For a look at just how statist today’s religious right has become, check out this interview with former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson. Despite his protest, Gerson’s description of “compassionate conservatism” sounds like a neocon version of Jim Wallis. Gerson doesn’t even give lip service to small government, and seems totally oblivious to the notion that true compassion is demonstrated by voluntary giving our own time and money to the less fortunate. The idea that government “charity” is harmful to the recipient also escapes his notice.
Read the rest: Norman Singleton on: Rendering Unto Caesar
Independence Day: Joy or Sorrow?
Happy 4th of July to all American citizens, and lest I forget, happy independence day to all illegal immigrants here. After all, each one of you is enjoying the same benefits any American citizen enjoys. How can there be joy today when an entire nation lacks moral courage to warn business owners of the consequences of hiring illegal immigrants? Or how can a president invest so much of his time legalizing the illegal? Can you make sense out of that? But Independence Day is not merely sorrowful because of immigration, it is sorrowful because there is nothing to feel independent about in this nation. Our once Constitutional liberties have been misused and now we have governmental bondage. Our forefathers have become cartoon caricatures to beautify our hypocritical walls in Washington.
William Anderson tells of his experience when he visited a large Baptist Church in Georgia:
My family and I are on vacation and yesterday we attended a large Baptist church in a small Georgia town. (The local Episcopal church that we usually attend when we are visiting here had switched its service to 9 a.m., unknown to us.) The church had its pulpit decorated with American flags, and the space above the baptismal pool in the back of the chancel had a large American flag in a place where churches often place a cross. Much of the service dealt with “our freedoms” and, of course, the armed forces which ostensibly make all these “freedoms” possible.
I don’t write this to single out Baptists or anyone else. Many of the same comments will be made elsewhere, but I believe that the most instructive thing is that Americans today have come to equate freedom with the state, and with military might. Once upon a time, people equated freedom with the absence of state authority, but those days are gone.
This is a process that began post-Civil War and accelerated during the Progressive Era. Today, the nonsense continues, as we are told that the war in Iraq is being waged so that we will not be defeated by “terrorists” and have them take away our freedoms.
Somehow, had I said something to the church members about government listening in on phone calls, regulating our economic exchanges into oblivion, permitting U.S. attorneys to target anyone they please with the typical broad “conspiracy” statutes and the like, the response at best would have been a blank stare, and at worst one of great hostility.
Michael Peroutka has always said that news in American is really news from Absurdstan. Our Independence Day is our dependence on foreign oil, dependence on an abusive government, and dependence on an unknown god. So til’ next year, Happy Dependence on Government Day! Cheers!
Quote, Laurence Vance on Target on the war
The Republican Party has historically been the party of militarism, big government, plunder, compromises, and sellouts. Not in his wildest dreams could Lyndon Johnson have ever imagined his Democratic-controlled Congress increasing total spending or the rate of increase in spending as much as George Bush and his Republican-controlled Congress have done. And he too was fighting a war. –Laurence Vance
Christianity and Capitalism
Central to the wealth motif found abundantly in Moses’ writings, is the source of all wealth. Deuteronomy 8:18 says: “Remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth.” All wealth comes from God and as such, is dependent upon the goodness of God. As a proper foundational piece to the free-market economy, Deuteronomy establishes much more. The ability to produce wealth entails the ability to work to produce that wealth.
Capitalism functions in America not because America is inherently oriented towards a free-market economy, but because Capitalism is symbolic of the Christian view of economics. But simply because it is Christian does not mean that it will always function. Biblical law is Christian, but it certainly is not part of Congress’ concern when they begin in the morning.
Capitalism at its root promotes a dynamic society; a society devoid of laziness and welfare. Christians have been made to operate in such a society. When we are made alive we are made to build, organize, and operate. If a society promotes rewarding those who do not build, organize, and operate, then that society is doomed to utter failure. Lest the idea becomes too individualistic, capitalism is made for the community not for the individual. When the individual becomes the sole proprietor of his version of capitalism it diminishes to self-tyranny. True Capitalism however, engages society by building, organizing, and operating together. This dynamic exchange works for the betterment of society.
