Posts Tagged ‘Politics’

FORCING YOUR MORALITY Part 2

FORCING OUR BELIEFS?

What do people, objecting to a Christian expressing his disapproval of behavior that the Bible calls into question, mean when they say that we are forcing our beliefs on others?

Let’s look at this idea of forcing our morality, beliefs or values on others a bit closer. When non-Christians object to our forcing our beliefs on others, what do they really mean? They are basically saying that we are trying to compel others to act in a way that we think is right. But since we have already determined that everyone has some moral point of view, we must seek to understand how we all, in some form or another, attempt to compel others to our moral viewpoint.


Forcing Our View

There are basically two ways that a moral point of view can be “forced” upon another. One is the strong way and the other is the weak way. A strong way of forcing morality would be law enforcement: laws that are enforced by threat of punishment. The second way, a weak way, would be by compelling people to act in the way that you think is right (your moral point of view) in a less forceful way. We often do this by encouraging or discouraging certain patterns of behavior through the means of social approval or disapproval.

How do we force our view? We could use the strong arm of the law to force our view on others. We could frown at behavior we disapprove of in order to get people to reconsider it. Now there may be things that we don’t think are morally weighty enough to deserve jail time but which we would consider valuable enough to frown upon or even exert peer pressure on people in order to get them to comply with our wishes (moral point of view). Call it peer pressure, social approval or social disapproval. Do you see the difference? We use both of these things in our society today.

Since we have two different strengths of enforcement, we have to make a decision in our culture which strength we will use to enforce a moral point of view; it all depends on the moral weight. What’s curious about the nature of the moral climate today is the kinds of things that are enforced and the kinds of things in which people are allowed to have liberty.


High Morality

In the context of our culture, there are some things I would define as falling into the category of high morality and others that would fall into, what we would call, low morality. High morality is those kinds of things that are so critical to the common good, to the notion of fundamental rights – like life, liberty and property – that society must demand their adherence under penalty of severe punishment. For example, it is absolutely critical that property be protected. Therefore, if someone steals someone else’s property, we use the law to punish them. If someone takes another’s life, we use the law to punish them. Sometimes, we even put the guilty to death (extreme force). There are issues related to the common good of society that are so morally weighty that we have to use the force of law in order to get compliance. This is what I would call high morality.

There are a whole lot of other things that relate to the common good on a lower order of morality of sorts: things that are not so critical to the common good that the society must demand their adherence under penalty of severe punishment. Yet at the same time, there are still things that are morally good and good for society. In these cases, we don’t use the force of law. We generally use a different force – the force of social approval and disapproval.

’til next time

Danny

Next: Immoral, Illegal

Advertisements

A WAR ON “TERROR”?

We, as Americans, must understand that we are at a crossroads in our generation as were our fathers of the WWII generation.  The survival of America as a constitutional republic and Americans as a free people is at one of its most challenging and defining moments in its history. Political forces and parties of men and women have irresponsibly forgotten that we are a constitutional republic.  Some are, without a doubt, on a malevolent course to totally transform us from what we are (a republic) to what they would likes us to be (a socialist, Marxist or global state).

Liberal progressives are the worst of all.  Substituting “moral equivalents” for war, they have taken advantage of the culture’s desire to resolve its problems.  They have used these “moral equivalents” such as the “War on Poverty” and the “War Against Drugs” as opportunities to expand government power into the lives of all its citizens.  Americans, believing that it is a good thing to solve these problems, have been duped by an ever-expanding and ever-encroaching government.

The U.S. Constitution allows for the declaration of war precisely because there are times when individual liberties must be curtailed for the good of the whole nation and to better combat our enemies.  But wars are declared and wars come to an end.  The liberal progressives’ “moral substitutes” for war mentioned before have no end.  The “War on Poverty” has gone on for more than 40 years with no signs of success; all at a huge cost to Americans’ individual rights and liberties and the plunder of their wealth by continuous, burdensome and over-bearing coercive government taxation.

