Media Misbehavior

- On April 15th, 2013 at 2:49PM something terrible happened in Boston, Massachusetts. Two bombs ripped through crowds of people who were there to cheer on the runners of the annual Boston Marathon. Some lives were lost...many lives were changed forever.
 - On April 23, 2013 there were two bomb threats called in regarding a school in Cornelius, NC. Thankfully, both threats were empty and there were no real bombs to be found. 
- On July 20th, 2012 James Holmes  walked into the Century movie theater in Aurora, CO and opened fire. 12 people were killed and 58 were wounded.
- On December 11, 2012 Jacob Roberts entered the Clackamas Town Center mall in Portland, Oregon. He killed two people and injured a third before turning the gun on himself. Four days later Adam Lanza would walk into Sandy Hook Elementary School and slaughter 26 children and six teachers.

These are a few incidents that we have seen in just the past 12 months, all of which are horrific tragedies and the surviving families and friends are due our deepest sympathy and prayers. There are few, if any, Americans who are not in some way familiar with most or all of these incidents. This is because we have access to around-the-clock media, whether it be online and television news outlets, social media or traditional print media. Anytime something happens there is a flurry of activity by the media to "get the scoop." In principle I have no problem with this because that is how news companies make money and it is beneficial to keep people informed of what is going on in the world. However, there are some serious problems with the way incidents like those above are being handled in our day in age.

The first problem, which I will not spend much time on in deference to the second problem, is that the "scoop" has become the goal rather than the truth. We witnessed a perfect example of this just the other day when news "leaked" out that the authorities had a suspect in the Boston bombing. As we soon found out, that was not the case and if it had been...well...the suspect just got a nice warning. This wouldn't be nearly as bad if most of the population didn't take what they hear on the news to be truth. There is an unwritten agreement between the people and the media that the people will believe the media if they will tell them the truth. Unfortunately, the media is no longer undertaking a quest for the truth. However, in our age when truth is something of a moving target I suppose we should not be surprised when people choose to manufacture it rather than find it. The same thing happened when we discovered we could make something that looks an awful lot like a diamond. Diamonds are certainly very hard to come by, which is why they are so valuable, so rather than go to all the trouble of finding them we decided to make a cheap knock-off, cubic zirconium. Like a lie disguised as truth, cubic zirconium will never be as good or as valuable as a diamond.

The second problem is where I would like to expend some some of my meager mental energy. Let me start by saying that I believe we should rename the "news" to the "bad news." Nothing sells papers, gains website traffic or boosts ratings like a good scandal, shooting, terrorist act or tragedy. Each time some horrific event unfolds in the world we have wall-to-wall media coverage of the act, the victims, and the suspects. If nothing else bothers us about this, the excruciating pain that this puts the families and survivors through should. Every time they turn on the television or pull up a web browser they come face to face with the event that changed their lives. That is not to mention all the speculation and punditry that comes along with something like a shooting or bombing. The reigning idea seems to be "Hey, we don't know anything about what happened so let's get some other people who don't know what happened and talk about how much we don't know but we think there might be a small possibility of." There is much to be said for the old adage that "discretion is the better part of valor." What is the matter with saying something to the effect of, "Here is what happened. We don't know why, who did it, or how many people were hurt, but we'll let you know when we find out." Instead the media speculates and before long their speculation turns into rumor which has a nasty habit of becoming truth to the less informed.Why? Because people expect to hear truth from the media (see previous paragraph).

This leads us to another, potential side-effect of poor media behavior. The elevation of criminals and sociopaths to instant celebrities. Now, I freely admit that I cannot speak to the psychological aspects of the criminal mind but I can say that there is a certain demographic within the population that seeks fame and notoriety. One only has to browse through YouTube for a few minutes to understand the human beings will do really idiotic things to get attention. There is no price too high for someone's fifteen  minutes of fame. On the other hand stories of heroism and courage are usually ignored or brushed aside to give more time to the perpetrator of the crime. How much press was given to Nick Meli, the concealed carry permit holder, who drew his firearm on Jacob Roberts in an effort to stop the shooting in the Oregon mall? What about the concealed carry holder who stopped a stabbing at a store in Salt Lake City in April of 2012? Nothing. The media is muffled at best and many times silent when it comes to good citizens doing the right thing in bad situations.

With all of that in mind I am inclined to ponder whether or not the media carries any responsibility for continued acts of violence in our society. The message that the media is sending to people is, "If you really want our attention you need to commit some kind of heinous crime." This takes very little skill, I mean how much talent does it take to call up a school and tell them you placed a bomb in their facility? The era of greatness earning you a place in society is long gone. Perhaps the most popular portions of the American Idol auditions are the people who are absolutely awful. You see, it doesn't take a great act of courage, talent or moral fortitude to become known any more. In fact, I believe the exact opposite is true nowadays.

I confess that I do not have a good solution to these problems. The media machine is almost too big to change at this point, but then again I say "almost." There is always hope. What if more people held the media accountable? What if there was public outcry against misbehavior by the media? What if we demanded to see more stories of courage and good will rather than the elevation of criminals to the level of virtual movie stars? What if the people called for the media to bear some of the burden for repeated acts of violence in our world? As far as I am concerned the major news outlets are no better than the National Inquirer or the Sun magazine, that is to say...trash. My stomach turns at their unending coverage of national and personal tragedies and their exaltation of the sociopath. Of course, perhaps the media is just a mirror-like reflection of our society. I sure hope not.

Semper Libertas,
RV  

The Desperate Need for Discernment.

For they are not a people of discernment, therefore their Maker will not have compassion on them. Isaiah 27:11.

If you listen to talk radio, the news media, official statements and the like you will quickly discover that the truth is somewhat harder to come by than one might imagine. In fact, I would say that it is kind of "up for grabs." Just look back on the Presidential debates that took place in the latter part of last year. Either one of the candidates said thus-and-so or they didn't. There is no middle ground. When Governor Romney said that President Obama told us one thing and the President claims he did not, then someone is lying...period. Either a budget plan is going to add trillions of dollars to our national debt and increase middle-class taxes or it is not. One of the other great points of conflict right now is global warming/climate change. Either the earth is getting warmer as a result of human endeavors or it is not. This is science, opinion shouldn't even be on the table. One news outlet says one thing while a different one says something completely different. Where is the truth.