Autonomy and Political Stupidity
To paraphrase Cornelius Van Til: “If there is no autonomy then only theonomy.” Though Dr. Van Til had the philosophical issue of neutrality in mind rather than ethical dispute, he makes an eternally valid point that has affected many thinkers of this persuasion.
When Judge Alito answers the Judiciary Committee and with all seriousness says that his religion has nothing to do with his judging, then this is the first sign of autonomous thinking. Man by inclination always objectifies his reasoning on the basis of himself as standard. The absurdity of such thinking is that though they may believe God, at the same time they claim themselves as gods. Van Til’s point is that only God is the author of reason and only God establishes patterns of thought and logic. This is the reason political stupidity is rampant in Washington: because they are all gods of their own. And when their “godness” is the authority then why need a religion? Religion serves only to fill gaps of guilt and blame. So autonomy and political stupidity are closer than one may think. After all, “the fool says in his heart there is no god,” but the politician says in his heart I am god.
Greg Bahnsen speaks on war…
Professor Greg Bahnsen, whose death 10 years ago was a defeat for the Christian Apologetic world, but a victory for God’s great providence, has left us with some great treasures in a myriad of topics. In a radio interview recorded months after the Iraq War in 1991, Bahnsen elaborates in what is to be a thoroughly Biblical foundation for going to war. This discussion is found in more detail in a three-part series on “Just War” found in the Covenant Media website. These will be two summaries of his many points. Further, due to the relevant nature of his arguments, they can also be applied to the current war in Iraq.
1) Does the US have the right to police the world and save humanity from their dictators? Bahnsen answers that in no place in Scriptures does God ever grant the right for a nation with greater power and wealth to send their armies to other nations in order to save them from their chaos. Bahnsen further notices that in the Kuwait scenario, the troops were not even allowed to celebrate their religious holidays (Christmas) due to the Islamic laws of the land. In other words, nations around the world want the support of the U.S. but do not want to grant them religious freedom once they are there to aid them. Here is where Bahnsen is brilliant. He argues according to Scriptures that a nation’s top priority is to protect his/her own citizens (Romans 13) before protecting others citizens from other lands. As a side note, we are all aware that though the U.S. has not been struck again since 9-11 we have been and are being invaded every day by illegal immigrants and educational tyranny by the secular elite who are inherently anti-American.
Bahnsen concludes this section by stating that nations want the privilege of citizenship (meaning they want the same protection due to American citizens), however, they do not want the responsibilities of citizens (that is, they do not want to submit to the authority of those saving them nor do they want to allow their deliverers any rights; whether religious or otherwise). Simply, to use a Biblical analogy, they want a king’s army without giving allegiance to the King.
2) When do we have the right to attack? Here Bahnsen is clear and cogent. The right to attack is only when there has been sufficient evidence of threat against our nation. Of course, the obvious question arises: “When can we know that there is a clear threat?” In this case, Bahnsen acknowledges the difficulty inherent in such a question but notes that unless the citizens of a nation are not clearly in danger, then warring against another nation is un-Biblical. One example of such a clear threat (to use a modern analogy different from Professor Bahnsen for the sake of relevance) is if Iran declared that they have in their possession nuclear bombs and are ready to strike the U.S. within three weeks. In this case, Bahnsen affirms that preemptive strikes are necessary and desirable for the protection of the nation’s citizens.
As anyone who reads can see that these arguments can be perfectly addressed in the current war on terror or in Iraq (which is supposedly where the war should be fought first). The question at stake is not whether Saddam Hussein should be tried for his crimes, (my opinion is that since there is such clear evidence he should be charged and executed immediately) for everyone in their right minds agree that he should be taken out of power; the true question is: “Has God granted the right for any nation to spend their citizens’ money (and as we know much more than was originally intended), their citizens’ lives and much more to defend another nation?” These questions and more must be addressed if we are to develop a clear Biblical view of war.
Constitutional Heroes and Foe
Howard Phillips writes: Eleven members of the U.S. House of Representatives courageously voted against President Bush’s $52 billion plus supplementary appropriation to deal with the problems arising from Hurricane Katrina.