We now have a “War on Terror” – or Terrorism.  President Bush’s colossal failure in the beginning of this armed conflict, I believe, was declaring war on “terror” and NOT on Al Qaeda (who attacked us).  Following the foolish and misguided principles of political correctness, He “declared” war on “terror”.  Because He declared war on a tactic (terror), and not on a people with ideological ideas of terror inconsistent with our values, we have left ourselves open and vulnerable to attack from within, and without.  Our government also, under the guise of protecting us from “terror,” infringes daily upon our constitutional rights as a people. 

Fighting a tactic (“terrorism”) has left our borders open to our enemies.  The Obama administration has even used taxpayer funds to bring many of these “immigrants” to America, helped them find jobs and settle here.  But does he really believe that America has need of the abilities that can only be found among Somali, Yemeni, Palestinian or Hamas immigrants?  Something more sinister is at work here and is evidenced no less by the Obama Administrations’ Department of Homeland Security.

Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) task is to protect Americans.  Yet while they say they are protecting us from terrorism, they have identified the most likely potential terrorists for the American people: those who are principled pro-lifers, pro-second amendment, pro-tenth amendment, anti-tax advocates, limited government advocates, tea-partiers, opponents of illegal immigration and – of all people – returning veterans!  Which group was not mentioned in the security report?  You guessed it: Muslim extremists, muslim clerics or anyone who might help Al-Qaeda or their demons.

The DHS and other police agencies have sought to limit, watch, screen and snoop on us in ever-increasing ways.  By every other means available to them, they expect us to willingly give up our constitutional rights under the guise that we are at war.  But war against an idea or a tactic (“terror”) will have no defined end.  Fighting a tactic will only serve the federal government’s purpose because it gives them continuous power to limit our liberties.

It’s time for Americans to wake up and, in the words of the Templar Knight to Indiana Jones, “choose wisely.”  2012 will be our time to say to our political leaders once again, we will not give up our constitutional liberties; we will not go quietly into the dark; we will prevail and America will not be a socialist, Muslim, marxist or global state.  

Over our White House will always fly the “Red, White and Blue”.  As freedom loving Americans, we will never accept a crescent moon, a hammer & anvil or a UN flag to fly over our nation.  America will remain, though a melting pot of people, a constitutional republic.  And we, as a people, will never yield to any party, elite, foreign power or ideology, our God-given rights, American values and constitutionally-guaranteed liberties.  

´til next time,

Danny

Article_Link: https://inviewof.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/a-war-on-¨terror¨/

Gate Crashers! (illegal immigration)

President Calderon of Mexico, recently in the U.S., spoke of “migration” as a natural occurring phenomenon, as if Mexico was welcoming with open arms Central and South American “migrants” pouring into Mexico. That we know is a joke. His administration is totally against migration as a natural phenomenon when it is into his territory, Mexico, but feels confident in lecturing us that we should be ok when it happens to the U.S.

I recently read a letter purportedly written by a Mexican, now a naturalized U.S. citizen, from Arizona. I think the analogy is valid when speaking about illegal immigration or justice, a word which liberals love to throw around, means nothing.

Here is the quote:

“If you had tickets to a sports event, concert, Disneyland , or for an airline flight, and when you got to your assigned seat you found someone else was in that seat, what would you do? You would call for a person in charge of ticket checking and have the person in your seat removed. You would properly be asked to show your ticket, and you would gladly and proudly do so, for you have bought and paid for that seat. The person in your seat would also be asked for a ticket, which they would not be able to produce. They would be called “gate crashers” and they would properly be removed.

Now in this huge stadium called the USA we have had millions of gate crashers. We have been asking security to check for tickets and remove the gate crashers. We have been asking security to have better controls in checking at the door. We have asked security to lock the back doors. Security has failed us. They are still looking the other way. They are afraid to ask to see the tickets. Many people say there is unlimited seating, and whether there is or not, no one should be allowed in for free while the rest of us pay full price!

