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