The eleven Constitutional heroes were: Joe Barton (Texas), Jeff Flake (Arizona), Virginia Foxx (North Carolina), Scott Garrett (New Jersey), John Hostettler (Indiana), Steve King (Iowa), C. L. Otter (Idaho), Ron Paul (Texas), James Sensenbrenner (Wisconsin), Thomas Tancredo (Colorado), and Lynn Westmoreland (Georgia).
I sent each of them the following letter:
Dear Congressman: On behalf of The Conservative Caucus, please accept my congratulations and appreciation for your courageous vote against the $52 billion New Orleans funding package proposed by President Bush. You did what was right, and that you did so reflects credit on your discernment and integrity.
Bill Bonner observes:
We will spend “whatever it takes,” said George W. Bush of the New Orleans dry-out campaign. But where would ‘whatever it takes’ come from? The federal deficit hit a record of $412 billion last year. Republicanoes were delighted to report that the deficit was to fall this year to $331 billion, but along comes a rainy day and the nation is now spending another $2 billion per day it doesn’t have to help clean up the mess.It is an ill wind that blows no one good. There is no doubt that the storm was bad for the citizens of the Big Easy and American households generally; as well as the federal budget, the U.S. dollar and the American economy. But it is good for the empire. Now we have another ‘front’ at home, and another reason to spend money.
In Government we Trust
One of the benefits we have as citizens is that the government gives us protection in time of need. Granted “need” at times is defined differently by different people. Protection from irresponsibility is unwanted and unwarranted protection. I write this only to point out that the concept of personal responsibility is diametrically opposed to dependence on government to supply all our needs. Paul writes that, “Our God will supply all our needs according to His riches and glory in Christ Jesus.” The post 911 world is certainly a changed world. The word “Islam” is common everyday language and terrorism is no longer associated with the Oklahoma Bombing, but with those who purposefully and cowardly give their lives for a cause ( a religious cause). But there was an entirely new mindset that began to infiltrate our thinking. Essentially, it said we are in a sense helpless people. In Whom do we trust now? As our Vice-President stated in 2001:
One of the things that’s changed so much since Sept. 11 is the extent to which people do trust the government — big shift — and value it, and have high expectations for what we can do.
–V.P. Dick Cheney (Oct. 19,2001)
Our dependence on government has obscured our loyalty and commitment to our God. Government plays an essential role in the plans of God (see Rom. 13), but it must never replace the clear source of all knowledge and insight. The New Orleans disaster perpetuates once again the overwhelming confidence that people have in their new “savior.” This disaster reveals the incompetence of government at all levels. Think of the hundreds of school buses that remained parked in their appropriate lots. Think of the performance of the New Orleans police department, where 200 of the 1500 members just quit. Think of the National Guard that was not called by the governor in time. On and on the list could go. But decidedly, we can be affirmed that trust in government as the source of all is unreservedly idolatrous and contrary to the ethics of God’s people.
Continue reading “In Government we Trust”
Ann Coulter’s article on the Robert’s nomination
Ann Coulter has written a brilliant column on the Roberts’ nomination, and it should be read by every conservative and Christian leader. The text follows:
After pretending to consider various women and minorities for the Supreme Court these past few weeks, President Bush decided to disappoint all the groups he had just ginned up and nominate a white male.
So all we know about him for sure is that he can’t dance and he probably doesn’t know who Jay-Z is. Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada. Oh, yeah … we also know he’s argued cases before the Supreme Court. Big deal; so has Larry Flynt’s attorney.
The rest of the article…
Ann Coulter, well-known for her television appearances as a political analyst, is an attorney and author. Dubbed “one of the 20 most fascinating women in politics” by George magazine, Coulter has appeared on ABC’s “This Week,” “Good Morning America,” NBC’s “Today,” CNN’s “Larry King Live” and CNBC’s “Rivera Live.”
The Long Tradition…
“Once conservative, then liberal.” This is part of the long tradition of Supreme Court Justices. Republican voters cheer with great elation only to find out a few years later that their joy has turned against them.
Even staunch Republican Ann Coulter realizes how bad of a decision it was to nominate John Roberts to the supreme court. Coulter notes: “…let’s ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.”
Adam Aranjo also had some interesting remarks which echoes my thinking. He writes that Republicans: “…don’t care about the “Christian vote” until elections roll around.”
Will this be another betrayal in this long tradition?