well, and that over a lifetime of dedication to the students in his classrooms he made a positive contribution to their lives. That proof is uncontroverted. In that most important measure of public education, John Freshwater is a winner and his final departure is a loss to the Mount Vernon schools."

I am hard at work now on a "Motion for Reconsideration." Please join me and many others in praying that perhaps one Justice, who may have been on the fence, will perceive the errors that I will be pointing out and choose to give the case one last look.

I am so grateful that God is a God of Justice, and that one day all things will be set right.

If you would like to read the majority and dissenting opinions, you can find them here.

Truth is Not a Fragile Thing

Tonight in Bridgewater, conservative and liberal elements of my community will gather for an exercise in disciplined listening. We will hear two different pastoral perspectives on "The Church and Same-Sex Marriage." This "encounter" is the first of two on this topic; the next one, tentatively scheduled for next spring, will feature two policy experts discussing public policy considerations surrounding same-sex marriage.

I hope that we can pack the house tonight with folks who are willing to listen in good faith to both positions, and to consider their respective merits and shortcomings.

I say this despite the fact that I have a definite belief as to which position is "true," "good," and "beautiful." I welcome the discussion and the challenge it poses to my worldview, because Truth is not a fragile thing.

I submit that anyone who is committed to the existence of absolute Truth, absolute Values, should welcome every opportunity to discuss their existence. For if they do exist, they cannot ultimately be disproven, nor will their existence be diminished by any person's refusal or failure to acknowledge them. On the other hand, if they do exist, every opportunity to discuss their existence is an opportunity to allow others to see them.

In The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis argues that teachers do their students--and, by extension, society at large--a great disservice when they set out to "debunk" the emotion or dismiss its importance. He writes, "For every one pupil who needs to be guarded from a weak excess of sensibility there are three who need to be awakened from the slumber of cold vulgarity. The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but to irrigate deserts. The right defense against false sentiments is to inculcate just sentiments. By starving the sensibility of our pupils we only make them easier prey to the propagandist when he comes. For famished nature will be avenged and a hard heart is no infallible protection against a soft head."

In the same way, I think "Christian conservatives" do a great disservice to society when they dismiss liberal, relativist worldviews with an arrogant shaking of the head, as if those who held such worldvivews were a lost cause, not worth the time and effort of engagement. First of all, "we" don't know everything, and not everything is absolute. But beyond that, we serve as poor spokespersons for our own worldview when we walk away from the table. When we behave as if Truth is no better than a spoonful of canned peas, having no real flavor or textural value, but simply demanding digestion as a matter of lukewarm nutritional fact, I wonder if we, ourselves, really understand Truth so well as we think.

Truth is not a fragile thing, nor is it tasteless, nor dependent upon our blind, unthinking, submissive digestion. It is the stuff that both cuts down jungles and irrigates deserts. It is robust, vigorous and vibrant. It is so whether we know it or not, whether we like it or not. It is too great for us to fully or perfectly comprehend and verbalize, and yet enough of it has been revealed--and enough is innately known--to attract our devotion and pursuit.

Let us, who believe that Truth IS, welcome those to the table who believe that it is not. Let us go to THEIR table. Let us hear their best explanations and struggle over them. We may all walk back to our same "corners" in the end, but we will walk back wiser, perhaps questioning some of our assumptions while our brethren question some of theirs. But Truth will shine on, unchanged and unsoiled, and those who truly seek it will find it.

Be Part of the Solution

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

--Theodore Roosevelt

Everyone I know has an opinion about politics and what direction our government should take. Yet voter turnout for tomorrow is expected to be dismal--something like 30%.

Don't be just another critic. Go out and vote.

Scary Stuff - Worshiping at the Altar of "Choice"

Yesterday I filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, a coalition of 30 female state legislators from across the country, Concerned Women for America, and Susan B. Anthony List. The brief asks the Court to review a recent decision by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals which struck down an Arizona law that banned abortion after 20 weeks, except where the mother's life or health is in danger.

