I picked up a copy of The Audacity of Hope from the local library (this is President Obama's book, written back in 2006). In it there is quite a bit of good information that shows exactly what he thinks about certain issues. Here is a direct quote from page 90, in the chapter titled "Our Constitution:"
Ultimately, though, I have to side with [Supreme Court] Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution - that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.
And a far more telling quote from page 93:
It's not just absolute power that the Founders sought to prevent. Implicit in its structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth, the infallibility of any idea or ideology or theology or "ism," any tyrannical consistency that might lock future generations into a single, unalterable course, or drive both majorities and minorities into the cruelties of the Inquisition, the pogrom, the gulag, or the jihad. They were suspicious of abstraction and liked asking questions, which is why at every turn in our early history theory yielded to fact and necessity.
This is at the core of the Conservative's disagreement with President Obama; the above quotes could not be more wrong, however well intentioned. The Constitution does not reject absolute Truth, it appeals to it. The Founders appeal for our "unalienable rights" was to the absolute power of Nature's God; if there is no higher, absolute truth than our civil government, then we had no right to rebel in the first place. The struggle of reflecting God's higher, moral law into the laws that govern civil society should not be mistaken for compromise. The Founder's struggles were for principle, namely which principles to strive for when building this Republic. It was not about theory versus necessity, it was about the fundamental rights and responsibilities of men and governments.
We are living now in a country with a foundation of sand; to say that the Constitution is subject to interpretation by each successive generation is to rob it of its very meaning in the first place. If our Constitution is merely a social contract, arbitrary laws subject to the whims of men, then we have no foundation to stand upon when the storms of adversity come.
I hold our Constitution to be a standard for behavior, a standard for law. Far from being subject to our whims, we must hold firm to what it teaches, and go where it leads. The President swears to uphold the Constitution, to protect the standard so that it remains for all time; he does not swear to recast the meaning of the document to fit the circumstances of our time. The difference in philosophies between the Conservative and President Obama (as Mark Levin would call him, the Statist) is one of perspective. I start at the Constitution and argue how best I can live within its tenants; the Statist starts with himself, or the individual Citizen, and seeks how best the Constitution can serve his needs.
The danger for our nation is that tyranny often flows from "necessity;" that our only chance to survive and flourish is the sacrifice of some small liberty. But these small liberties, once dead, are nearly always gone forever. We must fight for our liberty at every opportunity, with our words and with our votes.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
"Torture," and a Step Too Far
You won't find any links today, there is plenty available to read online about this topic of "torture." Extreme measures, enhanced interrogations - call them what you will. I am saddened and disappointed... not by the brave men and women of the CIA who defend us everyday, but by a President who would sell them out to gain some political points with the far left at home and abroad. To this point, should you read my previous posts, I have always respectfully disagreed with President Obama on matters of policy. I have always said I believed his intentions and motivations were pure, but that he (from my perspective) is misguided.
No more.
I cannot respect a man of so little character that he and his administration would attack the very people whose lives are on the line defending us from terror in an effort to appease radicals who fail to understand the nature of this conflict. This is monstrously wrong, and this will end badly for all of us. Even our national security is not above petty politics to this man. Make no mistake, I am very angry. I am upset. I think former Vice President Cheney had some very good questions (on Fox News): why were some documents detailing this "torture" released, but very few that show the positive results of these interrogations? Mr. Cheney has called publicly for the release of additional documents, and I truly hope those are brought forth, and I hope that all involved avoid legal problems from this. They won't of course; this is a witch hunt, after all. But I hope and pray they do.
A word on "torture:" what we have done to these terrorists does not even qualify. Sleep deprivation, loud music, forced hygiene (I am not making this up), a member of the opposite sex being in the room with you, even water boarding which simulates drowning - if only our captured soldiers, civilians and agents were so generously treated in captivity. The standard of our enemies should not become our standard for the sake of reprisal, but I ask those who go on and on about how we shouldn't "torture:" with all the time and angst you are spending defending the rights of these animals, how about the rights of their victims? Who - in this day - is standing up for the rights of the 2,996 dead Americans from September 11th? If we were treating these terrorists roughly for our own general amusement, I would join the chorus of voices saying it is wrong. We must not become the monsters we are fighting. But there are principles at stake here; these interrogations are not about the end justifying the means, but about something more.
Here is a direct quote from the White House website, the Homeland Security page:
"The first responsibility of any president is to protect the American people. President Barack Obama will provide the leadership and strategies to strengthen our security at home."
How does throwing CIA agents under the proverbial bus assist in this commitment? I agree with the 1st sentence of the quote. The principle here is that the American President has the responsibility to protect the American people. President Bush did an excellent job of this in the wake of September 11th. The second sentence has become a sad, sick joke.
Our enemies are rejoicing as this administration assists them in weakening our national defenses. I pray that someone you love does not have to pay with their lives for this folly.
No more.
