Veritas Rex

Our Congratulations...

The Star reported on Saturday that Jim Buck, a reliable Conservative in the Statehouse, is replacing Jeff Drozda.

State Rep. Jim Buck, Kokomo, today was chosen in a Republican caucus to replace Jeff Drozda, according to Ron Thomas, a county GOP leader who served as a watcher during the vote counting.

Buck won the caucus on a single vote, with 68 votes. Contender David Mueller, a Westfield Washington School Board member and an entomologist, came in second with 15 votes. The caucus was held at Republican headquarters in Kokomo.

Our Congratulations to Jim Buck.  Senator Jeff Drozda was one of my favorites.  Only someone like Jim Buck could manage to fill his shoes adequately.

Congressman Burton gets conservative accolades

Congratulations to Indiana Congressman Dan Burton, who is also a congressional sponsor of IFI's Hoosier Congressional Policy Leadership Series.  Dan was the only U.S. Rep. to get a 100% rating with FRC Action http://www.frcaction.org/downloads/EF06J02.pdf.  Given the conservative nature of Indiana and our federal delegation, this is quite impressive.  U.S. Rep. Mike Pence and Mark Souder get an honorable mention with a 93% score and are also congressional sponsors of HCPLS. 

Heritage Foundation: How families bolster early education outcomes

From FamilyFacts.org.

1.  Kindergartners in intact families have higher average reading scores than peers in stepfamilies or cohabiting families. full details

2.  First-graders whose mothers were married when they were born are less likely to engage in disruptive behavior with peers and teachers than those whose mothers were single or cohabiting. full details

3. Children aged three to twelve who live in intact families have higher average math scores than peers whose mothers are in cohabiting relationships. full details

4.  Children aged seven to ten who live in continuously intact families tend to score higher on reading achievement tests than peers who have lived in other family structures at some time. full details

5. Children aged six to eleven who live in intact families tend to be more engaged in their schoolwork than peers in other family structures.  full details   

6.  Eighth-graders in two-parent families perform, on average, better on math and science achievement tests than peers in single-parent or stepparent families. full details   

7.  Ninth-graders whose mothers were married when they were born are more likely to complete an algebra course than peers whose mothers were single. full details

8.  Children of mothers raised in married families show, on average, greater gains in math achievement than peers whose mothers were raised in non-intact families. full details   

9.  The association between family structure and nine-year-olds’ science and math achievement appears to be cross-national. full details 

10.  The predominant family structure of a school’s student population appears to be linked to the individual science and math achievement scores of eighth-graders. full details

Why shouldn’t the Gipper be conservatives' reference point?

First, let’s be honest, Governor Daniels has done a great deal to promote conservative principles in Indiana.  You need only look at the people who are in positions of leadership within state government compared to four years ago to recognize this fact.  The governor’s agenda has promoted pro-life, pro-faith, pro-free market and pro-limited government policies and should be given credit by conservatives for the myriad of his “crew’s” accomplishments.

However, “My Man Mitch” needs a smack on the hand for his comments on the Gipper.  Here is the full quote courtesy of the Indy Star:

Daniels on Reagan

Here are excerpts from Gov. Mitch Daniels’ comments about Ronald Reagan, made to a conservative crowd in Washington, D.C., on April 17. The governor’s office provided the remarks Thursday to The Associated Press.

“I hope very much not to be misunderstood. I think it is time to let Ronald Reagan go. Not from our reverent memory, of course. Not ever, but as our touchstone, as our icon, as our hallmark and our reference point. Let me please explain what I mean.

“It used to strike me so odd that the Democrats of that day, or other public figures of that viewpoint, couldn’t quit obsessing about FDR. And what it told me as a young person at that time was they were looking backward. They had nothing new to offer, nothing new to say. Nothing to say to me. It was a dead giveaway that they were living in the past.

“Ralph Emerson once wrote that ’In any place, any political system ultimately divides between the party of hope and the party of memory.’ And hope is always, of course, about the future and the next generation. ... People come and go. The greatest of leaders come and go, but ideas and ideals and principles endure.

“I don’t think anyone understood that better than Ronald Reagan, who was always fixed on the future, who always spoke to the next generation, who always believed that somehow, someway, against the apparent odds of the present America, the things that we stand for would advance, and progress and prevail.”