The elected representatives of Arizona passed this law after receiving credible, unrefuted scientific and medical evidence revealing two things: that babies in the womb feel pain after 20 weeks, and that abortions performed after this same point carry much higher health risks to the mother. Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit has interpreted the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence to mean that states can never ban abortion before the point at which the baby can survive outside the womb (generally 23 weeks). Nevermind that what we are doing is torturing a living human being; nevermind that the woman faces a significantly greater chance of suffering serious complications or death when she waits this late to exercise her "right."

The Supreme Court recently acknowledged that “a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb.” Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. at 147. Science now reveals that, far from being an impersonal blob of tissue for whom the descriptor of “living” is little more than a technical, biological fact, the post-20-week human being within the womb is so fully developed as to be wholly capable of feeling pain as his or her body is literally ripped apart and removed from the womb, piece by piece. This, of course, is how abortion is most often accomplished at this stage in pregnancy.

A humane, civilized society cannot retain its identity as such if its courts preclude lawmakers from imposing reasonable limitations on such brutality. Even animals—which most people would agree are not possessed of the same degree of individual value and dignity as humans—are entitled to and receive legal protections against cruelty and barbarism.

And what of "women's health," for which those who champion abortion rights express such concern? When confronted with credible scientific data demonstrating that abortions performed beyond the 20-week point are significantly less safe for women than those performed prior to that point, it is surely appropriate for legislators to protect women’s health by requiring physicians to perform the procedure at the earlier, far safer stage.

The recent tragedies of the Kermit Gosnell clinic in Philadelphia serve as a poignant reminder of how easily both individual women and the sensibilities of a humane society can become the casualty of an ideological battle.

We have become a society that worships "choice" itself; we say no one should consider what value is ultimately gained or what is lost by my choice, provided I am uninhibited and unconstrained as I choose. That, my friends, is scary stuff.

Please join me in praying that the Supreme Court will hear this case and correct this great humanitarian injustice.

Lessons from Lewis - Part 1 - Saying it Doesn't Make it So

C.S. Lewis had me on his fan list at The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and I required no further evidence of his brilliance. But I was absolutely captivated when I picked up The Abolition of Man a couple of weeks ago.

Lewis wrote the book (actually a series of lectures) in response to an English textbook, a complimentary copy of which was sent to Lewis for a review. [Note to self: Think twice before sending something I have written to a world-class writer, scholar, philosopher and theologian in hopes of a kind literary review.]

In The Green Book, as Lewis refers to it out of compassion for its pitiable authors, the second chapter quotes a story about Coleridge at a waterfall. Two tourists were present. One called the waterfall “sublime,” and the other called it “pretty.” Coleridge agreed with the first pronouncement but disgustedly rejected the second. The Green Book authors comment: “When the man said This is sublime, he appeared to be making a remark about the waterfall… Actually .. he was not making a remark about the waterfall, but a remark about his own feelings…” The authors conclude, “This confusion is continually present in language as we use it. We appear to be saying something very important about something: and actually we are only saying something about our own feelings.”

The rest of The Abolition of Man consists of Lewis’ response to The Green Book’s authors’ misguided effort to dismiss the concept of objective value or truth. I now consider this a must-read for anyone involved in contemporary public policy discussions.

In one of my favorite portions of the book, Lewis explains that “emotional states can be in harmony with reason (when we feel liking for what ought to be approved) or out of harmony with reason (when we perceive that liking is due but cannot feel it). … The heart never takes the place of the head: but it can, and should obey it.” He points out that what is common to the major world religion and philosophies is “the doctrine of objective value, the belief that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are.”

Of course, this contrasts sharply with the prevailing beliefs in many spheres of our culture today.

But today’s unconscious philosophies exhibit an even more troubling characteristic: Rather than merely denying that “good,” “bad,” or “truth” can be found, many go so far as to apply false value labels to positions they disdain. Where The Green Book authors said, in effect, “nothing is objectively good or true” today’s philosophers say, “I determine what is good or true based upon my feelings about it.” Today’s philosophers find it unnecessary to explain or prove their conclusions. For them, the heart has "taken the place of the head."

