In the year 1215, England instituted the Magna Carta, and thus began the process which would eventually lead to the rule of constitutional law in most developed countries.  Magna Carta was perhaps the single most important influence on the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Unfortunately, that great tradition is in danger in the very nation that gave it birth.

In Chuck Colson's radio address yesterday, he explained what is happening:

        In London last month, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on 
        Human Rights recommended regulations that would make it 
        illegal for private, religious schools to teach that homosexual 
        conduct is immoral. The committee claimed the regulations 
        are needed to combat discrimination against homosexuals. . . . 

        The committee explicitly said that no exemption should be made 
        for Christian schools.

Well, you might be thinking, it's one thing for a committee to make such a recommendation.  Surely the whole Parliament would not be foolish enough to pass regulations like these.  If that's what you were thinking, you'd be wrong.  Tony Blair's administration is apparently determined to pass them, preferably with no debate in either house.

        Last Thursday, a House of Commons committee met to decide 
        on the Sexual Orientation Regulations. Many MPs protested the 
        Blair government’s refusal to allow a full debate in the House of 
        Commons. And despite repeated appeals for a postponement, 
        the chairperson insisted on taking an immediate vote: The 
        regulations were upheld.

        Now, the Blair government is attempting to rush the law through 
        both houses of Parliament before opponents have time to organize.

The vote was to be held today.  I have not yet heard the results, but Colson believed it would take a miracle to prevent this law from passing.  And if rights as basic as freedom of speech and freedom of religion can be so restricted in the United Kingdom, where they originated, we must be even more vigilant here, lest the same thing happen to us.

In an article on WashingtonPost.com today, William Branigan highlights Harry Reid's binding resolution to set a date for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.  Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans today brought that resolution down to a humiliating defeat in which the resolution didn't even win a majority - in spite of the fact that it had 41 other cosponsors including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

After the vote on Reid's resolution, the Senate took up two other bills that were probably good ones:

        After defeating the resolution, which was introduced by Senate 
        Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), senators overwhelmingly 
        passed a nonbinding resolution sponsored by Sen. Patty Murray 
        (D-Wash.) that calls for ensuring the safety of U.S. troops by pro-
        viding the necessary funding, training and equipment. It also states 
        an obligation to ensure medical care for returning troops and veterans.

        The resolution passed 96 to 2. Two Republican senators, Bob Corker 
        (Tenn.) and Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), voted against it.

        The Senate then took up a nonbinding resolution sponsored by Sen. 
        Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) that prohibits cuts in funding for U.S. troops in the 
        field. It was approved82-16.

        Murray said of her resolution, "We want to make sure we go on 
        record that we support our troops from the time they go to battle 
        until the time they come home." She added in a floor speech, "Support 
        of our troops extends far beyond their mission in the field" and should 
        continue when service members wounded in the wars in Iraq and 
        Afghanistan go to Walter Reed Army Medical Center and other facilities.

        Gregg said his resolution bars Congress from taking "any action that 
        will endanger United States military forces in the field," including the 
        elimination or reduction of funds for those troops.

In light of the current situation in the Congress of the United States, it seems to me a positive development that we are committing to care for our military, and not to cut off funding for them in midstream.

Hugh Hewitt quoted from Mitch McConnell's statement on the Townhall.com blog this evening.  There's much more there - it's well worth reading this post from beginning to end - but here's a sample.

        Today, Senate Republicans will agree to move to a debate on 
        an important question, and that question is this: Should a majority 
        of Senators direct the activity of the War in Iraq?

        Republicans are eager to engage in this debate on the Reid 
        Resolution because it’s different in kind from any previous 
        Democratic proposal.

        It is unprecedented in the powers it would arrogate to the Congress 
        in a time of war; it is a clear statement of retreat from the support that 
        the Senate only recently gave to General David Petraeus; and its 
        passage would be absolutely fatal to our mission in Iraq.  Previous 
        resolutions proposed by the Democrats were a mere statement of 
        opinion, or sentiment. This one has a binding quality. It would interfere 
        with the President and General Petraeus’ operational authority to conduct 
        the war in Iraq as he and his commanders see fit. It would substitute for 
        their judgment the judgment of 535 members of Congress.

        And the judgment they’ve made is this: That Iraq is a distraction in 
        the Global War on terror, and that U.S. troops should begin to withdraw 
        in four months, with all combat forces leaving within a year. That’s the 
        judgment that the Reid proposal makes.

        Setting a date certain for withdrawal will send a chill up the spine of 
        every Iraqi who has dared to stand with America. Millions of good men 
        and women have helped us in this fight. Since we arrived in Iraq, nearly 
        120,000 Iraqis have volunteered to serve in their army. More than 8,000 
        Iraqis have died in uniform to defend the fledgling Democracy over there. 
        And recently, in Anbar province, we’re told that roughly 1,000 Sunnis 
        volunteered for the police force over a period of a couple weeks.

        These brave men and women, Mr. President, are watching what we do 
        here: They know, as we do, that chaos will engulf Iraq and the rest of the 
        region on that day. They know they and their families will likely face a 
        firing squad soon after we leave. And the message we send them with 
        this resolution is this: good luck.

This is only a little of Senator McConnell's statement - in the interests of space I've left out some of the best parts.  Do take the time to read the whole thing.  Suffice it to say, if we'd had more Republicans willing to come out and speak in language this plain, the Democrats would not be in the position of directing debates like these.  Hopefully more conservatives will come forward and take Senator McConnell as their example, and the Democrats' run in the Congress will be short-lived.  In the meantime, the Senator has taken an important leadership role; I hope he continues to show this kind of courage.

From the AP:

        Bomb deaths have gone down 30 percent in Baghdad 
        since the U.S.-led security crackdown began a month ago. 
        Execution-style slayings are down by nearly half.  The once 
        frequent sound of weapons has been reduced to episodic, 
        and downtown shoppers have returned to outdoor markets — 
        favored targets of car bombers. (HT:  The Corner)

And reading on into the article, we discover more good news:

        Gone are the "illegal checkpoints," where Shiite 
        and Sunni gunmen stopped cars and hauled away 
        members of the rival sect — often to a gruesome 
        torture and death.  The rattle of automatic weapons 
        fire or the rumble of distant roadside bombs comes 
        less frequently. Traffic is beginning to return to the 
        city's once vacant streets . . . .