I agree that we should not worship past leaders.  Ronald Reagan was an imperfect person, just like every other mere mortal who has ever lived.  However, I disagree that the Gipper should cease to be an icon and a reference point for conservatives.  Ronald Reagan gave conservatives a great blueprint for what it means to be a conservative and how to ultimately have conservative principles succeed.  I also agree that “leaders come and go, but ideas and ideals and principles endure.”  However, I don’t see how removing Reagan as our reference point for these principles will help them endure.  In fact, I believe the more we move away from referencing Reagan, the more conservative principles will be watered down and moderated.   

Barbara Boxer objects to Pope resolution

Barbara Boxer takes on a resolution honoring the Pope- and wins.  I agree with the sentiments of the writer- with Obama's "Christians are bitter" statement and this attack on the Pope, it gets harder for Democrats to claim they aren't anti-religion.

The Wall Street Journal Political Diary is a paid service.  You can subscribe here to read the entire email.

Boxer Versus the Pope

You wouldn't think there would be much to criticize about Pope Benedict XVI's splendid and uplifting visit to Washington. But leave it to Senator Barbara Boxer of California to spoil the celebration and aura of high spirits, nonpartisanship and good will. The trouble started when Senators Sam Brownback of Kansas and Robert Casey of Pennsylvania sponsored a Senate resolution to honor the Pope and his visit to the nation's Capital. The resolution pays tribute to the Pope's message of love and compassion. It also recognizes the "vibrance of religious faith in the United States, a faith nourished by a constitutional commitment to religious liberty."

The resolution also contains language about the "power of hope over despair and love over hate." All very noncontroversial stuff.

Except for one clause that stated: "Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life." This is a statement that perhaps 99 out of 100 Americans would agree with, and even celebrate. But Senator Boxer huffed that this language hinted toward an endorsement of the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion. As one Senator told us in confidence: "There was not a single word or phrase of the resolution mentioning abortion, or life beginning at conception, or of the unborn. What Boxer objected to was the word 'life.'" She demanded that the phrase "the value of each human life" be, well, snuffed -- or else there would be no resolution at all.

Senate Republicans in particular were enraged by the Boxer protest. Many wanted to call her bluff and make her complaint public so Catholics could see first-hand an act that smacked of, at best, bad taste, at worst, bigotry. But with the clock running on the Papal visit and in the spirit of cooperation, Senators Brownback and Casey relented. The resolution passed without the "objectionable" passage about "the value of each human life."

"I wish the Senators had stood up to her," says Father Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute. "What have we come to where the term 'value of life' is not worthy of inclusion in a Senate resolution?"

Ironically, this dust-up happened just a few days after Barack Obama's swipe at religion in Ms. Boxer's backyard of San Francisco. Democrats have tried to reassure Christians in particular that the party isn't hostile to church-goers, but Ms. Boxer's antics this week make one wonder.

Why The Indiana House Should Have Passed SJR 7

Homosexual Activist Wayne Besen Makes a Strong
Case for State and Federal Marriage Protection Amendments

"(T)he California Supreme Court may...come out in favor of same-sex marriage as early as May 23. ...If same-sex marriage becomes a reality in America's largest and most influential state -- and is not overturned by a Constitutional Amendment -- it will be the biggest earthquake to hit in years. The sheer number of couples who will marry (and divorce, it is California, after all) will forever change this debate. It will cause a legal mess, as many of these married couples -- often with children -- migrate to states that still discriminate. The consequences of such relocations will force the entire country to grapple with this issue. No longer will the debate be theoretical, but will focus on the discrimination endured by families whose married status vanishes the moment they cross state lines."

http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=30056

If this scenario put forth by this hopeful homosexual activist (Wayne Besen) is accurate, it will be exactly what many of our nation's founders feared, one large state dictating the public policy of the others.

This battle will be well worth watching. Even in the liberal state of California, a public question was passed overwhelmingly in which voters said that marriage should be only between one man and one woman. (Prop 22) In November, California voters may also be allowed to vote on a constitutional amendment to protect marriage and the importance of both genders to the cornerstone of the family. This is important since, as Besen observes (and hopes), a California court may ignore the will of the people claerly expressed through Prop 22.

In so doing, a liberal judge may well define marriage down to merely the bringing together of two or more people rather than being what it always has been, the bringing together of the two sexes for a vital societal unit.

Ignored by much of the media, however, is the fact that over one million signatures in support of a marriage amendment have already been gathered, far more than is needed to put the measure on the ballot. The impact that effort will have, and the impact of a judge's agenda, is something both sides of this debate will be closely watching.

