3/21 was the worst day in history for the Oakland Police Department, as four officers gave their lives in service to the Law. Please take a moment to pray for the families of Sgt. Daniel Sakai, Sgt. Mark Dunakin, Sgt. Ervin Romans, and Officer John Hege. These men are heroes.
I have struggled for days to find some way to honor them in words. Nothing is adequate. The truth is that a law enforcement officer dies every 57 hours in America, according to Chuck Canterbury, president of the national Fraternal Order of Police. Imagine - every day people you don't even know risk their lives to protect you. Personally I am ashamed when I consider my thoughts at a "routine traffic stop." Now we have a tragic insight into what is going through their minds.
The best I can say for these men is that they did their duty: they died doing what they had solemnly sworn to do. In this crass age of moral relativism and selfishness, these men showed us the meaning of Honor.
Jesus himself, in John 15:13 said "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends." (NASU)
Most of us never had the chance to call these men friend: but they proved their love for us beyond all doubt. We will miss you. May God bless your families in this incredibly difficult time. We will uphold them in prayer, and remember your sacrifice.
Per ardua ad alta
***
Here is a great story about one of the officers, who gave even more in death:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/25/MNSR16N0JT.DTL&type=health
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
A New Birth of Freedom
Clicking on the above link will take you to the text of the Gettysburg Address, and the phrase within that named this blog. It's a quick read and I recommend you bookmark it. It helps me to remember that the cost must be counted, that principle has its price. Six hundred thousand men from all over the country paid that price during the Civil War, and Lincoln's few words spoken at Gettysburg ensured that we would never forget.
After 80 years of existence, the two parts of our country were growing further and further apart; compromise after compromise was proposed on the issues facing North and South, and some of them succeeded... for a time.
The election of Abraham Lincoln (the first Republican president, by the way) was the final straw for the deep South. His name did not even appear on the ballot in 1860 in several Southern states, but with candidates running separately in the North and South, the Democratic party was hopelessly split and Lincoln won by default. Several states seceded from the Union, then several more followed, and the rest is history. By 1865 the war was over, the Union was restored, but Lincoln was dead. Slavery was forever banished in our United States, and the black man was the equal of the white, finally, before the Law.
What no war can change is the hearts of men. Nearly 150 years later, some hatreds still run strong in our nation. We have made progress, but I am not naive enough to think that the problem has been solved. And some people don't want to hear this, but the problem never will be completely solved. As with poverty, disease, and war, hatred will always be present on this earth until it's end.
And here is the point: this is part of our legacy as Americans. The Civil War, more than any other event in our nation's history, defined who we are. The pride of our youth fought and died for their principles. Was the South wrong? On the issue of slavery, absolutely. But don't think for a moment that the South had the market cornered on racism; there was plenty to go around. We were a flawed nation then, and we still are. No nation founded by men is going to be perfect, but it can strive for perfection.
Those boys buried at Gettysburg - the Blue and the Gray - died for something. Not for money, not for policy, but for principle. Their conflicting ideas of what America should be meant so much to them that they died for them. A true American stands on principle, and there is a point in time when he will fight to uphold those principles.
And here is where this all ties in to the problems facing our nation today: we have to identify our principles, and we have to fight for them. Not necessarily with guns, but with our votes, and our voices. The sad truth is that most of us don't know what our principles are. We don't know where our line is that cannot be crossed - or where it should be.
Is life sacred from the moment of conception until natural death?
Should the family unit be redefined from father, mother, children into father, father or mother, mother?
Should the government take from some to give to others?
Does the Constitution - at one time our guiding document - still matter?
Answering the basic questions of principle simplifies any debate over policy. If any part of a policy violates the principles we hold dear, it cannot be the right thing to do. If life is sacred from conception, no policy - or candidate - who opposes this viewpoint can be the solution we are searching for. If we believe that government should not take from some to give to others, then no bill or policy that does this can be correct. Principle must guide policy. We must learn what our principles are, and quickly.
There can still be a new birth of freedom.
After 80 years of existence, the two parts of our country were growing further and further apart; compromise after compromise was proposed on the issues facing North and South, and some of them succeeded... for a time.
The election of Abraham Lincoln (the first Republican president, by the way) was the final straw for the deep South. His name did not even appear on the ballot in 1860 in several Southern states, but with candidates running separately in the North and South, the Democratic party was hopelessly split and Lincoln won by default. Several states seceded from the Union, then several more followed, and the rest is history. By 1865 the war was over, the Union was restored, but Lincoln was dead. Slavery was forever banished in our United States, and the black man was the equal of the white, finally, before the Law.
What no war can change is the hearts of men. Nearly 150 years later, some hatreds still run strong in our nation. We have made progress, but I am not naive enough to think that the problem has been solved. And some people don't want to hear this, but the problem never will be completely solved. As with poverty, disease, and war, hatred will always be present on this earth until it's end.
And here is the point: this is part of our legacy as Americans. The Civil War, more than any other event in our nation's history, defined who we are. The pride of our youth fought and died for their principles. Was the South wrong? On the issue of slavery, absolutely. But don't think for a moment that the South had the market cornered on racism; there was plenty to go around. We were a flawed nation then, and we still are. No nation founded by men is going to be perfect, but it can strive for perfection.
Those boys buried at Gettysburg - the Blue and the Gray - died for something. Not for money, not for policy, but for principle. Their conflicting ideas of what America should be meant so much to them that they died for them. A true American stands on principle, and there is a point in time when he will fight to uphold those principles.
And here is where this all ties in to the problems facing our nation today: we have to identify our principles, and we have to fight for them. Not necessarily with guns, but with our votes, and our voices. The sad truth is that most of us don't know what our principles are. We don't know where our line is that cannot be crossed - or where it should be.
Is life sacred from the moment of conception until natural death?
Should the family unit be redefined from father, mother, children into father, father or mother, mother?
Should the government take from some to give to others?
Does the Constitution - at one time our guiding document - still matter?
Answering the basic questions of principle simplifies any debate over policy. If any part of a policy violates the principles we hold dear, it cannot be the right thing to do. If life is sacred from conception, no policy - or candidate - who opposes this viewpoint can be the solution we are searching for. If we believe that government should not take from some to give to others, then no bill or policy that does this can be correct. Principle must guide policy. We must learn what our principles are, and quickly.
There can still be a new birth of freedom.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
AIG Bonus Outrage... but are you directing it at the right people?
AIG employees got bonuses, and the country is outraged! And well you should be, but not at anyone who works for AIG. Save your outrage for the right people...
When AIG was given taxpayer money (always remember that the Government does not have any money to give out to anyone, they are merely stewards of your money to be spent for the common good) as part of the $787 billion bailout package, there was a specific amendment inserted by lawmakers at the Capitol that excluded limiting bonus payments on pre-existing contracts, the so-called "Dodd Amendment." The above article gives a good breakdown on the rules in place now for any payouts going forward.
