Prophetic 'News'

Since when does evangelical preaching constitute news? Since The Denver Post decided to pander to the evangelical movement, I suppose:

New Life Church embraces prophecy
Church legions learn "seeing" is believing
By Electa Draper
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 04/30/2008 06:08:17 AM MDT

COLORADO SPRINGS -- The pastor of New Life Church -- Colorado's highest-profile megachurch -- is teaching its 10,000-member congregation how to become modern prophets in their own lives.

"I want all of us here tonight to hear God's voice," Pastor Brady Boyd told the several hundred gathered Monday night. "You've all been uniquely hard-wired to hear the voice of God." ...

The Holy Spirit can give people direct guidance from God on everything from their marriages to their jobs if they learn how to hear it, Boyd said.

The article goes on like this for 591 words. The article presupposes the existence of God and allows for not a single word of criticism or skepticism.

Draper does include one interesting line: "New Life Pastor Jeff Drott... said that God rarely speaks to people in an audible voice, often sending a thought, vision, dream, image or scriptural insight."

Isn't it conceivable that these "thoughts" and "insights" are coming from some source other than God? For instance, if you have a problem and start "thinking" about it or reading the Bible (or any other book offering moral guidance), mightn't you come up with something useful? Do such thoughts and insights really require a belief in God? Or is it possible that non-religious people also get thoughts and insights (and maybe even dreams, images, and the like) when they're contemplating a problem?

And isn't it possible that Electa Draper might, you know, interview somebody for her "news" stories who offers a perspective other than the one that we've been "hard-wired to hear the voice of God?" Alternatively, she could simply cover real news.

Snowboarding with Jesus

Speaking of The Denver Post's religious news, on January 25 the paper also published, on its front cover, a story about Christian snowboarders. The story, "X Games competitors ride with Jesus," by Jason Blevins, contains the following line: "My best times worshiping the Lord are when I'm snowboarding."

This is not straight news; it is closer to religious preaching. I have to wonder about some of the editorial decisions over at the Post. However, as I've noted, other papers also seem to be increasing their gratuitous mentions of religion. Whether or not this is intentional policy, the trend seems to reflect the general rise of evangelical Christianity in America.

Blevins's story is interesting, though, in how it contrasts Christianity with its alleged opposite. Except for Christians, the article suggests, the "world of extreme sports" is "inherently hedonistic," a "selfish sport" in the words of one snowboarder. Christians, though, "eschew the party scene." Non-Christians, the article quotes other Christian snowboarders, are "empty inside" and "hollow." Moreover, Christian snowboarders "have this added confidence."

In the terms of Leonard Peikoff, then, Christianity, a form of religious "Misintegration" (or system-building based on supernaturalism and detached from the real world) is offered as the only alternative to nihilistic "Disintegration." A non-religious morality of strong, life-supporting values -- the alternative of "Integration" based on the facts of reality -- is not considered.

In an advertisement for his book, Loving Life (which I've reviewed), Craig Biddle offers a succinct summary of this third alternative:

The Atheists' Missing Link: Loving Life by Craig Biddle demonstrates that morality is a matter not of divine relevation or social convention or personal opinion -- but, rather, of the factual requirements of human life and happiness.

Maybe someday the Post will consider such ideas to be worthy of attention.

Jesus, Taxes, and the Media

On January 24, The Denver Post published a story by Electa Draper titled, "Psalm 1040: Prof urges a fairer tax." The teaser line states, "Government, she says, fails to follow the Scriptures' lead in helping the poor and the kids." The story reviews the ideas of "Susan Pace Hamill, a University of Alabama law professor with credentials in taxes and theology." It begins:

How would Jesus tax?

It wouldn't be the way Colorado, the 49 other states and the federal government do it, says Susan Pace Hamill, a University of Alabama law professor with credentials in taxes and theology.

Despite Scripture principles, state and federal tax systems burden the poor and relieve the rich, she says.

Jesus paid taxes, told followers to give the government its due, broke bread with tax collectors and chose one, Matthew, to be an apostle, according to the New Testament.

This story is odd for a couple of reasons.

First, it is an advocacy piece masquerading as a news story. Why isn't this on the editorial pages? Notably, Draper does not interview a single religious critic of Hamill's thesis. (While many religious conservatives would agree to reduce taxes for the poor, they would not agree to raise taxes on others.) Surely there is no shortage of religious conservatives in this state. Nor does Draper interview a non-religious leftist, or a non-religious advocate of low taxes. Does The Denver Post's news side really see its proper role as advocating particular religious doctrines?

Second, the story is old. It contains no news "hook." Moreover, it is derivative. For example, on August 1, 2006, the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal published a similar story by Jeff Hawkes titled, "Who Would Jesus Tax?" Draper's story discusses taxes generally and sites some figures about Colorado, but it is not based on any Colorado-specific event or personality. Why is this news?

Hamill's thesis is essentially egalitarianism draped in religious cloth.