Now, I could get into a lengthy discussion about absolute truth versus relativism but it might morph into a post all on it's own. However, I will try to briefly explain one particular philosophical idea that I believe will help in this discussion. There is something called "Correspondence Theory." In short, this theory states that what is true, is that which corresponds, or lines up with, reality. For example, I might say that my car is red. This would be true because it corresponds with the fact that my car is, indeed, red. If I claimed that my car was white a few possible assumptions could be made.

1). I am a liar, plain and simple.
2). I am color blind and my concept of reality is skewed.
3). I don't care about reality and just make it up as I go along.

Correspondence theory is fairly easy to grasp because it is something we make use of each and every day. We make statement and draw conclusions based on the world around us. Someone may push back and say that different people's definition of red may vary. This is quite true, however, it does not change the color of the car, it only changes the name which we call it.

Based on my limited experience with the media and politicians I would tend to lean towards assumption #1 from above when what they say doesn't seem to line up with what we see in the world. There is a simple explanation for this. They are not concerned so much with the truth as they are with promoting some kind of agenda, whether it be conservative, liberal or something in between. This is why the character trait of discernment is critical in our day in time.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and borrow a term from Rush Limbaugh. He often calls the vast majority of the population "low information voters." No matter what you think of Rush, I believe this is an accurate description of most of the voting populace. They take what a candidate or media network says at face value. If there is one thing we must never do, it is take what a politician says as truth! However, as the Bible points out, people will surround themselves with others who tell them what their itching ears are longing to hear. Let me give you an example. The other day I was driving along behind an aging Honda Accord. Prominently displayed on the rear bumper was an Obama '08 sticker. No problem, we see those all the time. As we continued on down the road they slowed and pulled into a rather decrepit looking mobile home park called "Freedom Park." Now before you get upset, I have nothing in the world against mobile home parks. There are very many out there that are nice and wonderful places to live. Nor, am I making an judgement call on this person's soul or character. However, I couldn't help but wonder if this person expected to still be living in squalor when they cast their vote in '08. There is clip after clip on the internet of people so excited that President Obama had been elected because they believed that all their troubles would be over. Now, five years later things are no better and the freedom that this mobile home park was advertising is quickly being eroded.

Why has this happened? Simply put, it is because people lack discernment when it comes to the truth. No further investigation is done when a campaign promise is made and no cares what the other side of the story might be on the news. The real problem is that the average person doesn't want to hear the truth. They are satisfied living in the bliss of ignorance. 

I am not suggesting that Fox News, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity are the soul proprietors of truth in our society. What I am saying is that the truth is out there and it is absolute and corresponds with the reality of the world. Our job, as conscientious citizens, is to find it and proclaim it. The sad reality is that some people are going to have to be taken to rock bottom before they admit their need for the truth and I am deeply disturbed because I wonder if that is not where we are headed in our nation.

Semper Libertas,
 RV

Our Supreme Court, Who Art in Washington.

Photo courtesy of davidlat

It is a very dangerous doctrine indeed to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, and one that would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. -Thomas Jefferson, 1820 

If you have read any of my other posts you know that there are many things that I find disturbing in our society. Hopefully some of the same things disturb you as well. However, one of the most frightening developments of late is the elevation of the Supreme Court over and above God. What I mean is that if the Supreme Court says something is okay, then it is okay. This is actually a sign of a deeper and more widespread problem, the idea that legality equates with morality. That is, if something is legal then it must be morally acceptable. The problems with this idea are many and varied, suffice it to say that if morality is defined by what is legal then there is no solid foundation for morality. This, of course, would fall right in line with current postmodern, relativistic philosophy. The problem arises from the fact that if this is the case then nine human beings, who are no better than you and I, get to define morality for the rest of us. I don't know about you but to me that is a little unsettling.

You have to admit that there is a certain amount of arrogance associated with sitting behind a bench and basically telling people "We don't care what God or anyone else says, we're the law in this land. What we say goes." Let us not forget that the Supreme Court's duty is not the "legislate from the bench" but to uphold the Constitution just as all other elected and appointed officials. Now, instead of coming to a conclusion about what the law says, as written, the justices seem to believe that their job is to decide what is and isn't legal. There is an important distinction here and it is as clear as the branches of government. It is the job of the legislature to make laws defining what is legal or illegal. It is the job of the court to determine when someone has transgressed the law of the legislature. This is the case with what the Constitution calls "lesser courts" or "inferior court" so why is it different for the highest court in the land.

I agree that it is within the powers of the Supreme Court to try cases regarding the Constitutionality of a particular law. However, with the not-so-new phenomenon called "Constitutional Review" it is less about what the actual intent of the Constitution is and more about what the judges like or dislike. The major failure in worldview is that rather than understanding that the Constitution was put in place to limit government, the Supreme Court now seems to see it's role as seeing how far the government can reach into the lives of the citizens. A perfect example of this is the recent catastrophe that has come to be called "Obamacare." Once the case was brought before the Court they should have looked at it and said, "Are you crazy? This is ridiculous and not at all in line with the ideals that our nation was founded upon. Case closed."

Another more recent example would be the case for homosexual marriages. The fact is, this is not a Constitutional issue or even a legal issue. It is a religious issue, something the Supreme Court should never be in the business of deciding. They are so bent on removing all signs of religion from the public sphere but are more than willing to take the public arena into Church. This is philosophical treason of the highest order. Again their response should have been, "Are you kidding me? This is a religious issue and we're not a theological tribunal. Take this to the Vatican or somewhere else."

This may take some time but I think it will be worth it. Marriage is not the same as a civil union or a legal contract. In our society there is some correlation between the two but they are distinct entities. Marriage is a vow...a covenant that a man and a woman make between themselves and God. Our legal system has given that covenant some weight and that is as it should be. Logically, if someone were willing to make a vow with God it would make sense that it would carry even more power within the lesser realm of earthly law. If two homosexuals want to enter into a contract or union on this earth that gives them certain legal privileges then I have no problem with that whatsoever, especially under the Constitution. The fact is, the privileges of marriage are granted automatically because of the nature of the vow and who it was made with. I would wager that most of the same privileges are attainable through the legal system, it just requires more effort. However, demanding that it be given the title of "marriage" is stepping outside the legal realm into the religious realm. In effect what the pro-homosexual marriage lobby is doing is saying, "We want the Supreme Court to tell the Church what it can and cannot believe." At this point it would be appropriate to proclaim that which the anti-religious people say so often..."Separation of Church and State!"