But now these employees, who signed contracts prior to this mess, and are merely being compensated according to those contracts, have a huge target on their backs from Congress, the press, and much of the public. But there are several things to understand:
This 800 page spending bill was passed without the chance to be read or reviewed by anyone - the call was "we have to pass this now, you don't need time to read it!" From introduction to passage was literally 1 day. I read fast, but not that fast. But now, responding to public outcry fueled by media coverage over the bonuses, lawmakers want to retroactively tax the bonuses at 90% rates. After other state and federal taxes, many employees would owe more in taxes than they would get on the bonus; the bonus would actually cost them money.
As if that wasn't enough, ACORN helped sponsor a protest tour of the homes of the people who received the bonuses:
http://www.courant.com/news/local/fc/hc-aig-tour-bus-0322.artmar22202310,0,1283060.story
ACORN, per it's own website, admits its ties to our President, specifically endorsing him for the Presidency: (while denying any wrongdoing in its voter registration drive, which has been challenged in court)
http://www.acorn.org/?id=17856
Here is where MSNBC, no conservative bastion, reviews ACORN's record:
http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/14/1544574.aspx
Notice how CBS doesn't even mention ACORN in this article on the subject at hand:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/21/national/main4881366.shtml?source=RSSattr=Business_4881366
So in other words, you have a group that does federal work organizing a protest against private citizens at their homes, and at whom the government is attempting to impose a very specific retroactive tax. You might still be saying "Yahoo! It is high time to stick it to the rich!" at this point. With media, government and some private citizens all aiming their wrath at a small group of citizens, why should you be concerned?
Let's break this down again. The government rushed legislation through that they did not even read, nor understand. Private citizens who had signed contracts got the money committed to them in the contracts, that the government specifically said was fine, in the legislation the government didn't read. Then government had the audacity to get mad at the people taking those bonuses (even though they specifically allowed it), and after the fact they changed their minds and decided to tax the money so they would get it all back, and then some. Today it is AIG, but what population group will the government next target for the "public good?"
And if that question sounded dangerously paranoid to you, look at the power for which Timothy Geitner, Secretary of the Treasury, is now asking for:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/26/news/geithner.house.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009032611
This boils down to the government seizing "too-big-to-fail" non-banking firms before they fail. This should scare you. Combine this with a mindset that thinks the end justifies the means, and you have the government seizing whomever them deem necessary at their discretion and with no recourse for the seized.
Many AIG employees are giving the bonus money back, because it really isn't worth the hassle. And that makes a 90% tax into a 100% tax, with that tax having been gained through intimidation by both government and media.
And so you absolutely have every right to be outraged... just not at AIG.
When AIG was given taxpayer money (always remember that the Government does not have any money to give out to anyone, they are merely stewards of your money to be spent for the common good) as part of the $787 billion bailout package, there was a specific amendment inserted by lawmakers at the Capitol that excluded limiting bonus payments on pre-existing contracts, the so-called "Dodd Amendment." The above article gives a good breakdown on the rules in place now for any payouts going forward.
But now these employees, who signed contracts prior to this mess, and are merely being compensated according to those contracts, have a huge target on their backs from Congress, the press, and much of the public. But there are several things to understand:
This 800 page spending bill was passed without the chance to be read or reviewed by anyone - the call was "we have to pass this now, you don't need time to read it!" From introduction to passage was literally 1 day. I read fast, but not that fast. But now, responding to public outcry fueled by media coverage over the bonuses, lawmakers want to retroactively tax the bonuses at 90% rates. After other state and federal taxes, many employees would owe more in taxes than they would get on the bonus; the bonus would actually cost them money.
As if that wasn't enough, ACORN helped sponsor a protest tour of the homes of the people who received the bonuses:
http://www.courant.com/news/local/fc/hc-aig-tour-bus-0322.artmar22202310,0,1283060.story
ACORN, per it's own website, admits its ties to our President, specifically endorsing him for the Presidency: (while denying any wrongdoing in its voter registration drive, which has been challenged in court)
http://www.acorn.org/?id=17856
Here is where MSNBC, no conservative bastion, reviews ACORN's record:
http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/14/1544574.aspx
Notice how CBS doesn't even mention ACORN in this article on the subject at hand:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/21/national/main4881366.shtml?source=RSSattr=Business_4881366
So in other words, you have a group that does federal work organizing a protest against private citizens at their homes, and at whom the government is attempting to impose a very specific retroactive tax. You might still be saying "Yahoo! It is high time to stick it to the rich!" at this point. With media, government and some private citizens all aiming their wrath at a small group of citizens, why should you be concerned?
Let's break this down again. The government rushed legislation through that they did not even read, nor understand. Private citizens who had signed contracts got the money committed to them in the contracts, that the government specifically said was fine, in the legislation the government didn't read. Then government had the audacity to get mad at the people taking those bonuses (even though they specifically allowed it), and after the fact they changed their minds and decided to tax the money so they would get it all back, and then some. Today it is AIG, but what population group will the government next target for the "public good?"
And if that question sounded dangerously paranoid to you, look at the power for which Timothy Geitner, Secretary of the Treasury, is now asking for:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/26/news/geithner.house.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009032611
This boils down to the government seizing "too-big-to-fail" non-banking firms before they fail. This should scare you. Combine this with a mindset that thinks the end justifies the means, and you have the government seizing whomever them deem necessary at their discretion and with no recourse for the seized.
Many AIG employees are giving the bonus money back, because it really isn't worth the hassle. And that makes a 90% tax into a 100% tax, with that tax having been gained through intimidation by both government and media.
And so you absolutely have every right to be outraged... just not at AIG.
Answering Tough Questions - What does it mean to be an American?
Yesterday we asked tough questions. It is time to beginning answering them, in the time we have left. With every bit of news that comes from Capitol Hill, another of your freedoms, another piece of who we are as Americans erodes. A one world currency is being discussed. Gun control is being suggested as the answer to the Mexican drug cartel violence along the border. Nationalized health care is being discussed as one solution to our economic woes. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child inches closer toward being adopted in the US, while at the same time more money is being committed to fund abortion than ever before (and yes, this irony is lost on those who endorse these positions). So we may have very little time left, but we will use it wisely.
Our country was founded upon a strong Christian ethic. This is crucial, because for a society to be ruled by Law, that Law must have an objective source outside (and indeed above) that society. Otherwise we can make up the rules as we go along, and the majority opinion becomes that source of "right" and "wrong." But there must be an objective standard to which we aspire; there must be a thing that is right, even if every person stands against it; and there must be a thing that is wrong, should every person favor it. To fall under the sway of simple majority rule is to hand the Republic over to a mob.
While not all of our founding fathers were Christians, they lived their lives heavily influenced by a Christian worldview. Read the Declaration of Independence, here:
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
The entire idea behind this document is that a King cannot violate the Law of Nature's God with impunity; that even a King is accountable for his actions to the Almighty. It is to our Creator that the founders appealed for the right to form their own government. If our rebellion was merely based upon our whims and wishes - on what a simple majority believed to be true - then we should crawl back to England right now begging forgiveness. But it was not; we believed then (and I believe now) that there are higher virtues than Earthly government to which all men are accountable, and must be accountable. Some thing are always right, and some things are always wrong. The world does indeed conform to certain absolutes, to Good and Evil. This is something that should be fundamental to every American: there is a Creator, and he has endowed us with certain unalienable rights. Most Americans now would agree with me on this point. But the other half of this statement, unspoken in the Declaration but borne out in the lives of those who wrote it, is this: our Creator has also endowed us with certain unalienable responsibilities.