Nevertheless, Hamill does make an interesting point:

Among Colorado's offenses is that the state makes its lowest-earning 20 percent of the population pay 9.9 percent of their income in taxes, while the top 1 percent of wealthy Coloradans pay 6.1 percent of their income.

"The poor and middle class pay almost four times the tax, proportionately, that the rich people pay in Colorado," Hamill said.

Apparently, Hamill's figure of "four times" is based on the fact that the middle class vastly outnumber the rich. I'll accept her figures at face value, unless someone can point to an error in them.

I don't think anybody would argue that the poor should pay a greater percent of their income in taxes than the wealthy pay. For example, in 2004 I wrote:

I have a simple proposal that should gain bi-partisan support... Exempt everyone making less than $20,000 per year from nearly all taxes.

If you make less than $20,000 in a calendar year, after expenses, I propose you don't have to file income taxes at all. The burden of proof then lies with tax collectors to prove you earned more than that. You don't have to pay federal or state income tax. If you're in retail sales, you don't have to collect state or local sales tax. If you own property, you don't have to pay property tax.

You also don't have to pay Social Security tax. Why should a poor working family be forced to pay a retired millionaire to play golf in Hawaii?

However, I did not propose taxing others at a higher rate: "I would favor reducing government spending by the amount lost in tax revenues." Indeed, I would lower taxes on everyone, across the board. But my position does not depend on any religious doctrine: it depends upon a theory of individual rights, rooted in the objective requirements of human life. (For one source of empirical support for the view that economic liberty brings prosperity, see The Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom.)

But which is the more faithful interpretation of Christianity? That of religious conservatives, who at times support free markets and low taxes, or that of religious egalitarians? As Paul Hsieh reviews, the religious right increasingly adopts the welfare agenda of the left. What defines the religious right is not a commitment to free markets -- far from it -- but rather a commitment to more political controls over our personal lives.

Voices for Liberty in Medicine

Wayne Laugesen, long a columnist for Boulder Weekly, now works for Colorado Springs's Gazette as "Editorial page editor." Congratulations, Wayne! Though Wayne comes at some issues (such as abortion) from a religious perspective, usually he's a dedicated "classical liberal" who cares first about individual rights. I'll be interested to track his work at The Gazette.

Not coincidentally, yesterday The Gazette ran a substantive editorial endorsing liberty in medicine:

...The Blue-Ribbon Commission on Health Care Reform, appointed by legislative leaders and the governor, will present its recommendations to the Legislature on Jan. 31. ...

“The majority of the commission favors a government-heavy proposal,” says Dr. Paul Hsieh, a Denver physician who has studied the new Massachusetts system. “They’re crafting it similar to the Massachusetts model.”

A year old, the Massachusetts system is resulting in rationing and shortages of care, and higher costs to taxpayers than originally expected. ...

Government intervention, in fact, explains the failures of our current system. The IRS code drives most Americans to buy health insurance through employers. That means insurers don’t have to compete for consumers, because for most Americans, shopping around for a better deal involves a career change. And because health insurance has been packaged as a “free” benefit from employers, patients have spent the past half-century consuming health care without challenging the price. ...

State legislators can’t change the morass of federal regulation that has led to a health care system unrestrained by the conventional market forces that control other services and goods. But legislators can improve access to health care by eliminating most of the state controls that prohibit affordable coverage. ...

Brian Schwartz... proposed to the Blue Ribbon Commission a market-based health care reform package that mostly involved deregulation. ...

Hsieh and Schwartz have become leaders in Colorado for liberty in medicine. Hsieh wrote an article with Lin Zinser, "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'," that explains the problems with health policy and how to fix them.

And yesterday Schwartz also had a letter published in Boulder's Daily Camera:

...[W]e don't have a free market in medical care or insurance. ...Tax-exempt employer-provided insurance coddles insurers by tying us to our employer's plans. Insurers are committed to satisfying customers, which are employers, not you. Hence, they can afford to be stingy and deceptive: they know that losing your premium dollars requires that you change jobs.

What "powerful and wealthy forces" oppose changing this? Labor unions. ...[T]he AFL-CIO supports "single payer health care": politically controlled medicine with government as a monopolistic insurer. This is even worse than buying it through your employer. If you don't like what the government "health barons" offer, it's not enough to change jobs, you must move out of state to change providers.

If you like "single payer," don't worry that the 208 Commission on Healthcare Reform has not recommended it. They recommend an "individual mandate," which makes it a crime not to purchase politician-approved "insurance." Such compulsory insurance is essentially single-payer in disguise. Strict regulations on legal insurance plans severely limit competition, so insurance companies are effectively government contractors for politically-defined insurance.

Colorado was supposed to be one of the national testing grounds for socialized medicine. Now, thanks to the work of people like Laugesen, Hsieh, Zinser, and Schwartz, the idea that we need more liberty in medicine, rather than more political controls, has become part of the public debate. While we still face a real and serious threat of more political interference in medicine, at least now liberty has a fighting chance.