The real problem here though is not with the squeaky wheel but the mechanic that puts oil on it. If the Supreme Court would start taking their job seriously and do what they are Constitutionally allowed to do, and nothing more, these issues would not exist. The Throne of Grace has been replaced by the Bench of Power and it seems to me the justices are more than willing to usurp what is God's alone. If we, as a society, began to realize that our rights are not granted by nine humans sitting in Washington DC but by a great and mighty God I think we would really begin to live in the freedom that we have a natural right to. Our Founding Fathers had it right when they said that every person has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That pretty much sums it up. We don't have the right to other people's money, free health care, or to do whatever we dang well please no matter who it hurts or what divine laws it transgresses.

So what are we to do with ourselves since we will in a country that is increasingly run by an oligarchy? First of all, we have to realize for ourselves that the Supreme Court isn't the highest court around, God is. Secondly, we have to demand that the justices, present and future, begin to judge according to the law of God and the law of the the land (the Constitution). If public opinion began to move back to freedom and liberty, as our nation was founded, then the Court would be moved. Obviously, they are as human as anyone and clearly they are swayed by public outcry. So let's cry out. Furthermore, if we were to elect freedom loving patriots to the legislature then they would have the power to reject candidates for justice that want to use the Constitution as toilet paper.

In the end I am far more concerned about what God has to say on issues than what nine politicians have to say. Man saying something is okay only makes it okay when God agrees. Period, end of story.

Semper Libertas,
RV

Sheepdog Profiles: #1

I'd like to start posting reports of "sheepdogs" in action. If you are not familiar with what a sheepdog is please read this excerpt from Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's book entitled "On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs." The bottom line is this: 1)We need more sheepdogs in our society and 2) we need to spread the word about the good they are doing for society. Stay tuned for more.

Treading Upon Dead Children.

In some sense I feel like I'm beating a dead horse when it comes to gun control measures and the Second Amendment, but my outrage at what the leftists in the government are trying to foist upon the American citizenry is overpowering. I cannot and will not be silent.

If you're truly interested in my defense of the Second Amendment you can look at some of my other posts so I will not take the time to repeat it in full here. What upsets me the most is the President and his followers using recent tragedies, especially Sandy Hook, as a stepping stone for taking freedom that is not theirs to take e.g, the freedom to protect ourselves from evil doers. There is no difference in the filth they are spewing about gun control and using dead Marines as a platform to gripe about sequestration.

In the past few days the President has paraded around with some of the families that lost children in the Sandy Hook massacre. He, along with others, have vowed to push stronger gun control measures under the guise of honoring the deaths of those children and an effort to assuage the anguish of the parents. What those parents probably don't realize is that honoring the deaths of their children is not the driving motivation behind the current batch of gun control propositions. Rather, they are being used as a convenient tool in an effort to disarm law abiding citizens. Those on the left have one goal in view, gain more control over the population for the government. This is almost always wrapped in some kind of humanitarian ideal that leads to less equality, less opportunity, and less freedom. Of course, one of the most important steps in this plan is to disarm the people so that they have no way of resisting, in any meaningful way, the encroachment of the government.

Perhaps the most stomach churning statement that has been made was by Senator Harry Reid when he said, "The least Republicans owe the parents of those 20 little babies who were murdered at Sandy Hook is a thoughtful debate about whether stronger laws could have saved their little girls and boys." First of all, there is absolutely no willingness on the side of the liberals to have a "thoughtful debate" on the issue. To them "thoughtful debate" means bowing to their ideas. Anything else is quickly shot down as shameful. Secondly, the liberals decry thoughtful debate over these 20 children whose lives were lost but the same "thoughtful debate" is unwelcome when it comes to millions of unborn babies that are murdered each year through legalized abortion. If they were really concerned about saving lives they would consider banning any form of voluntary abortion on demand. Alas, when these two issues are considered together we begin to see the real wolf behind the fluffy white clothes.

The truth of the matter is this. There are already a number of laws in place to address the issue of violence in our society. For those who may not understand what I mean, it is already illegal to murder other people and there are severe consequences to breaking that law. It is also illegal to commit armed robbery or assault. Furthermore, it is already illegal for citizens to own machine guns, grenades and grenade launchers, tanks, shoulder fired missiles and many other types of weapons. If sweeping gun legislation passes then it seems to me that we need to create some additional laws concerning alcohol. Drunk driving deaths in our country are some of the most tragic because innocent people have been killed by someone who chooses to misuse an otherwise legal substance. If we really want to save lives then we should outlaw all forms of alcohol as well. Funny thing, we did that once and then decided it was a serious infringement on people's freedom.

Let's not be foolish and believe that gun control is an effort to stop violence and please stop using the grief of families as a political tool to reach evil ends. In fact, let's not even call it gun control because that isn't what its about. Let's call it freedom control. If we really want to honor the deaths of those children let us give people the means to defend against tyranny of all forms. Heck, while we're on the topic of honoring deaths let's honor the deaths of millions of American fighting men and women who have given their lives to defend freedom and the Constitution that guarantees it. To those in Washington, please stop lying to the public. If your ideas are so great then let them be known. It is a coward who needs to hide behind twenty elementary school students.

Semper Libertas,
RV

Forms of Tyranny

photo from concerncitizensofcoffeecity.com

The word "tyranny" is not at all unfamiliar to most of us. When we hear the word I believe we typically have an image of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or some other despot flash across our mental TV screen. To be sure, these dictators are fully qualified to be described as tyrants however, I believe there are other, perhaps more sinister, forms of tyranny in our world. As a freedom loving American I also believe that our nation was founded with the express intentions of overcoming tyranny. In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence the words "despotism" and "tyranny" make a prominent appearance and it is this that the colonies were rejecting and trying to throw off. Of course, the tyrant that was bearing the greatest guilt at the time was the King of Britain but it would seem logical that the Founding Fathers were rejecting all forms of tyranny and despotism. What I would like to do here is outline what I believe are some of the forms of tyranny that we see in the world. Some of these we have experienced in our nation, others are ones we may potentially see if we are not careful.