To be a citizen, to be an American, is to have the right to life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But it too often goes unsaid that there is a price to pay, and I am guilty of ignoring the cost of this for nearly my whole life as well. Read the last lines of the Declaration: they pledged their life, liberty and their honor to defend their rights. They knew there was a price to pay, and many of them paid it.
Much like those of us who grew up in Christian homes and often take our Christianity for granted, we as Americans take our liberties for granted because they cost us nothing. Now those basic liberties are being threatened because we elected officials who are taking them away from us. We need to get informed and be aware of who or what we are voting for when we vote. We need to be aware of the laws Congress are passing, and the laws they are considering for passage. It is not just a right, but a responsibility to be involved in the process, and we must take it seriously.
Our country was founded upon a strong Christian ethic. This is crucial, because for a society to be ruled by Law, that Law must have an objective source outside (and indeed above) that society. Otherwise we can make up the rules as we go along, and the majority opinion becomes that source of "right" and "wrong." But there must be an objective standard to which we aspire; there must be a thing that is right, even if every person stands against it; and there must be a thing that is wrong, should every person favor it. To fall under the sway of simple majority rule is to hand the Republic over to a mob.
While not all of our founding fathers were Christians, they lived their lives heavily influenced by a Christian worldview. Read the Declaration of Independence, here:
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
The entire idea behind this document is that a King cannot violate the Law of Nature's God with impunity; that even a King is accountable for his actions to the Almighty. It is to our Creator that the founders appealed for the right to form their own government. If our rebellion was merely based upon our whims and wishes - on what a simple majority believed to be true - then we should crawl back to England right now begging forgiveness. But it was not; we believed then (and I believe now) that there are higher virtues than Earthly government to which all men are accountable, and must be accountable. Some thing are always right, and some things are always wrong. The world does indeed conform to certain absolutes, to Good and Evil. This is something that should be fundamental to every American: there is a Creator, and he has endowed us with certain unalienable rights. Most Americans now would agree with me on this point. But the other half of this statement, unspoken in the Declaration but borne out in the lives of those who wrote it, is this: our Creator has also endowed us with certain unalienable responsibilities.
To be a citizen, to be an American, is to have the right to life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But it too often goes unsaid that there is a price to pay, and I am guilty of ignoring the cost of this for nearly my whole life as well. Read the last lines of the Declaration: they pledged their life, liberty and their honor to defend their rights. They knew there was a price to pay, and many of them paid it.
Much like those of us who grew up in Christian homes and often take our Christianity for granted, we as Americans take our liberties for granted because they cost us nothing. Now those basic liberties are being threatened because we elected officials who are taking them away from us. We need to get informed and be aware of who or what we are voting for when we vote. We need to be aware of the laws Congress are passing, and the laws they are considering for passage. It is not just a right, but a responsibility to be involved in the process, and we must take it seriously.
Daniel Hannan - EU Parliament
I long for the day that a single member of the House or Senate would stand up and deliver a variation of this speech to President Obama.
"You cannot spend your way out of recession, and you cannot borrow your way out of debt."
AMEN!
Watch this 3 minute video, well worth your time.
"You cannot spend your way out of recession, and you cannot borrow your way out of debt."
AMEN!
Watch this 3 minute video, well worth your time.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Who are we?
As Christians, we know exactly who we are - I spoke about this in a previous post. We serve Christ, and the freedom that comes from knowing His boundaries - of being His follower - is the most amazing paradox of this world.
But what is an American? Who is an American? What does an American believe? What does he/she trust in? What are the boundaries of his culture? What are the dictates of his tradition? What inspires the heart of an American? What does he celebrate?
I watch the news, I listen to the radio, and the greatest thing that fills my heart is sadness. Is this what we have become? To what do we aspire? Has money truly become the most important thing in our collective world? Do we truly lack any notion of honor? Of greatness? Of courage? Do we believe our freedom is worth dying for? Our principles?
It seems now that we live to tear down and destroy the great among us. What is this all-consuming pettiness in our collective spirit? We can blame the media for some of this, and the government for some of that, but in the end our leaders and our entertainers are merely reflections of ourselves. When we look in that mirror, are we satisfied with what we have become?
America has been pushed - and pushed itself - to the very brink before. We have always responded with hope, and a spirit that has left us stronger for the struggle. But this enemy is not an outside force, against which we can push back; this time it is a sickness, a cancer within.
In the days to come we will talk about the news, because we must remain aware of our environment. But the first step to winning this struggle is to know why we fight. We must look inward individually, and inward collectively. We have to begin to live deliberately, and take actions consistent with our beliefs. We serve Christ as Christians, and that means something. We must also know as citizens what it means to be an American.
But what is an American? Who is an American? What does an American believe? What does he/she trust in? What are the boundaries of his culture? What are the dictates of his tradition? What inspires the heart of an American? What does he celebrate?
I watch the news, I listen to the radio, and the greatest thing that fills my heart is sadness. Is this what we have become? To what do we aspire? Has money truly become the most important thing in our collective world? Do we truly lack any notion of honor? Of greatness? Of courage? Do we believe our freedom is worth dying for? Our principles?
It seems now that we live to tear down and destroy the great among us. What is this all-consuming pettiness in our collective spirit? We can blame the media for some of this, and the government for some of that, but in the end our leaders and our entertainers are merely reflections of ourselves. When we look in that mirror, are we satisfied with what we have become?
America has been pushed - and pushed itself - to the very brink before. We have always responded with hope, and a spirit that has left us stronger for the struggle. But this enemy is not an outside force, against which we can push back; this time it is a sickness, a cancer within.
In the days to come we will talk about the news, because we must remain aware of our environment. But the first step to winning this struggle is to know why we fight. We must look inward individually, and inward collectively. We have to begin to live deliberately, and take actions consistent with our beliefs. We serve Christ as Christians, and that means something. We must also know as citizens what it means to be an American.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Back from vacation...but the fun isn't over!
Vacation put me in a light-hearted mood, and so I thought my first post back should be equally so. If I had posted the above link in a couple more days on April 1st, you would have thought it some clever hoax (or maybe even not so clever). Once the laughs have subsided, though, you have to face the fact that this is real.
And so today's question to ask yourself: where does big government end, and absurdity begin? I believe the line has been crossed for legislation such as this to even be proposed, but once it passes (and in time, it will) the line will have been obliterated.
I used to laugh so hard I cried. Lately it seems I have been crying so hard I have begun to laugh. At least this is from the EU, not our own government... but we are charging hard to catch up.
And so today's question to ask yourself: where does big government end, and absurdity begin? I believe the line has been crossed for legislation such as this to even be proposed, but once it passes (and in time, it will) the line will have been obliterated.
I used to laugh so hard I cried. Lately it seems I have been crying so hard I have begun to laugh. At least this is from the EU, not our own government... but we are charging hard to catch up.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Vacation!
I will be gone for about a week, I can't wait :).
