A school district in Arizona is suing four taxpayers for being too dogged in pursuit of information about school operations and spending. . .  The school district wants the court to block the defendants from filing any more public records requests, to rule that the district does not have to comply with previous requests, and to restrict the rights of defendants to complain to outside agencies.

This is a school district that twice since 2002 was found to have violated state open meeting laws. Last year, the state ombudsman’s office agreed with the four defendants that the school district had been too slow to respond to public records requests.

I know this is a blog, but I must say I’m at a loss for words.

By making mysticism more democratic, we’ve also made it more bourgeois, more comfortable, and more dilettantish. It’s become something we pursue as a complement to an upwardly mobile existence, rather than a radical alternative to the ladder of success. Going to yoga classes isn’t the same thing as becoming a yogi; spending a week in a retreat center doesn’t make me Thomas Merton or Thérèse of Lisieux. Our kind of mysticism is more likely to be a pleasant hobby than a transformative vocation.

This is a trend I’ve been expecting for several years now.  Our postmodern age has produced a double-edged sword in regard to religion.  We now accept religious views or experiences far more than the past two generations, but we’ve also come to see religion as a purely private matter with no broader implications.  This mentality boils down to “I’m glad you found something you like – just don’t try to share it with anyone else.”

I’m torn as to whether this mentality is any better than the science-minded modernism that preceded it.  On the one hand, it is good to see an increased openness to religion and the supernatural.  On the other hand, what good is this openness if it amounts to nothing more than a hobby.  What do you think?

The Left has co-opted the phrase in recent years and redefined it to mean merely “government provision.”  Social justice is a broad concept that goes far beyond government action, and many (though definitely not all) of the churches who do “social justice” projects are seeking to fulfill their proper role of being a benevolent influence in their communities.

Beck’s dismissive take on social justice merely reinforces the Left’s redefinition of the phrase at great cost.  Social justice properly understood is gravely neglected in our modern society.  In fact, it is an idea that has largely been lost on both sides of the political aisle.  To dismiss it as leftist rhetoric is to miss the big picture and hurt communities all over the world.  I just hope that Beck does a bit more research and careful thinking before his next tirade.

From the Christian Post:

The theme of the campaign, “I Am Not Ashamed,” is inspired by the verses found in Romans 1:16: “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes; first for the Jews, then for the Gentile.”

Organizers said they felt this is the message that America most needs to hear right now.

Notably, the theme of the newly launched video Bible campaign is reminiscent of the message that evangelist Franklin Graham gave at the beginning of this year. Graham began 2010 by declaring he is not ashamed of the Gospel and predicted there would be greater obstacles for Christians who want to share their faith.

“I am not afraid or ashamed of the Gospel,” Graham wrote in a commentary posted on the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association website in January. “We will proclaim the Gospel of Christ’s sacrificial death for sin and His triumphant resurrection as long as we have breath.”

I think this is a good thing.  Unfortunately, it is becoming harder and harder for Christians to share the Good News in the public square.  For some reason, it’s the only religion that our postmodern, relativistic culture is unwilling to “tolerate.”  More and more people find themselves alienated from their friends, colleagues, even their family, because of their faith in Christ.  While we know that we are to speak our faith boldly, even in the face of criticism or, heaven forbid, persecution, it’s not always easy to do.  But there is strength in numbers!  So if Christians from across the globe can unite together in strength to proclaim what might be difficult to say alone, more power to them!

In another somewhat encouraging (but probably too late) sign, thousands of Spaniards took to the streets to protest the recent passage of a bill that would legalize abortion on demand for up to 14 weeks into the pregnancy.  This is a huge move for Spain – a country that formerly allowed abortion only in restricted circumstances.  The thousands protesting the decision is encouraging, but the law is not (read the whole story here).  It seems to me that this kind of hyper-active, unrepresentative government is becoming increasingly common in the Western world.  It can be seen in the advance of gay marriage in the U.S. and in strange pro-abortion and animal rights legislation in Europe.  Elected officials throughout the West appear ambivalent to prevailing public opinion and eager to appease activist groups.

Finally, on a more depressing note, the average person in the world today appears to view internet access as a fundamental human right.  A survey (find it here) of 27,000 adults in 26 countries produced some depressing results.  Nearly 79% of adults believe that internet access should be a fundamental human right.  This instance shows how low our understanding of rights has become.  Human rights are core and few.  They should be rooted in our very natures – not dependent on outside circumstances or the development of technology.

This new understanding of rights largely stems from a progressive viewpoint that believes human nature is fundamentally defined by human progress or evolution.  Progressives view man as ever evolving, ever improving towards some kind of perfection.  A constantly-changing human nature naturally lends itself to a constantly evolving definition of human rights.  But this view of rights loses its connection to a transcendent morality rooted in absolutes, and without absolutes the very concept of human dignity and justice is undermined.  Who knows what new rights we might gain or which rights some of us may lose in our constant “evolution”?  The progressive mentality opens the doors wide for abortion, euthanasia, human abuses, and a constant redefinition of human institutions.