I cannot respect a man of so little character that he and his administration would attack the very people whose lives are on the line defending us from terror in an effort to appease radicals who fail to understand the nature of this conflict. This is monstrously wrong, and this will end badly for all of us. Even our national security is not above petty politics to this man. Make no mistake, I am very angry. I am upset. I think former Vice President Cheney had some very good questions (on Fox News): why were some documents detailing this "torture" released, but very few that show the positive results of these interrogations? Mr. Cheney has called publicly for the release of additional documents, and I truly hope those are brought forth, and I hope that all involved avoid legal problems from this. They won't of course; this is a witch hunt, after all. But I hope and pray they do.
A word on "torture:" what we have done to these terrorists does not even qualify. Sleep deprivation, loud music, forced hygiene (I am not making this up), a member of the opposite sex being in the room with you, even water boarding which simulates drowning - if only our captured soldiers, civilians and agents were so generously treated in captivity. The standard of our enemies should not become our standard for the sake of reprisal, but I ask those who go on and on about how we shouldn't "torture:" with all the time and angst you are spending defending the rights of these animals, how about the rights of their victims? Who - in this day - is standing up for the rights of the 2,996 dead Americans from September 11th? If we were treating these terrorists roughly for our own general amusement, I would join the chorus of voices saying it is wrong. We must not become the monsters we are fighting. But there are principles at stake here; these interrogations are not about the end justifying the means, but about something more.
Here is a direct quote from the White House website, the Homeland Security page:
"The first responsibility of any president is to protect the American people. President Barack Obama will provide the leadership and strategies to strengthen our security at home."
How does throwing CIA agents under the proverbial bus assist in this commitment? I agree with the 1st sentence of the quote. The principle here is that the American President has the responsibility to protect the American people. President Bush did an excellent job of this in the wake of September 11th. The second sentence has become a sad, sick joke.
Our enemies are rejoicing as this administration assists them in weakening our national defenses. I pray that someone you love does not have to pay with their lives for this folly.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Abortion at the UN - How You Can Help
We have an ally at the UN that we need to stay in touch with. You can click below to join the Friday Fax, part of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute. They are defending the rights of the unborn everyday at the UN. These brothers in Christ believe in the sanctity of human life and they are in the room defending it. When you sign up, you will begin receiving an email once or twice a week containing a couple short articles to keep you informed as to what is happening at the UN meetings.
http://www.c-fam.org/Programs/id.133/default.asp
I have been keeping up with the journalism of Austin Ruse through the Friday Fax, and I have found him to be both informative and morally principled in his words. I encourage you to sign up for this newsletter to stay informed. If you feel so led of the Lord, I am sure they could also use your donations.
http://www.c-fam.org/Programs/id.133/default.asp
I have been keeping up with the journalism of Austin Ruse through the Friday Fax, and I have found him to be both informative and morally principled in his words. I encourage you to sign up for this newsletter to stay informed. If you feel so led of the Lord, I am sure they could also use your donations.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Passing the Baton - Dr. Jeff Myers
Dr. Jeff Myers' ministry is dedicated to working with families, churches and schools to train up the next generation as Godly leaders. I had the privilege of hearing him speak at the Arizona Homeschool Conference several years ago, and I have stayed on his email list ever since. I don't have first hand experience with the materials, but I have listened to many of his audio CDs and his ideas are Biblical.
Christianity has always been a generational movement; we as parents and leaders in the community have a Biblical obligation to teach the next generation what God teaches and why we believe it. This is one great tool among many. I don't think that Dr. Myers' program contains a magical formula, but it is a great resource for equipping the next generation. Check it out here:
http://www.passingthebaton.org/
Even if you won't be using the program, I recommend being on Dr. Myers' email list. You can sign up here:
Christianity has always been a generational movement; we as parents and leaders in the community have a Biblical obligation to teach the next generation what God teaches and why we believe it. This is one great tool among many. I don't think that Dr. Myers' program contains a magical formula, but it is a great resource for equipping the next generation. Check it out here:
http://www.passingthebaton.org/
Even if you won't be using the program, I recommend being on Dr. Myers' email list. You can sign up here:
http://visitor.constantcontact.com/manage/optin/ea?v=001EYE_9pNc5E309b737_XpPw%3D%3D
We need to do anything we can to equip the next generation - I hope these tools help, and if you have any other suggestions, please post them in the comments or email me.
A review of Liberty and Tyranny
If you want a very clear, detailed description of how things have gotten to this point in America, read Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin. He clearly lays out the conflict between Conservative and Statist (or Liberal), explains what has been happening over the last 70 years, and discusses what is happening now. Mr. Levin goes point by point through each aspect of society, explaining both how the Founders envisioned America, and how the Statist has sought to distort this vision. The book can be a little dry - this is not a novel, but more an essay - but it is well worth reading for the excellent information.
So if you decide to read one book on politics this year (or decade), read this one.
So if you decide to read one book on politics this year (or decade), read this one.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Anderson Cooper Should Apologize
Click the title link to read about Anderson Cooper of CNN's comments in regards to the Tea Parties held on April 15th.
I will warn you about googling "teabagging" should you not be familiar with it; it is a crude term to describe a sexual act.
One nice thing about Mr. Cooper's comment is that it shows the objectivity of CNN's programming: namely, that there is none. If you think I am accusing Mr. Cooper unfairly, I would encourage to read (or view) his comments in their original context.