Rome will have to burn without me... I'll be busy learning to fiddle. Or snorkeling. Or diving.
See you on the 23rd!
Rome will have to burn without me... I'll be busy learning to fiddle. Or snorkeling. Or diving.
See you on the 23rd!
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Cease Striving... and know that I am God
The darkness writhes; clouds rage across the sky. The full fury of this world's storm is breaking upon us. The very act of drawing breath takes effort; hope is a distant port that can't be seen through the waves and the darkness.
And at exactly this moment - when all that we have left is to strive like we never have, against the darkness, against the powers of this world - we must cease.
Cease, and reflect. Do we not serve the God who created this world, and everything in it? His command to us in Psalms (linked above) holds true to this day. He will be exalted. There is no maybe. This is not negotiable. Even though His ways are not our ways, and we don't understand the plan...
There is a plan.
We serve the Living God, who freed His people from the bonds of slavery in Egypt. He fed them food from his table in the wilderness, when no human hand could have provided for them. He gave them a land three thousand years ago, and then he gave them a land again. And though they are surrounded by enemies to this day, he sustains them. He gave us His Son, and barely three hundred years after Jesus' death, even though the persecution of the Church was legendary, Christianity became the religion of the Western World. Though we are surrounded by troubles - jobs, bills, politics, economics, morality - our God sustains us. At this point you should be out of your chair, yelling and shaking your fist! God has built his Church, and we are of it, and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against us.
And so you will struggle in this world. You will have trials. The enemy will make every effort to break you in body and spirit. But if my God is with me, whom then shall I fear?*
The God that stood with David stands with you:
Psalm 27:1 The LORD is my light and my salvation;
Whom shall I fear?
The LORD is the defense of my life;
Whom shall I dread?
2When evildoers came upon me to devour my flesh,
My adversaries and my enemies, they stumbled and fell.
3Though a host encamp against me,
My heart will not fear;
Though war arise against me,
In spite of this I shall be confident.
You are sworn in service to the High King of Heaven. Go forward in His name, and without fear.
*check out the song by Matt Redman, "You Never Let Go"
And at exactly this moment - when all that we have left is to strive like we never have, against the darkness, against the powers of this world - we must cease.
Cease, and reflect. Do we not serve the God who created this world, and everything in it? His command to us in Psalms (linked above) holds true to this day. He will be exalted. There is no maybe. This is not negotiable. Even though His ways are not our ways, and we don't understand the plan...
There is a plan.
We serve the Living God, who freed His people from the bonds of slavery in Egypt. He fed them food from his table in the wilderness, when no human hand could have provided for them. He gave them a land three thousand years ago, and then he gave them a land again. And though they are surrounded by enemies to this day, he sustains them. He gave us His Son, and barely three hundred years after Jesus' death, even though the persecution of the Church was legendary, Christianity became the religion of the Western World. Though we are surrounded by troubles - jobs, bills, politics, economics, morality - our God sustains us. At this point you should be out of your chair, yelling and shaking your fist! God has built his Church, and we are of it, and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against us.
And so you will struggle in this world. You will have trials. The enemy will make every effort to break you in body and spirit. But if my God is with me, whom then shall I fear?*
The God that stood with David stands with you:
Psalm 27:1 The LORD is my light and my salvation;
Whom shall I fear?
The LORD is the defense of my life;
Whom shall I dread?
2When evildoers came upon me to devour my flesh,
My adversaries and my enemies, they stumbled and fell.
3Though a host encamp against me,
My heart will not fear;
Though war arise against me,
In spite of this I shall be confident.
You are sworn in service to the High King of Heaven. Go forward in His name, and without fear.
*check out the song by Matt Redman, "You Never Let Go"
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Employee Free Choice Act (Card Check) - Critical Call Needed to your Senators
*** The title link above is a great website to find out who your Senators are, along with their office phone numbers. Please always be polite, and don't expect to speak directly with your Senator, but communicate to his/her staff what you would like him/her to hear from you. Also ask what their position is on the bill in question. ***
President Obama is about to keep his word to labor unions: Card Check legislation (The Employee Free Choice Act) was introduced into the Senate on March 10th, with 223 co-sponsors in the House and 40 in the Senate (you can think of those co-sponsors as "yes" votes for the bill).
Current labor law gives employees the right to hear about unionizing from both their management and reps from the labor union, with the issue then being decided in a secret ballot vote. In my opinion, this is a fair and balanced way to handle what could be a very volatile situation at some companies. Unions criticize the current policy as allowing management to take action against employees that are trying to rally others to the union cause - they think that the "balance of power" is with management. Card check would definitely swing this balance to the other side.
Card check changes the current system, and allows union reps into workplaces to sign employees up for the union. Once 51% have signed up (by signing certain cards, hence the name), the company is unionized without any secret ballot (or even public) election. Critics of card check - myself included - see a lot of potential for union reps to pressure employees publicly, in front of their co-workers, to sign their cards. Peer pressure becomes the driving force, instead of sound and reasoned decision-making.
Why is this issue critical to you, as an American citizen and a Christian? 3 reasons:
#1 Unions gave around $100 million to Democrats during the last election cycle. Currently unions only represent about 12% of the workforce (teachers, auto workers and government employees, for the most part). Look then at the moral and political causes and issues that union dues go to support. Do you want further money and support for these things? Again, the Democratic party has made homosexual marriage and abortion "rights" core issues within their party. They have chosen to stand for these things, and union dues overwhelmingly go to support their party and these causes. Is this what we want, millions (if not billions) more spent supporting these causes?
#2 Economists are estimating severe job losses from this legislation - good article to read here:
http://www.openmarket.org/2009/03/05/new-study-shows-job-loss-data-under-card-check/
Shouldn't the focus of legislation right now be to create new jobs and stimulate the economy? Take the example of Walmart, which has a very small profit margin - they make a lot of money, but their profit as a percentage of all their sales is very small. In short, higher costs to them = higher costs to you. Card check would result in significantly higher costs. This would indeed make life better for some who work at Walmart, as they might make more money... but anyone who shops at Walmart will experience higher prices. The higher wages also mean that less people will be able to have the now-fewer (but higher paying) jobs. So why would something like this be important to pass now, early in the administrations tenure, when the economy is already so bad? A good question to ask yourself, and it leads to point #3...
#3 This point is completely my opinion, I am answering my question from the end of #2 (in the interest of full disclosure). But if you look at the spending in the stimulus bill, the spending is focused in industries that typically have unions, and the job created are in those fields. Also, the money is released during the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. I don't believe this is an accident. Taken together with this card check program which will exponentially increase the power and money available to unions (and the politicians/causes they support), I see an agenda at work here. Not a conspiracy theory, or anything crazy, but a logical assault on our political system. In summary, the Democrats control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. They are taking steps to consolidate this power, so as to remain in power for the long term. The outrage from the country will have evaporated by 2010, or 2012. But the money will be flowing from Washington, and in 1-3 more years our thinking will be a bit more conditioned by a very sympathic media (sympathetic to this administration). People who bring up then what is happening now will be "living in the past." Sadly, the Republicans could use all this to unify, and show the country a better way, but they have not. Some of them seem to have the fortitude for this battle, but others are content with the bones they are thrown from the table.