1. Philosophical tyranny
Philosophical tyranny is perhaps the root of all the other forms. This occurs when one idea is forced upon people at the expense of any other. Currently we see this most vividly in some branches of academia. More and more the materialistic, naturalistic worldview is crammed down the throats of students and faculty across Western Civilization. Once Charles Darwin published his Origin of the Species a new, godless, option became available to humanity. This relieved millions of people of the pesky problem of a higher power. Now this worldview has become standard in many, many academic institutions at the expense of theistic or supernatural worldviews. The argument is that this frees people for true academic and scientific inquiry. The problem is that inquiry is only seen as honest and acceptable when the conclusions match up with the naturalistic presuppositions. Should a professor or scientist look at the evidence and conclude that there is some likelihood that God exists they are promptly black-listed and pushed to the lunatic fringe of their field. As I have written in a previous post this extends to students being made to disrespect their own religious beliefs. As Ben Stein has shown, theism has been effectively "expelled" from the academic and scientific realm. The basis for academic and scientific inquiry and study is to look at the evidence and allow that to lead one to the conclusion. In our society this is not so much the case. Therefore, I believe we are living in a time of philosophical tyranny. This is certainly not what our nation was founded upon.

2. Media tyranny
This one should be plainly obvious to anyone who has watched or followed the mainstream media in the past decade or so. There seems to be a singular narrative that the media is trying to foist upon the American people. This narrative is leftist, intolerant, hateful, unjust and protectionist. If a different opinion is voiced it is quickly demonized and mocked. There was a time when the goal of the news media was to uncover the truth about whatever topic was at hand. This has shifted to pushing a certain agenda at the expense of the truth. Let me offer a couple of examples.

Same-sex marriage: There should be no question as to where the media stands on this issue. As a whole they are strongly in favor of allowing homosexuals to be married. The opposing position, that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry and that it is an inappropriate lifestyle, is never given a fair shake in the media. Those who are against the idea, evangelical Christians particularly, are never allowed to voice their disagreement with any degree of fairness. Rather, they are instantly and emphatically labeled as "homophobic" and "bigots." I don't know of any major media outlet where a Christian has been given the opportunity to defend their position. The fact is, the Christian position should be, "We do not hate homosexuals. In fact, we love them in the same way that God loves them. We don't want to kill them, beat them or in any way harm them. We also believe that they have claim to all the other rights due to humans. However, we will not affirm their lifestyle in any fashion." To discover that Christians love and care for homosexuals, perhaps more than anyone else, would not fit the media's narrative and, therefore, it is squashed.

Gun rights: Again, the media's position on this issue should be as plain as the nose on your face. Any evidence that pro-gun advocates put forward is quickly denied or ignored. Why? Because it does not fit the narrative. What is that narrative? Guns make people do bad things and hurt other people. This one, more than any other, just flies in the face of reason. There has never been a case in which a gun did something evil without a person controlling it. There are millions of Americans who carry a gun every day and they are far more likely to stop evil from happening that do evil themselves. However, the media has convinced the sheep in our society that guns are the root of all evil and must be abolished. This is foolishness of the highest order.

We may be living in a time of media tyranny but there is some hope. Our speech is still Constitutionally protected and we have at our disposal the ability to write blogs, start websites and find other ways to offer an opposing opinion to the mainstream media that is holding the American public hostage. That means we must flood the internet and airwaves with the truth and fight back against this tyrannical dictator known as the media.

3. Religious tyranny
This form of tyranny goes hand-in-glove with philosophical tyranny. If the academic and scientific communities are guilty of being tyrannical because of their rejection of religious worldviews the opposite can also be true. Thankfully we do not see this on a grand scale in our nation. There are certainly groups and sects within our society that are religiously tyrannical but it has not yet become a nationwide problem. However, it can be seen in certain other nations where Sharia Law is the law of the land, or in places where the caste system is still alive and well. To insure against this type of tyranny the Founding Fathers wrote freedom of religion into the Bill of Rights. This allows for people of all faiths to practice their beliefs freely up to the point that they begin to harm other citizens. Even as a committed Christian I am in no way in favor of the United States being and officially "Christian" nation. Nowhere in the Gospel are we given the directive to force our convictions on other people. We are commanded to stand firm in on our convictions but conversion by the sword is not in the Gospel. This form of tyranny is perhaps the most dangerous because it is dealing with eternity and a God who does not appreciate the perversion of His message.

4. Political Tyranny
Political tyranny is the form that we are most familiar with and it is the one that the Founding Fathers had in view when they broke from Great Britain. While it is the most obvious it is also the one Americans are most likely to miss. Anytime the government overreaches the limits set forth first by God and then by the Constitution it is becoming more tyrannical. Even a brief look at the Constitution will show you that our form of government was designed to be extraordinarily limited. Unfortunately, inch by inch our government has grown into the ravenous beast that it is today. First the authority of the individual states was stripped from them (No, I am not suggesting even for a moment that the Civil War should have turned out differently) and now the rights of the people are being infringed. Make no mistake about it this is not just about gun control, it is far greater than that. The government now must take more and more of your money to feed its insatiable appetite. Now the government wants to tell you what kind of health care you should have. The statues and laws that have been passed over the past 100 years or so have done nothing more than limit, not the reach of government, but the rights and freedom of the citizen.

I will say this, if the government is successful in strict gun control or in disarming the citizenry there will be no limit to the tyranny that we will see in the United States. The Second Amendment is the teeth of the Bill of Rights and once those teeth are removed there will be no non-governmental check against tyranny. To trust the government for our personal protection is to willing allow ourselves to come under tyranny and that is something every American should stand against.

Conclusion
As we know, our nation was founded on the ideals of freedom and liberty. Both of these principles are under fierce attack today. I have argued that we are seeing some forms of tyranny here in America but we have not yet come under complete despotism. Our duty, if we love freedom, is to stand against all forms of tyranny in our nation and the world. We can do that through writing, speaking, disobedience to unjust laws and, in the worst case, resistance. Never forget that the United States was not an experiment in good government, it is an experiment in good citizenship and limited government. To operate at maximum efficiency our land must be populated with good citizens who are first self-governed. This is the first line of defense against tyranny.

Semper Libertas,
RV 

So This is What Easter is All About...Got it.

