Out the Door

Caring for the Poor: The Christian's Responsibility

Daniel Burke in a recent articlefor UMNS detailed some criticism of U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (Rep) for saying that he is a fan of Ayn Rand.

The atheist philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand published more than a dozen books before she died in 1982. Now, liberal Christians say another work belongs in Rand’s controversial canon: the 2012 Republican budget. 

House Republicans passed their budget along party lines in April, saying its drastic cuts to federal programs are necessary to prevent a deficit crisis. 

But in a petition drive, video, ads and websites, liberal Christians counter that Rand’s dog-eat-dog philosophy is the real inspiration for the GOP budget and its author, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis. 

While I don't endorse Rand's anti-religion, atheistic views to equate them with the U.S. budget is a mighty long stretch.

Toward the end of the article Burke quotes Rand's biographer Anne Heller:

“Certainly you can believe that the state can’t do everything for everybody, but if you are a practicing Christian, you also believe that it is our duty to take care of the least among us.  And we know perfectly well from history that churches and individuals can’t do that job alone.”

Heller is absolutely correct that it is our duty as Christians to care for the least among us.  But implying that churches and individuals can't do it without governmental help is purely conjecture.  At no time in history have churches and individual faithfully fulfilled their duties to the poor.  Until that happens, no one can say that it can't be done without involving a secular government. 

While Heller's conclusions are speculative, it is true that because churches and individuals haven't been obedient to the commands of God that millions of people suffer.  But rather than passing the buck and saying that it's the government who must take care of the least of these, Christian should start taking personal responsibility and doing their part.  Until that happens Christians have no right to criticize a politician or a political party for not doing what they themselves have failed to do.

Federal Judge Voids the First Amendment

Chief U.S. District Judge Fred Biery has ruled one student's practice of the First Amendment to be a violation of another student's right not to be offended. (Fox News, Christian Post reports) In a case involving Medina Valley High School in Castroville, TX, Biery forbid students from using the words "amen," "bow your heads," "in Jesus' name," and other religious expressions during their commencement speeches.

While I don't support school sponsored prayer, when a judge goes so far as stating that students in their personal comments can't use certain words, the First Amendment right to freedom of speech has become meaningless. Unlike Texas Attoney General Gregg Abbott who stated that, "Part of this [ruling] goes to the very heart of the unraveling of moral values in the country today," I don't believe it has much to do with declining moral values. It has everything to do with an individual having the right to express their beliefs and opinions without interference of the government. Just because someone finds another person's comments offensive that is no reason to strip that individual of the right to state those beliefs and opinions.

Score One for the Constitution

I have to admit that I don't have much faith in the American judicial system.  Activist judges have too often made it a practice to legislate from the bench, forgetting that our constitution was setup to ensure a separation of powers.

But today some of my faith has been restored.  Judge Roger Vinson ruled today that Obama's healthcare reform bill is unconstitutional.  He said in his ruling:

"I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without  power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one-sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case.  The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here."

"While the individual mandate was clearly 'necessary and essential' to the act as drafted, it is not 'necessary and essential' to health care reform in general.  Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

The only thing I don't understand is why he "reluctantly" made his ruling.  Why would anyone who believes in individual freedom be reluctant to say that Congress forcing individuals to purchase a marketed product is unconstitutional?  This was an outright assault on personal liberty and should never have been passed.  Judge Vinson, as well as the governors and state attorney generals who brought the suit are to be commended for their commitment to our constitution.

Hopefully, this ruling will provide Congress with the incentive to revisit the issue of healthcare reform.  Without a doubt something needs to be done to ensure that all Americans who want it have access to healthcare.  But there must be a way of doing this without stealing away people'sfreedom to control their own lives.

Don't like the rules, then change them

Ever child learns that rules are designed to make a game fair and because of that you can't change the rules just because you're bigger or stronger.  It seems this is a lesson that the Massachusetts Democrats failed to learn.

In 2004, the rules in Massachusetts were that if one of the Senator's seats became vacant before the end of a term, the governor could appoint someone to fill that position.  John Kerry abandoned his Senatorial seat in order to run for president that year.  The Democrats who controlled the state legislature changed the rules so that rather than the governor appointing a replacement, a special election had to be held.  It just so happened in 2004 Massachusetts had a Republican governor and the Democrats were afraid he would name a Republican replacement.  So being bigger and stronger, the Democrats in the legislature changed the rules.

Fast forward to 2009.  Once again a Massachusetts Senate seat is open.  SURPRISE!!  The Democrats want to change the rules again because now there's a Democratic governor.  They now want the governor to have the power to appoint someone to the Senate position.  I have little doubt they will make this change.

Isn't it great to be bigger and stronger than your opponent, so you don't have to play by the rules and you can just make them up as you go along?  Is it any wonder that there is a growing lack of respect for authority and the rule of law in our land?  When those empowered to make the rules will change the rules whenever it is to their advantage the lesson is clear, playing by the rules is less important that getting whatever you want.