Pray about these issues, and seek what the Lord would have you do. But I would highly recommend that call to your Senator. If it's possible, this Act, and the agenda it is part of, must be stopped. The next issue is nationalized health care, and it will be up to vote on very quickly.
We must act now.
President Obama is about to keep his word to labor unions: Card Check legislation (The Employee Free Choice Act) was introduced into the Senate on March 10th, with 223 co-sponsors in the House and 40 in the Senate (you can think of those co-sponsors as "yes" votes for the bill).
Current labor law gives employees the right to hear about unionizing from both their management and reps from the labor union, with the issue then being decided in a secret ballot vote. In my opinion, this is a fair and balanced way to handle what could be a very volatile situation at some companies. Unions criticize the current policy as allowing management to take action against employees that are trying to rally others to the union cause - they think that the "balance of power" is with management. Card check would definitely swing this balance to the other side.
Card check changes the current system, and allows union reps into workplaces to sign employees up for the union. Once 51% have signed up (by signing certain cards, hence the name), the company is unionized without any secret ballot (or even public) election. Critics of card check - myself included - see a lot of potential for union reps to pressure employees publicly, in front of their co-workers, to sign their cards. Peer pressure becomes the driving force, instead of sound and reasoned decision-making.
Why is this issue critical to you, as an American citizen and a Christian? 3 reasons:
#1 Unions gave around $100 million to Democrats during the last election cycle. Currently unions only represent about 12% of the workforce (teachers, auto workers and government employees, for the most part). Look then at the moral and political causes and issues that union dues go to support. Do you want further money and support for these things? Again, the Democratic party has made homosexual marriage and abortion "rights" core issues within their party. They have chosen to stand for these things, and union dues overwhelmingly go to support their party and these causes. Is this what we want, millions (if not billions) more spent supporting these causes?
#2 Economists are estimating severe job losses from this legislation - good article to read here:
http://www.openmarket.org/2009/03/05/new-study-shows-job-loss-data-under-card-check/
Shouldn't the focus of legislation right now be to create new jobs and stimulate the economy? Take the example of Walmart, which has a very small profit margin - they make a lot of money, but their profit as a percentage of all their sales is very small. In short, higher costs to them = higher costs to you. Card check would result in significantly higher costs. This would indeed make life better for some who work at Walmart, as they might make more money... but anyone who shops at Walmart will experience higher prices. The higher wages also mean that less people will be able to have the now-fewer (but higher paying) jobs. So why would something like this be important to pass now, early in the administrations tenure, when the economy is already so bad? A good question to ask yourself, and it leads to point #3...
#3 This point is completely my opinion, I am answering my question from the end of #2 (in the interest of full disclosure). But if you look at the spending in the stimulus bill, the spending is focused in industries that typically have unions, and the job created are in those fields. Also, the money is released during the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. I don't believe this is an accident. Taken together with this card check program which will exponentially increase the power and money available to unions (and the politicians/causes they support), I see an agenda at work here. Not a conspiracy theory, or anything crazy, but a logical assault on our political system. In summary, the Democrats control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. They are taking steps to consolidate this power, so as to remain in power for the long term. The outrage from the country will have evaporated by 2010, or 2012. But the money will be flowing from Washington, and in 1-3 more years our thinking will be a bit more conditioned by a very sympathic media (sympathetic to this administration). People who bring up then what is happening now will be "living in the past." Sadly, the Republicans could use all this to unify, and show the country a better way, but they have not. Some of them seem to have the fortitude for this battle, but others are content with the bones they are thrown from the table.
Pray about these issues, and seek what the Lord would have you do. But I would highly recommend that call to your Senator. If it's possible, this Act, and the agenda it is part of, must be stopped. The next issue is nationalized health care, and it will be up to vote on very quickly.
We must act now.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
$410 Billion More in Government Spending
3 significant things to note here: (from the short article in the title link)
#1 It seems like a pretty good deal, perhaps, if only $8 billion out of $410 billion is earmarks. To put that perspective anyone can understand, though, let's breakdown how much money $8 billion really is to us, in our lives. If you make $75,000 - good money - you would have to work for 106,667 years to make $8 billion (maybe a few years less, inflation would kick in). The numbers have gotten absurd at this point, really. 8,000 different earmarks (pet projects for specific Senators and states) are in the bill, which leads to point #2...
#2 The 62-35 vote to end debate - you need 60 Senators to bring a bill to vote, and the Democrats only have 59 seats. So, the sad part is that several Republicans crossed the aisle and had their own projects in this bill; essentially a bribe of cash to be spent in their districts in return for a yes vote. So the Republicans blew a huge chance to show that their party is different, and will be fiscally responsible. Not terribly surprising (several crossed the aisle to pass the stimulus bill also), but very disappointing.
#3 President Obama promised not to sign bills into law that contain earmarks; this was a big part of the "Change!" he was bringing to Washington. Note the comments from his administration in the end of the article, the loophole if you will. I see a couple reasonable conclusions from this behavior, either a) Mr. Obama will not do what he said he would do, or b) Mr. Obama will use every loophole he can to spend money he deems worthy, while not technically breaking a campaign promise. Either is very disappointing, even from a President whom I oppose ideologically.
All sarcasm aside - which is taking some effort - I would just like one person to explain to me how spending more money we don't have is going to solve the crisis facing America today that was caused by people spending money they did not have. Christian or otherwise, Democrat or Republican - even you Libertarians and Greens could jump in here? How can the solution to the problem be what caused problem? I am dizzy even trying to follow the logic.
Free piece of advice, from Larry Burkett (may he rest in peace). This goes for people, corporations, governments, and you really can't go wrong following it:
Spend less than you make.
#1 It seems like a pretty good deal, perhaps, if only $8 billion out of $410 billion is earmarks. To put that perspective anyone can understand, though, let's breakdown how much money $8 billion really is to us, in our lives. If you make $75,000 - good money - you would have to work for 106,667 years to make $8 billion (maybe a few years less, inflation would kick in). The numbers have gotten absurd at this point, really. 8,000 different earmarks (pet projects for specific Senators and states) are in the bill, which leads to point #2...
#2 The 62-35 vote to end debate - you need 60 Senators to bring a bill to vote, and the Democrats only have 59 seats. So, the sad part is that several Republicans crossed the aisle and had their own projects in this bill; essentially a bribe of cash to be spent in their districts in return for a yes vote. So the Republicans blew a huge chance to show that their party is different, and will be fiscally responsible. Not terribly surprising (several crossed the aisle to pass the stimulus bill also), but very disappointing.
#3 President Obama promised not to sign bills into law that contain earmarks; this was a big part of the "Change!" he was bringing to Washington. Note the comments from his administration in the end of the article, the loophole if you will. I see a couple reasonable conclusions from this behavior, either a) Mr. Obama will not do what he said he would do, or b) Mr. Obama will use every loophole he can to spend money he deems worthy, while not technically breaking a campaign promise. Either is very disappointing, even from a President whom I oppose ideologically.
