Home

Solving Problems That Don’t Exist

Leave a comment


Politicians, for all that can be said about them, are not infallible. In the last 20 years (and probably further back) I have noticed something about them, at least in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada. Depending on what you support, a politician is either an infallible, godlike being whom must be obeyed for the greater good, or they are vile dogs who don’t know a thing and only got there because of money (which is funny, because any particular faction is as likely to be as well funded as the other, from similar sources). What if I told you, neither side is correct? In the U.S. we have a defacto two-party system (something a bit of research will flesh out as being antithetical to the Founding Father’s intent) not because there are only two choices – talk about your fallacies in action – but because the public allows themselves to become polarized to one of a small subset of charismatic figures belonging to one of two polarizing forces (though if the truth be told, they are pretty much the same now with no appreciable difference in final goals, only in the journey to get there). Very few people, statistically speaking, actually find themselves not buying into the whole charade. However, within that group all too many of them act in similarly outlandish, polarizing behaviors and thus no one takes them seriously.

All too often, those in power are looked upon as if they hold some sort of special power, experience, or wisdom to which the rest of us non-professional politicians (aka mortals) do not have and can never hope to attain, except in rare circumstances. The sad reality of the situation is that most of the politicians at the state and federal level are only there for one thing, more money. Whether in their pocket or in their district (you know, so they can be re elected, not because what they do actually provides any tangible good to the public at large). They are also looked upon as being beholden to their constituents instead of legal documents they are supposed to be upholding. In the case of state representatives that may not hold quite as true as it does for the federal level ones (though states do have constitutions which are supposed to be only second to the U.S. Constitution, they are more easily amended and designed outright to be more malleable in terms of what a state rep is supposed to do for the electorate).

We have gotten far away from holding representatives to the objective, high moral and ethical standards of not only personal behavior but political behavior. Instead we focus on how much tax money is sent back to us in the way of unconstitutional (and therefore nugatory) laws instead of actually fixing the problems government has. What about societal problems? Not the realm of government, for the most part. I am against allowing men in women’s bathrooms, and vice versa, I am against same-sex marriage (but find myself against government involvement in any marriage though that has its pitfalls as well), but I am more against government legislating these behaviors. G-d Almighty has spoken on the issue or marriage and His creation. He has set down his moral codes for us to follow. He has also given us a free-will choice in the whole matter. He has laid down his expectations from us on things ranging from judgment, charity, and faithfulness. He has given us guidance on truth, fiction, reality, sin, and holiness. We have been taught right-from-wrong, and indeed in His word it is shown we know it from the get go. And He also taught on government. From the time Israel demanded a king and G-d – in his infinite mercy, grace, and wisdom – after having tried to dissuade them on the issue relented (against His perfect judgment) and anointed Saul. Sure He wasn’t the first king, but the problems with government back then are the same now (corruption, cronyism, etc.). No, there is indeed nothing new under the sun.

What problems we have in the U.S. – getting back to the topic at hand – stem from both a lack of true accountability and from the whole “I need to make sure I get my piece of the pie, too” mentality that ignores – seemingly willfully – that if our piece of the pie hadn’t been taken in the first place we wouldn’t need it back. This country would be a lot better off if we had the political ethics of our Founding Fathers and a more godly morality.

The government that governs best is that which governs least.

We are so far from that mentality that it will be extremely painful to return there, yet return there we must. Societal ills cannot be legislated away. Prostitution is often touted as the world’s oldest profession, but I daresay being a politician is even older. After all, laws against prostitution (outside of the Biblical prohibitions) probably hit the books long before it was actually an issue. After all, the only thing government is really good at is fixing problems that don’t exist.

