Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 107

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions. If you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. The Sim­ple Ques­tions to Ask Every Time You Open Your Bible (Justin Tay­lor, Gospel Coali­tion): “1. What does God want me to under­stand? 2. What does God want me to believe? 3. What does God want me to desire? 4. What does God want me to do?”
  2. Ben Sasse on the Space between Nebras­ka and Nev­er­land (Tyler Cowen, Con­ver­sa­tions With Tyler): Sasse is my favorite Repub­li­can Sen­a­tor and he does not dis­ap­point in this inter­view. While you could just read the tran­script, the audio is great and high­ly rec­om­mend­ed. The Con­ver­sa­tions With Tyler pod­cast gen­er­al­ly is a worth­while sub­scrip­tion (iTunes, RSS). My favorite Demo­c­ra­t­ic Sen­a­tor, by the way, is Cory Book­er. You can read the tran­script of Booker’s 2012 com­mence­ment speech at Stan­ford. Sasse and Book­er being my favorites does not imply that I agree with them on any spe­cif­ic pol­i­cy issue — I just think they’d be great to have as neigh­bors.
  3. Reli­gious Free­dom and Dis­crim­i­na­tion: Why the Debate Con­tin­ues (Albert Mohler, Gospel Coali­tion): “Great moral debates ride on argu­ments, but they’re decid­ed on emo­tion and moral intu­ition. That doesn’t mean argu­ments don’t matter—they assured­ly do. What it does mean is the win­ning side in a great moral cri­sis will nev­er win on argu­ment alone. Moral sen­ti­ment is more basic than moral argu­ment.” Rel­e­vant: In Sex Dis­putes, Most Amer­i­cans Still Favor Reli­gious Rights.
  4. The Supreme Court made a very encour­ag­ing rul­ing in defense of reli­gious lib­er­ty. Here are a few takes on it:
    • SCOTUS ruled that church­es qual­i­fy for state mon­ey. Church­es, beware. (Lyman Stone, Vox): “Church­es should cel­e­brate the Court’s deci­sion, yet think hard about how they’ll act on it…. Reli­gious peo­ple and groups do deserve and are one step clos­er to receiv­ing equal access to pub­lic pro­grams, but if they are wise, they should avoid actu­al­ly avail­ing them­selves of these pro­grams in most cas­es. The expe­ri­ence of cen­turies has shown that far from sacral­iz­ing the state, pub­lic sup­port of reli­gious bod­ies sec­u­lar­izes the church.”
    • The Supreme Court Strikes Down a Major Church-State Bar­ri­er (Emma Green, The Atlantic): “Sev­en jus­tices affirmed the judg­ment in Trin­i­ty Luther­an v. Com­er, albeit with some dis­agree­ment about the rea­son­ing behind it. The major church-state case could poten­tial­ly expand the legal under­stand­ing of the free-exer­cise clause of the First Amend­ment of the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion. It is also the first time the Supreme Court has ruled that gov­ern­ments must pro­vide mon­ey direct­ly to a house of wor­ship, which could have impli­ca­tions for future pol­i­cy fights—including fund­ing for pri­vate, reli­gious char­ter schools.”
    • Paving a Play­ground, and Weed­ing the Unruly Gar­den of Reli­gious Lib­er­ty (Matthew J. Franck, Pub­lic Dis­course): “Some­thing of this gen­er­al­ized ani­mos­i­ty to the place of reli­gion in Amer­i­can soci­ety can be seen in the star­tling­ly reac­tionary dis­sent of Jus­tice Sonia Sotomay­or, who was joined by Jus­tice Ruth Bad­er Gins­burg. Con­sid­er­ably longer than Roberts’s opin­ion of the Court, Sotomayor’s dis­sent stakes out the amaz­ing posi­tion that Mis­souri is not only per­mit­ted by the free exer­cise clause of the First Amend­ment to exclude church­es from equal access to fund­ing avail­able to oth­ers; it is required to exclude them by the estab­lish­ment clause.”
  5. I think health care is a right. I asked an expert to tell me why I’m wrong. (Sean Illing, Vox): “Fun­da­men­tal­ly, you have to under­stand that get­ting access to health­care ser­vices, get­ting peo­ple to be will­ing to pro­vide high-qual­i­ty ser­vices and inno­v­a­tive treat­ments, is the result of a mar­ket deci­sion for those providers as well, and so if you don’t treat it like a mar­ket­place to some degree, you’ll get less inno­va­tion and few­er new treat­ments than you will if you do.” The jour­nal­ist inter­views an econ pro­fes­sor at North­west­ern and they dis­agree help­ful­ly.
  6. The Seat­tle Min­i­mum Wage Study (Alex Tabar­rok, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “The authors are able to repli­cate the results of oth­er papers that find no impact on the restau­rant indus­try with their own data by impos­ing the same lim­i­ta­tions that oth­er researchers have faced. This shows that those papers’ find­ings were like­ly dri­ven by their data lim­i­ta­tions. This is an impor­tant thing to remem­ber as you see knee-jerk respons­es com­ing from the usu­al cor­ners.” See also The Min­i­mum Wage: Evi­dence from a Dan­ish Dis­con­ti­nu­ity.

Things Glen Found Amus­ing

From The Archives

I’m exper­i­ment­ing with a new fea­ture — every week high­light­ing an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. First up we have the very first link I ever shared way back in vol­ume 1: The Spir­i­tu­al Shape of Polit­i­cal Ideas (Joseph Bot­tum, The Week­ly Stan­dard). It argues that some of our mod­ern and sup­pos­ed­ly sec­u­lar polit­i­cal ideas are mutant vari­ants of Chris­t­ian the­ol­o­gy.

Why Do You Send This Email?

In the time of King David, the tribe of Issachar pro­duced shrewd war­riors “who under­stood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32). In a sim­i­lar way, we need to become wise peo­ple whose faith inter­acts with the world. I pray this email gives you greater insight, so that you may con­tin­ue the tra­di­tion of Issachar.

Disclaimer

Chi Alpha is not a par­ti­san orga­ni­za­tion. To para­phrase anoth­er min­is­ter: we are not about the donkey’s agen­da and we are not about the elephant’s agen­da — we are about the Lamb’s agen­da. Hav­ing said that, I read wide­ly (in part because I believe we should aspire to pass the ide­o­log­i­cal Tur­ing test and in part because I do not believe I can fair­ly say “I agree” or “I dis­agree” until I can say “I under­stand”) and may at times share arti­cles that have a strong par­ti­san bias sim­ply because I find the arti­cle stim­u­lat­ing. The upshot: you should not assume I agree with every­thing an author says in an arti­cle I men­tion, much less things the author has said in oth­er arti­cles (although if I strong­ly dis­agree with some­thing in the arti­cle I’ll usu­al­ly men­tion it).

Also, remem­ber that I’m not report­ing news — I’m giv­ing you a selec­tion of things I found inter­est­ing. There’s a lot hap­pen­ing in the world that’s not mak­ing an appear­ance here because I haven’t found stim­u­lat­ing arti­cles writ­ten about it.

Archives at http://glenandpaula.com/wordpress/category/links.

Leave a Reply