In “section AZ”, of “Stadium USA “, we have had enough of the failures of Security. We have decided to do our own ticket checking, and properly remove those who do not have tickets. Now it seems very strange to me that so many people in the other 49 “sections”, and even many in our own “section” do not want tickets checked, or even to be asked to show their ticket! Even the head of Security is chastising us, while not doing his own job which he has sworn to do.

My own ticket has been bought and paid for, so I am proudly going to show it when asked to do so. I have a right to my seat, and I want the gate crashers to be asked to show their tickets too. The only reason that I can imagine anyone objecting to being asked for their ticket is that they are in favor of gate crashing, and all of the illegal activities that go with it, such as drug smuggling, gang wars, murder, human smuggling for profit, and many more illegal and inhumane acts that we are trying to prevent with our new legislation. Is that what I am hearing from all of the protestors such as Phoenix Mayor Gordon, US Rep. Grijalva, even President Obama? If you are not in favor of showing tickets, (proof of citizenship, passport, green card, or other legal document) when asked, as I would do proudly, then you must be condoning those illegal activities.”

Makes perfect sense to me. What do you think?

’til next time,

Danny

NO PROBLEM TOO BIG

We don’t have to look too far to know that our nation is in trouble today.  We are facing more troubles today than I’ve seen in my lifetime.  We face issues that are causing the very foundation of our country to crumble.  Our moral and spiritual roots are further decaying and drying up; the economy is devastated, family life is disintegrating, and political forces are at savage odds and almost totally distrusted by the people.

In these anxious times, it can be tempting to believe that America has reached a point of no return.  And while this can cause despair, we are reminded in God’s Holy Word that with Him, nothing is impossible and that there is an antidote for this anxious age.  It connects us to the greatest source of peace, hope, and security that we could ever imagine.  The cure is the remarkable gift from our loving and merciful God.  It’s called prayer.  Through our faithfulness in prayer, there is no problem too big, no hardship too great, and no nation too powerful for Him to handle.  And because we serve a God of great mercy and compassion, we know that He stands ready to respond to our cries out of the abundance of His divine wisdom.

President Lincoln once proclaimed that our nation should set apart a day for national prayer to confess our sins and transgression in sorrow,

yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon … announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.

His concern for the nation’s spiritual well-being led him to say,

We have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown.  But we have forgotten God; and we have vainly imagined in the deceitfulness of our own hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own.  Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God who made us!  It behooves us, then, to humble ourselves, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.

Mankind’s future has always been uncertain.  Since the days of Noah and his family, Moses and the nation of Israel, the persecuted early Church, the Pilgrims, and America’s founding fathers, the answer for people facing adversity has always been the same:  Almighty God.

Our founding fathers were not perfect men, but many of them did have one thing in common, they acknowledged God and His role in the affairs of men.  Benjamin Franklin at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 said,

I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men.  And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His [God’s] notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?

If an empire cannot rise without God’s aid, can it continue without it?  Simply put, there is no security apart from Him.  Ben Franklin went on to say,

I, therefore, … move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business ….

Are you ready to renew or increase your commitment to prayer?  Do you want contentment in your heart and peace in your world?  God’s call to the prophet Jeremiah, is our call today:

Call to me and I will answer you.  (Jer. 33:3)

Prayer will change your life, the lives around you, and even the course of history.
Remember, the National Day of Prayer is Thursday, May 6, 2010.  Join believer’s all over this great nation in praying that we, as a nation, would return to God.  Let us do so in genuine faith, believing that He hears our prayers.  God can heal this great land, for which our forefathers fought and died.  We need a spiritual renewal, we need a spiritual revival in America, and we need each and everyone to pray.

’til next time,

Danny

Is State Redistribution of Wealth Social Economic Justice?

President-elect Obama believes that the Constitution is flawed.  According to him, it is so because it fails to address wealth redistribution.  He says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that.  He assigns a great deal of this failure to The Warren Court because it failed to “break free from the essential constraints” in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth.