I just read a short article by Madeleine Morgenstern on The Blaze explaining a little bit about the Easter message that the was given at St. John's Episcopal Church in Washington D.C. This church, of course, is known as the "Church of the Presidents" and is located across the street from the White House. It was this service that the Obama family attended on Sunday morning, the day we celebrate political and racial division and hatred in our country. Oh wait...no...that's not what Easter is about, is it?

Few things disgust me more than using faith as a political tool. Sadly, this is what has been done for who knows how long. As long as I can remember politicians have pandered to people of faith, and in our nation that specifically means Christians. Our current president is only the most recent example of this, and a shining one at that. During his initial campaign in 2008 Senator Obama, at the time, tried to make it clear that he was a Christian. This may have gone over well with the uneducated and willfully ignorant but for the true Christian  this was an easy masquerade to uncover. First of all, the pastor whom President Obama sat under for many years, Jeremiah Wright, is understood by most to be on the fringe of Christianity. He is a vocal proponent of Black Liberation Theology which, if examined closely, has little to do with orthodox Christianity. Rev. Wright was unceremoniously tossed onto the national scene with his now famous statement that instead of "God bless America" it should be "God d*&# America." Now, I could go on for pages about this statement but it would be unedifying.

On top of attending a church that fails to represent Biblical Christianity we have the President's own waffling positions on clear-cut doctrines of the faith. His Chinese-fire-drill-like shifts in belief should come as no surprise because that is what politicians do. They claim to agree with certain points of faith to the degree that it will help them get elected and appease the populace. Leading up to the 2013 inauguration an invitation to pray was extended to a prominent evangelical pastor, Louie Giglio. This invitation was quickly retracted once it was discovered that Giglio was...a Christian. The claim from the administration was that his beliefs and convictions did not effectively mesh with the President's vision for the nation. From what I have read, heard and know about Giglio his theology is about as othodox as you're going to get. He preaches and teaches from the Bible and he does it in a way that is extraordinarily appealing to many Christians of various denominations.

As another example, during the 2008 election and the first two years of his administration President Obama was against same-sex marriage. Naturally, this falls in line with the bulk of Christians in the nation. As the midterm election approached and same-sex marriage amendments were on the ballots in some states the President made a 180 degree shift in his beliefs on the issue. Why? Because his previous position was under attack by special interest groups.

Now we have this latest evidence that the President's personal beliefs are so far from orthodox Christianity that any correlation between the two is laughable. From what was written in the aforementioned article the Easter message at St. John's was about everything but the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The message of the resurrection is multifaceted but at the heart of it is hope. Hope that this life is not it. Hope that since Christ rose from the grave our sins have been forgiven and we will, in like manner, be resurrected upon the return of Christ. There is also the distinct idea that no matter what the minor differences are in Christian doctrine we can all find common ground in the same hope of Christ's resurrection.

Instead of this incredible message the congregation of St. John's was treated to a political tirade against the "religious right." Meanwhile, that same religious right was celebrating the greatest day in history with joy, love and fellowship. If one were to truly grasp the resurrection of Christ it would be clear that the message transcends history, race and political affiliation. It is the greatest message of hope and change the world has ever known. In our day in age, however, it has been perverted and used to sooth the itching ears of those who hear.

In reading about this I cannot help but be reminded of a message I heard during my first year in seminary. Bill Moyers had been invited to speak at our chapel service one day and he mounted the stage and opened by saying that he hated it when preachers used the pulpit as a political forum. He then proceeded to use the next 45 minutes behind the pulpit as a political forum. This fact was not lost on my friends and I as we tried not to wretch in our seats. The formula is always the same. The left will always demonize conservatives for one thing and in the next moment do exactly what they have just preached against. Friends, there will always be political ramifications to the Gospel but it should never be used as a political tool. God is not a politician, He knows no political party, He is neither "right" nor "left" He simply is. He will not be mocked and He will not stand for the perversion of His Gospel or using the death and resurrection of His Son as a platform for evil gains.

True, lasting and authentic hope and change is what Easter is all about.

Semper Libertas,
RV

What I Want to See in a Politician.

I have grown weary of the status quo in the American political arena. I am tired of hearing politicians make promises that they have no intention of keeping. I am tired of seeing elected officials on both sides of the aisle cave under the pressure of their own, and the opposing, party. I am tired of seeing politicians be more concerned with re-election than what is best for our country. I am tired of watching my beloved nation as she is lead down the path of collapse, moral depravity and squander.

What I long to see in a politician...nay, a statesmen is this:

1. A man or a woman of integrity. One who will not bow to the waves of party politics, special interest groups and "Super PACs." This person would stand on their convictions regardless of what the polls and media outlets say.

2. A person who does not care about re-election. What if someone was running for office and their campaign slogan was "I don't care if you vote for me again." That is someone I might vote for time and time again. Less time could be spent in on the campaign trail and more time could be devoted to actually leading the country.

3. Someone who doesn't make empty promises. Instead of having a diplomatic answer for every possible question what if someone said, "I don't know about the impact of overfishing on the spotted snowy egret but here is what I believe and these are the principles that are going to guide my decision making process." The only thing necessary to gain my vote is that you be a committed patriot and want to see our nation be great once again. I don't need to think that you're going to pave the roads in my county.

4. Someone who loves and respects the Constitution. This is the primary responsibility of the elected officials in our nation, to uphold the Constitution. Stop trying to use it like a rubber band to fit around your own agenda, and allow it to defend the liberty of the citizens. Furthermore, do not ignore this document which has ensured freedom and liberty for all for over two-hundred years. This person should be committed to protecting the people from the government, not seeing how much bigger they can make the government.

5. Someone who will fight for the United States in the world. If we have done wrong, then make it right but if we have done right let us not try to make it wrong. We live in the greatest nation this world has known and there need be no apologies for it. Our only goal in foreign policy should be to spread freedom and liberty. That does not mean we spread America but that we do our best to support freedom loving people the world over. Freedom for all is what we are after, not economic benefits.

In the end, I do believe that these kind of stellar individuals do exist. We have seen few rise to political power but there is still hope. This is the kind of statesman I long to see and should one arise I will not hesitate to cast my vote on their behalf.

Semper Libertas,
RV

Florida Atlantic, Only One Example of Academia Going Down the Toilet.