A ready example of this phenomenon is the knee-jerk labeling of those who oppose same-sex “marriage” as “homophobes” or “bigots.” This labeling is as unjust as labeling those who support it “atheists.” Both labels may, in fact, fit a small subset of the universe in question, but it by no means can define the whole. In light of the fact that there are other substantial reasons for people to oppose a dramatic re-definition of the oldest social institution on the planet, the attempt to win popular support for efforts to do so by applying a dreaded label to those who don’t deserve it is nothing short of cheating.

I will examine this particular argument (on the issue of marriage) carefully in an upcoming article, but it is really one of many examples of the larger, deeply disturbing trend. The same phenomenon rears its ugly head in most of the controversial public policy issues our society faces today: abortion, immigration, welfare, and the list goes on.

In fact, I have become accustomed to being labeled a “hater” after anything I write is published, no matter how devoid of hate my words or my actual attitude may be.

For instance, after my guest column “Social Issues and the Economy” (scroll down if you missed it) was published in the Richmond Times Dispatch, one gentleman sent me a nasty e-mail which included this statement: “Jesus must be wondering how people can take his teachings of love and turn them into words of hate.” I took some time to draft a kind response to him, encouraging him to explain which of the words in my article he considered to be “words of hate.” No reply.

And herein lies the harm of what I will call “feeling-based value labeling.” It not only results in the end of real conversation about issues; it seems purposefully designed to do so. It blindly attacks the character of the speaker rather than the merit of the idea. And in doing so, it assaults the integrity of the language we use to describe those attitudes that are “true” and “false” to the “kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things that we are.”

Lewis is certainly right: there is “good” and “bad,” “truth” and “untruth.” But just saying it doesn’t make it so.

"Social Issues" and "The Economy"

Conventional political wisdom suggests that candidates must avoid, at all costs, the appearance of being focused on “divisive social issues” and instead focus exclusively on the economy. This is a false dichotomy of issues.

When politicians show us their positions on today’s social issues, they show us their philosophies of government. Ultimately, these—their conception of the proper role between government and the governed—will determine our success at restoring national prosperity.

Candidates who favor restriction of abortion recognize that the protection of human life is one of the primary purposes of government, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. But also inherent in this worldview is the conviction that every single person is endowed with distinct worth and potential; that any given child could be the next Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, or Bill Gates. Thus, the public policies advanced by these candidates will reflect the core belief that no human being is a dispensable dependent, but each holds unique potential to contribute to our collective flourishing.

According to this worldview, a strong marriage culture enhances our human potential. Thus marriage—that permanent, exclusive union of one man and one woman which is proven to be the best possible environment for child-rearing—should be encouraged, protected and revered.

In this framework, the purpose of civil marriage is not to provide individuals with personal affirmation of their lifestyle choices or emotional bonds (a post-modern American desire), but rather to stabilize, regulate and incentivize the particular kind of union which confers irreplaceable benefits upon society as a whole.

A candidate’s position on marriage—what it is, why the state regulates it, whether it is amenable to revision and when the state should permit its dissolution—carries broad implications for how her election would affect the economy. For when families thrive, they foster citizens (both the spouses and, ultimately, the children they nurture) who are contributors to the economy.

On the other hand, study upon study has shown us that when families falter, prosperity dwindles. Women and children are hit hardest, often driven to poverty. The state is typically left to pick up the pieces in the form of financial and housing assistance, mental and physical health care, and, in the worst cases, child protective services and the criminal justice system.

The sheer dollars-and-cents cost of family fragmentation to individuals and U.S. taxpayers (an estimated $112 billion every year) cannot be ignored. This is why to focus on marriage is to focus on the economy.

Of course, even in a strong marriage culture, there will be human needs for which a compassionate citizenry must provide. Politicians who value the role of religion in both private and public life favor an environment where robust faith communities are empowered to meet needs that government is ill-equipped to meet well—caring for the poor, the sick, the orphans and the elderly. Neighbors (not government) helping neighbors is good for the economy and for our moral fiber.