This is not the type of behavior that can be considered acceptable among the mainstream media. And yes, if a "right-wing" personality had made this type of reference in regards to President Obama or Democratic voters, I would be demanding an apology as well. Our discourse must be founded on principle, not personal attacks, or we become just another voice shouting into the wind.
Anderson Cooper should apologize for his comments about the American citizens who went to the Tea Party rallies held independently across our nation. And if you went to one, leave me a comment on your experience - I would love to hear about it.
I will warn you about googling "teabagging" should you not be familiar with it; it is a crude term to describe a sexual act.
One nice thing about Mr. Cooper's comment is that it shows the objectivity of CNN's programming: namely, that there is none. If you think I am accusing Mr. Cooper unfairly, I would encourage to read (or view) his comments in their original context.
This is not the type of behavior that can be considered acceptable among the mainstream media. And yes, if a "right-wing" personality had made this type of reference in regards to President Obama or Democratic voters, I would be demanding an apology as well. Our discourse must be founded on principle, not personal attacks, or we become just another voice shouting into the wind.
Anderson Cooper should apologize for his comments about the American citizens who went to the Tea Party rallies held independently across our nation. And if you went to one, leave me a comment on your experience - I would love to hear about it.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
A Possible Solution - Step 2
Step 1 - We ourselves need to be in the Word, and know what we believe. This is our duty as a Christian.
Step 2 - We need to be familiar with the basic principles of our Republic. This is our duty as an American Citizen. I think most of us have done ourselves an extreme disservice, in that our citizenship as Americans has cost us nothing. And that is exactly how we treat it: as something that is worthless. But although this gift is free to us, it has been paid for in the blood of patriots since 1775. Countless men and women have given their lives so that we can live free in this day and age. That should mean something to each of us.
And yet when was the last time we spent a Memorial Day at a graveyard, paying respects to the fallen? At a VA hospital, thanking the wounded? Even going online to thank a soldier with an e-card (which you can do at several websites, just google "email a soldier")? I know I am guilty of spending my Memorial Days enjoying my freedom, but rarely - if ever - thinking about what it cost.
We should know what the famous documents of American history are, and what they mean. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are readily available online. They are shorter to read, and more interesting, than you might think. We should also know who our representatives are and what they believe in. Do you agree with them? Should you vote for them to remain in office, or watch for a different candidate that reflects your beliefs?
What are the powers (I will say, what should be the powers) of the various branches of government? For example, the President has the tremendous privilege of appointing Supreme Court judges. Did you know that the members of the Supreme Court serve for life, or until they step down? It is critical to have Justices that adhere to the Constitution as written; President Obama may well appoint several over the next 4 years. Will he appoint Justices that do so, or Justices that interpret the Constitution according to a liberal social and economic agenda?
In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment covers the right a woman to have an abortion in the Roe v. Wade ruling. The lesser known Doe v. Bolton was decided at the same, and essentially opened up the door for an abortion into the third trimester, provided the 'health' of the mother was at risk. The problem with their ruling from a legal standpoint was that several states (36) had criminal abortion laws on the books when the 14th Amendment passed. None of these laws were challenged for over 100 years, so at the time it became part of the Constitution, the 14th Amendment clearly had nothing to do with abortion.
This case illustrates what can happen, though, when citizens are not vigilant about protecting their freedoms. The essential ruling here is that the convenience of the mother supersedes the right of an unborn child to life, a concept so alien to our Founders as to be ludicrous. And yet 36 years later we see an advancement of this agenda that has barely slowed down. The social and economic consequences to our society - and the free world - have been dire. This is the kind of thing that cannot be allowed to happen again. We have to hold our elected leaders to the standard of our government as it was formed. And to do that, we have to know what our Republic truly is.
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked as he left: "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
He replied “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Amen.
Step 2 - We need to be familiar with the basic principles of our Republic. This is our duty as an American Citizen. I think most of us have done ourselves an extreme disservice, in that our citizenship as Americans has cost us nothing. And that is exactly how we treat it: as something that is worthless. But although this gift is free to us, it has been paid for in the blood of patriots since 1775. Countless men and women have given their lives so that we can live free in this day and age. That should mean something to each of us.
And yet when was the last time we spent a Memorial Day at a graveyard, paying respects to the fallen? At a VA hospital, thanking the wounded? Even going online to thank a soldier with an e-card (which you can do at several websites, just google "email a soldier")? I know I am guilty of spending my Memorial Days enjoying my freedom, but rarely - if ever - thinking about what it cost.
We should know what the famous documents of American history are, and what they mean. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are readily available online. They are shorter to read, and more interesting, than you might think. We should also know who our representatives are and what they believe in. Do you agree with them? Should you vote for them to remain in office, or watch for a different candidate that reflects your beliefs?
What are the powers (I will say, what should be the powers) of the various branches of government? For example, the President has the tremendous privilege of appointing Supreme Court judges. Did you know that the members of the Supreme Court serve for life, or until they step down? It is critical to have Justices that adhere to the Constitution as written; President Obama may well appoint several over the next 4 years. Will he appoint Justices that do so, or Justices that interpret the Constitution according to a liberal social and economic agenda?