        In the months before the security operation began 
        Feb. 14, police were finding dozens of bodies each 
        day in the capital — victims of Sunni and Shiite death 
        squads. Last December, more than 200 bodies were 
        found each week — with the figure spiking above 300 
        in some weeks, according to police reports compiled 
        by The Associated Press.

        Since the crackdown began, weekly totals have 
        dropped to about 80 — hardly an acceptable figure but 
        clearly a sign that death squads are no longer as active 
        as they were in the final months of last year.

        Bombings too have decreased in the city, presumably 
        due to U.S. and Iraqi success in finding weapons 
        caches and to more government checkpoints in the 
        streets that make it tougher to deliver the bombs.

        In the 27 days leading up to the operation, 528 people 
        were killed in bombings around the capital, according to 
        AP figures. In the first 27 days of the operation, the 
        bombing death toll stood at 370 — a drop of about 30 
        percent.

This is indeed a significant step forward.  It would seem that so far the "surge" has been successful.  And though in the last few weeks I've been less able to follow the news than I normally do, it has been very obvious that the body count in the headlines has decreased dramatically.

The best news, though, is buried in the middle of the article, and disguised to make it look like bad news.  Take a look at this:

        U.S. military officials, burned before by overly optimistic 
        forecasts, have been cautious about declaring the operation 
        a success. Another reason it seems premature: only two of 
        the five U.S. brigades earmarked for the mission are in the 
        streets, and the full complement of American reinforcements 
        is not due until late May.

Did you get that?!  Three-fifths of the soldiers involved in the "surge" haven't even gotten there yet!  Now, if our soldiers can only manage to eliminate the death squads and to equip the Iraqis to defend themselves, that will be really good news.  Nobody wants our young men and women to be there indefinitely; if this mission is successful, maybe they won't have to be.

Declaring the mission a success when less than half its soldiers have even arrived is definitely a bit premature.  But we can definitely celebrate the progress that has been made over the past few weeks, and the good news that progress means for both the Iraqi people and our military men and women.

 At his blog, "The Buck Stops Here," Stuart Buck highlights an interesting article from psychology professor Richard G. Medlin's article, "Home Schooling and the Question of Socialization," Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 75 (2000): 107-23.

        Shyers (1992a, 1992b), in the most thorough study of home-
        schooled children's social behavior to date, tested 70 children 
        who had been entirely home-schooled and 70 children who 
        had always attended traditional schools. The two groups were 
        matched in age (all were 8-10 years old), race, gender, family size, 
        socioeconomic status, and number and frequency of extra-
        curricular activities. Shyers measured self-concept and assertive-
        ness and found no significant differences between the two groups. 

        The most intriguing part of the study, however, involved observing 
        the children as they played and worked together. Small groups 
        of children who all had the same school background were 
        videotaped while playing in a large room equipped with toys 
        such as puzzles, puppets, and dolls. The children were then 
        videotaped again in a structured activity: working in teams putting 
        puzzles together for prizes.

        Each child's behavior was rated by two observers who did not 
        know whether the children they were rating were home-schooled 
        or traditionally schooled. The observers used the Direct Observation 
        Form of the Child Behavior Checklist . . . , a checklist of 97 problem 
        behaviors such as argues, brags or boasts, doesn't pay attention 
        long, cries, disturbs other children, isolates self from others, shy or 
        timimd, and shows off. The results were striking -- the mean 
        problem behavior score for children attending conventional 
        schools was more than eight times higher than that of the home-
        schooled group. Shyers (1992a) described the traditionally schooled 
        children as "aggressive, loud, and competitive" (p. 6). In contrast, 
        the home-schooled children acted in friendly, positive ways.


In recent years, as my older daughter has begun developing into a young lady, I've become more and more convinced that homeschoolers are in fact, as this study suggests, much better socialized than public schooled students.  It stands to reason that children who are constantly exposed to mature, adult interactions, and who spend most of their social time interacting with people of all different ages, are going to be more mature and better developed socially than those whose social experience is limited almost exclusively to the immaturity of their peers.  It is encouraging, though, to find professional research supporting that fact (though it's unfortunate that it has taken so long to come to the attention of the homeschooling community - note the study was done in 1992!).

A couple of days ago on his radio program, Breakpoint, Chuck Colson gave a candid assessment of the ultimate result of China's one-child policy.  For years China has been praised for limiting its population growth, as it has vigorously enforced a policy of one child per family.  Women who became pregnant with a second child have often been forced to have an abortion; those who continually refused to comply were often forced to use contraception; and families with more than one child were shamed and penalized.  In Western countries, many liberals have suggested this would be a good policy for America and other nations.

Colson's broadcast the other day demonstrates the kind of problems that can result when countries implement this kind of policy without regard for consequences.

        According to its Academy of Social Sciences, China “suffers from 
        the world’s most severe brain drain.” Approximately two-thirds of 
        the Chinese who have studied abroad in the past two decades 
        did not return home.

        The BBC offered many possible explanations for this drain: the 
        lack of opportunities at home; a lack of freedom, especially after 
        Tiananmen Square, and a preference for the Western “lifestyle.”

        One factor that was not mentioned but should have been was a 
        concern about spending the rest of your life alone.

        According to China’s State Population and Family Planning 
        Commission, “by 2020 some 30 million Chinese men will not 
        be able to find wives.” If these thirty million men were a country, 
        they would be one of the forty most-populous countries in the world.

        This inability to find wives, in the commission’s words, “may lead 
        to social instability.” I guess it will. According to Constance Kong, 
        a consultant in Shanghai, “given that understatement is a charac-
        teristic of the Chinese Government when it discusses national 
        problems, this means that it is [really] alarmed.”

