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
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Monday, March 25, 2013
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
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
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
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
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
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Quick Question
For any one problem we face in our world there are a variety of solutions that are suggested. One very real problem in our society is crime, more specifically violent crime. As I stated in my post entitled The Second Amendment: Ensuring Freedom it is not beyond my realm of understanding when people connect violent crime with firearms. Someone shooting another person doesn't leave us much of an alternative. Either it was firearm related or it wasn't...end of story. The solution to said problem, from gun control advocates and the media, is usually that we should get firearms out of the hands of criminal. Now, I'd like to say for the record that I agree wholeheartedly with that notion. If we could find a way to give the honest citizen an upper hand on the criminals then that would be GREAT! Now for the question, how do you suggest we disarm the criminals without disarming the honest law abiding citizenry? Yes ma'am, you had your hand raised. Do you have an idea?
"I sure do. What if we had strict regulations defining what types of firearms are legal for the average citizen?"
Well, that is an interesting idea. In fact, it is an idea that our legislators had several years ago and we do have strict regulations regarding types of firearms that citizens are allowed to own. For instance, unless we are actively in the military we are not allowed to have fully automatic firearms. Even in the military those are kept under lock and key unless they are needed. Furthermore, we only recently came out from under a restriction on the capacity of magazine that we could have for our firearms, and of course this can vary from state to state. Does anyone else have an idea. Yes sir, go ahead.
"What if we just outlawed all firearms that are not used for hunting. You know, like hunting rifles and shotguns."
Okay, sir, that is another plausible idea. Let me answer your question by asking you one. Are hunting rifles any less dangerous than any other kind of weapon?
"No, of course not. Okay, then how about we outlaw handguns and stop allowing paranoid gun nuts to carry concealed."
Fair enough. I suppose if we did some research we would find that the majority of crimes are committed with handguns. So it seems reasonable to go ahead and outlaw those. What about the Second Amendment?
"Awwww, you know that was meant to protect our ability to have a national guard. Duh."
So you're saying that we should leave the gun handling to trained professionals. By the way, even the National Guard doesn't get to take their weapons home with them. Just like the regular military they are kept under lock and key. Furthermore, unless they are going to the range most Guard armories don't even have ammunition. Okay, let me ask you this; is there always a law enforcement officer around when you need one? Are they able to stop 100% of the violent crime because they are ever present? Does a police officer live in your house and follow you around wherever you go?
"Well no. I don't guess they can."
Would you like to live in a police state?
"No."
Alright, now its my turn to ask some questions. What makes a criminal a criminal? Is it that they have guns?
"No, a person is a criminal if they break the law."
Very good, breaking the law is, and should be, what defines someone as a criminal. Now, if someone is willing to break the law by robbing a store, breaking into your house, raping a woman, or dealing drugs don't you think they would be willing to break the law and get a gun? Furthermore, if gun ownership does not define criminality don't you think they could find some other weapon to use for their purposes. Let me say it this way, are guns the only dangerous things? Did the hijackers of 9/11 have guns? Did they use guns, or even bombs to carry out their criminal acts? Maybe we should outlaw airplanes.
"That's ridiculous! What are you getting at anyway? Are you saying everyone should have a gun? This isn't the wild west RV. That would be an uncivilized and chaotic society."
Would it be? Let's just think about that for a moment. I know that if I have in my mind that I'm going to go pull a gun in Walmart in order to get what I want but I realize that a high percentage of the other patrons are armed, I know my chances of getting out of their uninjured or alive are mighty slim. I absolutely agree that known criminals should have an exceedingly hard time getting firearms because we have a pretty good idea what their going to do with them. The fact of the matter is that if someone wants a gun they are going to get one whether or not it is through the legal channels.
"Fine then, let's just collect all the guns and toss them into the ocean. Then no one will have any."
Well, that's one solution but there are several problems with it. First of all, that's going to cost a lot of money. Secondly, how are you going to know you got them all. If someone purchased a gun illegally then there isn't going to be any paper trail to let the authorities know they have it. Then, once 90% of the guns are gone they will know that the chances of success for their criminal activity have just gone through the roof. You can mark my words, if you tried something like that violent gun crime would skyrocket. You will have just let the wolves in with the sheep and removed the shepherd's staff and sling. Finally, why are you going to punish the millions of law abiding gun owners and sportsmen that use their firearms for perfectly legal and just things like hunting, self defense, sport shooting and collecting?