Limits on Federal Power

Leave a comment


The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798

In post-revolution America, despite having just earned through bloodshed liberty from tyranny, we were faced with the specter of our newly formed government already running amok with unlimited power as evidenced by the passage of acts at the federal level that created new powers for the new government that was, Constitutionally, outside their purview. Despite, having just ratified the new Constitution and Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments which further spelled out the limitations of the newly minted federal government in terms of the natural rights of its citizens and their free exercise thereof), we find a need for the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798 essentially nullifying several newly passed acts which expanded – unconstitutionally – federal authority and overreach. This is rather surprising as 8 short years earlier, in 1790, Rhode Island was the last colony to ratify the Constitution. It wasn’t like the document wasn’t fresh in the  collective consciousness. In all fairness, these documents should not have been needed so soon, but goes to show you how power goes to the heads of even the best intentioned of men.

Moreover, the mentioned Resolutions, penned by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, serve as more than acts of nullification of illicitly obtained federal power (which it quite succinctly and rightly does). It serves as an overview of these two men’s views on the courts and the determination of a Constitutional federal act. That is what I would like to discuss with you the most, but I feel that to do so we need to look at each of the charters separately section-by-section and then as a whole. I think only then can we get a feel for what Jefferson’s and Madison’s views were. Let us go alphabetically and start with the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.

The Kentucky Resolution of 1798

1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

It is quite clear what Jefferson – the author of the Kentucky Resolutions – thinks of the passage of any act expanding federal powers, especially the Alien and Sedition Acts to which this is a direct response toward. These undelegated powers do not belong at all to the federal government and the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts was one of the first examples of usurpation of States Rights in these matters. This is also – to my knowledge – one of the first uses of nullification (being a power/right not assigned to the federal government it therefore is left to the several states and/or the people therein), however that isn’t germane to this discussion. He argues rightly that if left to itself – that is the Federal government – to decide what other rights it may or may not have is to itself invalidates the Constitution as having any authority over it, relegating it to so much wasted paper and time. He also argues that the States and the people, having been left the bulk of discretionary power in every matter not directly addressed in the Constitution as being the purview of the Federal government, are actually the sole arbiters of those powers. The final argument is a summation of this, “that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers”. Jefferson strongly believed in a limited central government. After all, he and his buddies had fought a long and bloody war over these very things (namely a strong, centralized power that ruled without any consideration to limitation of power or liberty of those it ruled over).

More

Civil Disobedience and the Word of God

Leave a comment


There are people who, for whatever reason, like to try and put the screws to the followers of Christ. “Judge not!“, or, more recently, “Mind your own business!” and then they proceed to make it our business and then get mad when we decide following our faith is more important then condoning their sin.

Many, many laws have been passed recently. Most of them probably wouldn’t pass Constitutional muster – aside from the very liberal (and wrong) rulings SCOTUS has put out recently on the issue – if people actually understood what our Founding Fathers actually attempted to do (and they could if they’d intelligently read the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers). Unfortunately, like in ancient Rome, such attention to detail is inconvenient when you are trying to pave the way for unbridled hedonism. When your goal is to clear a path for unbridled amounts of self- and instant-gratification regardless of the consequences, such details and truths are highly and excessively inconvenient. Older, more conservative thinking is labeled as out-dated, and when that doesn’t work, it becomes labeled as hate.

Except, of course, when it comes to trying to put the screws to Christians. Of course non-believers will never understand, not fully. They have not an understanding of the book they try to throw back in our face, and unfortunately not many Christians have enough knowledge, wisdom, or love to be able to correct those who try to use our own faith to control us in such deceptive manners. Unfortunately, I’ve had my own issues, not from unbelievers but from a Brother, no less, dealing with issues of obeying the government and how exactly that applies to us. Unfortunately I didn’t handle the situation very well. I pray, though, that this little devotional, shared by a Sister I know on Facebook.

It is, however, a bit lacking. Not in understanding of the issue, the author is obviously a mature individual and has studied this out quite a bit, but because I feel he leaves out some critical pieces of Scripture from his teaching. Following in the blockquote is the devotional intact, without commentary from myself, followed by my own addition to it. My prayer is for my fellow Brothers and Sisters to come to a deeper understanding of this issue. You cannot help but grow from truth, and this is nothing but the truth.

Civil Disobedience

Acts 4:1–22 “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard” (vv. 19–20).