In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment covers the right a woman to have an abortion in the Roe v. Wade ruling. The lesser known Doe v. Bolton was decided at the same, and essentially opened up the door for an abortion into the third trimester, provided the 'health' of the mother was at risk. The problem with their ruling from a legal standpoint was that several states (36) had criminal abortion laws on the books when the 14th Amendment passed. None of these laws were challenged for over 100 years, so at the time it became part of the Constitution, the 14th Amendment clearly had nothing to do with abortion.
This case illustrates what can happen, though, when citizens are not vigilant about protecting their freedoms. The essential ruling here is that the convenience of the mother supersedes the right of an unborn child to life, a concept so alien to our Founders as to be ludicrous. And yet 36 years later we see an advancement of this agenda that has barely slowed down. The social and economic consequences to our society - and the free world - have been dire. This is the kind of thing that cannot be allowed to happen again. We have to hold our elected leaders to the standard of our government as it was formed. And to do that, we have to know what our Republic truly is.
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked as he left: "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
He replied “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Amen.
Islam is Not the Enemy... but You Could Be!
The link above will take you to the document that has generated a lot of conversation over the last 2 days. As I write this, the Obama White House is attempting to distance itself from the report, which is humorous given the contents of the report and President Obama's own comments while abroad.
Do you:
* Own guns? Want to buy a gun, because you can see a day in the future when this administration would restrict gun ownership?
* Believe abortion is a moral evil? Do you *gasp* discuss this on the Internet?
* Do you think this current government is expanding federal authority beyond its Constitutional limits?
* Do you believe that immigrants should come to the US legally?
* Do you believe that the growing economic and nuclear power of countries like China and Iran could lead to problems for the US (and the world)?
If you answered yes to the above questions, then welcome to Right-Wing Extremism! Grab a chair and a name tag. President Obama last week took great pains to tell the world that the US is not a religious nation of any kind, that we are not at war with Islam - just certain extremists. Ah, but there is that word again. Extremist. Extremism. He who defines the language has great control in the society. And we are being defined. The same word is being used to describe a person who blows up women and children in the name of his god, and those who believe in the basic principles of the Constitution. I encourage you to read the 10 page document, and see what it says for yourself. Please forgive the rhetoric (speaking of the historical Presidential election, page 4) and the lack of a word or 2 (on page 6, it should be illegal immigrants crossing the border, not just 'immigrants' - note also how violence against illegal immigrants becomes violence against Hispanics. I don't condone violence against either group, but the word choice here speaks volumes to the worldview behind the report). But you need to know what is going on in your country's government.
Today the TEA party rallies are on in full force. They are being shredded as a plot, a conspiracy, another right-wing led protest... (check CNN, MSNBC, etc) and here I thought peaceful assembly was a Constitutional right, also. These are average Americans, like yourself; but they have had enough. Have you?
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
Do you:
* Own guns? Want to buy a gun, because you can see a day in the future when this administration would restrict gun ownership?
* Believe abortion is a moral evil? Do you *gasp* discuss this on the Internet?
* Do you think this current government is expanding federal authority beyond its Constitutional limits?
* Do you believe that immigrants should come to the US legally?
* Do you believe that the growing economic and nuclear power of countries like China and Iran could lead to problems for the US (and the world)?
If you answered yes to the above questions, then welcome to Right-Wing Extremism! Grab a chair and a name tag. President Obama last week took great pains to tell the world that the US is not a religious nation of any kind, that we are not at war with Islam - just certain extremists. Ah, but there is that word again. Extremist. Extremism. He who defines the language has great control in the society. And we are being defined. The same word is being used to describe a person who blows up women and children in the name of his god, and those who believe in the basic principles of the Constitution. I encourage you to read the 10 page document, and see what it says for yourself. Please forgive the rhetoric (speaking of the historical Presidential election, page 4) and the lack of a word or 2 (on page 6, it should be illegal immigrants crossing the border, not just 'immigrants' - note also how violence against illegal immigrants becomes violence against Hispanics. I don't condone violence against either group, but the word choice here speaks volumes to the worldview behind the report). But you need to know what is going on in your country's government.
Today the TEA party rallies are on in full force. They are being shredded as a plot, a conspiracy, another right-wing led protest... (check CNN, MSNBC, etc) and here I thought peaceful assembly was a Constitutional right, also. These are average Americans, like yourself; but they have had enough. Have you?
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
Monday, April 13, 2009
A Possible Solution - Step 1
I feel sometimes like all I am doing is complaining - discussing problem after problem and never discussing anything like a solution. I have shared some of my Bible reading, and tried to be encouraging in some posts :). But here, I will begin to share my ideas about "fixing" this mess. I hope to make my argument clearly, and point by point, but please comment/email with questions or challenges - I would love to hear what you think as well. I cannot think of every objection and differing point of view.
To preface anything else I say: I hold the Bible to be inerrant, the final authority given by God on any problem faced by men and women, at any point of human history. It is not a book that is (or will become) obsolete, because the basic problems affecting the lives of men and women have not changed since the beginning of time. Our basic sin natures are the same. Technology does create some interesting questions and situations, but the basic issues we struggle with are no different now than in 4000 BC.