        The government has only itself to blame. The looming imbalance 
        between men and women of marriageable age is the completely 
        foreseeable result of China’s “one-child” policy. Limited to one 
        child in “a country where daughters are unwanted,” many Chinese 
        families, especially in rural areas, made sure—even by infanticide—
        that the one child born was a boy.

        As a result, in parts of China, there are 130 males for every 100 females. 
        Government attempts to end sex selection, such as prohibiting 
        doctors from revealing the sex of unborn children, have failed: 
        Families regularly bribe doctors.

Colson goes on to discuss some results of this shortage of women: 

1)  Young women in other parts of Asia are being kidnapped to become wives to these young men;
2)  A lack of the stabilizing influence of marriage and family on young men;
3)  The world's fastest-aging population, as young workers fail to replace older ones; and
4)  An increasing reluctance on the part of foreign investors to consider China a worthwhile long-term
      investment.

These are serious consequences, foreseeable given the climate in China over recent decades, but apparently never actually foreseen.  It will be interesting - and hopefully instructive to those of us in the West - to watch what ends up happening there.

On Chuck Colson's Breakpoint address today, he has a wonderful, amazing, touching story illustrating the difference between Islamic fundamentalists and our American soldiers.  There are many Americans these days who would apparently like to believe there is little or no difference between "us and them."  They claim the Islamic radicals - especially Iraqi and Afghan insurgents - simply want to have their country back.  But take a look at these examples Colson gives:

            In Baghdad yesterday, a terrorist blew himself up with a car 
            bomb, killing at least twenty-eight people and wounding dozens 
            more. One witness told the Associated Press that pieces of 
            human flesh were scattered all around the marketplace.

            In Afghanistan last month, another terrorist blew himself up 
            near a crowd gathered for a ceremony to open a hospital emer-
            gency ward. A few days later, a Sunni Muslim blew herself up 
            and forty others at a college in Baghdad.

            In all three cases, Muslims blew up Muslims. The response of 
            Europe and the Muslim world to the stories of death? Outrage? 
            No. Silence. Did the Western press condemn them? No.

            Last week, another story was told on NBC News—this time, a 
            riveting story of life.

            NBC has been running a gripping series on the emergency 
            military triage facilities in Iraq. Last Thursday, NBC showed 
            wounded Iraqi insurgents being brought to Camp Speicher 
            near Tikrit. Two of them had been caught placing an explosive 
            device on a nearby road, intending to kill Americans, when a 
            U.S. helicopter opened fire on them.

            The U.S. medical team moved heaven and earth to save their 
            lives. One insurgent, however, was not going to survive unless 
            he got thirty pints of blood.

            But the base was low on blood. The call went out for volunteer 
            donors; minutes later, dozens of G.I.s had lined up.

            At the head of the line was a battle-hardened soldier named 
            Brian Suam. Asked if it mattered that his blood was going to an 
            insurgent, he smiled and said, no—“A human life is a human life.”

            I have never seen a more dramatic example of worldviews in 
            contrast, nor have I been prouder of an American G.I. On one 
            hand, we have the horrors of a civilization that values death—even 
            the death of its own children—if by killing them they can hurt the 
            infidels. On the other side, we have a story that makes us realize 
            just how deeply embedded within American life is our Judeo-
            Christian heritage. This heritage teaches that human life is 
            sacred—even the life of an enemy who falls into our hands.

These American soldiers are heroes in every sense of the word.  They willingly lay down their own lives to protect, not just us here at home, but innocent Iraqi people.  And when one of the enemy is wounded trying to kill them, they do all they can to help that enemy survive.  All they are after is the safety and security of our people here at home and of fledgling democracies around the world.  These soldiers understand what's really at stake.  They know exactly what they're fighting for.  And those here at home who want us out of Iraq for their own political benefit - the ones who call these heroic men and women "children" - ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Because homeschooling removes dollars from the public education system, education officials are constantly on the lookout for new ways to force homeschoolers back into the system.  Now it would seem they've hit on a new tactic - one they have sold to at least one judge.  It's not uncommon for homeschooling parents to be accused of "educational neglect," but this argument surpasses most in terms of sheer boldness. 

Consent of the Governed has a post up today on the new accusation of "enmeshment."  It's well worth the read, but here's the gist of the argument:

            Proving that parents who instruct at home are not “neglectful” 
            may be an inconvenience, but has been relatively easy to do. 
            The very fact that we care for, nurture, educate and engage 
            ourselves with our children is proof that we are not neglecting 
            them. Right?

            Wrong.

            Now, a new threat looms on the horizon. It is a threat because 
            it will attempt to prove that a parent is neglectful when they 
            homeschool their children. 

            Black’s Law Dictionary defines “neglect” as “to omit, fail, or 
            forbear to do a thing that can be done, or that is required to 
            be done…”

            Webster’s Dictionary defines “enmesh” as “to entangle in…”

            The term “enmeshment” has found its way into psychological 
            and sociological literature. While it is not yet a recognized 
            “diagnosis”, it has gained apparent widespread popularity 
            among the psychological and sociological community, particularly 
            among those who are intimately involved with governmental 
            agencies in determining whether or not children are “neglected.”

            Unfortunately, the term “enmeshment” has been used, 
            astonishingly enough, to find parents guilty of “emotional neglect”, 
            as one judge put it, because “there is a fine line between 
            protection and overreaction.” In that case, the parent was 
            found to be “emotionally neglectful” due to “enmeshment” for 
            “fostering in her child a feeling of mistrust toward school 
            officials and teachers.” In one judicial case, the parent simply 
            wanted the school officials and teachers to follow the 
            instructions of the child’s physician to administer medication 
            immediately to the child in the event of an allergic reaction. The 
            psychologist who found that the parent and child were “enmeshed” 
            did so by concluding that the child is “strongly aligned 
            emotionally and intellectually with his mother, dependent 
            upon her to a very significant degree, and relying on her views 
            and actions to protect him and to keep him alive.” One would 
            think that this would be considered to be the ultimate duty of 
            a parent, the duty to protect and to keep the child alive. The court, 
            however, found the parent and child to be “significantly enmeshed”
            such that the parent was deemed “emotionally neglectful” of the 
            child.