All sarcasm aside - which is taking some effort - I would just like one person to explain to me how spending more money we don't have is going to solve the crisis facing America today that was caused by people spending money they did not have. Christian or otherwise, Democrat or Republican - even you Libertarians and Greens could jump in here? How can the solution to the problem be what caused problem? I am dizzy even trying to follow the logic.
Free piece of advice, from Larry Burkett (may he rest in peace). This goes for people, corporations, governments, and you really can't go wrong following it:
Spend less than you make.
A review of The Shack
Yes, the question in my last post was intended to be posted just prior to this discussion. If the implication sounds harsh, keep in mind I am not speaking to the author's intentions. I have no idea where Paul Young is at, himself; I hope he has grown past the views and opinions expressed in his book, The Shack, because they are tragically, subtly flawed.
Having no desire to reinvent the wheel, you can follow this link for an excellent review of the book and its issues, from a Biblical perspective:
http://www.challies.com/archives/book-reviews/a-review-of-the-shack-download-it-here.php
At the bottom you can download the .pdf copy, which I would encourage you to do. We should be ready to give an answer to others who may read the book.
I asked the question in the previous post because direct attacks upon Christians have not worked - for the most part - throughout history. The early church was mercilessly persecuted... and Christianity became the official religion of the Empire within a couple hundred years. So the plan of our enemy changed, and he has become much more subtle. Why risk a frontal assault on the Church, when subversion can be more effective, and harder for Christians to spot?
To be clear, I am strongly against this book. Work of fiction it may be, but it was intended to teach spiritual concepts, not entertain. I would counsel Christians to stay away from it, and be aware of the stealth with which Satan can strike.
Having no desire to reinvent the wheel, you can follow this link for an excellent review of the book and its issues, from a Biblical perspective:
http://www.challies.com/archives/book-reviews/a-review-of-the-shack-download-it-here.php
At the bottom you can download the .pdf copy, which I would encourage you to do. We should be ready to give an answer to others who may read the book.
I asked the question in the previous post because direct attacks upon Christians have not worked - for the most part - throughout history. The early church was mercilessly persecuted... and Christianity became the official religion of the Empire within a couple hundred years. So the plan of our enemy changed, and he has become much more subtle. Why risk a frontal assault on the Church, when subversion can be more effective, and harder for Christians to spot?
To be clear, I am strongly against this book. Work of fiction it may be, but it was intended to teach spiritual concepts, not entertain. I would counsel Christians to stay away from it, and be aware of the stealth with which Satan can strike.
If you were Satan...
Now that I have your attention, here is today's question to get you thinking:
If you were Satan and your goal was to destroy both Christians and the Church as a body, how would you do it?
If you were Satan and your goal was to destroy both Christians and the Church as a body, how would you do it?
Monday, March 9, 2009
The Bible and Fairness, Part II
I think that often we mistake our American perspective for a Christian perspective, and that can be a subtle difference but it's an important one. I was sent a link, which is the title link above, which explains very well what Jesus had in mind in the New Testament in terms of our relationship with Him. Take a moment to read it, then continue...
The concept of slavery is revolting to consider, as an American. The African slave trade was a tragedy in American history, and by no means do I advocate the superiority of one race over another. But this is one of those issues in which our American perspective can hinder us. In order to look at what the Bible says, we need a Biblical - or Christian - perspective. Jesus never stood against slavery because the true issue is one of the heart, not the social or economic policies that flow from it. Democracy is great; but a dedicated Christian monarchy would be preferable, from an eternal perspective, to an intensely secular representative government. Democracy is merely a way to ensure religious liberty within our society.
And the great irony of our Christian faith is that we willingly choose slavery, because it is the only way to true freedom. Jesus speaks of how a slave should treat his master, and how a master should treat his slave. The fact that the one is a master and that the one is a slave is irrelevant from an eternal perspective. And if the master treats him well, history has many examples of slaves willfully following their masters even unto death (The Spartans at Thermopylae, several written accounts from our own Civil War, to quickly give two). Is there any way that Jesus could possibly treat us better than He already has?
The great tragedies of the American Civil War were the deplorable treatment of many slaves by their masters, and the inherent racism that went hand in hand with American slavery. The war ended slavery as an institution, but it did almost nothing to fix these 2 problems. So I do not say that slavery is something to be lauded (in the context of society), but we need to think about things from God's perspective, not our own limited viewpoints. In the way that truly matters, I am a slave, and happily so. I know exactly where I stand, who stands with me, and what I must stand for.
In a world of uncertainity, that is truly priceless.
The concept of slavery is revolting to consider, as an American. The African slave trade was a tragedy in American history, and by no means do I advocate the superiority of one race over another. But this is one of those issues in which our American perspective can hinder us. In order to look at what the Bible says, we need a Biblical - or Christian - perspective. Jesus never stood against slavery because the true issue is one of the heart, not the social or economic policies that flow from it. Democracy is great; but a dedicated Christian monarchy would be preferable, from an eternal perspective, to an intensely secular representative government. Democracy is merely a way to ensure religious liberty within our society.
And the great irony of our Christian faith is that we willingly choose slavery, because it is the only way to true freedom. Jesus speaks of how a slave should treat his master, and how a master should treat his slave. The fact that the one is a master and that the one is a slave is irrelevant from an eternal perspective. And if the master treats him well, history has many examples of slaves willfully following their masters even unto death (The Spartans at Thermopylae, several written accounts from our own Civil War, to quickly give two). Is there any way that Jesus could possibly treat us better than He already has?
The great tragedies of the American Civil War were the deplorable treatment of many slaves by their masters, and the inherent racism that went hand in hand with American slavery. The war ended slavery as an institution, but it did almost nothing to fix these 2 problems. So I do not say that slavery is something to be lauded (in the context of society), but we need to think about things from God's perspective, not our own limited viewpoints. In the way that truly matters, I am a slave, and happily so. I know exactly where I stand, who stands with me, and what I must stand for.
In a world of uncertainity, that is truly priceless.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
The Bible and Fairness
Question to get your mind thinking...
In both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, the specific issue of slavery is addressed. God in the Old Testament gives guidance to Israel (Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus), and in the New Testament, Jesus talks about the relationship of slaves and their masters (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). Throughout the Bible, slavery is not condemned, but often spoken about. So why is this (grossly unfair institution, to our minds) never condemned?
In both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, the specific issue of slavery is addressed. God in the Old Testament gives guidance to Israel (Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus), and in the New Testament, Jesus talks about the relationship of slaves and their masters (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). Throughout the Bible, slavery is not condemned, but often spoken about. So why is this (grossly unfair institution, to our minds) never condemned?
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Spin... Gaza Style
Take a couple minutes to read the short article from the title link...
If you have no background on this conflict, I would like to point out that terrorists in Gaza started the conflict in question by attacking Israel. Israel sounds like the aggressor here in the beginning, when their "invasion" is mentioned. And in the middle, it is called their "offensive" and we are given Palestinian casualty figures. The article talks about how we are giving $900 million to help rebuild Gaza; given the limited scope of the article, I understand the lack of back story, but it is extremely important to put the story in context.