1. Any solution has to begin with the only thing we can completely control in this world - ourselves. We need to know exactly what we believe, and why we believe it. We have to know what the Word of God says about the issues - not what the latest, greatest Christian novel thinks, or what your pastor thinks, or some off-his-rocker blogger thinks, but what God says. There are numerous sources that can help us understand what God says in the Bible, but we need to be in the Word ourselves. I myself struggle mightily with reading the Bible consistently, so this is not easy to do, and I am by no means a great example of it. But if we would know the mind of God - to the extent that we can know it - we have to read what He wrote to us. We have to be on firm footing before we tackle the big issues. We have to understand what shapes our worldview - the way we interpret everything that happens both to us and around us in life. As I examine the world that God made, I see design and purpose. In my own life, I see design and purpose. I live in this moment in history, and at this specific place in the world, because God has a plan for my life. You live in this moment at your place for a reason also - do you know what it is? Have you asked God to reveal it to you? There is something God created you to do that only you can do, because you are unique. And that is a tremendous privilege, and a tremendous responsibility.
I find Luke 12 to be excellent in laying out the basic steps:
v 7: Do not fear, God is in control.
v 8: Remember whom you serve, and proclaim Him.
vv 11-12: As you need words, they will be given to you.
vv 13-34: Focus on what really matters, not what the world focuses on (God's priorities vs. ours).
vv 35-48: Be ready - your chance is coming, the day when you will serve.
vv 49-59: Jesus' words divide. This does not mean the church should be divided (though sadly it is), but rather that the church will be separate from the world at large. This is logical, as we have different priorities: while they seek peace and financial prosperity, we seek Truth, that all men may know Him.
To preface anything else I say: I hold the Bible to be inerrant, the final authority given by God on any problem faced by men and women, at any point of human history. It is not a book that is (or will become) obsolete, because the basic problems affecting the lives of men and women have not changed since the beginning of time. Our basic sin natures are the same. Technology does create some interesting questions and situations, but the basic issues we struggle with are no different now than in 4000 BC.
1. Any solution has to begin with the only thing we can completely control in this world - ourselves. We need to know exactly what we believe, and why we believe it. We have to know what the Word of God says about the issues - not what the latest, greatest Christian novel thinks, or what your pastor thinks, or some off-his-rocker blogger thinks, but what God says. There are numerous sources that can help us understand what God says in the Bible, but we need to be in the Word ourselves. I myself struggle mightily with reading the Bible consistently, so this is not easy to do, and I am by no means a great example of it. But if we would know the mind of God - to the extent that we can know it - we have to read what He wrote to us. We have to be on firm footing before we tackle the big issues. We have to understand what shapes our worldview - the way we interpret everything that happens both to us and around us in life. As I examine the world that God made, I see design and purpose. In my own life, I see design and purpose. I live in this moment in history, and at this specific place in the world, because God has a plan for my life. You live in this moment at your place for a reason also - do you know what it is? Have you asked God to reveal it to you? There is something God created you to do that only you can do, because you are unique. And that is a tremendous privilege, and a tremendous responsibility.
I find Luke 12 to be excellent in laying out the basic steps:
v 7: Do not fear, God is in control.
v 8: Remember whom you serve, and proclaim Him.
vv 11-12: As you need words, they will be given to you.
vv 13-34: Focus on what really matters, not what the world focuses on (God's priorities vs. ours).
vv 35-48: Be ready - your chance is coming, the day when you will serve.
vv 49-59: Jesus' words divide. This does not mean the church should be divided (though sadly it is), but rather that the church will be separate from the world at large. This is logical, as we have different priorities: while they seek peace and financial prosperity, we seek Truth, that all men may know Him.
Friday, April 10, 2009
President Obama in Turkey
Thoughts on the video I posted a few days ago:
How can we be unified by principles and values if there is no objective source of these principles and values? If we are not Christian, Jewish, or Muslim in our national structure, what happens when these viewpoints clash?
In the conflict between worldviews - in the absence of God, since most do Him lip service but refuse to believe He has any real power - who becomes the judge of right and wrong?
All we are left with at this point, with God out of the picture and all religions equal, is government. Should civil government be the "solution" to moral, economic, and societal problems? Should officials of a government be free to interpret the law in a way that reflects their own worldview, or should they remain true to the vision of the founders of that government? If there is no objective truth, how can these questions even be answered?
How can we be unified by principles and values if there is no objective source of these principles and values? If we are not Christian, Jewish, or Muslim in our national structure, what happens when these viewpoints clash?
In the conflict between worldviews - in the absence of God, since most do Him lip service but refuse to believe He has any real power - who becomes the judge of right and wrong?
All we are left with at this point, with God out of the picture and all religions equal, is government. Should civil government be the "solution" to moral, economic, and societal problems? Should officials of a government be free to interpret the law in a way that reflects their own worldview, or should they remain true to the vision of the founders of that government? If there is no objective truth, how can these questions even be answered?
Thursday, April 9, 2009
President Obama: "We are not a Christian Nation"
For today, just watch - we can discuss this tomorrow. (Next post)
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
President Obama and Islam
Please take a moment to read the title link, as it is vital to understanding the mindset of our sitting President.