Healthcare Reform will fund abortions

There can be little doubt that in the Democratic's version of healthcare reform that abortions will be fully funded through the governmental plan. Millions of pro-life Americans will be forced by their government to pay for the killing of children.

While the word "abortion" appears nowhere within the bill which is now before Congress, the language of the legislation speaks of "all necessary medical procedures." For pro-abortion advoates who dominate the ruling Democratic Party, abortion is a necessary medical procedure.

A coalition of pro-life groups have banded together to fight this expansion of abortion. They are running an ad informing the public of the implication of the healthcare reform bill. Below are a CBN report about the commerical and the commerical itself.  Make sure to check out the Stop The Abortion Mandate website.

The Ongoing Attack Against Orthodox Christians in America

I have been accused in the past by some of my readers of overstating my case.  And I will admit I have pushed the envelop at times.  But if I have it is only because I want people to wake up to what's happening around them. 

I've been reading through the book of Jeremiah.  Yesterday I read these words:

They (the prophets & priest) have treated the wound of my people carelessly, saying "Peace, peace," when there is no peace.  Jeremiah 6:14

Orthodox Christians are under attack in this country, while many are crying, "Peace, peace," as if everything is okay.  Once the religious liberty of orthodox Christians is stripped away, can the onslaught against all people of faith, regardless of their faith, be far behind?

No doubt some people will think that I'm being fanatical in my warnings, however look at what is already taking place.  These aren't hypothetical situations, these are real court cases where the religious liberty of individuals and groups have been denied.  The following stories have been produced by the National Public Radio, which certainly isn't a bastion of conservative thinking.

Two women decided to hold their civil union ceremony at a New Jersey pavilion owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. This Methodist group told the women they could not “marry” in any building used for religious purposes. The Rev. Scott Hoffman said a theological principle—that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman—was at stake.  The women filed a discrimination complaint with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights. The Methodists said the First Amendment protected their right to practice their faith without being punished by the government. But punish the Methodists is exactly what New Jersey did. It revoked their tax exemption—a move that cost them $20,000.

Then there’s the case of the Christian physicians who refused to provide in vitro fertilization treatment to a woman in a lesbian relationship. The doctors referred her to their partners, who were willing to provide the treatment. But that wasn’t good enough. The woman sued. The California Supreme Court agreed with the woman, saying that the doctors’ religious beliefs didn’t give them the right to refuse the controversial treatment.

In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities was told they had to accept homosexual couples in their adoption service, or get out of the adoption business. They chose correctly and got out of the business.

In Mississippi, a mental health counselor was sued for refusing to provide therapy to a woman looking to improve her lesbian relationship. The counselor’s employers fired her—a move that was backed up by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In New York, the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University refused to allow same-sex couples to live in married student housing, in keeping with the school’s orthodox Jewish teachings. But in 2001, the New York State Supreme Court forced them to do so anyway—even though New York has no same-sex “marriage” law.

In Albuquerque, a same-sex couple asked a Christian wedding photographer to film their commitment ceremony—and sued the photographer when she declined.

An online adoption service was forced to stop doing business in California when a same-sex couple sued the service for refusing, on religious grounds, to assist them. 

All the above examples involve the loss of religious freedom because the individuals or groups held an orthodox Biblical worldview.  So you see why I'm concerned when people bury their heads in the sand about the attack on the free practice of religion and ignore the warnings that are proclaimed.  The priests and prophets of Jeremiah's day didn't listen and the Israelites paid a terrible price. 

I fear we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg of persecution which will come upon people of faith in our nation.  The only hope I see is if people of faith, Jews, Muslims, orthodox and progressive Christians come together and say, "Individuals must have the freedom to practice their religion even if we don't agree with their beliefs.  For when one person or group is denied the right to practice their faith as they see fit, then we all stand the chance of  losing our right to practice our religion."

NT: breakpoint.org

Government thinks I'm a potential terrorist

A couple of weeks ago the Missouri Information Analysis Center released a report to law enforcement agencies across the state that tells local officials how to identify potential anti-governmental militants.  My father who lives in Missouri first alerted me to this report.  In brief it states that Ron Paul and Bob Barr supporters, people who have knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, and people who display political bumper stickers are potential domestic terrorists.  Other possible signs someone may be a domestic terrorist  include people who own gold, or even people who fly a U.S. flag.  These individuals are equated with radical race hate groups and terrorists.  I guess that means that because I voted for Bob Barr and claim to be a member of the Libertarian Party on FaceBook, I'm among the potential terrorists.

Missouri Governor, Jay Nixon originally defended the report, but has since repudiated and withdrawal it.  So I thought maybe I was off the government's watch list.  Then this week, the Homeland Security Agency releases their own report on what to watch for when it comes to potential terrorist.  Among others, people who are red flagged are returning veterans and pro-lifers.  Thus far, governmental officials continue to stand by this report.  While I'm not a vet, I am a die hard supporter of the right to life and have made my beliefs known through this blog.  I guess I shouldn't have done that, after all Big Brother is watching.