Christian ethicists have long debated whether or not it is ever legitimate for believers to defy the state. This is understandable since there are many passages, such as Romans 13:1–7, that seem to encourage submission to the ruling authorities no matter what. Paul, however, was not reflecting any sort of naiveté when he instructed us to submit to the earthly authorities. After all, as one who was often imprisoned for preaching the Gospel, he well knew that the state could very easily become an instrument of evil. His commands to obey the state, as with all of the biblical injunctions to submit to the government, carry with them the assumption that our rulers are, broadly speaking, fulfilling the task that God has given them to preserve life and protect the right to private property.

Yet when the state forbids us to do something the Lord commands or commands us to do something He forbids, believers must not submit to the decrees of the authorities. Christians are never given the license to sin, nor are they permitted to abandon the dictates of God in order to obey the orders of other human beings. Christ alone has ultimate authority, as the apostles demonstrate in today’s passage. Given the chance to preserve their freedom and safety at the cost of preaching Jesus to sinners, Peter and John choose to obey the Great Commission (Acts 4:19–20; see Matt. 28:18–20). Make no mistake, they are engaging in an act of civil disobedience, but they are doing so in order to be faithful to the Lord. Such circumstances alone can justify such actions.

The principle that we may disobey the state if it forbids what God commands or commands what He forbids is easy to learn, but difficult to apply. The state will sometimes engage in unfair practices that we must follow because we cannot make the case that such practices violate Scripture. For example, the so-called “progressive” taxation that exists presently in the United States may be unjust, but we have no right to refuse to pay taxes (Rom. 13:7).

Our default position as Christians is to bend over backward to be model citizens. But when the demands of God’s kingdom directly contradict the demands of the kingdom of men, the mandates of our heavenly citizenship must win.

Coram deo: Living before the face of God

Because of our fallen nature, it would be easy to twist the principle for Christian civil disobedience enumerated in today’s study into an excuse to avoid the Bible’s call that we submit to the government. Indeed, our fallen nature makes us prone to find any loophole we can in God’s law in order to render something less than true obedience. Beware of this tendency in your heart, but also remember that your allegiance belongs ultimately to Christ, not to the state.

For further study:
Exodus 1:8–22

The Bible in a year:
Ecclesiastes 10–12

For the weekend:
Song 1–6

INTO the WORD daily Bible studies from TableTalk Magazine, Matthew Studies. Copyright © 2008 by Ligonier Ministries.

I think for further study one need look no further then Daniel chapters 1 through 7. It is a classic case study in defying the authority of men in order to be in submission to the Lord. In Daniel, three clear cases are presented.

Three Case Studies for Believers to Disobey Government

  1. With the introduction of Daniel we see the very first act of civil disobedience: Daniel and the three Hebrew children purpose within their hearts not to defile themselves by eating food offered to idols (Daniel 1:8). Because of this, and because of their faithfulness in the Lord, an alternative is provided (eating nothing but vegetables) for the entire period of their training at the king’s court. They even propose a test run in which they agree to eat the idol-offered food if they suffer in health or looks because of their choice. Because we can read ahead, we know the outcome is assured and those 4 become the king’s top students and the best looking of the men selected. (vv. 15-21)
  2. Later on, in Daniel 3, the king creates an image of gold and Daniel and his friends are put into an awkward position, again (4-12):

    Submit to the king of Babylon or submit to the Lord. This time it is an act of worship whenever music sounds. The jealous court officers want to get Daniel’s buddies to dance/worship to a golden idol (not sure where Daniel is during this, but one would assume he didn’t obey, either). Once again they disobey, and the king calls them on it (vv 13-15). Now, they are facing what some may see as a lose-lose situation: Worship the golden idol and sin, or don’t sin and be thrown into a furnace of fire. They tactfully tell the king that they cannot and will not sin against the Lord, whether or not He keeps them safe from repercussions (vv 16-18). Into the furnace they go, only to dance with the pre-incarnate Christ in full view of all present. Not only did they not receive any harm from the immense fire (one so hot several of the king’s loyal men died in the process of putting the three Hebrew children in the furnace) they also did not smell like smoke or have a single hair singed (vv 19-27).