Our early republic was an unprecedented success because the people viewed government as the protector rather than provider of fundamental rights, and they did not depend on it as the guarantor of financial well-being. Families, churches and communities were the central component of America, and government stood back and let them prosper.

We looked to each other for help rather than to an impersonal bureaucracy. The latter may be capable of distributing financial resources, but it cannot enhance them with the caring personal networks which graciously spur us on toward the industriousness befitting our human dignity.

When a candidate tells us he counts every human life an asset, supports a healthy marriage culture, and wants to encourage people to take care of people, he is telling us that he ascribes to our Founding Fathers’ vision of government. In that revolutionary vision, government was not the colossal beast it is today, but rather the servant of a moral, hard-working people and a protector of their God-given rights.

This was the vision that birthed a healthy, prosperous America, and it is a formula that can work again if we will collectively insist upon a return to it.

Plans for applying the machinery of a behemoth government to solve human problems seem enticingly simple. But to grow this machinery atop an America devoid of its original social values is to invite implosion. Critics may scoff at difficult discussions of messy social issues, but these are the issues that reveal the secret of our prosperous past and hold the key to a brilliant future.

An Unheeded Plea for Journalistic Truth-Telling

Frankly, I am weary of hearing about “media bias.” It has become too obvious and widespread to remain interesting. And yet, when a news reporter is caught telling an outright falsehood to countless unsuspecting consumers, there is something much more fundamental than media “neutrality” which hangs upon his willingness to make the necessary correction; what is at stake here is basic integrity.

I submit that the reporter’s duty to be truthful is heightened (if such a thing is possible) when he reports facts in the context of election season about legislation which one candidate has supported and the other opposed.

While the average news media consumer can be expected to be skeptical about the possibility of a journalist ever being truly objective about the news he reports, particularly where it concerns controversial policy issues, the same consumer does not generally question the basic veracity of statements of fact which are easily verifiable. But maybe she should.

Last week, in reporting on a debate between the two candidates for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, political reporter Bob Lewis stated that a certain pro-life bill (supported by the Republican candidate and opposed by the Democrat) would “outlaw almost all forms of abortion.” Lewis’ article did not state this as anyone’s opinion or speculation, but as an item of factual background. (You can read the article here:

Now I know this claim to be false, because I have been the chief advocate for the legislation in question for the past four years. Moreover, I can prove, and have proven the claim to be false, on a number of grounds, to the satisfaction of countless legislators and public policy organizations. But if my own testimony is not enough, I offer any Doubting Thomas the collective judgment of the United States Supreme Court, which dismissed a legal challenge to the identical language in Missouri over 25 years ago. In short, the falsity of Lewis’ claim is so glaring that it is not even open to serious debate.

After I read the story, I immediately contacted Lewis to request a correction. I laid out my evidence for the falsity of the statement, and offered to provide more if he remained doubtful. In his response to me, Lewis justified his statement this way:

“I don't know whether Jackson has read Marshall's bill, but I have. Were I writing on Bob's bill, I would concede your point. This story is about a debate and views expressed in it. Nothing more.”

To this, I responded:

“I appreciate your response. However, my issue here is with the statements you made in your article; not with the candidates’ expression of their respective positions. Your article states: ‘[Northam] was discussing so called “personhood” legislation supported by Jackson among other Republicans, which would outlaw almost all forms of abortion by conferring the full rights of personhood to an embryo from the instant of conception. Destroying such an embryo, under such a law, could be construed as homicide.’ The bolded portions are statements presented as fact by you, the reporter. And they are false. You might have said that Northam believes or that some people predict that the law would have the stated effect. But you did not.”

To this, Lewis simply replied, “Story stands.”

My appeal to Lewis’ editor at the Richmond Bureau of the Associated Press was met with an equally unjustified, flat denial.

Associated Press policy states that it “abhor[s] inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions” and that “When we're wrong, we must say so as soon as possible.” With respect to the Richmond Bureau, however, this policy appears to be defunct.

If the story’s false statements had been damaging to a particular person, the reporter and publisher could be held accountable through a libel lawsuit. Shouldn’t there be a way of holding them accountable for misleading the public about important public policy concerns?