I say all these things sort of tongue in cheek and don't want to anyone think that I'm caught up in some kind of conspiracy theories.  On the other hand, when the government starts naming names of opposition party members and their supporters as people to be watched, it does make me a bit paranoid.  History has shown us and continues to show us what governments are capable of doing to their citizens who don't agree with their leaders.  Anybody remember anything about McCarthyism?

AIG and Misplaced Anger

Iowa's own Senator Grassley has suggested that AIG executives resign or commit suicide.  While he has admitted that he didn't expect nor wanted the execs to actually kill themselves, he did say, "From my standpoint, it's irresponsible for corporations to give bonuses at this time when they're sucking the tit of the taxpayer."  I suspect for most of the country those are vulgar words.  But here in rural Iowa, we know that it is a barnyard reference.

Senator Grassley certainly isn't alone in his disgust about the actions of AIG.  How can executives who have nearly bankrupt a company deserve bonuses?  And how can executives of a company who accepted billions of dollars of taxpayer money rationalize paying themselves using taxpayer money?

I don't have answers to those questions, but I'm convinced that all angst towards AIG is misplaced.  Sure I'm not happy with the fact that these bonuses were paid, but don't blame the execs.  They had a legal contract. 

If anyone wants to be upset about this, they should be upset with Congress who bailed AIG out in the first place.  Had Congress allowed the free market enterprise system to work, AIG would have gone under and the executives who ran it into the ground laid off and thereby would not have received the bonuses.  Instead, they had to come to the rescue and spend billions of our children and grandchildren's money.  And what has enslaving our children done for us?  Nothing!

Before Congress starts pointing fingers at AIG, they better remember that when you point a finger three point back.  But then, that would mean that they would have to admit that the bailout plan which none of them read was a mistake.  Thy aren't likely to do that.

Religion and Politics

Every four years, the debate over the role of religion in the political arena flares up.  David P. Gushee, Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University, president of Evangelicals for Human Rights, and author of The Future of Faith in American Politics opined in USA Today about the connection between Evangelicals and the Republican Party.

He writes:  Conservative evangelicals are getting wrong both how they are bringing their faith to bear on politics and what they are saying when they do. 

The "how" problem, among other things, is that they are married to the Republican Party and have therefore compromised the political independence of Christianity and the church. This is a huge mistake, an error of biblical proportions, because it verges on idolatry — after all, "You shall have no other gods before me."

One obvious sign of this was the assumption in the Christian Right that its leaders would endorse a Republican presidential candidate — that it was just a matter of which of those GOP gentlemen was the best Christian choice. Endorsing a Democrat was and is inconceivable.  Read more.

While Gushee makes some valid points here, he fails to consider why these things are true.  The fact of the matter is that Evangelicals know that any Democrat presidential candidate who stands a chance of getting their party's nomination must be opposed to issues that most Evangelicals hold dear.  A Democrat candidate must be anti-pro-life, anti-traditional marriage, anti-school choice if he or she hopes to draw the party faithful.  It matters little what a Democrat candidate favors because few Evangelicals will abandon these core values.  Thus Evangelicals, in our two party system, are left with only one other choice, the Republicans.  These limited choices result in individuals voting against a candidate rather than in favor of one.   

If the day ever comes when a candidate can hold in balance the values of Evangelicals while looking for ways the government can solve the problems of poverty, education, global warming, and war that person would win in a landslide.

In defense of free speech

This month's Wired magazine included an article titled "The Great Firewall: China's Misguided -- and Futile -- Attempt to Control What Happens On-line."  In it reporter Oliver August tells of his experiences with China's censorship police and how ordinary Chinese citizens are getting around the government's attempt at controlling what passes over the Internet.  It's an interesting read and a good reminder that we need to stand firm in defense of our right as Americans to free speech.

This right recently came under attack by 41 Democratic Senators, who signed a letter publicly criticizing comments made by Rush Limbaugh and asking Mark Mays the CEO of the radio network which syndicates Limbaugh to rebuke him.

Now I'm not trying to defend anything that Rush Limbaugh may or may not have said.  What I'm am seeking to defend is his right to say it regardless whether they were words of wisdom or completely idiotic.  When the U.S. government as represented by the Senate Democrats begin to publicly criticize an individual's opinion and beliefs and bring to bear pressure to have that individual repudiate those beliefs we as Americans are headed in a dangerous direction. 

I'm not a Libertarian  or a member of the ACLU who thinks that all expressions of speech are allowable under the First Amendment.  I don't think the Constitution allows for the creation and distribution of child pornography, for instance.  However, when it comes to political or religious issues the government has no business trying to squelch those expressions. 

If Rush Limbaugh can't express politically incorrect opinions without governmental interference regardless how are out in right field they may be, how long will it be before my politically incorrect religious beliefs come under attack?