  3. One final time, this time in chapter 6, Daniel’s counterparts were out to get him. They saw how blessed he was, and they attributed it rightly to his obedience to the Lord. They also saw the favor he curried with the king and it must of stuck in their craw something awful (vv 1-5). This time they had what they thought was an iron-clad, fool-proof way to get rid of Daniel and once and for all get the recognition they thought they should have.

    They got the king to declare a law, according to the custom of the Mede’s and the Persians, with no loopholes. The law was an onerous one, too (vv 6-9):

    For 30 days one could only worship the king, if they worshiped or petitioned anyone – or any God – else than Darius (king of the Chaldeans at the time), they were to be put to death by being throwin into the lion’s den, no loopholes. They knew Daniel would violate the law,they just had to catch him. Since Daniel made no effort to conceal himself or his worship of the Lord, this was fairly easy. Daniel, of course, offered no resistance. He knew he had broken the law but he also knew not doing so would have brought him into sin and soiled his relationship with the Lord. He was willing to die for his faith (v 10).

    Once again, the Lord protected him and this time the king – who had enough of the other’s scheming, had them thrown to the lions (whom, according to scripture, ate very well that day). There is no doubt in my mind – according to the account of Daniel – that the king became a believer that day (a tertiary thing in this discussion, but worth mentioning) (vv. 11-28).

Disobedience to those in authority over us comes in a very, very narrow line. As the devotional mentions above, do not twist Scripture and the laws of man to find reasons not to obey the laws of man. Government and those in authority over us are there as the Lord’s ministers for justice. Do good – as Daniel and his three Hebrew friends did – and you have nothing to worry about. Remember, though, when man’s laws try to get you to sin against the Lord, your allegiance should be to Him.

Attack of the 50ft Democrats, A Book Review

Leave a comment


Disclaimer

I received a copy of the book in return for an honest review, no other remuneration has been received.

Some Thoughts

For political satire, this book hits strongly down partisan lines. Conservative American’s will love it, liberal Americans will want to burn it, and that’s good. Pithy, witty, and hard-hitting this fictional account of one conservative Republican’s, a lone patriot in a sea of true traitors, fight to see his country restored to the ideals of the Founding Fathers but in the way are the machinations of an elite few whose only desire is to remake this nation into his vision of perfection.

While very much a fictional account, Attack of the 50ft Democrats by R.K. Delka is a work of pure political satirical genius. Both humorous and poignant, through the medium of fiction the author attempts to highlight the problem facing the United States today: A wave of liberal progressivism which is sweeping not just through our country but really the entire world and the staunch, if few in number, resistance of those who think that individuality (and individual responsibility), a truly free-market economy, and a small, limited government are things worth having, and not just having but keeping and dying to keep them if need be.

The main characters in the book are all believable, and many of them probably have real-life counterparts whom they were based off of. From Scourge Joros to Merv Nutley to Bart Brightman each character managed to represent someone or some ideal without being too ludicrously off-base or overdone. Scourge is the dark, shadowy figure pulling the socialist strings in the background. Merv Nutley is the biased reporter whose man-crush with the liberal agenda is so enormous it manifests itself by numbing his entire leg. Bart Brightman is the hero, with a military background and a patriotism so ingrained it never comes off as fake. An assortment of some over-caricatured stereotypes on both sides of the aisle makes sure all the serious action centers on the characters while still pointing out some of the worst traits of liberal ideology. From a biased media to puppet mastered politicians there is enough in this book to fill up an entire semester with discourse on the political, moral, social, and spiritual issues this nation is facing today. I plan on keeping this book in my book shelf for a long time. Even if you burn this book after reading it, my recommendation is that every politically savvy American needs to read it. This book has nailed the problem we face today, and even if you aren’t overtly political, it is still a good work of fiction with all the right elements present to keep you reading it cover-to-cover.