            In essence, for a parent to be aligned emotionally and 
            intellectually with a child for the purpose of protecting the child 
            constituted “neglect”. 

            This is fundamentally an oxymoron, to say the least. 
            “Enmeshment” would appear to be the opposite of “neglect”, 
            yet, it has proven to be the basis for a court finding of neglect!

            If a parent cannot disprove neglect by protection and care, how 
            can a parent disprove neglect?

As the wife of a social worker, I understand the concept of "enmeshment" pretty well.  True enmeshment exists when an adult child is unable to separate from the parent.  The parent pulls the apron strings, and the child does whatever the parent wants done.  Adult children in enmeshed homes are unable to make decisions for themselves, and do in fact find themselves "dependent upon (the parent) to a very significant degree, and relying on (the parent's) views and actions to protect him and to keep him alive."  Enmeshment often occurs in drug- and alcohol-related situations, when the adult child facilitates the addiction, lying for the parent, getting prescriptions for pain medication and giving them to the parent, giving the parent money to buy drugs or alcohol, and so on.  Clearly this is dysfunctional, and a parent raising a child this way might be considered abusive.

There's a clear distinction, though, between an enmeshed adult child and a school-aged child.  It is both normal and healthy for a young child to be “strongly aligned emotionally and intellectually with his mother, dependent upon her to a very significant degree, and relying on her views and actions to protect him and to keep him alive.”  This is particularly true in the case of a child with a severe allergy, who really does depend on his parent to keep him alive.  And if a mother in that situation feels the school is not taking the problem seriously, one would expect her to communicate that concern to her child.  That is NOT neglect!  In fact, that is precisely the kind of care and concern a parent SHOULD have for their child.

It really is disturbing to find school and court authorities collaborating to make the life of this family more difficult than it already is.  One can only hope that this decision will be appealed and overturned.  As for the rest of us, caution is warranted - "enmeshment" is apparently a new argument school officials will be trying in order to get our kids back under their control.

Up to this point I've sort of stayed out of the whole controversy about James Cameron's "discovery" of what he claims is the tomb of Jesus.  For one thing, it seems rather foolish to engage someone whose single claim to fame is that he made a really good movie, when he decides he wants to be an expert on archaeology.  I also assumed more information would come to light over the course of a few days or weeks that would shed light on his claim.

Sure enough, yesterday Chuck Colson dedicated his radio program, "Breakpoint," to the subject of this discovery and the documentary Cameron will soon be releasing.  In less than five minutes, Colson completely demolished any credibility Cameron retained in my mind.

            The ossuary is inscribed “Joshua, son of Joseph”—names that are 
            not exactly rare among first-century Jewish males. So Cameron also 
            points out the nearby ossuaries bearing names of people associated 
            with Jesus—most importantly, “Mary,” as in “Magdalene.”

            Actually, it doesn’t say “Mary” but “Mariamne,” which—according to 
            some people—was what other people called the Magdalene. This is good 
            enough for Cameron, who considers it natural that Jesus would be 
            buried alongside his so-called “wife.”

            See what I mean about The Da Vinci Code? If you do, you are not alone. 
            Archaeologist Amos Kloner, who “did extensive work and research on this 
            very tomb and its ossuaries” ten years ago, said “it’s a beautiful story but 
            without any proof whatsoever . . . ” Lawrence Steigler of Harvard told National 
            Public Radio that Cameron’s claim “sounds rather preposterous.”

            When even Harvard and NPR call your bit of revisionism “preposterous,” 
            you know that you are way out on a limb.

The Washington Post on Wednesday also published an article debunking the whole story, using as sources almost exclusively secular archaeologists and Israeli historians.  The Post claims that this is basically a non-story, and that historians have already considered the possibility and rejected it.

            "I'm not a Christian. I'm not a believer. I don't have a dog in this fight," 
            said William G. Dever, who has been excavating ancient sites in Israel 
            for 50 years and is widely considered the dean of biblical archaeology 
            among U.S. scholars. "I just think it's a shame the way this story is being 
            hyped and manipulated."

            Dever, a retired professor of archaeology at the University of Arizona, 
            said that some of the inscriptions on the Talpiyot ossuaries are unclear, 
            but that all of the names are common.

            "I've know about these ossuaries for many years and so have many 
            other archaeologists, and none of us thought it was much of a story, 
            because these are rather common Jewish names from that period," he 
            said. "It's a publicity stunt, and it will make these guys very rich, and it will 
            upset millions of innocent people because they don't know enough to 
            separate fact from fiction."

The Post also quotes Jodi Magness, an archaeologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, whose criticisms are insightful and particularly devastating.  She brings up, along with other arguments, an issue that seemed very significant to me - that Jesus' family was clearly poor, especially after his father Joseph's death, traditionally believed to have been when Jesus was still a teenager.  In the first century, a widow whose oldest son was only in his teens would certainly have been very poor, and it's unlikely that Joseph would have been buried in a wealthy person's tomb in Judea.

            By going directly to the media, she said, the filmmakers "have set it 
            up as if it's a legitimate academic debate, when the vast majority of 
            scholars who specialize in archaeology of this period have flatly 
            rejected this," she said.

            Magness noted that at the time of Jesus, wealthy families buried 
            their dead in tombs cut by hand from solid rock, putting the bones in 
            niches in the walls and then, later, transferring them to ossuaries.

            She said Jesus came from a poor family that, like most Jews of 
            the time, probably buried their dead in ordinary graves. "If Jesus' 
            family had been wealthy enough to afford a rock-cut tomb, it would 
            have been in Nazareth, not Jerusalem," she said.

            Magness also said the names on the Talpiyot ossuaries indicate 
            that the tomb belonged to a family from Judea, the area around 
            Jerusalem, where people were known by their first name and father's 
            name. As Galileans, Jesus and his family members would have 
            used their first name and home town, she said.