Moreover, progressives ignore the flawed nature of man.  They put their trust in a flawed, destructive creature.  We need but look at human history to see the constant failings that flow so readily from self-centered mankind.  Men are not angels, and we must remember this fact if we are to preserve any sound conception of human dignity, duties, and rights.

Excerpt:

Even more troubling, animal-rights activists have succeeded in confusing the
public about the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. The
latter is a noble cause supported by the vast majority of Americans who want to
protect animals from cruelty, even though they do not consider animals their
moral equals — a caveat that runs counter to animal-rights ideology. Despite
this distinction, “animal rights” has “become the catchall term for virtually
any effort to protect animals,” Smith says, and the resulting confusion has
allowed the animal-rights movement to gain legitimacy it does not deserve.

That legitimacy threatens universal human rights, which are grounded in the
principle that all humans are equal simply because we are human. If we reject
that principle and argue that our rights are based on something other than our
shared human nature — that it is a creature’s apparent rationality or
self-awareness, for instance, that entitles it to rights — we can wind up
elevating the rights of chimps and pigs above those of profoundly disabled or
demented humans. Indeed, some animal-rights advocates have done just that.

You can ask anyone who knows me well and they will tell you that few things enrage me more than animal abuse.  I’d happily subject the cretins who run dog-fighting rings to the same barbaric treatment they impose on the victims of their amusement.  So, I was glad to see that Campbell took the opportunity to distinguish between those of us with an appreciation of our human duty of stewardship and those of us willing to kill our own kind in defense of a house fly or a silk worm.

Consumers in Illinois who lose their jobs and have no other option but to buy their own health insurance will get socked this year with premium increases of up to 60 percent, according to state records.

That group of consumers has been growing, as the recession has created more uninsured Americans looking for ways to protect themselves and their families.  Now, Illinois consumers will get a glimpse into just how wide-ranging rate increases among individual health plans can be.  The data, obtained by the Tribune, also provide a window into the overall trend of premium increases at large and small employers.

For the state’s more than half-million consumers in individual health plans, base rates will go up from 8.5 percent to more than 60 percent, according to state data.  Base rates do not take into consideration health status, gender, age, place of residence and length of a policy — all factors that could raise premiums further.

This is a major problem in the current health care system.  A move to individual choice and freedom will not work until the insurance industry finds a way to eliminate the wide disparity between individual and group policies.  I’ve recently had a lot of experience exploring individual and group plans.  The advantages of the latter are unbelievable.  Portability, coverage of preexisting conditions, maternity coverage, and reasonable rates are just a few of the many benefits of having a group plan (even if that group is as small as two people!).

Early in the 20th century, many insurance groups began as nonprofits.  They were essentially “safety nets” mixed with an element of charity.  The healthy paid the same (or similar) rates to the unhealthy.  They were all protected against catastrophe, and the healthy were willing to pay a bit more for the benefit of all.  Sadly, our hyper-individualistic society seems to have lost this idea completely. We’re all out for the cheapest possible cost to us – whether we’re the consumer or the insurance company.  Plus we now assume insurers will act as everyone’s safety net – not churches, families, charities, or local communities.  This puts the unhealthy in a terribly difficult position: It’s harder and more expensive to get insurance, but everyone assumes you have it, so good luck getting help if you have a medical catastrophe and don’t have insurance!

The old charity-oriented form of health insurance now only exists in the bastardized form of an employer group insurance plan, where the employer cuts a deal with an insurance company to get a set of basic rates to provide a broad range of coverage to his or her employees.

Can we get back to a private charity-oriented plan that increases freedom and individual ownership without leaving the unhealthy out in the cold?  I don’t know, but no one involved in the current debate seems to think much of this idea.

There is no excuse for my behavior; it was shameful, and I knew it.  I knew that I was better than that, and I knew that I would forever be known in that man’s mind as a rude, careless, jerk.  Whether I will ever see him again doesn’t matter.  I’ll always feel a twinge of regret and remorse when I think back to what I did knowing that my behavior on that night was not indicative of my true character.

Tracy Clark-Flory of Salon.com discusses “sexual shame” in her new column.  Noting the recent trend of self-proclaimed feminists publicly expressing shame and regret over their sexual promiscuity and embracing a more traditional view of love, courtship, and domesticity, she suggests that this is not a signal of a “backlash” against the hookup culture:

As I see it, young women have fully proved that we can have one-night stands, hear us roar — and maybe we’re beginning to also allow ourselves more nuanced feelings about our hookups. Like Klausner and Anderson, we can now acknowledge regret over a one-night stand, without being considered, or seeing ourselves as, forever ruined women; if there’s been a recent change in my generation’s relationship to casual sex, I suspect it’s that we’re relaxing our defensive posturing.