In 2001, Obama said

“… the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution … [emphasis mine] 

one of the … tragedies of the civil rights movement was [that] … the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”

Is Mr. Obama correct in his assertion that our Constitution, which has served our Republic well for over 2 ¼ centuries, is flawed?  Is this document, which birthed, sustained and allowed the American people to thrive, prosper and become the envy of the world, so fundamentally flawed, that it took him, in 2009, to finally bring it to light?  Or is it more probable that it is Mr. Obama’s reasoning and political views which are flawed? 

It’s very obvious that Mr. Obama, who is a supposed constitutional scholar, does not understand [or does he?] that it is not the Supreme Court’s job to write domestic policy or rule that it is “just” for wealth to be “redistributed”. 

JUSTICE FOR ALL 

Before considering the issue – Is redistribution of wealth just? – let me say that many, erroneously, I believe, carelessly throw words like “injustice” around as labels for whatever they happen to find personally or morally unsatisfactory.  These claims often involve a careless confusion between what people deserve morally and what they deserve economically. 

Let’s consider this analytically and from the standpoint of justice.  Justice, if it means anything at all, means at least, that whatever is done must be done fairly, honestly and righteously.  Living in a nation where a major tenet is “liberty and justice for all,” we must grant that whatever justice is, it must be for all.  One of the characteristics of justice, we are told, is that it is blind.  It is so because it cannot discriminate based on appearance or lack thereof. 

Liberal policies which are consumed with egalitarian (equality) issues are bent on defining justice, among other erroneous ways, as equality of result based on need.  To them, equal result, not equal opportunity, is “just.”  Although often they are not, sometimes inequalities based on need are just.  A just distribution of grades for a college course should have nothing to do with whether a student “needs” a particular grade.  In this case, the just grade should be assigned on the basis of what the student has earned, not what he needs.  The notion of “need” is extremely ambiguous.  People “need” things for many different reasons.  A student may feel he needs a particular grade in order to qualify for the football team, in order to graduate, in order to continue on the dean’s list so as to qualify for a scholarship, or to increase the student’s self-esteem.  However much sympathy such needs may generate, they should not be relevant in cases like this.  Many believe, perhaps rightly, that a good society will not allow certain fundamental and essential human needs to go unmet while a surplus exists.  Unfortunately need is too elastic a concept to serve as the precise standard required for distributive justice.  Needs have a way of expanding as people become accustomed to former luxuries.  It also seems to me that such efforts by a society to meet essential needs should not be described as justice, but rather as charity. 

How important is it for us to properly understand the issue of social justice?  It is of such importance to the continuance of a free society that Friedrich Hayek spoke of social justice as “the Trojan Horse through which totalitarianism has entered many societies in the world.” ¹ 

I would like to now examine, by analogy, Mr. Obama’s, and other liberals’ assertion that wealth redistribution is economic justice.  I believe you will see in this argument that redistribution of wealth is not only unjust, but also incompatible with freedom.  Let’s imagine, for reasons of our discussion, a society where the following conditions exist:

          1) “Justice” has been achieve by state redistribution (equal distribution, distribution according to need, or any other theory of                distributive “justice”).

          2) All citizens are free to exchange or transfer their holdings in any way they choose.

          3) Any transfer of a person’s holdings by theft, fraud, force or other criminal activity will be recognized as unjust and forbidden by law. 

Therefore, with everyone in our imaginary society now in possession of a just portion of holdings, all subsequent transfers will be just no matter how much they depart from the original state (original redistribution).  It follows logically then that in any free society, where our conditions are met, any noncriminal voluntary transfer or exchange of holdings like property or money will be a just transfer.  It doesn’t take a great mind to see that it would not take long for new holdings to again vary greatly from the original pattern created by state redistribution. This “situation” would confront Mr. Obama and all defenders of wealth redistribution (and other kinds of wealth transfers) with three options: 

          1) They might be sensible and realize that even though great discrepancies in holdings now exist, the disparity resulted from voluntary, legal, and just exchanges.  And so even though the later situation no longer resembles the preferred pattern of distribution (equality), the situation must be judged just and no further meddling with the new result is justified. 