            "This whole case [for the tomb of Jesus] is flawed from beginning 
            to end," she said.

Colson goes on to point out that according to tradition, 11 of the 12 apostles gave their lives maintaining the truth of the resurrection of Jesus.  That's a lot of people willing to face brutal deaths for something that, if Cameron's arguments are true, they knew to be a lie!  As Colson, who went to jail over Watergate, testifies:

            I know a thing or two about cover-ups and conspiracies: No conspirator 
            willingly dies for what he knows to be untrue—or, in the case of Watergate, 
            even go to jail. The closest men around the president of the United States 
            testified against him to save their own skins. You’re going to tell me the 
            Apostles maintained their story at the cost of their lives? Impossible.

It would seem James Cameron had only one agenda in making this "documentary":  to somehow convince people that Jesus didn't really rise from the dead, but instead that his bones were simply moved to "his family tomb."  But back in 1930, author Frank Morison tried to write an honest book proving the story of the Resurrection was only a myth.  Instead, the book he wrote, Who Moved the Stone?, ended up providing very strong support to the truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  As Morison wrestled with the historical accounts, he discovered the story almost HAD to be true.  Cameron, and other skeptics, would do well to take a lesson from Morison's honest examination of the evidence.

The blog for MarriageDebate.com has a post today about an interesting - and a bit disturbing - ruling last week by a trial court in New Jersey.  The case involved a divorced couple with seven children, all of whom lived with the mother and had been homeschooled.  Apparently the father had originally consented to the homeschooling, but has since changed his mind.  The court eventually decided not to rule on the father's request; however, in the process, the court issued a very unusual ruling.

According to the MarriageDebate.com blog:

            The court first orders that the children be tested for the 
            grades they would be in if they were in public school 
            (this portion of the opinion is very confusing since it is 
            not separated from a discussion of an earlier case). 
            The court then opines at length about the perfidy of the 
            school district allowing the children to be home schooled 
            without state intervention. Noting that the school district 
            had not sent officials to the home to check on the children’s 
            progress, the judge said: “This is shocking to the court.” 
            The court characterized the children as being “left unsupervised” 
            solely because of the lack of state intervention. (I suspect 
            children who are at home with their mother would not describe 
            themselves as “unsupervised.”) The judge also found it shocking 
            that the state Department of Education allows parents to home 
            school without state intervention.

            The court expresses the opinion that home schooling is fine if 
            parents who home school are required to (1) register with the 
            school district, (2) file curriculum with the local district and be 
            involved in a “training seminar” (with strange specificity, the court 
            says “a four hour video would suffice”) and (3) have their children 
            tested annually.

Apparently this judge does not realize that he is not the one responsible for making law.  The laws of the state of New Jersey allow families maximum leeway when it comes to homeschooling.  The state Department of Education, as part of the executive branch, is only responsible for enforcing the laws passed by the legislature, based on their reading of those laws and previous court interpretations of the law.  The Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) spells out New Jersey's laws:

            Home School Statute: None.

            Alternative Statute Allowing for Home Schools: N.J. 
                    Stat. Ann. § 18A:38-25.

            To home school, parents must meet the following requirements: 

            1. The child must attend a public school "or a day school in which there 
                        is given instruction equivalent to that provided in the public schools 
                        for children of similar grades … or receive equivalent instruction elsewhere 
                        than at school." Home schooling is generally allowed under the "elsewhere 
                        than at school" portion of the statute.

            2. Based on State v. Massa, 95 N.J. Super. 382, 231 A.2d 252 (Morris County 
                        Ct. Law Div. 1967):

                a. If legal action is initiated, parents must carry the burden of providing 
                            the local superintendent with evidence that the child is in fact receiving 
                            equivalent instruction. 

                     b. Then the burden shifts to the state to show that there is a lack of 
                            equivalency in the particular home school. The court in Massa 
                            stated that the state must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that 
                            the parents failed to provide their child with equivalent education. 
                            231 A.2d at 257.

                c.  Note: The Massa case interpreted "equivalent" as requiring only a 
                            showing of academic equivalency, not equivalency of social develop-
                            ment derived from group education. Massa, 231 A.2d at 257.

                d. In Massa, the court held: "This court agrees with the above decisions 
                            that the number of students does not determine a school and further, 
                            that a certain number of students need not be present to attain an equi-
                            valent education." Massa at 256. The court reiterated Commonwealth v. 
                            Roberts, 34 NE 402 (1893) by emphasizing that the object of the statute 
                            is that "all children shall be educated, not that they shall be educated in a 
                            particular way." Id.

            3. It is clear from the New Jersey courts that "parents have a constitutional right 
                        to choose the type and character of education they feel is best suited for their 
                        children, be it secular or sectarian." West Morris Board of Education v. Sills, 
                        110 N.J. Super. 234, 265 A.2d 162 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1970).


Based on the laws of New Jersey, the state Department of Education has formulated certain regulations.  But those regulations don't allow the Department of Education (or individual school districts) to simply ignore the way the laws are written.  Instead, the regulations provide an interpretation of the laws as they are written.  Homeschooling parents can't be required to register with the district, or to submit their curriculum, or to test their children (whether annually, bi-annually, or under any other terms) unless the law requires it.  The decision in Commonwealth v. Roberts, 34 NE 402 (1893) that the object of the statute is that "all children shall be educated, not that they shall be educated in a particular way" prevents exactly the type of micromanaging that this judge is advocating.

It is quite disturbing that the judge feels he somehow has the right to create his own law, in spite of the New Jersey legislature's wording of the law, the Department of Education's clearly stated regulations, and previous court rulings in support of those regulations.  The only explanation I can come up with is that, as far too many judges these days, this judge thinks his opinion supercedes the laws. 

Not only does this judge apparently believe he can re-write existing law, he makes it his business to tell the father how to make the mother's life even more miserable.

            Since it is not ruling on the father’s request, the court gives 
            him suggestions to accomplish his aim. First, the court says 
            he can take the children’s test scores to the local Board of 
            Education so they will sue the mother for the children’s 
            non-attendance. If this does not satisfy the father he can file 
            a complaint of “educational neglect” against his wife with the 
            state Division of Youth and Family Services.