It is becoming more evident by the second that we have come completely detached from our moral moorings in this nation. Recently, as many of you may have heard, a class at Florida Atlantic University was told to write the name "Jesus" in large letters on a piece of paper. Once that difficult assignment was completed they were to place the paper on the floor and stomp on it. For a moment lets imagine that the same assignment was given, only the name of Jesus was replaced with Muhammad or Allah. I dare say there would be terrorists on the way to blow something up right about now. This story does end on a positive note because one student, Ryan Rotela, was courageous enough to stand up to the professor and their ludicrous request. The trouble was, Rotela was the one who almost got expelled! Initially, the university was going to bring him up on charges of violating the student code of conduct because he reported the professor.

In the interest of doing at least some research on the matter I consulted the FAU Student Conduct manual to see for myself what the charges may have been. I admit that I only briefly skimmed the manual because it is lengthy. However, I did find this in the opening material.

(2) Principles
     (b). Respect for Self and Others: Students are expected to conduct themselves in a manner which exemplifies respect for people of all races, religions, and ethnic groups, and to adhere to one's personal values without unduly imposing them on others. Respect for one's own mind and body, is essential. In interpersonal relationships, students are expected to respect the rights of others, particularly their right to refuse to participate in any activity. Students should take responsibility to serve as leaders in promoting compassion for others and challenging prejudice.


Now, I may be misreading this but is sounds to me like Rotela was upholding the highest standards of this code of conduct. He is a committed Mormon so he was adhering to his own personal values and it appears that he was not telling anyone else not to stomp on the paper. Furthermore, the students are expected to respect everyone's right to refuse to participate in any activity but it seems this does not apply to the faculty. Finally, Rotela was following through with the final statement and challenging prejudice against Christians.

I am glad to report that Rotela will not be facing any charges from the university and it sounds like they have been more than apologetic. The question that will probably remain unanswered is whether or not the university is truly sorry that this happened or sorry that they got caught and felt the weight of public outcry.

Let me move on to another troublesome subject. It seems that over the past few months events called "Sex Week" have become popular on college campuses around the nation. Of course, at some institutions every week is a sex week but now they have morphed into college sponsored events. TIME Magazine's NewsFeed has posted an interesting piece on the University of Tennessee's refusal to allow state dollars to fund this event. In this article it lists some of the activities and forums planned for the week:

- "How many licks does it take?"
- Golden condom scavenger hunt
- A lesbian bondage expert

I want to believe this is some kind of joke, but is isn't. Even some of the most hallowed academic institutions in our country are participating, including Yale and Harvard. The only thought running through my mind is, "What is the world coming to?" Let us not forget that Harvard was founded as a seminary for the training of ministers and missionaries. These places do resemble something from the Bible...Sodom and Gomorrah. This is not only an example of the moral degeneration of our society but it is also propelling us down the road of depravity. We are now teaching the next generation that it is, indeed, all about their own personal pleasure.

Both of these example, Florida Atlantic and Sex Weeks, fly in the face of Christian values and the moral framework upon which our nation was founded. Religious freedom is being eroded right along with moral purity. How can we possibly expect to maintain a position of greatness in the world when we are rotting away from the inside. If we expect people to be tolerant of other religions why are we teaching them to stomp on the name of Jesus? If we want people to respect the act of sexual intimacy and the bodies of others why are we teaching them how to pervert it? This kind of philosophical treason and moral rot should be an outrage to us all. This, I dare say, is not what higher education is supposed to be. God save us.

Semper Libertas,

RV

What are We Encouraging?

As you may have  detected from one of my earlier posts I am something of an Ayn Rand fan. That is not to say that I agree with her philosophy 100% and I am certainly on a different plain theologically but that does not mean that there are not some points of contact in her thoughts and my own. As of right now I am a few hundred pages into her epic novel Atlas Shrugged. I first became intrigued by this work after I watched the first installment of the movie. I quickly came to realize that in the political realm Ms. Rand and I were nearly next door neighbors. Her ability to accurately predict our current state of affairs in the United States from several decades in the past is hauntingly prophetic. As I read some of the statements made by political officials and the railroad alliance in the book I am shocked at how much they sound like statements being made today.

Admittedly, I have only just begun to scratch the surface of this lengthy work of literature but one thing that stands out to me so far is the question of what we encourage in our society. The clear message of Atlas Shrugged, as far as I am, is that society has ceased to encourage what I think Rand would call "greatness." This is replaced with mediocrity and what the characters in the book would inaccurately define as "fairness." For the powers-that-be in Rand's world it is "unfair" that Henry Rearden is capitalizing on his own ingenuity and business prowess. He is made to feel guilty because he is in business to make money, and as much of it as he possibly can. What of all the other, less than stellar steel companies that he is putting out of business because he excels at it? It is also seen as unfair that Rearden is pushing the technological envelope with his new "Rearden Metal." All of this, of course, is coming at a time of worldwide economic downturn.

The parallels with out current condition in America are frighteningly clear. Almost every night on the news, and certainly throughout the Presidential election we just experienced, the ingenious and productive in our society are being demonized. There seems to be some mysterious, and yet undefined, limit on how much money one person or corporation is allowed to make. Beyond that figure it is seen as unfair, unethical, and immoral to reap the benefits of one's effort. Added to this is the clear message from our government that it will provide handouts to anyone who wants them. I will never forget the almost incoherent rant of a staunch Obama supporter who was raving about her "Obama phone" and how no one was going to take it away from her if she had anything to do with it. My dear wife had a similar experience at a local clothing store just the other day. While perusing the racks of clothing she overheard one of the employees explaining to her co-worker that one of her friends had just been fired from her job. She went on to explain that it was not nearly as tragic as one might assume because at least her friend could now draw unemployment. Where does that money come from? You and I.

As more and more people get on the government "dole" and as that provision becomes more and more lucrative what message do you think is being sent to the people? "Why work for my income when I can just get it from the government?" My fellow Americans, that it the only message that is sends, the only one.

As a result of far reaching promises by the government more income must be conjured up to meet the budget. As I am sure everyone has heard, it is up to the wealthy to pay their "fair share" to fund the check the government has already written. In what reality is it right for the producers to pay for those who refuse to produce? I am in no way suggesting that there should not be some kind of provision for those who are unable to provide for themselves. I do believe that the Church and other charitable organizations should bear the greatest portion of that responsibility but I really have no problem with short-term unemployment benefits. However, we are way beyond that today. I have heard far too many stories of people who are genuinely disabled and cannot get the benefits due them while the lazy and unproductive are sent to the front of the line.