Until then, it is a painful lesson to observe for the remaining minority of states like Indiana which have not passed Marriage Protection Amendments. Because of the obstructionism of legislators like Speaker of the House Patrick Bauer and Rules Committee Chairman Scott Pelath, whenever other state courts lurch leftward to redefine the family, Indiana's statutes seem woefully unprotected. . . but maybe that's exactly what Indiana House leadership wanted.

"Day of Silence" should be Day of Sadness

It is with great sadness that I highlight the reality of several public high schools around the state recognizing the “Day of Silence” today, which was and is created and promoted by GLSEN (a particularly tricky gay rights group that I commented on earlier this week).  We discuss the cultural and public policy implications of these sorts of efforts by gay rights groups all the time.  However, what saddens me the most is the ultimate consequences of the GLSEN worldview on the hearts, minds and souls of individual high school students. 

What I see are vulnerable youth reaching out for answers.  Some have been sexually, emotionally or physically abused.  Some are merely confused about the role sexuality should play in their lives.  The reasons for their vulnerability and confusion abound.  Of course the gay activists would say the ultimate reason is a society that does not embrace them for who they are (“gay”, “lesbian”, “bisexual”, etc.).

However, what is really happening is that these youth who are often confused, vulnerable and looking for answers are given the wrong answers by groups like GLSEN.  What these young people need are friends, family and others who will help them address the true root causes behind their confusion and vulnerability and help them work towards healing.  Many times a good Christian counselor could help the young person explore and work through some of these issues.  Instead GLSEN and other enablers help youth mask the true roots of their confusion by giving them a simple explanation… “You were born gay.  You cannot change.  If you embrace this reality and help others embrace it you can be happy.” 

How tragic. Even if you don’t agree with my values and lens through which I look at the world, is it ever healthy to let your romantic and sexual feelings define you (regardless of who those feelings are directed towards)?  Take a look at GLSEN’s website (or any gay rights website for that matter).  It is undeniable that they want a person’s sexuality to be the center of who they are.  You don’t have to agree with my values to understand that that is not healthy.

Michael Moore: I endorse Barack Obama

After first endorsing the Castro and the Cuban health care system, Michael Moore is now endorsing Barack Obama.

I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.

So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?

Well, fellow conservatives, we now know who is the most extreme liberal of the two Democrats.  Barack Obama has sealed the title with his ruthless pro-abortion position and by earning the "nutty wack-job Bush planned 9-11" vote.

I never thought I would say this, but I am now convinced that Hillary Clinton is the conservative Democrat running for President- by far.

How Darwinism turns science into religion

From tothesource

by Dinesh D'Souza

The problem with evolution is not that it is unscientific but that it is routinely taught in textbooks and in the classroom in an atheist way under the banner of Darwinism. Such textbooks frequently go beyond the scientific evidence to make metaphysical claims about how evolution renders the idea of a Creator superfluous. Here are some examples.

Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson writes in his widely-assigned book On Human Nature: "If humankind evolved by Darwinian natural selection, genetic chance and environmental necessity, not God, made the species."

Biologist Stephen Jay Gould writes in his essay in the book Darwin's Legacy: "No intervening spirit watches lovingly over the affairs of nature...whatever we think of God, his existence is not manifest in the products of nature."

Douglas Futuyma asserts in his textbook Evolutionary Biology: "By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."

Biologist William Provine writes, "Modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws...We must conclude that when we die, we die, and that is the end of us." Evolution, Provine has also said, is the "greatest engine of atheism."

In his essay on "Darwin's Revolution" in the book Creative Evolution, Francisco Ayala credits Darwin with proving that life is "the result of a natural process...without any need to resort to a Creator."

Some Christians seek to counter this atheism by trying to expose the flaws in the Darwinian account of evolution. This explains the appeal of "creation science" and the "intelligent design" (ID) movement. These critiques, however, have not made any headway in the scientific community and they have also failed whenever they have been tried in the courts.

Most Christians don't care whether the eye evolved by natural selection or whether evolution can account for macroevolution or only microevolution. What they care about is that Darwinism, which is “chance alone” or “by mere accident” evolution, is being used to deny God as the Creator. For those who are concerned about this atheism masquerading as science, there is a better way. Instead of trying to get unscientific ID theories included in the classroom, a better strategy would be to get the unscientific atheist propaganda out.

How can this be achieved?