First he requires the mother to have seven children tested, no small accomplishment in itself in terms of practicalities as well as expense.  Then he tells the father to file a complaint with DYFS, meaning she will be dealing for months with intrusive social workers who will automatically assume she is trying to harm her children.  And the odds are that once she provides evidence (even if it's pretty sketchy) that the children "are receiving equivalent instruction," the state will be unable to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that they aren't. 

It would seem that in spite of New Jersey's relatively low regulation of homeschoolers, this judge believes his opinion supercedes all written laws, Department of Education rules, and previous court opinions.  He is determined to re-write New Jersey's existing laws in order to increase regulation on homeschooling, apparently solely for the purpose of ensuring that homeschoolers provide the particular kind of education he thinks they should.  Hopefully HSLDA and other organizations that care about liberty will fight this ruling in order to discourage this kind of activist judging and to preserve the freedoms of homeschoolers everywhere.

Unfortunately for Al Gore - and in spite of his wins the other night at the Academy Awards - the truth is much less convenient (for him) than he'd like us to think.  Patrick J. Michaels, in his National Review column of Friday titled Inconvenient Truths, makes it clear that the science behind Gore's film is questionable at best, and maybe downright dishonest.

The film asserts that scientists believe global warming will cause most of the Greenland ice shelf to melt, raising sea levels by more than 20 feet.  However, research simply does not support that claim.  According to Michaels,

            Under the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 
            medium-range emission scenario for greenhouse gases, a rise 
            in sea level of between 8 and 17 inches is predicted by 2100. 
            Gore’s film exaggerates the rise by about 2,000 percent.

            Even 17 inches is likely to be high, because it assumes that the 
            concentration of methane, an important greenhouse gas, is 
            growing rapidly. Atmospheric methane concentration hasn’t 
            changed appreciably for seven years, and Nobel Laureate 
            Sherwood Rowland recently pronounced the IPCC’s methane 
            emissions scenarios as “quite unlikely.”

Not only does Gore exaggerate dramatically the rise in sea level, he also ignores the data about the melting of the Greenland ice shelf.  Michaels again:

            According to satellite data published in Science in November 
            2005, Greenland was losing about 25 cubic miles of ice per 
            year. Dividing that by 630,000 yields the annual percentage 
            of ice loss, which, when multiplied by 100, shows that Green-
            land was shedding ice at 0.4 percent per century.

            “Was” is the operative word. In early February, Science 
            published another paper showing that the recent acceleration 
            of Greenland’s ice loss from its huge glaciers has suddenly 
            reversed.

Obviously we can't hold Gore responsible for not knowing about research that was only released in early February.  But he ought to be aware of information released in November 2005 in a magazine as easily available as Science.  And .4 percent per century is not going to increase our sea levels by anywhere near 20 feet!

Michaels goes on to show the shoddy research that went into the drastic claims Gore apparently believes.

            Nowhere in the traditionally refereed scientific literature do 
            we find any support for Gore’s hypothesis. Instead, there’s 
            an unrefereed editorial by NASA climate firebrand James E. 
            Hansen, in the journal Climate Change — edited by Steven 
            Schneider, of Stanford University, who said in 1989 that 
            scientists had to choose “the right balance between being 
            effective and honest” about global warming — and a paper in 
            the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that was 
            only reviewed by one person, chosen by the author, again Dr. 
            Hansen.

In the end, Michaels make this statement:

            It would be nice if my colleagues would actually level with 
            politicians about various “solutions” for climate change. The 
            Kyoto Protocol, if fulfilled by every signatory, would reduce global 
            warming by 0.07 degrees Celsius per half-century. That’s too 
            small to measure, because the earth’s temperature varies by 
            more than that from year to year.

So in spite of the honors Al Gore captured from his colleagues in filmmaking, the facts remain.  The research simply does not support anything similar to his claims.  In fact, in creating his documentary, it would seem Mr. Gore deliberately chose the most dramatic statistics possible in order to scare the largest number of people.  Unfortunately for him, that choice has made his film seem like science fiction rather than real science.

There's good news this week in the area of religious freedom.  According to this Forbes article, the Attorney General announced yesterday that the Justice Department is beginning a program to protect people against religious discrimination.

            The First Freedom Project would increase education about 
            religious discrimination by holding a series of training seminars 
            throughout the country over coming months, Gonzales told 
            leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention.

            Gonzales said he also plans to create a Religious Freedom 
            Task Force, which will review policies and religious discrimination 
            cases. He said he doesn't know how much the program will cost.

Religious freedom in America has long been under attack, especially in business and educational organizations.  Teachers and students are often silenced by their school administrations, and those who refuse to comply may be suspended or fired.  Under the Bush Administration, the Justice Department has been actively involved in looking into religious discrimination cases, but more continues to be needed.

            Gonzales said a new report shows that the Justice 
            Department has looked into more religious discrimination 
            cases under the Bush administration. For example, he 
            said cases of religious discrimination in education increased 
            from one case reviewed and no investigations to 82 cases 
            reviewed and 40 investigations.

            The report on Enforcement of Laws Protecting Religious 
            Freedom highlights the number of religious discrimination 
            cases reviewed or investigated by the Justice Department for 
            fiscal years 2001-06 compared to 1995-2000. It details 
            religious discrimination cases involving employment, housing, 
            credit, public accommodations, public facilities and other areas.

            In the period studied, housing- and credit-related cases grew 
            from four investigations and one lawsuit to 18 investigations 
            and six lawsuits while religion-related appellate friend-of-the-court 
            briefs rose from one to 16.

            The Justice Department also reviewed 118 cases and 26 
            investigations related to land use issues since the enactment in 
            2000 of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 
            which aimed to protect property rights of religious institutions.