Parallels in Reality

I had just received the book when this news-story broke on WorldNet Daily and I really found it a scarily similar story to what was being told in the book. For this reality to come out after the book was published really rocked me and cemented my interest in finishing Attack of the 50ft Democrats.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/purge-surge-obama-fires-another-commander/
“‘The truly sad story is that many of the brightest graduates of the three major service academies witnessing what the social experiment on diversity … is doing to the U.S. military, are leaving the service after five years,’ he said. ‘We are being left with an officer corps that can be made to be more compliant, that is, exactly what Obama needs to effect his long range goals for the U.S. military.'”

Rating (based on a 5-star system):
4 1/2 stars

I would give it 5, but there are a few glitches that, for me, caused my reading groove to be interrupted. They were nothing serious, but if I were R.K., I’d fire the copy-editors as there were a few grammatical issues that, when I ran across them, caused me to focus on them and not the story. Nothing serious enough to keep me distracted for long, but still enough to be noticeable. A thoroughly enjoyable must-read regardless of ideology.

Moral Standing: Who Has It?

3 Comments


As is typical, I have left a comment on something and have had people try to pull the rug out from under me because the Truth is – as usual – unpopular. The debate raging this time, and in which I have decided to withdraw from given the hostile response I have (once again) received, is over that hot-button issue: abortion. I’m not sure if you will be able to see the thread, it would help if you had a Facebook account, but in case you don’t have one, I will post a cut-tag and post the screen-shots of the discussion (with identifying information obscured aside from what is helpful in following the conversation).

On to the subject itself. It seems there are many misconceptions about when life begins, much less about abortion itself. I’ll focus solely on medical/scientific views on life for now. We’ll explore the Biblical view of life here shortly.
Myths About Abortion:

  1. Doctor’s do not know when life begins.
    Well, that’s not exactly true. According to this CNN article, the point at which life begins (fertilization) is not debated but a law to protect the life of the newly formed human being. I won’t get into that particular debate, but I do support personhood initiatives. Another article, found here, seeks to explore the issue as well, with the first argument coming from doctors and scientists (doctors and biologists). The conclusion is foregone and should not be subject to debate. It would seem neither come to any conclusions, but in fact they do. The CNN article ends on the quote: After fertilization, “it’s a complete human being in the process of development. It deserves protection of the law.” Certainly the author of the article could have gone further and – given CNN’s liberal bias – sought a quote from a pro-choice advocate. In not doing so, I feel the conclusion that Dr. Harrison came to – devoid of any rebuttal by the other debate participant on the subject – is the correct one, scientifically life begins at fertilization.
  2. We’re not human until we’re born
    This one is just as silly as the first one and is rebutted with the same articles. For the embryo to develop inside a human female, it must be human. Just as dogs cannot give birth to anything but dogs (and I hate using such a turpid comparison, but its the only one some people will understand), humans cannot give birth to anything but humans, and if a human female is giving birth to a human, it had to be human from the start. This is a self-proving statement folks. Basic Biology 101 will confirm this, regardless of any personally held beliefs.
  3. Abortion is not murder because abortion is not illegal.
    This is really a fallacious argument. Regardless of its legal status, the fact remains – as shown above – that abortion requires at least two people (the consent of the mother and the act of the doctor or clinician) to end another person’s life. It’s legality aside, if anyone else but the mother and her doctor killed that baby, it would be murder and the person responsible would be charged with such. This happens quite often. My question is this: Why is it illegal for someone to come up and punch a pregnant woman in her belly resulting in the termination of her pregnancy, but it’s quite all right for her and her doctor to not only make arrangements to do so but to carry them out as well? Why is it a baby in the one sense and not a baby in the second sense? The thought process alone is debilitatingly outrageous. It is the clearest example of a double-standard, one which needs to end. Either make it legal for someone to come up and punch pregnant women in the belly (resulting in the termination of the pregnancy) or make abortion illegal. We cannot have it both ways.

Myths debunked, unfortunately these same, tired arguments keep getting tossed back in the face of anyone who dares to question them, with no evidence for the opposite viewpoints aside from strongly held beliefs. Why do people, then, continue to support abortion, say it’s not murder, and that the developing baby isn’t human or a baby or even a child? Scripture gives us the answer to this question.

Isaiah 44:24
Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Isaiah 49:5
And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.

Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Psalm 127:3
Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

Psalm 139:13-16
For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

God seems pretty clear on the subject. Life begins in the womb, and spiritual life before then (how else could He know us before then aside from having foreknowledge of us).

This debate isn’t about so-called reproductive rights. If it were, people would be telling you that you can’t have sex. This is about the legal murder of over 50 million children since Roe v. Wade, the deaths of every woman whom has ever died from having an abortion (from before Roe v. Wade and after), and the moral turpitude that goes along with such disgusting upholding of the ‘legal’ killing of children. Often you hear the cry, especially when liberals want gun-control or some other right taken away from otherwise law-abiding citizens, but in this issue the cry is no-where to be found, instead you hear their true battle cry: “What about me?”

They like to claim Christians are somehow selfish because we seek to hold ourselves and our nation to a higher, absolute moral standard. That somehow we’re all hypocrites because of the actions of others. We’re told in abortion every case is really different but that same standard is lost when they look at us. Yes, there are Christians-in-name-only who are hypocritical, hateful, self-serving slime. There are Christians-in-name-only who have no love for their fellow man and only seek to hate others and be as loud as they can with it. There are Christians-in-name-only who are only interested in draining your wallet while enlarging theirs. Scripture even foretells of this (boy, I like how God seems to get it right each and every time He says something is going to happen in a certain way, not even Nostradamus gets it 100% of the time, fancy that) being the case, especially in the end times. People call us bigots, judgemental, condemning, and every other sort of vile name when sin is pointed out. Sure we aren’t perfect, but those of us who really are Christians also have a measure of discernment over what is going on. We can see sin for what it is and we don’t point it out in condemnation or judgement, God has already said those who reject Him have judged and condemned themselves, but in an effort to get you to see that your house is on fire. That what you are doing or have done or continue to do has set you on a path to destruction. You may not believe us, which is fine. I for one know when I’m barking up the wrong tree. It’s why I ended my discussion on Facebook. The people who chimed in for abortion have already decided to stop listening to God. They’ve made up their minds, hardened their hearts (perhaps irrevocably), and are now committed to whatever cause that fancies them. If you won’t listen, then at least stop being a hypocrite yourself and quit trying to force your moral turpitude on those of us who desire to live our lives to a higher, absolute standard.

Joshua 24:15
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

What follows after the cut is, in order, the screen-shot’s from the discussion on Facebook that prompted this post.

More

What Role Should Religion Play In America?

3 Comments


Recently one of the pages I “liked” on Facebook asked, “What role should religion play in the USA?” and I wanted so badly to respond but my phone, with which I was browsing FB, kept messing up (the browser would close as I typed away). Here is my response, in full, with no interruptions from a randomly closing browser.

Religion? None, but religion is also what killed my Lord. Faith, on the other hand – a genuinely, deeply held faith – cannot and should not be separated the individual just because they are a politician. Such faith molds an individuals actions, thoughts, and – most importantly – sense of morality. One only has to look around this country to see that we are sorely lacking in moral absolutes. Bestiality is legal in at least one state, homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted as they push – often with threats of and the use of violence otherwise – for more and more “rights”. The unborn are murdered by the hundreds, if not thousands, on a daily basis, with proponents of abortion as violent in their demands for acceptance and more widespread adoption [sic] of the practice. There is a group – with psychologists in the mix to try and give it some validity – seeking to legalize and make acceptable pedophilia. All while genuine faith is in decline in this country.

Our nations moral compass has been thrown aside and the “do whatever makes you feel good” crowd of liberal, godless zealots continue to slowly take over. We have no one to blame but ourselves. It all started when Israel asked God to anoint a king from amongst them so that they could be like the other nations. God knew the folly in such a choice but He wasn’t going to deny His people what they wanted. Fast forward to 236 years ago when a group of men – some Christian, some deists, some Quaker, almost all professing some belief in the One, True, Living God – gather together to found a new nation because the king they lived under became too unbearable in what he was doing. God obliged them and two of the most important documents in recent history were wrote. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of the United States of America were wrote, bringing forth upon this world something that had never been seen before. A country in which the common citizen was the true boss and the elected official literally the hired hand.

