This touches on a recent post of mine at Die Academie, and you’re absolutely right, it’s a form of “legal” bribery.

If pork barrel spending was unconstitutional, like many of our founding fathers thought that it was, we wouldn’t be having these issues at all! Such “local” spending should have “local” sources of revenue. Otherewise there is a complete disconnect between the consumer (in this case the state or local gov’t) and the money (in this case the entire U.S.).

Highways and byways are one thing…but some of this pork is ridiculous!

Example: My home district (17th of Texas) received something on the order of $500,000 to improve the police force. The POLICE FORCE??? What does the Federal Government have to do with local police power??!?! Nothing! Why then, were the poor people of W. Virginia and other states paying for it!?

But my congressman, Chet Edwards, was oh so proud of his accomplishment.

“It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.” Federalist #51.

50.5% of legislators forcing their will on the other 49.5%? (Public opinion being about as equally divided) on a matter that will GREATLY affect 100% of Americans and 1/6th of the national economy? Sounds like tyranny to me!

I can’t think of a single person, whether Democrat, Republican, or whatever, who opposes health insurance reform. But this 2,000 page monstrosity produced by the House is an unconstitutional government takeover that has nothing close to majority support among Americans.

The reality is that evangelical tradition is a difficult thing to pin down. Like any movement, as evangelical tradition has aged it has broadened, bringing so many things under its umbrella that virtually anything can be considered part of the evangelical tradition – even heresy! – and what constitutes evangelicalism is not universally agreed upon.

When it comes to the emerging conversation (and Jim Belcher) “evangelical” is that thing of recent history, whereas DeYoung is trying to define the word in more historical terms. From the little I’ve gleaned about Belcher’s book, the difference is in these definitions – what Belcher considers non-evangelical “tradition”, DeYoung considers “the best of the evangelical…tradition”.

DeYoung’s comments are different from Belcher’s comments in the same way a parent telling a child he can find everything he needs at home is different from the child finding out for himself. In the first instance, the pressure is on the child to remain on the say so of the parent and breeds almost a suspicion of other dwelling places; in the second, the child has discovered the value of the home and voluntarily dwells there, but is not opposed to input from other sources.

I prefer the latter. It’s stultifying to be given no room to discover things for yourself, even if that exploration takes you beyond other people’s comfort zones. The term “a third way” allows for continued exploration.