The problem with constantly upping the definition of what someone's "fair share" is, is that it completely discourages people from striving for greatness. If someone knows that once they reach a certain threshold of profit they are going to be taxed at 60-70%, then what motivation is there for them to produce a product or service that will lead to them exceeding that amount? I can see a few things happening. First, that person could stop striving for greatness. If there is no motivation for doing better or creating a better product than the next company, why try? Secondly, that person will seek ways in which to get around the system. These are the loopholes we kept hearing about during the election. If the government is going to tax the daylights out of my income, why not put it in an account somewhere else? What is that doing? Moving the dollars somewhere else where they are not helping our economy. The third thing is like the second. A productive business may just decide to take their business elsewhere. Again, this does nothing for our economy or general greatness.

What people fail to see is that when companies are doing well, making money and producing products that people want to buy, everyone benefits. Once one person begins to increase technologically then it motivates others to do the same in order to keep up competition. This drives prices either up or down which can increase wages and thereby increasing consumption. Steve Jobs and the iPod/iPhone/iPad is a perfect example of this. Here was a guy who revolutionized portable electronics. He had a vision for a really groundbreaking platform and created a product that is still at the top of the list. What was the result? Every other electronics company tried to make their own version. In a sense, Jobs' ingenuity single-handedly propelled the consumer electronics market to where it is today. In the process he also saved a computer company that was on the way out. Here's the crazy thing, if you look at the average salaries of Apple employees they are far above minimum wage. Jobs, though passed on, made an inordinate amount of money as a result of his ideas but it was also passed along to the people who helped make the company great.

Now, for every Steve Jobs and Bill Gates on the planet there are also plenty of CEOs who pad their bank accounts at the expense of those who work for them. This is inexcusable but it is not a problem for the legislators or national executives. It is a problem for the ethicist, theologian and evangelist. A wicked CEO is going to find a way around the law no matter how many you pass to address their wickedness. The solution is to turn the wicked CEO into a good CEO. Despite what the Social Gospel crowd would have you believe, changing the system is not going to change the people in the system.

In the interest of not exposing a problem and then offering no solution I will offer my solution.

1) Stop encouraging laziness in society. Show the people that hard work pays off. This means strict limits and requirements for unemployment, disability and welfare. Let it be what it was meant to be, a stop gap.  There is a massive difference between giving someone a hand up and a handout.

2) Encourage giving to charitable organizations and free those organizations to do their work in the most effective manner possible. A private organization can almost always do something more efficiently than the government. This will free the government from their self-proclaimed responsibility to care for everyone.

3) Encourage people to strive for greatness. Ease harmful regulations that are only designed to provide bureaucratic jobs that offer nothing to society. Let people keep the money they have earned through their own effort. Certain taxes are just (national defense, provision for elected officials, etc.) but most that we have today are not and they go to pay unjust and ultimately harmful programs.

Sadly, the truth of the matter is that as long as people understand that they can vote themselves a handout it is almost impossible to make these changes. I hope that we are not beyond the point of no return in our nation and I pray that we can elect statesmen who will courageously attack the problems we face in our time. If we are to be a great nation once again we must strive for that greatness and stop encouraging mediocrity. History has proven that once mediocrity takes hold, tyranny is just around the corner.

Semper libertas,

RV    

Who Runs the Country?

Within the past six months we have seen one of the most incredible demonstrations of democracy in the world, and it is something that happens, at least, every four years. That demonstration is the peaceful election of our national leadership. More specifically, in November of 2012 we saw the re-election of our president. Whether or not you are a supporter of President Obama we can all stand in awe of the system that governs our land. So many other countries do not experience peaceful transitions of power and they are certainly not on such a regular basis.

It is interesting to note that, historically, voter turnout for Presidential elections is far higher than the mid-term elections of Senators and Representatives. For instance, according to a study by the New Policy Institute, in 2008 (a Presidential year) the voter turnout was 67% for voters over the age of 30 and 51% for voters between 18 and 29. Compare that to the 2006, mid-term elections which saw a turnout of 54% and 25.5% respectively. This trend is basically the same as one goes back to 1972. Now, this little tidbit of information would allow one to draw the conclusion that Presidential elections are more important than Congressional ones. Why? In my opinion, it is because we have come to believe that the real power of our government lies in the executive branch. I will admit that over the past century or so this has become more and more the case. However, according to the Constitution the reality is altogether different.

Before I go any further in the exploration the question of who runs our country I want to lay some groundwork first. Please hang with me because I think the effort will pay dividends as we move along.

First of all, despite what most have come to believe about our form of government, we do not live in a pure democracy. That's right, our government is not really a democracy in the truest sense of the word. There are a few different ways to describe our government from "Constitutional Republic" to "Democratic Republic." Whatever term you choose the bottom line is that we elect, democratically, representatives who carry out the business of governing as public servants. Of course, one could debate the nature of a servant that makes $400,000 per year (President) or $175,000 per year (Representative) but that is beside the point. In a pure democracy everything would be up for vote and we would probably spend the better part of our lives at the ballot box. Of course, the founders also knew that pure democracy could quickly degenerate into "moboacracy" and wisely framed a different system.

The next important point that must be made is that we, in the United States, have a beautiful document called the Constitution. You may have heard of it, even though it is fading from common usage. The basic purpose of the Constitution was to carefully define the role and limits of the government and guarantee the citizens maximum freedom. Never forget, the Constitution was made for you and I, and our benefit. It was designed, especially the Bill of Rights, to protect us from an overreaching government. Within that document, which is made up of only a few pieces of parchment, you have all the major aspects of our government; the legislative, judicial and executive branches.

Now, if we begin to look at the Constitution, as it was ratified, we begin to see some things that are not immediately apparent to the modern American. Regarding the topic at hand, one thing that stands out is that it took the framers ten articles to define the role of the legislative branch while it only took four for the executive branch. Just by sheer volume this tells me that the framers wanted to vest the most power in the legislative branch. Why? Because that branch most accurately represented the people of the "many states." One can almost look at it like a pyramid. The House of Representatives is the largest body within the government and it is also the portion that is directly elected by the people. This means our "local" interests are given a fair voice in the national scene. Here comes the fun part. Next, we have the Senate which is made up of representatives who were selected by the state legislature (Thanks to the 17th amendment this is no longer the case). This gave the individual states a voice in the national governance. Finally, the President was to be elected by a group of electors from each state the number of which was determined by the combination of Representatives and Senators from the "many states." These electors would be representative of the local desires of the people and they alone would vote for the president. This, of course, sounds completely alien to we who are used to casting our ballots for president. The beauty of this system is seen in the fact that it would not be a "winner take all" situation like we have now.

