In our increasingly moral relativistic world, any degree of accountability is encouraging. It has been an interesting year in terms of marital fidelity, but at least the perpetrators still feel significant public consequences for their "indiscretions."
Check out this piece by Politico.
I think we're getting closer to the day where politicians mess around and it's no big deal, continue on career.
Oh wait, that was William "Depends on the definition of 'is'" Clinton.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Solution = Government?
This from the WSJ today:
Of course, the kind of people who are apt to push for government-imposed
solutions are those who are also apt to believe they will be the ones imposing
decisions, not the ones who have to live with decisions imposed by others.
Sometimes that's because they enjoy the wealth that gives them escape hatches
unavailable to the less affluent, such as their ability to ensure that their own
children never have to set foot in a public school. Mostly, however, their trust
in government reflects their confidence that they have all the answers and that
it's government's job to enforce them.What about conservatives? Don't we have confidence in our judgment and
abilities? Of course we do. The difference is that we trust free citizens to
make decisions about themselves—and are skeptical about government. As someone
who worked inside a White House, I say you really believe government should be
small when you see your friends running it.
Well said. Read the rest here.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Three Questions
I have three questions for our friends in the state-run media:
Why is no one evaluating the effectiveness of the $700B+ unprecedented porkulus package that Americans believe has failed?
Where is the outrage at the government takeover of General Motors and the free $62B they received in taxpayer subsidies?
Can anyone explain the absolute silence from the media on Iraq? I have an idea. We have succeeded, contrary to Democratic opinions in 07 and 08. I am glad their investments in defeat did not pay off. Don't believe we have succeeded? Our combat troops are taking dance lessons, they're so bored.
Why is no one evaluating the effectiveness of the $700B+ unprecedented porkulus package that Americans believe has failed?
Where is the outrage at the government takeover of General Motors and the free $62B they received in taxpayer subsidies?
Can anyone explain the absolute silence from the media on Iraq? I have an idea. We have succeeded, contrary to Democratic opinions in 07 and 08. I am glad their investments in defeat did not pay off. Don't believe we have succeeded? Our combat troops are taking dance lessons, they're so bored.
The Nature of our President
For your enlightenment, I have compiled a list of quotations from our Dear Leader, President Barack Hussein Obama. I think these utterances reveal much about the ideas, perspective, and agenda of the President of the United States. These statements are so self-explanatory, I'll avoid the color commentary. For now.
Some of these came from carefully planned speeches, some are off the cuff. Should they be dismissed as meaningless, or should they inform our opinions on this community-organizer president? You're a voter, you be the judge.
Some of these came from carefully planned speeches, some are off the cuff. Should they be dismissed as meaningless, or should they inform our opinions on this community-organizer president? You're a voter, you be the judge.
“I won.” The "change" and bipartisanship brought to Washington by Pres. Obama in response to a Republican's challenge to the $700B porkulus package - January 2009.
"Harry, I have a gift." In response to Sen. Harry Reid's congratulations to a freshman Sen. Obama.
"I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess." At a campaign rally for big loser Creigh Deeds, August 7, 2009.
"I Have Not Said That I Was a Single-Payer Supporter … I believe it would be too disruptive" At an August 11, 2009 town hall meeting.
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program ... a single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately." Obama speaking to the Illinois AFL-CIO, June 30, 2003.
"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, it's the Post Office that's always having problems." At the aforementioned town hall meeting on healthcare, intended to mean that private companies can compete with a 'public option'.
“What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don’t, you’re subject to some penalty ... there’s nothing wrong with a penalty.” In a November 9, 2009 interview with ABC. Nevermind the fact that you can opt out of car insurance by not buying a car, and it is a state law to buy car insurance, not a federal mandate. Oh, sorry, I'll stop commenting.
"So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy towards people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." At San Francisco fundraiser, April 6, 2008
"In Africa, you often see that the difference between a village where everybody eats and a village where people starve is government. One has a functioning government, and the other does not. Which is why it bothers me when I hear people say that government is the enemy. They don't understand its fundamental role." Profile in The Independent Magazine, March 10, 2007.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
On Civilization & Anarchy
The following comments on the value of civilization and government (the classic definition, not a modern day liberal's idea) and how Jesus approached them is in response to this post on an "anarcho-primitivist" conference.
An important concept for my readers to understand is that by defending the concept of civilization (as opposed to "deindustrialization" and abandonment of technology etc.) I am not advocating for the numerous ills that have arisen from society. I believe industry, technology, and markets are neutral items whose meaning is determined by the intention of the individual involved. Civilization and all that it entails is not bad in and of itself, it is the humans that comprise civilization that create the problems. Even if anarchists succeeded in their fruitless quest, they would still be faced with a whole lot of very depraved humans (read Lord of the Flies or Romans). In society or not, these humans would present the same problems anarchists complain about: selfishness (wealth gap), pride (power hierarchy), greed (economic development and progress). Fantasizing about a return to hunter-gatherer subsistence does nothing to solve these fundamental sins, and ignores the powerful work of our Savior in an attempt to entirely solve our societal ills with man-made solutions! But I digress.
How did Christ treat the religious and government systems of his day? Jesus never sought the abolition of the established religious order, but rather its reform. The zealots and revolutionaries of the time (aspiring anarchists, perhaps!) tried to make Jesus into an anti-Rome figure, a role he entirely avoided. He also chastised Peter for combating the state and authority of the day - even in the defense of his Lord!