In 1967, Egypt, Syria and Jordan attacked Israel (the Arab world will not rest until Israel no longer exists - this is their stated intent). In the Six Day War, Israel defeated all of them (and forces from 6 other Arab nations which had been sent to fight). Israel also captured land including the Gaza Strip, which it maintained as a buffer against the Arab world until 1994, when the Palestinian Authority came to power to govern this area. The PA was/is corrupt and the area has been a hot spot for attacks against Israel and Israelis ever since.
If the same thing had happened to the United States - say a rogue Canadian state had lobbed missiles into our country - I hope our response would have been exactly the same as the Israelis. At this point, Gaza is controlled by Hamas, a terrorist organization. How long would you stand for your neighbors being terrorists? The nation next door that is committed to destroying you? And notice how the article spends a great deal of time telling you that the money is going to Gaza, but not to Hamas. Do you think that is a realistic possibility, that the controlling group in power in the region will not get a good share of this money?
You will almost never see anything in the mainstream press that is pro-Israel. The confirmation of Hillary Clinton to the position of Secretary of State was especially bad for US/Israel relations - just do a quick google search on the primary donors to the Clinton Library, and you'll see who has given the Clinton family a ton of money. At some point we will have to take a stand and choose a side. The UN repeatedly has condemned Israel (15 times in less than 2 years), and we have stood with Israel against the UN. What happens to Israel - what happens to us - when that changes?
I will wrap up talking about principle: the Middle East is a huge test of what you believe. How do you talk peace in a reasonable fashion when every nation in the region other than Israel is opposed to the very fact that Israel exists? I see the Obama administration struggling here because of a fundamental lack of belief in the existence of evil. I really wish the liberal mindset was true, that with enough money and education and time you can eradicate hatred, and poverty, and bad thoughts. But the entire history of the world tells us otherwise.
Tonight as you think about it, pray for the nation of Israel. They remain God's chosen people.
If you have no background on this conflict, I would like to point out that terrorists in Gaza started the conflict in question by attacking Israel. Israel sounds like the aggressor here in the beginning, when their "invasion" is mentioned. And in the middle, it is called their "offensive" and we are given Palestinian casualty figures. The article talks about how we are giving $900 million to help rebuild Gaza; given the limited scope of the article, I understand the lack of back story, but it is extremely important to put the story in context.
In 1967, Egypt, Syria and Jordan attacked Israel (the Arab world will not rest until Israel no longer exists - this is their stated intent). In the Six Day War, Israel defeated all of them (and forces from 6 other Arab nations which had been sent to fight). Israel also captured land including the Gaza Strip, which it maintained as a buffer against the Arab world until 1994, when the Palestinian Authority came to power to govern this area. The PA was/is corrupt and the area has been a hot spot for attacks against Israel and Israelis ever since.
If the same thing had happened to the United States - say a rogue Canadian state had lobbed missiles into our country - I hope our response would have been exactly the same as the Israelis. At this point, Gaza is controlled by Hamas, a terrorist organization. How long would you stand for your neighbors being terrorists? The nation next door that is committed to destroying you? And notice how the article spends a great deal of time telling you that the money is going to Gaza, but not to Hamas. Do you think that is a realistic possibility, that the controlling group in power in the region will not get a good share of this money?
You will almost never see anything in the mainstream press that is pro-Israel. The confirmation of Hillary Clinton to the position of Secretary of State was especially bad for US/Israel relations - just do a quick google search on the primary donors to the Clinton Library, and you'll see who has given the Clinton family a ton of money. At some point we will have to take a stand and choose a side. The UN repeatedly has condemned Israel (15 times in less than 2 years), and we have stood with Israel against the UN. What happens to Israel - what happens to us - when that changes?
I will wrap up talking about principle: the Middle East is a huge test of what you believe. How do you talk peace in a reasonable fashion when every nation in the region other than Israel is opposed to the very fact that Israel exists? I see the Obama administration struggling here because of a fundamental lack of belief in the existence of evil. I really wish the liberal mindset was true, that with enough money and education and time you can eradicate hatred, and poverty, and bad thoughts. But the entire history of the world tells us otherwise.
Tonight as you think about it, pray for the nation of Israel. They remain God's chosen people.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
President Obama and the Abortion Question
The title link here is from a speech given before his election. Say what you want about our President, he has kept his word so far in regards to his campaign promises. I have said before that I think Mr. Obama is very much in earnest when he makes these commitments. He is very principled, but as my argument within this blog unfolds, my opinion is that he has the wrong principles. Building on a poor foundation, nothing great will be built. Below is the link to verify that, as one of his first acts, he is taking steps to keep his promise:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/02/gallup_58_percent_oppose_obama_1.asp
Let me make one thing very clear: I am vehemently opposed to abortion in any form; it is the most barbaric practice in the world today, and many of the other social and economic problems we suffer in this modern age stem directly from this scourge. But even those who favor unrestricted abortion should oppose this legislation because we have no money to fund this international effort. This is one more expenditure that adds to the deficit.
But the abortion question is a critical insight into how a person values human life. Even a moral relativist (someone who does not believe in an objective source of moral truth, such as the Biblical God) has to come down and say "at this point it is not human" and "at this point it is human." Here is a great link, and note what is said about evolutionary thought which ties into abortion very closely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
If the basic viewpoint of a person (or a society) is that people are created in God's image, then the way they view children is very different. But an evolutionary viewpoint, and by extension a morally relativistic viewpoint argues in terms of what I think, not what God says. Once "I" am the source of truth and morality, then morality becomes how I define it. What is best for me becomes more important than what is best. As a Bible-believing Christian, I have the wisdom of simplicity in this issue, straight from the Bible: life begins at conception. Irregardless of the circumstances of conception (rape, incest, the common arguments given for the necessity of abortion), the child in question is a gift from God. And on this note, is the child responsible for the circumstances of it's birth? To be blunt, does killing the offspring of the rape make the rape any less traumatic? Does it improve the situation in any meaningful way?
To express the struggle with the abortion question on the part of those who deny objective truth, when is the "fetus" (which means baby, by the way, just in Latin) a baby? At 21 weeks, since at that age children have survived outside the womb? This series of questions illustrates the difficulty:
Is it okay to abort the day after conception (via an "emergency contraception pill")?
Is it okay to kill a 5 year old? *
* Before you dismiss the question as ludicrous, we are trying to establish parameters here by which a living being becomes human enough to have basic human rights. What good is a 5 year old to society, other than for its potential? It requires constant care, cannot survive on its own, has no useful skills. It is a waste of precious and limited resources, unless we acknowledge that it's potential value to society at some point in the future warrants it's survival. But now we come to the rub... a baby in the womb has that same potential, it's just not as far along the growth curve.
So, is it okay to abort the fetus at 20 weeks?
How about 40 weeks, but not yet delivered?
26 weeks (when many babies have survived)?
What if the abortion is botched and the baby - er, fetus - is delivered alive. Should we let it starve to death? Should we stab in in the brain to eliminate it? Wring it's neck?
If the questions have become merciless to you, that is exactly my point. Abortion is an issue, as Obama stated in his speech above, that is "old and tired and we need to move past."