Consider this: the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits public schools from teaching or promoting atheism in any way. How do I know this? Well, the religion clauses of the First Amendment protect the "free exercise" of religion and at the same time forbid the "establishment" of religion. Courts have routinely held that the free exercise clause protects not only religious beliefs but also the absence of religious beliefs. If you are fired from your government job because you are an atheist, your First Amendment rights have been violated. In other words, the term "religion" means not only "religion" but also "atheism."

Yet if the free exercise clause defines religion in a way that includes atheism, then the no-establishment clause must define religion in the same way. So the agencies of government are prohibited from "establishing" not only religion but also atheism. This means that just as a public school teacher cannot advocate Christianity or hand out Bibles to his students, so too public school textbooks and science teachers cannot advocate atheism masquerading as science.  If God must be removed from government financed schools, so too must the equally metaphysical “by chance alone”.

I'd like to see Christian legal groups suing school districts for promoting atheism in the biology classroom. No need to produce creationist or ID critiques of Darwinism. All that is necessary is to parade the atheist claims that have made their way into the biology textbooks and biology lectures. The issue isn't the scientific inadequacy of evolution but the way in which it is being used to undermine religious belief and promote unbelief. If the case can be made that atheism is being advocated in any way, then the textbooks would have to be rewritten and classroom presentations changed to remove the offending material. Schools would be on notice that they cannot use scientific facts to draw metaphysical conclusions in favor of atheism.

In this way Darwinism in the public schools would no longer be a threat to religion in general or Christianity in particular.

PyroMarketing: Ideas, Not Geography matters

I continue to blog today from the Christian Leadership Alliance National Conference in Dallas, Texas. As I referenced in a previous blog, I spent the better part of a day with Greg Stielstra, author of the book PyroMarketing. I love marketing because marketing is geared toward movement building. If you are into marketing you are already well beyond the stage where you’re focused merely on building your own organization. Marketing minds are thinking about packaging ideas and attracting followers. And, contrary to a cynics approach, good marketers are about loving the customer or market. It’s knowing what we have will bring added value and meaning and attempting to communicate that in a meaningful way.

For those of you following our progress on the Mere Christianity Project that we are working on with Dinesh D’Souza following the release of What’s So Great About Christianity, I can tell you that you’ll see much of what we’ve learned over the past few days implemented into this movement. The most significant “aha” moment could be this one. It is the realization that what we are doing today with the Mere Christianity Project is not a new movement. The movement has existed in different corners and nooks and crannies for quite some time. We are providing that movement a community and a common area that brings the movement together. And we know that many of the readers of Veritas Rex, and certainly the good people at Indiana Family Institute are a part of that movement.

As we move forward, look for the Mere Christianity Project to employ strategies to unite the broader Christian community. What we are talking about is mere Christianity. As Dinesh has written, the atheist have been flogging the carcass of fundamentalism without having to encounter the horse-kick of of vigorous, traditional Christianity.

As we put Christianity on offense you can expect to see us fully utilize what some call “non-traditional” means of communication. We trust that one reason the readers of Veritas Rex are turning to the blogosphere for news, information, and commentary is because “traditional” forms of media are less trustworthy. You may wonder if they are even relevant.

And can you even imagine writing a letter to the editor today and waiting and hoping beyond hope that maybe, just maybe they’ll publish it? Yeah right! If you’ve got something to say, blog it!

In days gone by, we were well connected to mass media and poorly connected to each other. This led to communities of convenience. But today, with 44 percent of US on-line Americans being content creators, meaning they post, blog, have personal sites, etc, we are now poorly connected to mass media and well connected to each other. We now organize by affinity and interest.

This is how I can, living in Santa Barbara and today writing to you from Dallas, can be a part of a community of Hoosiers. I was born a Hoosier and spent the first 20 years of my life there. And in today’s world there is no reason I cannot continue to be a Hoosier despite the fact that when I drive to work in the morning I drive with the top down smelling the salty air.

This is not a commentary on the current state of affairs internationally, but we cannot stamp out radical Islam with troops and with guns. Radical Islam may have a geographic center in one region of the world, but is no longer bound to geography. When we organize by proximity, geography is everything. But it is no longer about proximity.

And so the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Dan Dennett and Sam Harris should rest assured that Christianity is not warlike as some have suggested. We are merely attempting to give an answer to the reason for the hope that is within us.

I’m Clark Vandeventer, CEO of World Changers Inc. To learn more about how we are employing these strategies to effect real social change, go to www.worldchangers.us.com.