The article does not clarify - and perhaps the AG also did not make clear - whether there was actually an increase in the number of cases of religious discrimination filed, or only in the number investigated by the Justice Department.  Still, the fact that the Justice Department has significantly increased the number of cases they look into is an encouraging sign.  The message should be sent clearly that religious discrimination will not be tolerated, and that our First Amendment right to freedom of religion will be strongly defended by the federal government.  Kudos to AG Gonzalez for making a very significant first step in that direction.

In this morning's Opinion Journal, Pete duPont, former governor of Delaware, has an excellent article about the new United Nations' report on global warming.  It's not a long article, and it's well worth the read.  Apparently the summary of the report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which the American media trumpeted as "proving" that humans were causing that change, in fact came to some very interesting conclusions that (surprise, surprise) the same media did NOT tell us about. 

            While global warming alarmism has become a daily American 
            press feature, the IPCC, in its new report, is backtracking on its 
            warming predictions. While Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" warns 
            of up to 20 feet of sea-level increase, the IPCC has halved its estimate 
            of the rise in sea level by the end of this century, to 17 inches from 36. 
            It has reduced its estimate of the impact of global greenhouse-gas 
            emissions on global climate by more than one-third, because, it says, 
            pollutant particles reflect sunlight back into space and this has a cooling 
            effect.

            The IPCC confirms its 2001 conclusion that global warming will have 
            little effect on the number of typhoons or hurricanes the world will experience, 
            but it does not note that there has been a steady decrease in the number 
            of global hurricane days since 1970--from 600 to 400 days, according to 
            Georgia Tech atmospheric scientist Peter Webster.

One thing Mr. duPont points out is that the IPCC report does not explain is the "global cooling" effect that had everyone so worried back in the 1970's.  

            The IPCC does not explain why from 1940 to 1975, while carbon 
            dioxide emissions were rising, global temperatures were falling, 
            nor does it admit that its 2001 "hockey stick" graph showing a 
            dramatic temperature increase beginning in 1970s had omitted 
            the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming temperature changes, 
            apparently in order to make the new global warming increases 
            appear more dramatic.

That does make IPCC self-reporting somewhat suspicious, to my way of thinking.  If they are deliberately omitting relevant data in order to increase the "scare value" of their reporting, that would seem to call into question the reliability of anything they publish.

Finally, Mr. duPont makes the very significant point that sometimes decisions made based on these environmental scare tactics can have critically important results.  He discusses the global ban on DDT, and the effect it had on malaria cases in Sri Lanka.

         Sometimes the consequences of bad science can be 
         serious. In a 2000 issue of Nature Medicine magazine, 
         four international scientists observed that "in less than 
         two decades, spraying of houses with DDT reduced Sri 
         Lanka's malaria burden from 2.8 million cases and 7,000 
         deaths [in 1948] to 17 cases and no deaths" in 1963. 
         Then came Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring," invigorating 
         environmentalism and leading to outright bans of DDT in 
         some countries. When Sri Lanka ended the use of DDT in 
         1968, instead of 17 malaria cases it had 480,000.

            Yet the Sierra Club in 1971 demanded "a ban, not just a curb," 
            on the use of DDT "even in the tropical countries where DDT 
            has kept malaria under control." International environmental 
            controls were more important than the lives of human beings. 
            For more than three decades this view prevailed, until the 
            restrictions were finally lifted last September.

When environmentalist demands affect not only national economies, but human lives, people ought to draw the line.  It is amazing that a jump in malaria cases in Sri Lanka from 17 to 480,000 goes unreported, while the deaths of predators due to DDT is such a big deal that it is still regularly taught to all our kids in school.  If the jump in malaria cases (and obviously deaths as a result) was that significant in a small nation like Sri Lanka, one wonders what the worldwide increase was.

Mr. du Pont's conclusion is also worth noting:

            America needs to understand clearly what is happening and 
            why before we sign onto U.N. environmental agreements, shut 
            down our industries and power plants, and limit our economic 
            growth.

On the new blog over at The Victory Caucus, Jed Babbin had a great introductory post yesterday entitled, What Is Victory?  In it, he raises the question of exactly how we define "victory" in the war on terror, and he takes issue with President Bush's definition that "victory is achieved when there is a stable Iraq, capable of defending, governing and sustaining itself, and (that) will be our ally in the larger war."  Instead, Jed believes that victory in this war on terror will be achieved when we have ended state sponsorship of terrorism.

When I was a teenager, both my parents taught college-level students to teach.  I learned from them that a good goal must be specific, measurable, and achievable.  Unfortunately, the President's goal is none of those.  After all, how does one define "stable"?  It's no wonder Americans are frustrated, and no wonder the President's political enemies are taking advantage and demanding retreat, and even his political allies are talking about "benchmarks" - everyone understands that there is no way to determine whether or not his goal has been accomplished.

In Jed's definition, though, we find all three elements of a good goal.  It is specific:   we must end state sponsorship of terrorism.  It is measurable:  we will know we have accomplished it when there are no more states anywhere in the world that sponsor terrorism.  And it is achievable:  with time and perseverance, America and her allies have the ability to accomplish it.  It is certainly more difficult than simply creating a "stable" Iraq - but it is also far more relevant to our national security than that goal.

So how do we accomplish that goal?  Jed's post poses the only possible way:

            We mean to win this war by ending state sponsorship of terrorism 
            by whatever combination of means – military, economic, diplomatic, 
            covert – that may be necessary.  We mean to defeat the radical Islamist 
            ideology (for that is what it is, not a religion) as we defeated the Soviet 
            communist ideology.  The ideological war is one we aren’t even fighting.  
            We fought communism – in part – by arguing relentlessly that American 
            freedoms were objectively superior to Soviet enslavement.  We can 
            defeat the Islamofascist ideology by using these same tools. American 
            exceptionalism is a fact we should stop apologizing for.

And later,

            First, it is a war against nations that has to be fought on the kinetic 
            battlefield with bullets and bombs. Second, it is an ideological war 
            that can’t be won with soft words and euphemisms.  And third - in Iraq, 
            the Philippines, and much of the horn of Africa - it is a war against the 
            ascendancy of tribes and cultures that are hostile to freedom.