"RV, asking some people to give up their freedom for the protection of society is perfectly fine with me."
I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Did you say "Heil Hitler"?
RV
"I sure do. What if we had strict regulations defining what types of firearms are legal for the average citizen?"
Well, that is an interesting idea. In fact, it is an idea that our legislators had several years ago and we do have strict regulations regarding types of firearms that citizens are allowed to own. For instance, unless we are actively in the military we are not allowed to have fully automatic firearms. Even in the military those are kept under lock and key unless they are needed. Furthermore, we only recently came out from under a restriction on the capacity of magazine that we could have for our firearms, and of course this can vary from state to state. Does anyone else have an idea. Yes sir, go ahead.
"What if we just outlawed all firearms that are not used for hunting. You know, like hunting rifles and shotguns."
Okay, sir, that is another plausible idea. Let me answer your question by asking you one. Are hunting rifles any less dangerous than any other kind of weapon?
"No, of course not. Okay, then how about we outlaw handguns and stop allowing paranoid gun nuts to carry concealed."
Fair enough. I suppose if we did some research we would find that the majority of crimes are committed with handguns. So it seems reasonable to go ahead and outlaw those. What about the Second Amendment?
"Awwww, you know that was meant to protect our ability to have a national guard. Duh."
So you're saying that we should leave the gun handling to trained professionals. By the way, even the National Guard doesn't get to take their weapons home with them. Just like the regular military they are kept under lock and key. Furthermore, unless they are going to the range most Guard armories don't even have ammunition. Okay, let me ask you this; is there always a law enforcement officer around when you need one? Are they able to stop 100% of the violent crime because they are ever present? Does a police officer live in your house and follow you around wherever you go?
"Well no. I don't guess they can."
Would you like to live in a police state?
"No."
Alright, now its my turn to ask some questions. What makes a criminal a criminal? Is it that they have guns?
"No, a person is a criminal if they break the law."
Very good, breaking the law is, and should be, what defines someone as a criminal. Now, if someone is willing to break the law by robbing a store, breaking into your house, raping a woman, or dealing drugs don't you think they would be willing to break the law and get a gun? Furthermore, if gun ownership does not define criminality don't you think they could find some other weapon to use for their purposes. Let me say it this way, are guns the only dangerous things? Did the hijackers of 9/11 have guns? Did they use guns, or even bombs to carry out their criminal acts? Maybe we should outlaw airplanes.
"That's ridiculous! What are you getting at anyway? Are you saying everyone should have a gun? This isn't the wild west RV. That would be an uncivilized and chaotic society."
Would it be? Let's just think about that for a moment. I know that if I have in my mind that I'm going to go pull a gun in Walmart in order to get what I want but I realize that a high percentage of the other patrons are armed, I know my chances of getting out of their uninjured or alive are mighty slim. I absolutely agree that known criminals should have an exceedingly hard time getting firearms because we have a pretty good idea what their going to do with them. The fact of the matter is that if someone wants a gun they are going to get one whether or not it is through the legal channels.
"Fine then, let's just collect all the guns and toss them into the ocean. Then no one will have any."
Well, that's one solution but there are several problems with it. First of all, that's going to cost a lot of money. Secondly, how are you going to know you got them all. If someone purchased a gun illegally then there isn't going to be any paper trail to let the authorities know they have it. Then, once 90% of the guns are gone they will know that the chances of success for their criminal activity have just gone through the roof. You can mark my words, if you tried something like that violent gun crime would skyrocket. You will have just let the wolves in with the sheep and removed the shepherd's staff and sling. Finally, why are you going to punish the millions of law abiding gun owners and sportsmen that use their firearms for perfectly legal and just things like hunting, self defense, sport shooting and collecting?
"RV, asking some people to give up their freedom for the protection of society is perfectly fine with me."
I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Did you say "Heil Hitler"?
RV
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Altruism, Ayn Rand and Christianity.
 |
| Photo courtesy of eddie60 |
To be sure, Rand intended this book to be an opus of her philosophy and how it fit into American society and the free-market system. One of the ideas that caused so many ruffled feathers at the time, and still today, was that of the virtue of selfishness. My understanding of this idea is that it is good and right for you to want to live life on your own terms and enjoy success and achievement that allows you to live that life. One could almost sum this up in the phrase from the Declaration of Independence, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." As a side-note I have no doubt that Ayn Rand was patriotic and loved the United States. In fact, her ideas were very closely aligned with those of the Founding Fathers.It was this love for freedom and her country that led her to write such a volatile warning of what could happen if we are not careful.