When asked about taxes, and whether or not paying part of one's property to the state is the right thing to do, Jesus advocated civil obedience, not rebellion. Jesus did not evade the tricky questions thrown at him, but answered them head on, addressing hypocrisy and the issue raised. The Pharisees and religious leaders were following a flawed legalistic interpretation of Old Testament law - one that would not allow healing on the Sabbath. Jesus responds with the question "Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" A question with an obvious answer. Theologian Wayne Grudem writes: "The Pharisaic tradition misses the entire point of Mosaic law: to love God and one's neighbor."
Jesus did not advocate eliminating the law in favor of some amorphous community/relationship oriented lifestyle. Instead he came to fulfill the law and reveal its purpose: to highlight sin and the necessity of a Savior.
Of course community and relationships are of utmost importance, but are to be developed in the structure of the body of Christ with God-ordained leadership and direction from the Holy Spirit and Scripture.
In regards to religion, it is dangerous and foolish to disregard church structure because God didn't "set up a religion". I suppose this depends on your definition of religion, because God did communicate through his apostles and Biblical authors as to how the body of Christ should operate, what sacraments should be repeated throughout the ages (communion, baptism), as well as practical matters like what churches should look for when choosing leaders. That all sounds like a divinely-originating "system" to me. This does not replace relationship or community, but rather provides the framework in which these aspects of Christianity can flourish.
When referring to my messy room, my mother used to exclaim: "God is a god of order!" Her point was our lives should reflect the orderly, principled nature of God. Look no further than the Israelites, who were organized by theocracy. God appointed a judge who in turn organized the people according to tribes etc. God established a very strict law and code of conduct, with mandatory rules along with dire consequences if a law was broken.
When God created Adam and Eve at the beginning of time, he gave a command in Genesis that echoes to all mankind: "...fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion...over every living thing that moves on the earth." Here God was entreating his new creation of man to populate the earth and bring order and structure to an uncharted world.
I encourage readers to explore this verse:
"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement."
The doctrine of the sovereignty of God holds that He is ultimately in control over every and all circumstances. Without being the author of evil, the God of the universe directs history. In that sense we as Christians are to obey God-established civil authorities, to the degree they do not violate God's law (which is of course higher than man's).
An important concept for my readers to understand is that by defending the concept of civilization (as opposed to "deindustrialization" and abandonment of technology etc.) I am not advocating for the numerous ills that have arisen from society. I believe industry, technology, and markets are neutral items whose meaning is determined by the intention of the individual involved. Civilization and all that it entails is not bad in and of itself, it is the humans that comprise civilization that create the problems. Even if anarchists succeeded in their fruitless quest, they would still be faced with a whole lot of very depraved humans (read Lord of the Flies or Romans). In society or not, these humans would present the same problems anarchists complain about: selfishness (wealth gap), pride (power hierarchy), greed (economic development and progress). Fantasizing about a return to hunter-gatherer subsistence does nothing to solve these fundamental sins, and ignores the powerful work of our Savior in an attempt to entirely solve our societal ills with man-made solutions! But I digress.
How did Christ treat the religious and government systems of his day? Jesus never sought the abolition of the established religious order, but rather its reform. The zealots and revolutionaries of the time (aspiring anarchists, perhaps!) tried to make Jesus into an anti-Rome figure, a role he entirely avoided. He also chastised Peter for combating the state and authority of the day - even in the defense of his Lord!
When asked about taxes, and whether or not paying part of one's property to the state is the right thing to do, Jesus advocated civil obedience, not rebellion. Jesus did not evade the tricky questions thrown at him, but answered them head on, addressing hypocrisy and the issue raised. The Pharisees and religious leaders were following a flawed legalistic interpretation of Old Testament law - one that would not allow healing on the Sabbath. Jesus responds with the question "Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" A question with an obvious answer. Theologian Wayne Grudem writes: "The Pharisaic tradition misses the entire point of Mosaic law: to love God and one's neighbor."
Jesus did not advocate eliminating the law in favor of some amorphous community/relationship oriented lifestyle. Instead he came to fulfill the law and reveal its purpose: to highlight sin and the necessity of a Savior.
Of course community and relationships are of utmost importance, but are to be developed in the structure of the body of Christ with God-ordained leadership and direction from the Holy Spirit and Scripture.
In regards to religion, it is dangerous and foolish to disregard church structure because God didn't "set up a religion". I suppose this depends on your definition of religion, because God did communicate through his apostles and Biblical authors as to how the body of Christ should operate, what sacraments should be repeated throughout the ages (communion, baptism), as well as practical matters like what churches should look for when choosing leaders. That all sounds like a divinely-originating "system" to me. This does not replace relationship or community, but rather provides the framework in which these aspects of Christianity can flourish.
When referring to my messy room, my mother used to exclaim: "God is a god of order!" Her point was our lives should reflect the orderly, principled nature of God. Look no further than the Israelites, who were organized by theocracy. God appointed a judge who in turn organized the people according to tribes etc. God established a very strict law and code of conduct, with mandatory rules along with dire consequences if a law was broken.
When God created Adam and Eve at the beginning of time, he gave a command in Genesis that echoes to all mankind: "...fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion...over every living thing that moves on the earth." Here God was entreating his new creation of man to populate the earth and bring order and structure to an uncharted world.
I encourage readers to explore this verse:
"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement."
The doctrine of the sovereignty of God holds that He is ultimately in control over every and all circumstances. Without being the author of evil, the God of the universe directs history. In that sense we as Christians are to obey God-established civil authorities, to the degree they do not violate God's law (which is of course higher than man's).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