Jed is right - we must win this war for the sake of America's future - for our children and grandchildren, and we must do it by whatever means is necessary.  We must also understand the critical importance of the war of words and ideologies.  And we must define victory in the war on terror as it must be defined:  ending state sponsorship of terrorism, wherever it takes place.  Ideally, the Islamic people as a group will join us in making it clear the terrorism is not acceptable; but whether they do or do not, no national government in the world can be allowed to continue to fund and encourage terrorism. 

 This afternoon Hugh Hewitt has a review of a new movie just out called The Last Sin Eater.  I had not heard that they were making this excellent Francine Rivers novel into a movie, and after reading Hugh's review, I can't wait to see it.  Here's what Hugh had to say:


        The New York Times' review begins:

                Handsomely produced, earnestly performed and 100 percent irony-free,
                 "The Last Sin Eater" is religious art for mainstream consumption.

        The American Spectator adds:

    The Last Sin Eater is engaging, uplifting entertainment. Director Michael 
    Landon Jr. is every bit the storyteller that his father was. And each 
    acting performance is inspired, especially that of lead actress Liana Liberato, 
    who plays 10-year-old Cadi Forbes. She is in nearly every scene and is 
    perfect in the role.

        Of course the film has its critics like every major release, but put me down in the 
        same camp with the Times and TAS.
 
        More important, the 15/16 year old next to me was crying at the end, as was her mom.  
        The 1:10 PM Sunday showing had a good sized crowd, and the film moves briskly 
        along powered by a beautiful score and the remote mountain scenery vital to the 
        tale's telling.  I hadn't read the novel from which the book sprang and so the story's 
        second theme was both a surprise and a powerful booster to the film's message 
        of redemption.  The Times' loved the "sumptuous scenery, graceful crane shots 
        and Rembrandt lighting," but found the Christianity less compelling.  I suspect most 
        viewers will find the latter more memorable because it is so rare that Christian 
        theology is presented without the compromises intended to "broaden the 
        audience," but certainly the beauty is there to enjoy as well (as is a wonderful 
        score by Mark McKenzie, which I hope will be on CD shortly.)

        I hope the theaters expand the number of screens for next week so that the 
        movie's excellent word of mouth has a chance to bring the audience it deserves.
        The movie's website has a theater-finder to get you to the screen nearest you.


Unlike Hugh, I have read the novel, and it is a powerful message of redemption and hope.  Francine Rivers is a well-known Christian author, perhaps one of the best of the late twentieth century.  If the movie is at all true to the original story - and it sounds like it is - this is a movie not to be missed.  (One caution:  I believe parents will want to watch this story themselves before allowing their children to see it.  The images in the novel, at least, are quite vivid and powerful, and might be overwhelming to little ones.)

In his "Breakpoint" program this morning, Chuck Colson provides an update on efforts by the Burmese government to wipe out Christianity throughout their nation. 

By way of historical background, Burma was the site of frequent, extensive missionary outreach in the 1800's and 1900's.  Great names in missionary history - people like William Carey, James O. Fraser, Adoniram Judson, and John and Isobel Kuhn - as well as perhaps hundreds of "unknown" servants of Christ, have worked primarily or exclusively in Burma.  As a result, certain Burmese tribes, including the Lisu, the Chin, the Kachin, and the Karen peoples, have been almost entirely won to Christ.

Unfortunately, the current leadership of Burma is adamantly opposed to Christianity, and for a number of years now has been viciously persecuting these tribes.  However, until recently, while privately condoning and encouraging the persecution, the Burmese government has publicly denied it.  But on January 21, the British Telegraph published an article providing information about a secret document "believed to have been leaked from a government ministry,” which spells out a specific, apparently officially-sanctioned effort to completely eradicate Christianity in Burma.

Colson elaborates,

The document, titled “Program to destroy the Christian religion in Burma,” begins with the line “there shall be no home where the Christian religion is practiced.”

        In furtherance of this goal, the document provides its 
        intended audience with “point by point instructions on 
        how to drive Christians out of the state.” These instructions 
        draw their demonic inspiration from the idea that “the 
        Christian religion is very gentle” and, thus, its would-be 
        eliminators should “identify and utilize its weakness.”

        While the ruling junta “has denied authorship of the document,” 
        it has “made no public attempt to refute or repudiate its contents.”

        Given its track record, the junta could hardly repudiate its 
        contents. Recently, reports have surfaced that, in one Chin 
        Christian area, “300 [Buddhist] monks” were sent “to forcibly 
        convert the populace.” In another area, another monk, working 
        on behalf of the regime, burned down a Christian church.

        This is all part of a pattern of persecution, which includes “ethnic 
        cleansing” of Christian minority groups, the destruction of villages, 
        forced conversions, and even rape and murder. It’s part of the 
        regime’s attempt “to create a uniform society in which the race 
        and language is Burmese and the only accepted religion is Buddhism.”

Colson recommends a number of steps American Christians can take to try to help the situation. 

        The first thing we need to do, of course, is to pray. And then we 
        need to educate ourselves about what is going on in Burma and 
        educate other Christians, including our pastors, who should speak 
        out from the pulpit, and, finally, our neighbors. Much of what is done 
        in places like Burma is made possible because the world’s 
        attention is diverted. Tyrants count on our being more interested in 
        American Idol than in genocide when they formulate things like the 
        Burmese “Program.”

        We must also hold our leaders and the leaders of other countries 
        accountable. While the United States has no influence over Rangoon, 
        China has plenty, and that influence, by all accounts, is not helpful. 
        We must make it clear that “doing business” with China doesn’t include 
        turning a blind eye to genocide. No amount of cheap goods at Wal-Mart 
        is worth that price.

If enough believers step up and protest the Burmese government's action, it may yet be possible to help these tribal peoples who also love the Lord.  Our prayers and our letters do make a difference, if only to provide spiritual support to persecuted believers.  Let's not allow the Burmese ruling junta to wipe out the work of two centuries of missionaries.