Aren Cambre’s Blog

The Texas GOP’s extreme social stances are a losing strategy for two reasons.

1: They are paradoxically liberal. If we fully legislated the Texas GOP platform’s social stances, we would make the government the moral compass, usurping the proper role of the church and individual wisdom. (It’s as if we want to reverse the Protestant Reformation, but that’s an issue for another blog post!)

2: They turn away mainstream conservatives and moderates. This is proven by two polls:

First is a recent Gallup Poll. It finds that conservatives are the largest single voting bloc. But they are neither a majority nor “very conservative”:

Second is a Pew survey, interpreted by Texas Monthly editor Paul Burka to show that the Republican party “hemorrhaging” voters. Indeed, party affiliation is:

• 36% independent
• 35% Democrat
• 23% Republican

If the Republican Party was the mainstream conservative party, it would have more affiliates than Democrats.

But no: the Republican party is hemorrhaging voters because of its extreme social stances. Per the Pew survey: “[independents] more closely parallel the views of Democrats … on the most divisive core beliefs on social values, religion and national security.”

Juxtaposing these surveys, an inescapable conclusion: Extreme conservatism, especially extreme social conservatism, is a losing strategy.

Any winning strategy for Republican domination must not alienate moderates; we can’t win without them.

I am a Republican. I am pro-life. I believe that every abortion is a tragedy. High abortion rates speaks poorly on how society values fragile lives.

I believe abortions should never substitute for effective birth control, and I support banning those abortions. I respect individual privacy, but human life is sacrosanct. Stopping life is not a casual matter.

That’s my limit; I support no further restrictions. That means I would not seek to prevent abortions that:

• Protect the mother from serious medical risk or death.
• Terminate pregnancies from non-consensual sex.
• Terminate pregnancies with fetuses with conditions incompatible with life.

You may ask, “So do you want all these people to have abortions?” If the pregnancy endangers the mother’s life and abortion can help, yes, save the mom. If the fetus cannot possibly survive, there’s no life to be preserved, so the mom should have the right to avoid pregnancy’s risks and costs if she chooses.

The nonconsensual sex part is tough. In an earlier post, I commented on the perception of men telling women what to do with their bodies. I hope and pray rape victims will keep their babies, but I don’t wish to force societal or collective judgment on rape victims. Rape-induced pregnancy introduces too many moral traps to have a decisive argument.

Abortion is a tragedy. There is no excuse for casual abortions, but I do not see a rational case for a total abortion ban.

I didn’t want to repeat the problems with last year’s Lent fast, where I was enmeshed with legalism and others felt like they needed to accommodate me.

I made it simple: no snacks. I eat at meals and that’s it.

I allowed myself excpetions only to avoid create a burden on others. Because of that, I did break the fast four times.

But the good thing is nobody realized I did a fast until it was over. Not even my wife. That’s a good Lent fast.

Maybe next year I’ll devise a better fast that needs no exceptions?

We sent two Christmas cards this year. Here’s one of them:

Front of one of our 2008 Christmas cards

Inside of one of our 2008 Christmas cards

Why do I send these? What does it accomplish? What message am I sending? How could I send a more meaningful message that isn’t A. preaching to the choir or B. too preachy?

Why is this card worth a 42 cent stamp?

What am I doing that an email can’t accomplish? (Few of the people on my list don’t have email.)

Well, that’s speculation for another day. We sent these silly cards anyway on Saturday.

On or after Dec. 26, it will be time to pick up my Christmas 2009 cards when they are clearance. Will I bother?

Well-done, poignant reminder of the point of Christmas, without being preachy.

Today, the Texas Supreme Court further proved that the Texas Child Protective Service’s jihad against the FLDS church is phenomenal bureaucratic ineptitude.

The Supreme Court rightly ruled that CPS never had sufficient grounds to remove the kids from the compound.

This comes after weeks of curious revelations, including that the phone calls instigating this raid were fake and, unlike the original allegations, that the CPS remains unable to substantiate any current pregnancies are with underage girls.

It’s even worse.

So far the CPS only suspects that 1.25% of the seized kids may have been physically or sexually abused. Let’s put that in context. In 2002, 4.6 million children were checked for abuse in the USA. Of them, approximately:

• 20% showed any sign of abuse.
• 6% showed signs of sexual or physical abuse (either one or both).