          2) Given the mind-set of liberal ideologues, what is more likely is that after a certain period of time, Mr. Obama would announce that the distribution is once again unacceptable (“unjust”), which fact would require the state to step in to rectify the situation.  The use of words like “rectify,” “do the right thing,” “spread the wealth around,” or “do justice” in this context would certainly be odd since nothing immoral, criminal or unjust occurred.  How then can there be anything to rectify?  But suppose that redistribution, under the name of “justice,” was again implemented by state power and again after free transfers between individuals the same deviations from the preferred equality were again evident?  And suppose this was done several times over with the same legal and free transfers between individuals yielding the same result – “inequality.”  What then?  Would continued state redistribution schemes be just?  Absolutely not!  Note that at the time of each redistribution, people who had acquired holdings honestly and fairly would be deprived of them without recourse; and this would be done in the name of justice!  This, of course, is not justice, but tyranny. 

          3) Should the state eventually grow tired of constantly forcing periodic redistributions, it could pursue the third possible course of action.  It could simply deprive the citizens of the freedom to transfer and exchange their holdings at will.  The state would intrude into the everyday affairs of each citizen and control each and every action. To maintain the status of a “just” society, the state must either continually interfere to stop people from transferring resources as they wish to, or continually (or periodically) interfere to take from some persons resources that others for some reason chose to freely transfer to them.  

This example makes it clear that Mr. Obama’s liberal, leftist, socialist political views of redistribution as economic justice has little to do with justice or morality.  It has to do more with the increase of state control and ultimately totalitarianism, tyranny and loss of liberty. 

“Social justice,” as viewed by Mr. Obama and other leftist socialists, is possible only in a society that is controlled from the top down.  There must be a central agency with the power to force people to accept the state preferred pattern of distribution.  Again, this is the reason Friedrich Hayek could speak of social justice as a Trojan Horse through which totalitarianism has historically taken over many societies. 

Freedom loving Americans must resist this ideological shift to the Left even though they might, in the short run, be “beneficiaries” of Mr. Obama’s misguided political policies of “redistribution of wealth.”  The alternative may just be to wake up one day in a totalitarian America where liberty has been lost because we embraced the deception that it is “just” (fair, right) to take what belongs to someone else because the government deemed it so.  

Theft, even when politically allowed and engaged in by state policies, is theft nonetheless.  And theft always brings a curse.  

May we, as Americans whose heritage is freedom of opportunity for all, not be taken in by the liberal ideologues and elites whose goal is not to be public servants of the people, but rather imperial lords with power over the people. 

‘til next time, 

Danny 

* For more research see Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty and Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom or view his educational Free to Choose videos online at:  http://www.ideachannel.tv/

———————-

¹(Friedrich Hayek, Law, Legislation and Liberty, Vol. II, page 136)


A New Birth of Freedom?

Our nation has just elected our 44th president. People have much expectations of change on their minds.

As I watched some of the inaugural proceedings on television, I was struck by the words – “A new birth of freedom” – extrapolated from President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address set forth, presumably, as the theme of the incoming president’s administration.

“Freedom” is a word that, for the most part, has lost it meaning, especially in our politically-correct and relativistic culture.

What do the words – “A new birth of freedom” mean? What is “freedom?” Whatever they mean, if words mean anything, there is no doubt that they at least refer to something that is replacing something else that has either died or is dead. This is what rebirth means.

There are those who speak of freedom as the liberty to do as one pleases. But true liberty is living as one ought, and not as one pleases. Those of us who believe in a Sovereign God who rules over all the affairs of men, also understand that He has set a standard to Whom we are accountable. That standard is embodied in a Person, who Himself is the Truth. He is the One who declared,

I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life.  (John 14:6)

So what is freedom?  Jesus declared that if we would listen to and obey His words, we would

“know the truth, and the truth [would] make [us] free.” (John 8:32)

If truth, according to Jesus, makes us free, what will enslave us? It is logical that if truth liberates, lies enslave.