I have several questions to consider (I would love to ask/hear someone ask Mr. Obama):
"Will never be at war with Islam" seems like a very broad statement - is that truly what you meant to say?
What are our "mutual interests?"
How has Islam "shaped the world for the better?"
How has Islam "shaped America for the better?" (including my own country)
In my next post we will begin discussing Islam, since we hear so much about peaceful Islam vs. Radical Islam. What does Islam truly teach? In the same way I would not want Christianity to be judged by the rise and fall of the latest televangelist, I don't want to misjudge Islam. Were the 9/11 attackers extremists, or were they acting out their faith in a way consistent with its tenants?
These questions are critical to answer. President Obama believes (from his comments) that most Muslims are peace loving citizens, like the average Christian. They want to make a buck, raise their kids, and live in peace. It's the extremists that are the problem, and he is hoping to make nice with the mainstream Muslims, being careful to explain to them that America is no longer lumping the Muslim world all together. This is either disastrous for our foreign policy, or it is brilliant.
But again, we need to evaluate Christianity by reading the Bible, not by watching the lives of so-called Christians (unfortunately). So we will look at what the Qur'an teaches...
***edit 4/13/2009 - we will return to this issue, but I wanted to go a different direction for now ***
I have several questions to consider (I would love to ask/hear someone ask Mr. Obama):
"Will never be at war with Islam" seems like a very broad statement - is that truly what you meant to say?
What are our "mutual interests?"
How has Islam "shaped the world for the better?"
How has Islam "shaped America for the better?" (including my own country)
In my next post we will begin discussing Islam, since we hear so much about peaceful Islam vs. Radical Islam. What does Islam truly teach? In the same way I would not want Christianity to be judged by the rise and fall of the latest televangelist, I don't want to misjudge Islam. Were the 9/11 attackers extremists, or were they acting out their faith in a way consistent with its tenants?
These questions are critical to answer. President Obama believes (from his comments) that most Muslims are peace loving citizens, like the average Christian. They want to make a buck, raise their kids, and live in peace. It's the extremists that are the problem, and he is hoping to make nice with the mainstream Muslims, being careful to explain to them that America is no longer lumping the Muslim world all together. This is either disastrous for our foreign policy, or it is brilliant.
But again, we need to evaluate Christianity by reading the Bible, not by watching the lives of so-called Christians (unfortunately). So we will look at what the Qur'an teaches...
***edit 4/13/2009 - we will return to this issue, but I wanted to go a different direction for now ***
Friday, April 3, 2009
The Cars President Obama Wants...
I think it was safe to say that this was coming at some point, as it fits with the 'green' agenda that this particular administration finds to be very important (we'll cover the 'green' issue separately). Today, we need to talk about a business model. The first goal for GM - since you and I are now paying for their company to remain in business - should be profitability. Making 'green' cars that have (historically) low profit margins and small market shares is not the path to making money.
And here is the conflict: by far, GM's most profitable vehicles are it's full size SUVs, which are hardly the Sierra Club's cars and trucks of choice. So, should they be producing green cars for some future potential profit, or cars that have potential for profit now?
I honestly don't think it matters what GM makes at this point, they have too much dead weight in the form of union contracts, pensions, and benefits. Most of the people getting paid by GM don't work there anymore. But the sad part is that profitability doesn't matter to the government which decided to "bail out" GM in the first place. This company is being used to promote very liberal policy - in this case, 'green' policy. And you and I get to pay for it.
And here is the conflict: by far, GM's most profitable vehicles are it's full size SUVs, which are hardly the Sierra Club's cars and trucks of choice. So, should they be producing green cars for some future potential profit, or cars that have potential for profit now?
I honestly don't think it matters what GM makes at this point, they have too much dead weight in the form of union contracts, pensions, and benefits. Most of the people getting paid by GM don't work there anymore. But the sad part is that profitability doesn't matter to the government which decided to "bail out" GM in the first place. This company is being used to promote very liberal policy - in this case, 'green' policy. And you and I get to pay for it.
The Wise Man Built...
I heard a sermon last week on this passage (click above), and it got me thinking - praying, actually, in the context of today's world. A lot of us sang this song as children, and are familiar with the story. Just a couple points to consider:
1) I noted how the storm is inevitable. It doesn't say if the rains come, the house might fall or stand. Jesus said exactly what He meant to say: the storms are coming. You weather them upon Christ's foundation, or at some point you fall. And the beautiful part about the storms coming to both the saved and unsaved is the freedom it gives us, the freedom of will.
If I walk up to you and offer you a) a bullet to the head, or b) 1 million dollars, I have not given you a choice. I have given you a million dollars. In the same way, if the Christian life was instantly sunshine and roses upon accepting Christ, and the unsaved still had to struggle through this world everyday - what would everyone do? Would they embrace the Christian life out of love and obedience to our Savior? Or would they embrace the Christian life as the "easy street" that it would then be? While I don't enjoy the storms, I am amazed at a God who loves me enough to send them my way.