1.25% of the FLDS population is 94% lower than the physical or sexual abuse rate of the general population of investigated children. (source of stats) The point here is that the FLDS raid was grossly overbroad in including so many children.

<digression>

The media adds a humorous element to this saga: they are fascinated at how the FLDS members aren’t cooperating with officials, intentionally making it difficult for the government to investigate them.

Why is that weird? Why are the FLDS members’ actions any different than normal citizens? When you see a cop doing revenue enhancement running a speed trap, do you 1. brake and take other reasonable steps to avoid a citation or 2. drive up to the cop and ask to pay the speed tax ask for a ticket? (And don’t respond and say you never do this; almost everyone drives slowly around cops.) Ladies and gentlemen of the media, it’s normal for people not to submit to government intervention. Big Brother is not our friend. The rest of us get it. When will you?

</digression>

Now, don’t get me wrong about the FLDS. That church is very strange. It has bizarre, weird, heretical beliefs. It comes close to a cult.

Their founder is a pedophile. Here are pictures of him passionately kissing a 12 and 14 year old girls he may have “married”:

(source)

How would you feel if those were your daughters? Fortunately, he’s in jail. Which means he’s not in Texas.

Memo to the Texas CPS: It’s legal to be strange! And thank God for that right.

Unless things start changing quickly, heads must roll at the CPS. A failure to soundly scourge that agency will set a precedent that the government is the chief child abuser in Texas!

I am becoming increasingly convinvced that this FLDS raid was a fraud to begin with.

Predictably, the mainstream media appears to be as lost as the west Texas justice system.

A good analysis is at http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/04/phone-call-alleging-abuse-at-yfz-was.html.

I’m getting a funny feeling about what Texas has done with the FLDS people in Eldorado.

Sure, the FLDS church is very, very weird. Their theology is heretical. Sometimes they have done bad things. E.g., their previous dictator, Warren Jeffs, is in jail for various sex-related crimes.

But the Texas clan, why the extremes? Where’s this 16 year old complainant? If they have such a good case, why did they not have grounds to arrest the supposed perp? (Yes, they met with him.) Why are most the captured children forcibly separated from mothers who are accused of no crimes? Why are no facts coming out? Why the delays?

Is something up? Does Texas have a real case? Are Texas taxpayers about to be soaked in a major civil suit?

Is weird now illegal?

In the old Beavis and Butt-head cartoons, Beavis becomes Cornholio when he eats lots of sugar. Example:

On Easter Sunday, I break my Lent fast. I will drown myself in sweets. I may become the Great Cornholio. (How’s that for introducing a spiritual exercise?)

Some interpret the Lent fast to exclude Sundays because those are feast days. I decided to fast straight through without stopping. Dessert and candy and explicitly sweet stuff haven’t passed my lips since Shrove Tuesday.

I recall a poignant study on grace from a few years ago. It showed how a rigid, rule-bound religious group was transformed by an infusion of grace.

I could see a valid argument that failing to observe sanctioned Lent fast breaks may be an example of a grace-less, rule-bound, spiritually rigid exercise.

However, I also considered what I am giving up: stuff that my body doesn’t need. Stuff that isn’t in any way essential to my life. Stuff on which I should have no dependence. As much as I love my Blue Bell Mint Chocolate Chip ice cream, I am better off for skipping it for these 6.5 weeks.

Even though giving up sweet junk foods is a common Protestant form of Lent fast, it’s really such a light fast that I can have a fully grace-ful Sundays without it.

So I held my Lent fast straight, not giving it up.

As an average American, I life a life full of material comforts that even the richest from 2000 years ago could only imagine. I realize that this trivial fast is nothing, absolutely nothing compared to temptation Jesus faced in the wilderness. But it still gives me a glimpse, and for that I am thankful.

After 16 days, I changed my Lent fast.

A diet minus “trashy carbs” is a painstaking adventure in ingredient watching. Instead of being an effective spiritual exercise, this fast put undue burdens on others, dramatically increased food spending, and often left me feeling malnourished.

It was too much an exercise in legalism.

I have reverted to prior years’ Lent fasts: no bona fide dessert foods.