Except that to move past it is to lose a fundamental aspect of what makes us human. We love. We have the capacity to show mercy. The argument should be made louder than ever: we must treat our unborn children as the gifts they are. Getting this issue incorrect leads to so many other problems. Once children have no value, the sick and elderly are next. The next logical step after abortion would be the legality of assisted suicide, and the ability of relatives to put to death their kin who are vegetative, or on life support to death. These are not widespread in our country yet, but they are growing; euthanasia is legal in several states and judges have been allowing it other places.
The triumph of our Democracy in years past has been the strong defending the weak. Since Roe v. Wade, we have been destroying them. This is no issue to look past. Fatigue has set it from this battle, just like with Iraq and Afghanistan; people are weary of the struggle. But we must keep fighting, particularly because we fought before. One of the consequences of the Civil War was the resulting strength of the Federal government versus that of the States. What President Obama does at the national level - in allowing unrestricted access to abortions - will supersede any state law. If all 50 states outlawed abortion tomorrow, but the Federal government said it was legal, it is legal in all 50 states. And once you see the judgment of a person in relationship to the abortion question, you can see the guiding principles that will lead to the judgments they will make in other areas. Abortion can never be the right answer; once you allow compromise of this nature into your society, other moral compromises will follow.
Coming back to our President, he claims that he wants less abortions, but he wants the access to them unrestricted. Logically this does not follow but from a relativistic mindset it makes sense: the solution here fits the problem as it exists right now. In the markets, he claims to want free market capitalism with some oversight. The solution to this problem, right now, though, is nationalization of banks and automakers. With no objective set of guiding principles, the issues get very muddled very quickly, and we are seeing the results of this in just the first 2 months of his Presidency.
So then, what can I do?
First, you can pray for President Obama. You can pray for our leaders in Congress, and the White House staff. I personally find this very hard to do, but it is necessary and we are called by God to do it.
Secondly, we need to make sure we support those in local and state elections that both claim to hold to our guiding principles, and have also (to the extent that they have served) lived them out in their personal and political lives. It is not enough to be "personally against abortion but support the rights of women to have access to them." We must have leaders who are living consistently with their beliefs, or we need other leaders.
Thirdly, we must stay informed and on top of the issues of our time. In my coming posts I will link to some great organizations that will keep you informed and help you get in touch with your state and federal representatives.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/02/gallup_58_percent_oppose_obama_1.asp
Let me make one thing very clear: I am vehemently opposed to abortion in any form; it is the most barbaric practice in the world today, and many of the other social and economic problems we suffer in this modern age stem directly from this scourge. But even those who favor unrestricted abortion should oppose this legislation because we have no money to fund this international effort. This is one more expenditure that adds to the deficit.
But the abortion question is a critical insight into how a person values human life. Even a moral relativist (someone who does not believe in an objective source of moral truth, such as the Biblical God) has to come down and say "at this point it is not human" and "at this point it is human." Here is a great link, and note what is said about evolutionary thought which ties into abortion very closely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
If the basic viewpoint of a person (or a society) is that people are created in God's image, then the way they view children is very different. But an evolutionary viewpoint, and by extension a morally relativistic viewpoint argues in terms of what I think, not what God says. Once "I" am the source of truth and morality, then morality becomes how I define it. What is best for me becomes more important than what is best. As a Bible-believing Christian, I have the wisdom of simplicity in this issue, straight from the Bible: life begins at conception. Irregardless of the circumstances of conception (rape, incest, the common arguments given for the necessity of abortion), the child in question is a gift from God. And on this note, is the child responsible for the circumstances of it's birth? To be blunt, does killing the offspring of the rape make the rape any less traumatic? Does it improve the situation in any meaningful way?
To express the struggle with the abortion question on the part of those who deny objective truth, when is the "fetus" (which means baby, by the way, just in Latin) a baby? At 21 weeks, since at that age children have survived outside the womb? This series of questions illustrates the difficulty:
Is it okay to abort the day after conception (via an "emergency contraception pill")?
Is it okay to kill a 5 year old? *
* Before you dismiss the question as ludicrous, we are trying to establish parameters here by which a living being becomes human enough to have basic human rights. What good is a 5 year old to society, other than for its potential? It requires constant care, cannot survive on its own, has no useful skills. It is a waste of precious and limited resources, unless we acknowledge that it's potential value to society at some point in the future warrants it's survival. But now we come to the rub... a baby in the womb has that same potential, it's just not as far along the growth curve.
So, is it okay to abort the fetus at 20 weeks?
How about 40 weeks, but not yet delivered?
26 weeks (when many babies have survived)?
What if the abortion is botched and the baby - er, fetus - is delivered alive. Should we let it starve to death? Should we stab in in the brain to eliminate it? Wring it's neck?
If the questions have become merciless to you, that is exactly my point. Abortion is an issue, as Obama stated in his speech above, that is "old and tired and we need to move past."
Except that to move past it is to lose a fundamental aspect of what makes us human. We love. We have the capacity to show mercy. The argument should be made louder than ever: we must treat our unborn children as the gifts they are. Getting this issue incorrect leads to so many other problems. Once children have no value, the sick and elderly are next. The next logical step after abortion would be the legality of assisted suicide, and the ability of relatives to put to death their kin who are vegetative, or on life support to death. These are not widespread in our country yet, but they are growing; euthanasia is legal in several states and judges have been allowing it other places.
The triumph of our Democracy in years past has been the strong defending the weak. Since Roe v. Wade, we have been destroying them. This is no issue to look past. Fatigue has set it from this battle, just like with Iraq and Afghanistan; people are weary of the struggle. But we must keep fighting, particularly because we fought before. One of the consequences of the Civil War was the resulting strength of the Federal government versus that of the States. What President Obama does at the national level - in allowing unrestricted access to abortions - will supersede any state law. If all 50 states outlawed abortion tomorrow, but the Federal government said it was legal, it is legal in all 50 states. And once you see the judgment of a person in relationship to the abortion question, you can see the guiding principles that will lead to the judgments they will make in other areas. Abortion can never be the right answer; once you allow compromise of this nature into your society, other moral compromises will follow.
Coming back to our President, he claims that he wants less abortions, but he wants the access to them unrestricted. Logically this does not follow but from a relativistic mindset it makes sense: the solution here fits the problem as it exists right now. In the markets, he claims to want free market capitalism with some oversight. The solution to this problem, right now, though, is nationalization of banks and automakers. With no objective set of guiding principles, the issues get very muddled very quickly, and we are seeing the results of this in just the first 2 months of his Presidency.
So then, what can I do?
First, you can pray for President Obama. You can pray for our leaders in Congress, and the White House staff. I personally find this very hard to do, but it is necessary and we are called by God to do it.
Secondly, we need to make sure we support those in local and state elections that both claim to hold to our guiding principles, and have also (to the extent that they have served) lived them out in their personal and political lives. It is not enough to be "personally against abortion but support the rights of women to have access to them." We must have leaders who are living consistently with their beliefs, or we need other leaders.
Thirdly, we must stay informed and on top of the issues of our time. In my coming posts I will link to some great organizations that will keep you informed and help you get in touch with your state and federal representatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