2) If a house is going to protect you in a storm... you have to be inside it. And while this sounds dangerously like common sense, I know I don't do a very good job at obeying it. I stray constantly from where God wants me to be. Daily I fail the tests of obedience, but God continues to graciously give me another day to try again. We have to seek His Will in our lives, and understand what he would have for us, the house he wants us to dwell in. Think of the man who tries to weather the storm on the rock, but without a home. He may survive it, but he'll struggle in many ways he would not have had to, if he'd only stayed inside.
Just a couple things I pondered, hope they had some value.
And you know it was fun to yell "SPLAT!" at the end of the song. :)
1) I noted how the storm is inevitable. It doesn't say if the rains come, the house might fall or stand. Jesus said exactly what He meant to say: the storms are coming. You weather them upon Christ's foundation, or at some point you fall. And the beautiful part about the storms coming to both the saved and unsaved is the freedom it gives us, the freedom of will.
If I walk up to you and offer you a) a bullet to the head, or b) 1 million dollars, I have not given you a choice. I have given you a million dollars. In the same way, if the Christian life was instantly sunshine and roses upon accepting Christ, and the unsaved still had to struggle through this world everyday - what would everyone do? Would they embrace the Christian life out of love and obedience to our Savior? Or would they embrace the Christian life as the "easy street" that it would then be? While I don't enjoy the storms, I am amazed at a God who loves me enough to send them my way.
2) If a house is going to protect you in a storm... you have to be inside it. And while this sounds dangerously like common sense, I know I don't do a very good job at obeying it. I stray constantly from where God wants me to be. Daily I fail the tests of obedience, but God continues to graciously give me another day to try again. We have to seek His Will in our lives, and understand what he would have for us, the house he wants us to dwell in. Think of the man who tries to weather the storm on the rock, but without a home. He may survive it, but he'll struggle in many ways he would not have had to, if he'd only stayed inside.
Just a couple things I pondered, hope they had some value.
And you know it was fun to yell "SPLAT!" at the end of the song. :)
Thursday, April 2, 2009
North Korea - A Coming Showdown
There are indeed monsters in this world, and one of them is the dictator of North Korea, Kim Jong-il. In the next couple of days he is readying to launch a missile capable of reaching the United States. The UN has condemned North Korea, and the US has threatened "stern action." What exactly the UN and the US will do is up for debate. Given our foreign policy so far of making nice with evil men bent on destruction (see Iran, the Taliban, and our refusal to connect the words "Islam" and "terrorism"), I don't hold out much hope that our response will be much at all, giving yet another round of this ongoing conflict to Kim Jong-il.
The simplest statement of both logic and diplomacy is the "if-then" statement. If party A does X, then party B will do Y. It is now time to lay out our response to Evil in the simplest, clearest terms available. "If you launch this missile, the full military might of the free world will descend upon you until you and your evil cronies are dead." This is the exact statement we, and the UN, have been loathe to make. It is exactly the kind of statement that you will always be loathe to make if you do not have guiding principles in your life beyond a vague desire for peace, because then everything is just a matter of compromise between the two parties involved.
I will pause here for a moment - please take some time to search the name Neville Chamberlain and the name Adolf Hitler. Hitler you know; Neville Chamberlain was the British Prime Minister before - and during the early days - of WW2. His successor you have heard of: Winston Churchill.
Here is a starting point, comments made by Mr. Chamberlain less than 1 year before WW2 began:
http://www.historyguide.org/europe/munich.html
"Peace in our time" is the phrase for which Mr. Chamberlain is famous.. He met with Hitler again and again in the 1930s, refusing to interfere with Germany's growing evil and aggressive expansion. I fully understand that the souls of the millions of dead from WW1 haunted England and France in this period, and their terrible memory paralyzed England and France from acting against Germany. What a lot of people don't realize is this: In the late 1930s, as Hitler became increasingly bolder in his lust for power, his military might was a sham. If even just England or France individually as late as 1939 had called his bluff, he would have had no choice but to back down. But Hitler knew his opponents. He correctly judged their reluctance to act, and the world paid a heavy price.
So here we go again. Don't kid yourselves; the Islamic world is watching this also, judging the response of the West to this threat. At some point we have to draw the line, and we have to be prepared to back up our words with action. We cannot afford to let the containable evils of this world - such as North Korea - become uncontainable. And we cannot afford to allow our enemies see that we are weak, unwilling to act.
As Americans, are we called to peace, or are we called to defend freedom and uphold justice? Endowed by our Creator will certain unalienable rights, do we have the moral responsibility to ensure that freedom to others when it stands within our power? I do not want war. I do not seek war.
But neither do I seek peace that comes at the price of selling our collective soul. Kim Jong-il is an evil man, the head of an evil regime. The people of North Korea suffer under his yoke. The line must be drawn here. And our response, should that line be crossed, must be decisive.
The simplest statement of both logic and diplomacy is the "if-then" statement. If party A does X, then party B will do Y. It is now time to lay out our response to Evil in the simplest, clearest terms available. "If you launch this missile, the full military might of the free world will descend upon you until you and your evil cronies are dead." This is the exact statement we, and the UN, have been loathe to make. It is exactly the kind of statement that you will always be loathe to make if you do not have guiding principles in your life beyond a vague desire for peace, because then everything is just a matter of compromise between the two parties involved.