Kopel on Media-Inspired Copy-Cats

Dave Kopel's article for the Rocky Mountain News, "Reducing the risk of copycat killers: How papers can avoid glorifying perpetrators," deserves a wide audience. Here are his five main suggestions:

1. If a killer was seeking infamy, neither his picture nor his words should ever appear on the front page. ...

2. ... [If] photos help readers understand that people who do terrible things are often very ordinary-looking... a single photo on a single day is sufficient.

3. Never run a photo or video which the killer has chosen for his own publicity. ...

4. Do publish a photo showing the disgusting post-mortem condition of the killer, with half his face blown off after he has killed himself or been shot by a good citizen. The photo should appear, not in the printed paper, but on the newspaper's Web site and behind a warning page. Such photos would deglamourize the perpetrators.

5. Although there is some news value in reporting the killer's name initially, there is no need to use the name incessantly. ...

Rocky Mountain Sense

The editorial writers of the Rocky Mountain News wrote an especially touching piece for today's paper titled, "Lethal rage." The editorial mourns the victims, sympathizes with their families, and praises Jeanne Assam, the volunteer, armed security guard who stopped the murderer. The Rocky even managed to close with appropriate advice about keeping perspective:

[V]iolence in our society can sometimes seem to be pervasive. Yet while that is true, as Sunday's events prove, it's important that we not exaggerate its frequency. During this decade, the homicide rate in the United States (per 100,000 people) has actually been lower than at any time since the early and mid-1960s - and far lower than the 25 years between 1970 to 1995.

Such dry statistics are no consolation to anyone remotely near to this weekend's tragedies, but they offer perspective the rest of us should bear in mind.

While The Denver Post's editorial is predictably cliche, it does include the following important detail:

Larry Bourbonnais, a Vietnam veteran who was at the church as the incident unfolded, heard the shots and ran toward the gunfire.

He yelled to divert the gunman's attention and was shot in the arm.

Then, Jeanne Assam, a female security guard, came around the corner with a handgun drawn, yelling, "Surrender!" She walked toward the shooter, firing one round after another until he went down.

And some sentiments never seem cliche in such circumstances: "[T]he only way to pull through these trying times is by coming together as a well-knit community."

Harsanyi Moves to Editorial

I don't know whether David Harsanyi is happy about the move or not, but I hope it works to his advantage. The Denver Post announced today that Harsanyi, who has been writing columns for the paper's news section, will join the editorial team. The article announces:

... David Harsanyi... will move to the Post's op-ed pages. ...

Harsanyi, who joined The Post's staff in May 2004, in part to provide some ideological balance to [former columnist Diane] Carman and then-columnist Jim Spencer, has done his job well, Moore said. Often offering a libertarian "live and let live" take on the policies and practices emanating from city hall and the statehouse, he also has roamed the city for interesting tales of regular folks rubbing up against unforgiving bureaucracies or just plain silliness, Moore said.

His new book, "Nanny State," is a critique of efforts by local, state and federal governments to regulate numerous aspects of our lives.

I am a bit worried about the phrase, "op-ed pages." Does that mean that Harsanyi will have no input in the paper's editorials? Whether or not he helps decide and write the content of editorials, will he write frequent articles under his own name? If the purpose of the move is to balance out the Post's often-shrill left-wing politics, then that's great. But I hope the point is not to limit Harsanyi's voice on the paper.

Meanwhile, William Porter will write a column for the news side. He promises, "I plan to write slice-of-life columns about Denver and the state. No screeds. No term papers. Stories." In other words, he plans to write non-ideological soap-opera-style stories. That's great -- that means that I can safely ignore yet another section of the paper. But we'll see if his columns in fact become ideological pitches that pretend not to be.

Religious Mountain News

Diana Hsieh writes that "tithing [as] a subject of public discussion in a well-respected national newspaper still floors me." Yet at least a letter to the editor is in the editorial section. The Rocky Mountain News, whether by design or by accident, seems to be pandering to religious readers more often in news articles.

For example, I recently quoted a News article that begins, "Kristi Burton was just 13 when she asked God for guidance and got it." Whether or not the author of the article actually believes that Burton received guidance from God, the line taken at face value presumes that she did.

Here's another example:

Lotto win forestalls foreclosure
The Gazette
Originally published 12:30 a.m., November 27, 2007
Updated 11:50 a.m., November 27, 2007

As the Bible says: "Whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."

Gloria Aguda, of Fountain, said she prayed to God for help, facing foreclosure and mounting bills. She won the jackpot in the Nov. 21 Lotto drawing, worth approximately $9 million.

The article, credited to the Gazette, appeared on the Rocky's web page (though I'm not sure whether it also appeared in print). Again, taken at face value, the opening suggests that God played some role in the jackpot (which is ridiculous even from a religious perspective).

The Rocky has also reported on various occasions that victims of various accidents and tragedies thanked God for a relatively good outcome. However, the Rocky has not once mentioned why God allowed the tragedies in the first place, nor why others who pray to God nevertheless suffer worse outcomes.

I for one read the news to learn about the news -- not to read gratuitous and frankly silly references to God.