Jesus links freedom and truth together.  True freedom, therefore, has to do with truth: God’s truth. The “new birth of freedom” we spoke of earlier, therefore, must be based on God’s truth and His perception of reality in order for it to truly liberate as Jesus says. If “freedom” is based on lies it will only enslave even further. The Holy Scriptures declares that there are those who

“promise … freedom, but they themselves are not free.” (2 Peter 2:19 NCV)

They cannot bring true freedom because they themselves are enslaved and living lies.

My prayer is that this new administration’s use of Lincoln’s words (who, by the way, believed the Bible to be God’s word) will be prophetic even though men may misapply and may not even understand the import of Lincoln’s words. I think my hope for this has a biblical precedence played out in the life of another leader referred to in Scripture: Caiaphas, the high priest. He declared, unknowingly and prophetically:

“You don’t realized that it is better for one man to die for the people than for the whole nation to be destroyed.”
(John 11:50 NCV)

The Word of God says that being

“high priest that year, he was really prophesying that Jesus would die for their nation.”
(John 11:51 NCV)

I ask God that this “new birth of freedom” would not be what most people, and President Obama believe it is – a remaking of America. America does not need to be “remade”, it needs a return and a new birth: a return in repentance to God, to His truth and to true freedom by a new birth through faith in Jesus Christ. Without God, a new birth of freedom will issue the same old slaveries of the past. To understand the real meaning of President Lincoln’s words at Gettysburg, we must quote his whole thought,

“… that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom….”
(last sentence in the Gettysburg address)

Lord God, let it be so I ask, in Jesus’ name.
’til next time,

Danny

He Will Save Us

“They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval … they make idols for …
their own destruction.”  
Hosea 8:4 NIV

Can there be any doubt that we are living in the last days?  These are the days of which the Holy Spirit expressly warns believers would be perilous before the return of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Tim. 3:1)

When politicians run on the idea that they will fix government; that they are the answer to America’s ills, we must be that much more determined to seek the Lord our God, whom Holy Scripture says is “our Judge … our Lawgiver … our King” because it is He who “will save us.” (Isa. 33:22 NKJV)  And although we have been entrusted with the right and privilege of voting for our civil leaders, we must not enter the voting booth before we’ve spent time in our prayer room.

The Lord warned His people through the prophet, Hosea, that choosing leaders according to their own ideas and preferences, without consulting Him was a sure recipe for disaster.  To make idols (whether of silver, or gold, or of people) for themselves was to move toward destruction.

This is a sober time for America and a wake up call for the True Church of the Living God to humble ourselves, pray, seek God’s face and turn from any wicked way in us that is making us part of the problem instead of the solution.  We are called to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world.  We cannot – and must not – lose our commitment and loyalty to our King: the Lord Jesus Christ, ruler of heaven and earth.

We, who are bible-believing Christians, must never, by our vote, help “set up [rulers] without [His] consent” nor “choose [leaders] without [His] approval.”  Hosea tells us that there are rulers that God’s people can “set up” and “choose” that do not have His “approval.”  We must petition the Lord God to grant us a leader that He approves of to serve this nation.  We dare not vote in this election without serious prayer and with a full sense of faith and conviction that God is guiding our steps.  We dare not vote for any individual that would set aside the law of God and teaches others to do the same for such is the counsel of God’s Word. (Matthew 5:19)

In less than 30 days, we will be electing the next president of this nation.  May we seek grace from heaven, be informed on where those seeking office stand, repent for ourselves and our nation and trust the Holy Spirit within to confirm God’s consent and approval.  May we be willing to set aside all idols that may be consuming our life and commit ourselves to the True and Living God.

While we may belong to a political party and even subscribe to a political ideology, our ultimate allegiance is not to any particular party, candidate, or political platform, but to our only Lord and Sovereign King: the Lord Jesus Christ and His word.  “He will save us.” (Isa. 33:22)

’til next time,

Danny