Lest I get bogged down in other matters I need to move on so that the main point of this post will be addressed.
One of the root problems that Ayn Rand saw in our collective philosophy was the notion of "altruism." This could be understood to mean that other people are more important than I am and, thus, I am willing to sacrifice my own well-being on their behalf. This is seen in the act of a soldier falling on a grenade in order to save his comrades. It is also seen in giving sacrificially so that others who are suffering may have what they need. To Rand this conflicted with her philosophy of selfishness because it hindered you, the productive and creative member of society, from reaching your full potential for success and achievement.
Herein lies the problem. As a committed Christian I am convinced that altruism is a virtue. In John 15:13 Jesus tells us that there is no greater love that laying one's life down for his friends. We are commanded to take care of those who are marginalized by society or cannot otherwise take care of themselves. On the other hand as a constitutional patriot I firmly believe in the ideals of freedom, liberty and the individual's right to pursue their own destiny. So for that part, I am a fan of Rand's political philosophy. The question then is this, "Can Ayn Rand's philosophy cooperate with the Biblical Christian worldview?"Personally, I believe the answer is "Yes," and that is the position I want to defend in this post.
It is no secret that Ayn Rand was NOT a Christian. In fact, if my understanding is correct, she was an avowed atheist. This in and of itself would appear to pose a significant problem to Christians. However, I believe the truth is quite the opposite and here is why:
1) All truth is God's truth. Truth is not something that is relative, a moving target, or completely out of the reach of humanity. If something is true, then it is true for all people, for all time, everywhere. Furthermore, truth relates to the way things actually are. This is called "Correspondence Theory." That is, if I say something is true then it must correspond with the way things actually are. God, as a result of who He is, knows all truth and according to His Son Jesus, He is the Truth. Therefore, it does not matter what type of person discovers a particular truth, if it is true, then God agrees. This opens the door for Christians to glean truth from multiple sources like Greek philosophy, etc. Of course, the ultimate source of truth for humanity is found in the Bible and any so-called truth that contradicts what is revealed in the Bible is not truth. However, truth that is found outside of the Bible that corresponds with, or is not contradicted by, the Bible is fair game. For our purposes here, if Ayn Rand proclaims a truth it doesn't matter if she doesn't believe in God, it is still truth.
2) Altruism itself is not the problem. Because Ayn Rand was a promoter of freedom and liberty I have a hard time believing that she would fault anyone for giving or sacrificing by their own freewill. The problem is that because it is a commonly held virtue, it has now become a nationally mandated virtue. Here is where we really run into problems on the governmental level. The reasoning runs something like this: It is right and good to give and sacrifice for those who are less fortunate (altruism). You have achieved success and prosperity unlike many others. Therefore, since you will not give of your own freewill to help others we will take it from you because you are greedy and selfish. Then we will distribute it as we see fit. In Rand's mind the virtue of altruism had led to governmental thievery and quenching of personal achievement. This is where I see my Christians convictions and the political philosophy of Ayn Rand coinciding. I too believe that mandated altruism is wrong. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is not altruism at all. The Bible is clear that God wants us to give out of a heart of love for him and for other people, and to do so cheerfully; not out of obligation. The virtue of altruism is no virtue at all if it is no longer voluntary but forced. John Wesley has given us a great model that I think speaks to this subject. In paraphrase, he said that we should make all we can, save all we can, so that we can give all we can. The message of the virtue of selfishness is not that people should not help other people. In that case it would be categorically wrong. The message is that people should be allowed the freedom to pursue life as they see fit, to achieve personal success and then do as they see fit to help other people without the interference of the government.
With all of that being said, I do believe that the political philosophy of Ayn Rand coincides well with the Biblical Christian worldview. While I do not agree with everything that Rand stood for I do believe she stood for the same principles that our country was founded upon. She promoted freedom to be creative, freedom to succeed, freedom to believe what we want to believe and freedom to live our lives according to our desires and convictions.
RV
Monday, October 1, 2012
"Conservative Vision" by Dan Jarvis
Please take a look at this link and download and read this short paper by Dan Jarvis. It is as clear and concise as one could possibly make it.
http://danjarvis.us/?p=46
RV
http://danjarvis.us/?p=46
RV
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)