All of that being said, the framers of the Constitution clearly wanted the legislative branch to be the workhorse of the government. They are given the most power to carry out business and nearly everything was supposed to originate in Congress. Yes, the President had to sign off on laws and treaties (good checks and balances) but the role of the executive was exactly as the name implies, execution of the will of Congress. The sad reality is that most Americans have no idea that Congress is far more important to the direction of the country than the President. We have become so accustomed to hearing presidential candidates claiming that they'll do this and that, and making promises that they have no Constitutional ability to make good on. It is my opinion that if most voters had even a basic understanding of the Constitution they would see most campaign promises for what they are...swill.

This is why all elections are so vitally important, especially congressional elections. Yes, the President does have veto power (another great check and balance). However, Congress can override a veto by a two-thirds majority (Article I section 7). All laws, taxes and declarations of war come only from Congress, not the President, along with a long list of powers. This is the balance that our founders discovered. Power was not vested in one person which would lead to the same tyranny they fought against, and the sometimes dangerous tides and currents of the public as a whole would be checked by a smaller group of elected officials. The very heart of our government is found on Capital Hill in the two houses of Congress.

To be sure, many things have changed in the intervening years since the Constitution was ratified. Many of these changes were for the better. We no longer have slavery and all citizens over the age of 18 are now allowed to vote. However, some of the changes have not been so positive and have only served to degrade the original intentions of our founders and ultimately have resulted, and will continue to result, in the loss of much of our freedom. Our Founding Fathers envisioned a grassroots type of governance where local elections meant the most and where Congress held the real power in the nation. The challenge for us today is to return to that vision and make each and every vote count. We not only need great men and women of courage and integrity to run for office, but we need to put them there and entrust to them our national leadership.

RV 

Dangerous Thoughts on a Hot Topic

An interesting, but not shocking, article appeared on my Facebook news feed this afternoon.

NC Church vows to stop weddings until same-sex marriages are allowed.

Through this article I discovered that Green Street United Methodist Church in Winston-Salem, NC (my beloved birthplace) has decided that it will no longer marry anyone until the United Methodist Church and the state of North Carolina legalize same-sex marriages. While I applaud their courage in taking a stand for what they believe in I cannot condone the issue for which they are standing. Now, before I go any further let me get some preliminary statements out of the way. Number one, while I disagree that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle in God's eyes I do not, in any way, condone hatred towards those who choose to live this way. I believe that they are due the same love and respect that any other human being is. Christ has commanded us to love our neighbor, and homosexuals are our neighbors...period...end of story. However, in loving them as we would any other person we are not required, by the Bible or common sense, to legitimize their lifestyle. In fact, I would argue that not telling them the truth about what God has to say on homosexuality would be the very opposite of love. The problem is, as Christians, we have done a great disservice to Christ and the Gospel in the way we have, heretofore, handled this issue. That, I am afraid, is another topic for another day.

Now on to the topic at hand. The issue of homosexual marriage is multifaceted to say the least. For now, I would like to address two of those facets; is it acceptable according to God, and should it be a legal matter?

1. As for the first question, it is abundantly clear that the Bible is not silent on the issue of homosexuality. Romans 1:24-26 states the following;

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

It would take some pretty fancy hermeneutical acrobatics to read that passage in way that shined a favorable light on same-sex relations. "Degrading passions" and "indecent acts" are not typically the phrases one would use for simply an "alternative lifestyle." Paul is no less clear when he writes to Timothy and categorizes homosexuality right along-side "the unholy and profane," "murderers," "immoral men," "liars" and "kidnappers (I Timothy 1:8-11)." Please understand, my point here is not to elevate homosexuality to a higher level of sin that is somehow more abominable to God than the others. In fact, I think Paul does a marvelous job of letting us know that it falls in with all the others. What we must avoid, however, is the idea that it is not a sin. Then we can begin to address it in an appropriate manner. We don't just write off liars and drunkards. We try to lovingly bring them to a point of conviction over their sin so that Christ can save them from it, just as He has done for we who are believers.

The thing that is ravaging many mainstream denominations in our culture is that they want to explain away the sin known as homosexuality and, for the life of me, I can't figure out why. Green Street UMC has decided to stake their claim on real estate that is decidedly contrary to God's Word. The Gospel of Christ is not that there is no sin to be forgiven of, it is that we all have sin to be forgiven of and Christ paid the price to make that possible. Liberal churches and denominations have stripped the Gospel, and God's Word, of all of its power and most beautiful message. Biblical interpretation is such a lovely tool but it is oh so dangerous when we begin to bypass the truth in an effort to quench our own desires.

2. Let me turn my attention to the second aspect of this issue, should same-sex marriage be a legal issue? The short answer is "yes," and I can already hear the outcry, "Keep your laws out of my panties!" and "You can't legislate morality!" To the first I will simply respond, I'll keep legislation out of your panties when you keep it out of my wallet. Finis.

The really philosophical sounding one is the second, "You can't legislate morality." Au contraire mon ami, I believe you are wrong on that note. If one really looks deeply at all legislation you will find that it is moral in nature. Even economic legislation is based on a moral presupposition. For instance, the new health care act that has come to be called "Obamacare" is rooted in the ideal that it is morally wrong for a country such as ours not to provide health care for its citizens. Our entire Constitution is a commentary on what the Founding Fathers saw as the moral duties and limits of government. Nearly every law on the books has some moral component to it. The real statement that the same-sex marriage proponents should be decrying is, "You can't legislate your morality on me." At least that would be philosophically consistent.

In conclusion I will say this. As Americans we often ask that God bless our nation and this is as it should be. The really terrible thing is that we ask Him to bless it one moment and then in the next, we explain to Him that refuse to abide by any of His commandments. This, my friends, is the utmost foolishness. It is no different than asking our parents to buy us a Ferrari so that we can drive it off of a cliff because that seems like something fun to do.Thankfully God can see through our thin facade and the truth is, as long as we continue down the road we are on, God will not bless America.