That Christina Aguilera has settled down doesn’t seem like an about-face to me, so much as the happy ending so many women expect to come from all their youthful flirtation, dating and hookups. And, despite all of Carrie Bradshaw’s sex in the city, it was never a secret that she wanted to ultimately find lasting love — that was kind of the whole point. Maybe instead of signaling a backlash, these are actually signs that we’re slowly inching toward a world where a woman isn’t either good or bad, a wife or whore, a virgin or slut. And maybe Gottlieb has been met with such intense anger because implicit in her argument is the suggestion that women’s sexuality and romantic life is an either-or equation.

As if we haven’t invented enough ways to embrace and promote moral ambiguity.  Don’t worry ladies, your post-coitus feelings of shame, regret, and emptiness are not nature’s (or, gasp, God’s) way of letting you know that you’ve dishonored your body and slandered your dignity.  No no, these feelings merely indicate that you are one step closer to total emancipation from artificially constructed gender-based sexual stereotypes.  You’ve already established that you can play the field like a man, now you are free to respond to the morning after guilt like a woman!  You should assert your right to promiscuity while demanding the option of claiming the security and comfort of matrimony at any time you choose.  In fact, it would seem that the former is a necessary prerequisite to the latter.  Would Big have ever married Carrie after all those years if Carrie had refrained from bedding dozens of men (and breaking at least one heart) in the interim?  Could Christina Aguilera truly appreciate the blessings of wife-and-motherhood if she’d not first explored her “naughty” side?

Generally, when you express regret, shame, or guilt, it means you know you did something you shouldn’t have, and wish you could take it back.  Why anyone would twist this into a positive sign of women’s arrival at true sexual liberation is perplexing.

And Heaven-forbid that a man might actually choose to reject the Christina Aguileras and the Carrie Bradshaws of this world in favor of the Taylor Swifts.  Only a total chauvinist would prefer a virgin to a whore.

As Mitt Romney sets out this week to promote his new book, “No Apology,’’ he is also auditioning for a rapidly disappearing role in American politics: a politician who is speaking out against the “temptations of populism.’’

“The populism I’m referring to is, if you will, demonizing certain members of society: going after businesspeople, going after Wall Street, going after people who are highly educated, people who are CEOs,’’ Romney said in an interview. “That kind of ‘All of our problems are due to that group’ is something that is unproductive.’’

This brings up two questions in my mind: First, is this strong anti-populism a good thing?  I’m generally suspicious of populism, especially when it springs forth as a rapid political movement rooted in passion.  That said, I don’t think all forms of populism are inherently wrong.  I also agree that demonizing people groups is wrong, but substantive criticism is sometimes mislabeled as “demonizing” by people who don’t want to deal with that criticism.

Second, will this work for Romney?  He’s essentially criticizing the populism that elected Barack Obama and shunning the populism of the Tea Party movement.  He is obviously betting all of his chips that the voices of those groups are much louder than their numbers merit.  He is relying on a “silent majority” of centrist party-line voters who are put off by the current political debates.  I’m not sure he can win this way.

John Albert Gardner III, 30, was scheduled to be arraigned Wednesday in San Diego.

The Lake Elsinore man pleaded guilty in May 2000 to molesting a 13-year-old female neighbor and served five years of a six-year prison term. . . .  Gardner “never expressed one scintilla of remorse for his attack upon the victim” despite overwhelming evidence, prosecutors wrote in a sentencing memo.  He had faced a maximum of nearly 11 years in prison under terms of a plea agreement but prosecutors urged six years.  A psychiatrist who interviewed Gardner, Dr. Matthew Carroll, wanted a stiffer punishment, saying in court documents that he was a “continued danger to underage girls in the community.”

What is wrong with this picture?  What is wrong with our justice system that we allow these monsters to go free?  It seems to me that there are some crimes that are so reprehensible, so heinous and depraved, that the possibility of repeat offenses cannot be allowed.  The “rehabilitation” of a criminal must be weighed against the threat to society if that person were to re-offend.  That being said, a pedophile’s “right” to serve their time and walk free has to be considered in the broader context of the threat they pose to innocent children.  Our judges think they are so enlightened with their pained, nuanced application of the law, when sometimes all you need is plain common sense to see that a sick, monstrous abuser of innocents has a much higher burden of proof to regain his freedom.  Our judges and lawyers get so caught up in their own egos that they forget who they are there to serve and protect.  They are meant to apply the law to help maintain an ordered liberty in society, in which case the rights of innocents to go about their lives free from the risk of sexual abuse and murder trumps the rights of a sex offender to have a second chance.

I realize that in our vanity we have decided that no one is incapable of being “rehabilitated” if we can just apply the right system of therapy or the right psychological theory, but sometimes a human soul is so twisted that they only salvation they can hope for must come from seeking God’s forgiveness and accepting the atoning work of Jesus Christ. . . This is the kind of “rehabilitation” that can easily be achieved from the confines of a jail cell.