I will pause here for a moment - please take some time to search the name Neville Chamberlain and the name Adolf Hitler. Hitler you know; Neville Chamberlain was the British Prime Minister before - and during the early days - of WW2. His successor you have heard of: Winston Churchill.
Here is a starting point, comments made by Mr. Chamberlain less than 1 year before WW2 began:
http://www.historyguide.org/europe/munich.html
"Peace in our time" is the phrase for which Mr. Chamberlain is famous.. He met with Hitler again and again in the 1930s, refusing to interfere with Germany's growing evil and aggressive expansion. I fully understand that the souls of the millions of dead from WW1 haunted England and France in this period, and their terrible memory paralyzed England and France from acting against Germany. What a lot of people don't realize is this: In the late 1930s, as Hitler became increasingly bolder in his lust for power, his military might was a sham. If even just England or France individually as late as 1939 had called his bluff, he would have had no choice but to back down. But Hitler knew his opponents. He correctly judged their reluctance to act, and the world paid a heavy price.
So here we go again. Don't kid yourselves; the Islamic world is watching this also, judging the response of the West to this threat. At some point we have to draw the line, and we have to be prepared to back up our words with action. We cannot afford to let the containable evils of this world - such as North Korea - become uncontainable. And we cannot afford to allow our enemies see that we are weak, unwilling to act.
As Americans, are we called to peace, or are we called to defend freedom and uphold justice? Endowed by our Creator will certain unalienable rights, do we have the moral responsibility to ensure that freedom to others when it stands within our power? I do not want war. I do not seek war.
But neither do I seek peace that comes at the price of selling our collective soul. Kim Jong-il is an evil man, the head of an evil regime. The people of North Korea suffer under his yoke. The line must be drawn here. And our response, should that line be crossed, must be decisive.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Irony
I am really trying to be respectful of our elected officials, and the leaders of other nations around the world. Maybe you could use a laugh, though - I sure could. Check out the title link for an article on today's summit over in London.
Now, don't you think its just a tad bit ironic that the leaders of the G20 nations chose today of all days to have this meeting?
Happy April Fool's Day!
Now, don't you think its just a tad bit ironic that the leaders of the G20 nations chose today of all days to have this meeting?
Happy April Fool's Day!
Principle & Foreign Policy - the Taliban, Clinton & Obama at the G20
Here is what Mrs. Clinton had to say to the Taliban in Afghanistan:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090331/ts_nm/us_afghan_conference
And here is what they had to say in return:
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSISL477487
It's scary to be agreeing with the Taliban on anything, but the offer was lunacy. But here again we see a liberal mindset at work; I truly believe Mrs. Clinton was surprised at the rebuff of her diplomatic efforts. As I have stated before, there is Good and Evil in this world, and you cannot negotiate with Evil. It may tolerate you for a time, to further it's own ends - but at some point it will devour you. Afghanistan has been unruly since Alexander tried to subdue it in 330 BC. He succeeded, after a fashion; he spent 3 years fighting a 3 month campaign, and "married" a warlord's daughter to finally save face and escape with his dignity.
Here is what President Obama had to say at the G20 meetings, when asked about whether or not the worldwide economic crisis is America's fault (the article covers several issues, my concern here is towards the end):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/01/barack-obama-g20-global-recession
America has long been blamed for just about everything that is wrong with the world. It is sad to have a President that is agreeing with those people. When you combine these comments with our foreign policy as detailed above (coupled with the speech to Iran earlier), how strong do we look? How decisive do we look in the war on terror (excuse me, overseas contingency operations)? In your opinion, do we look justly humble, or just weak?
I would agree with his comments that our economic and political models are sound, but in just 70 days after President Obama has taken office, they have begun to radically change. If the model is sound, why so much drastic change?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090331/ts_nm/us_afghan_conference
And here is what they had to say in return:
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSISL477487
It's scary to be agreeing with the Taliban on anything, but the offer was lunacy. But here again we see a liberal mindset at work; I truly believe Mrs. Clinton was surprised at the rebuff of her diplomatic efforts. As I have stated before, there is Good and Evil in this world, and you cannot negotiate with Evil. It may tolerate you for a time, to further it's own ends - but at some point it will devour you. Afghanistan has been unruly since Alexander tried to subdue it in 330 BC. He succeeded, after a fashion; he spent 3 years fighting a 3 month campaign, and "married" a warlord's daughter to finally save face and escape with his dignity.
Here is what President Obama had to say at the G20 meetings, when asked about whether or not the worldwide economic crisis is America's fault (the article covers several issues, my concern here is towards the end):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/01/barack-obama-g20-global-recession
America has long been blamed for just about everything that is wrong with the world. It is sad to have a President that is agreeing with those people. When you combine these comments with our foreign policy as detailed above (coupled with the speech to Iran earlier), how strong do we look? How decisive do we look in the war on terror (excuse me, overseas contingency operations)? In your opinion, do we look justly humble, or just weak?
I would agree with his comments that our economic and political models are sound, but in just 70 days after President Obama has taken office, they have begun to radically change. If the model is sound, why so much drastic change?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