It isn’t perfect because man isn’t perfect. It’s a good thing my faith isn’t in the things of man. To tell me to be a good politician that I have to have faith in my fellow man and not in my God is ludicrous. The State not instituting an official religion and not requiring religious tests for public office is not the same as the idea of separation of church and state. To tell me that I cannot rely on my faith in God to direct me in all matters regarding whatever public office is even more ludicrous.

If one does not have God by which to guide them morally, spiritually, and ethically, then that person would be able to be tossed to and fro by every good-sounding idea to come their way.

No, religion should have no place in government, but faith should be central to the lives of those in public office, for without it they are a toy boat in a vast ocean and the storm has already arrived.

My God calmed the seas and raised the dead. He created the very stars in the sky. He is just, righteous, holy and perfect and is more than capable of guiding our decisions and giving us a firm, solid rock upon which to build moral absolutes – His moral absolutes – upon.

And that is all I have to say about that.

Why I Refuse to Recite The Pledge (And You Should Too)

1 Comment


The Pledge of Allegiance: National Pride or Socialist Garbage?

The Pledge

In and of itself, the pledge of allegiance is an innocuous little thing. It basically reaffirms ones love of this country – or at least it sounds as such.

USFlag.org: I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

It even claims one nation under God in an attempt to quell any issues about an otherwise secular pledge being recited by Christians. Eisenhower is even quoted as saying that:

USGovInfo: “In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource in peace and war.”

Unfortunately, I believe anything done by politicians to be suspect. At the time we were in the cold war with the God-less communists (mainly the Russians), we were in the midst of McCarthyism, and we were just out of the Korean Conflict (1950-1953). A sound-bite is a sound-bite whether it be 2011 or 1954.

The Author

Francis Belamy, the man credited with penning the original pledge, was a former Baptist minister who left the ministry to pursue his socialist agenda, one that his brother Edward Bellamy also had.

New York Times: “As Jeffrey Owen Jones and Peter Meyer note, the original author of the pledge was a former Christian Socialist minister who hoped to redeem the United States from its class and ethnic antagonisms. Interpretations of its meaning have been growing more conservative, not more liberal, ever since.

The author in question was Francis Bellamy, cousin to the novelist Edward Bellamy, whose “Looking Backward” offered the 19th century’s most popular vision of a future welfare-­state utopia. In 1892, after abandoning the ministry, Francis was working at The Youth’s Companion, a mass-market magazine aimed at schoolchildren.” (keywords being “welfare-state utopia”)

Socialist Garbage

This is a man who was thrown out of a church he pastored because his views were too socialist. This is before the advent of even 1920s Germany, much less Hitler and his Nazi party. Why should we, as freedom lovers, recite this twice amended pledge to socialist ideals. While I applaud his ideas of unity, I am sickened by his attempts to use the pulpit to try and further those views. I am sickened by his marketing the pledge to children first, as if he were trying to over come adult objections by getting the kids to like it (who would become adults themselves in due time).

Here is my appeal to you:
If you are American, if you love freedom, if you want to really honor our servicemen and women, than I urge you to reject the Pledge of Allegiance. I urge you to reject its socialist author and his agenda. I have no problems embracing freedom, nor pledges of loyalty. The Bible is rife with them and they took different forms. Some nationalistic pride is fine, but as a Christian, this isn’t my home. My home is being prepared has been prepared for me in Heaven. Don’t be distracted by dead people who got at least this one thing wrong. I thank God I live in what is still the freest country in the land. I thank God everyday I have the freedom to do as I please. There are Christian brothers and sisters being killed, raped, tortured, and arrested around the world because of faith. There are nonbelievers suffering starvation and agonizing pain while I sit in an centrally heated home. I have all this because God blessed a group of men nearly 200 years ago who worked to lift us up from under the thumb of a tyrant. Let’s not trade one tyrant for another. Squash the pledge, squash socialism, and squash those who would dare try to take to me what God has so graciously given.

%d bloggers like this: