Miscellaneous

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Search World News

  • WorldNews

Christian Employment Opportunities

Blog powered by TypePad
Member since 04/2005

-------------------------------

  • Search:
    Christianbook.com

Cartoons

Headline News Ticker

June 05, 2009

Dr. Breggin’s Advice

Dr. Peter Breggin is a secular psychiatrist whose fight against psychiatric medications I have respected for years (please visit his web site for more information).  My motive in referring to Dr. Breggin in this posting, however, does not have to do with his medical expertise but with an article he has written analyzing the current state of affairs in our country.  "Cautionary Observations for My Fellow Idealists" is filled with wise advice and perceptive observations.  Please read on (the article is reproduced in its entirety, including some mistakes):

As progressive idealists, you seem nearer than ever to achieving many of your goals for America. At the least, you have made a sharp turn in the direction you have sought for so long. You have a president of the United States and a Congress who seem devoted to the dreams of those who seek social justice, a less prejudiced and less predatory society, a fair if not equal distribution of wealth, more power to the working class, a more closely regulated economic system, and a more gentle international hand. You have a government that largely shares your concerns about health care, education and the environment.

On the verge, as you are, of seeing many of your ideals come to fruition, please hesitate for a moment. Those of us immersed in political reform have a tendency to take the underlying existence of America for granted. Those of us who are activists and idealists often tend to overlook the basic historical structure or underlying principles of the government and the economy. As a young reformer, I focused on what I felt were more urgent and immediate issues, such as racism, the abuse of women and children, poverty and injustice -- and especially the reform of psychiatry and the mental health system. I felt free to pursue these ideals while taking for granted that America as I knew it would continue.

For many idealistic reformers, it is as if we live on a giant ocean liner, preoccupied with improving equality and justice among the crew and passengers, without wondering if the ship itself might be in danger. We do so without thinking much about what makes the ship operate so safely for most of its passengers, including us as we pursue our reforms.

Today the ship of state is in grave danger, requiring all of us to put our previous concerns somewhat aside, lest we careen at breakneck speed through a sea of unanticipated hazards. We could end up playing our band with idealistic fervor as the deck disappears beneath our feet.

That's the first and most critical point: The necessity of taking a deep breath and asking ourselves if we are endangering America while we reform her by exercising too much government power, however idealistically. Will we find ourselves confronted with a congress and an executive branch so unchecked in their power and authority that they run roughshod over the checks and balances that have maintained our freedom and allowed our economy to flourish? In our determination to improve health care and the environment, or to rescue and monitor the financial system, will we demolish the principles that have previously restrained government and promoted individual liberty -- leaving future generations to bear the fiscal burden?

Remember, the increasingly centralized government that now promotes your progressive ideals could, in one voting cycle, become an equally or more powerful government that crushes all your ideals. You cannot be guaranteed that men and women of your own political persuasion will continue to direct the power structure you are now so energetically building.

The second point has to do with human nature and the need to place checks upon its unbridled expression. In our youth, we are acutely aware of the flaws of other human beings, but naturally much less so of our own. It is easy to divide people into those with good, altruistic intentions and those with bad, selfish intentions. I used to equate the left with the good and the right with the bad. I was sure that the world would be a much better place if only we could elect leaders who were more like me in being well-intentioned and devoted to protecting and empowering the most vulnerable citizens.

Not having been adequately educated in American history, most of us have too little understanding of the underlying system -- the principles and historical ideals -- within which we hope to implement our marvelous intentions. We don't know that the Founders conducted lengthy discussions and debates, and wrote extensively, about the pitfalls of good intentions and about the treacherousness of relying on charismatic rather than on the rule of law. We have little idea that they thoroughly evaluated every possible form of government and concluded that the optimal and only safe role of government was to protect the liberty of its citizens rather than to promote their welfare or to implement majority rule. We haven't read their profound discussions of human nature from which they concluded that checks and balances were needed to prevent political leaders, with or without good intentions, from imposing their will on a free people. Nor do we realize how much they distrusted democracy. In majority rule they saw the inevitability of mob rule. They observed that, throughout history, experiments in unbridled democracy led to chaos and then tyranny. The Bill of Rights became the ultimate means of protecting individual liberty from the excesses of government and democracy.

The Founders also believed that the success of government ultimately depended on a high level of responsibility and altruism among its citizens. Without a citizenry educated in the values of liberty and personal responsibility, any form of government would quickly degenerate into tyranny.

The Founders were not callous or self-centered people. Most of them risked their lives, their families and their fortunes to fight for independence and the principle of liberty. They also created many institutions that continue to serve our citizens, from the U. S. Postal Service to local fire departments, from great universities to community hospitals. They initiated reforms in the penal code and prison system, and even in mental hospital care. But they did not place trust in the benevolence of government bureaucrats or politicians.

This cannot be over-emphasized. The American government was instituted to protect freedom. In turn, society with its local communities, schools and churches was expected to inspire a high level of personal responsibility, patriotism, respect for individual rights, and devotion to the common good. George Washington, John and Abigail Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and George Mason: One would be hard pressed to find a Founder or any other leader of the American Revolution who did not believe in these basic principles of a limited government entrusted with the protection of individual liberty and a robust society entrusted with the promotion of the love of liberty and community.

The Founders purposely created a government so internally and externally restrained that the energy of this free people would be unleashed for the ultimate betterment of all. The survival of the United States of America through the bloody Civil War and the abolition of slavery, alongside the granting of voting rights to women and then to all Americans, and the ultimate end to segregation are among the many proofs of the workability of this Constitutional system. Our prosperity over these many years, and our successful defense and promotion of freedom around the world, are further evidence.

Those who doubt these observations about the nature of our founding principles should refresh themselves with the nation's three most familiar and basic documents: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Beyond that, they may wish to sample the voluminous writings in support of the Constitution in the Federalist papers. And finally they may want to read or read some of the anti-Federalist papers written in argument against the proposed Constitution before it was enacted. Opponents of the Constitution spoke even more fervently about the dangers of giving too much power to a congress or a president, and their dire predictions seem prescient in light of what is now transpiring in Washington, DC.

I return to images of myself as young reformer with strongly progressive leanings. I had good intentions; and I had faith that leaders with good intentions could immeasurably improve the world. I had no idea that the Founders had looked carefully into this aspect of human nature and concluded that it was a menace to liberty and society. I failed to fully appreciate that my freedom to think and to promote my ideals was protected by the most marvelous principles ever embodied in government -- principles intended to prevent idealists like me and millions of other well-intentioned people from using the government to impose our views on society and on other individuals. Now this has been reversed. The progressive idealists have taken over the U.S. government with little to restrain them.

My decision to publish this essay . . . has been made after much deliberation. I have not wanted to complicate my reform efforts in psychiatry by voicing my concerns about the fate of the nation. But America is now in such a precarious state that all of us must make the survival of our nation our highest ideal and most important goal. At the least, we need to be able to speak our minds during these very unsettling times and I hope you will greet these remarks in that spirit.

My fellow idealists, please slow down. Reconsider this frantic bulldozing of the checks and balances that have previously restrained government power. It's time to re-examine what's happening as the president of the United States and the U.S. Congress take actions that undermine the very principles of liberty and personal responsibility that have given all of us such extraordinary opportunities to live our own lives as idealists and reformers.

January 24, 2009

Change Has Come to America

"Change has come to America," so proclaims the newly redesigned White House web site .  I don't think anyone will argue that point.  It's exactly what kind of change we can expect that has me concerned.

One sign of what kind of "change" we can expect is the fact that Obama asked V. Gene Robinson, the outspokenly homosexual Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire was asked to pray at an inaugural event.  Bishop Robinson promised "that this will not be a Christian prayer, and I won’t be quoting Scripture or anything like that.  The texts that I hold as sacred are not sacred texts for all Americans, and I want all people to feel that this is their prayer.”  He addressed the prayer to the "God of our many understandings."

The Obama administration's agenda regarding the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual) community is laid out in the "Civil Rights" section of the White House web site:

Support for the LGBT Community

"While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."

-- Barack Obama, June 1, 2007

  • Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. President Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, President Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law.
  • Fight Workplace Discrimination: President Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. The President also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
  • Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
  • Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
  • Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
  • Expand Adoption Rights: President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.
  • Promote AIDS Prevention: In the first year of his presidency, President Obama will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce HIV-related health disparities. The President will support common sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system. The President also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. President Obama has also been willing to confront the stigma -- too often tied to homophobia -- that continues to surround HIV/AIDS.
  • Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS: In the United States, the percentage of women diagnosed with AIDS has quadrupled over the last 20 years. Today, women account for more than one quarter of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses. President Obama introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections.

One group that most definitely cannot count on being protected by President Obama is that one made up of the most defenseless among us--the preborn.  Here's what this administration believes about "Reproductive Choice":

  • Supports a Woman's Right to Choose: President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Adminstration. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.
  • Preventing Unintended Pregnancy: President Obama was an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information, and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.

To demonstrate his commitment to allowing unborn babies to be freely murdered as a "reproductive choice"--during a week in which all life-loving Americans sadly remembered the 36th anniversary of the Supreme Court's allowing abortion in all 50 states--he reversed President Bush's ban on "federal funding for international groups that promote or perform abortions."  So to "celebrate" a ruling that has resulted in tens of millions of preborn babies to be murdered, President Obama opens the way to fund groups to murder more.

The current administration's disdain for the preborn is further evidenced by its position on stem cell research:

President Obama and Vice President Biden believe that we owe it to the American public to explore the potential of stem cells to treat the millions of people suffering from debilitating and life-threatening diseases. Obama is a co-sponsor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which will allow research of human embryonic stem cells derived from embryos donated (with consent) from in vitro fertilization clinics. These embryos must be deemed in excess and created based solely for the purpose of fertility treatment.

As long as embryos are "donated (with consent)" they can be destroyed for the purpose of stem cell research.  After all, they "must be deemed in excess"--they are disposable.

Change has come to America.  God help and have mercy on us all.

November 25, 2008

God Bless You, President-Elect Obama

Three weeks ago today, Barack Obama was elected president of the United States.  I voted for John McCain (actually, my vote was more against Obama and for Sarah Palin).  If the election were held again today, I still would not vote for Obama.  He has done little to allay concerns I had by the people he is picking to be a part of his administration.

Having said that, it is hard to miss the excitement his election has generated around the world.  For our own country, the significance of electing a black man president is especially noteworthy.

I'm not going to focus on the issue of slavery in the United States.  That evil was dealt with long before I was born.  Those who seek to use it to gain some leverage today are not to be taken seriously.  There is, however, a current reality which must be acknowledged and that is racism--and the racism that particularly concerns me is that which is found in many white Christian circles.

I have visited hundreds and hundreds of Baptist churches in my lifetime, and I must say that the number of African Americans that I have seen in them has to be somewhere in the range of .0000000000000000000000000000000000001% (I know, I know, that estimate--which is simply based on my own limited experience--is no doubt exaggeratedly high).  Countless white American Christians, who sing and preach of God's love for all humanity and invest countless dollars in missions endeavors to people of color around the world, would be scandalized and outraged if a black person showed up at their churches and would not walk next door to share the Gospel with a person of color.  Shame on them and shame on all of us!  May God reprove the wickedness of racism and the even greater wickedness of often twisting Scripture to defend that racism.  May many more follow the example of Bob Jones University, that has publicly acknowledged and repented of its racist policies of the past.

May God bless you, President-Elect Obama.  As a white person, I can only grasp a small idea of the joy your election has brought to millions of my black fellow countrymen and I rejoice in this historic moment for that reason.  May he guide you, give you wisdom, strengthen you and save you through Jesus Christ His Son.  May he use you to help break down racial barriers (those that have been erected both by whites as well as blacks).  May you understand that He is King of the universe and that earthly rulers are, at best, only supporting actors.

November 08, 2008

Thank You, President Bush

I voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.  He wasn't a perfect candidate but by far the best of the choices we had on the ballot.

There are numerous criticisms that could be made concerning President Bush.  I'd like to say, however, how grateful I am to him.  I'm thankful he has fought to keep our country safe (in case all of the ingrates haven't noticed, no planes hijacked by terrorists have been crashed into American cities recently), I'm thankful he appointed John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, I'm thankful he's been a man of character and class in spite of the unbelievable, unbearable attacks of which he's been the target.

A couple of Wall Street Journal articles express my feelings pretty well.  Here's the first one, "Why I'll Miss President Bush":

President Bush will soon be heading home and for many that day cannot come soon enough. Count me among those who will miss him and his bedrock decency.

He had a rough road from day one. His first inauguration struck me as a portent. I was there, shivering in the grandstands on Pennsylvania Avenue. At the exact moment the president heard "Hail to the Chief" for the first time and was announced to the audience, a sleet storm descended from the skies.

It has never let up.

Through it all Mr. Bush kept his head up and soldiered on. He took the criticism in stride. I remember riding with him in his presidential limousine to the Washington Hilton for a speech. A woman standing at an intersection directed an obscene gesture at him that I had hoped he missed. The president waved to her and with a bemused look said to me, "Did you see what she did?"

Many other Americans, particularly the "values voters" who helped elect him twice, will miss him because of what he achieved: Samuel Alito and John Roberts on the Supreme Court, children in schools that now are better because they are accountable, African women who now have medicines for their HIV-infected babies, and religious charities that are finally being treated by government as partners instead of rivals.

I remember coming to the West Wing one morning before the daily 7:30 senior staff meeting and seeing Mr. Bush at his desk in the Oval Office, reading a daily devotional. I remember the look of sorrow on his face as he signed letters to the families of the fallen. When he met with recovering addicts whose lives were transformed by a faith-based program, he spoke plainly of his own humiliating journey years ago with alcohol. When a Liberian refugee broke into tears after recounting her escape to freedom in America, the president went over and held and comforted her.

Little acts behind the curtain like these inspired intense loyalty by staff members. They spoke of someone never too busy or burdened to care -- like when he took time on Air Force One to call my wife when she was sick. The president's true character rendered his media image pure caricature.

Mother Teresa was asked at the end of her life whether she was discouraged because after decades of caring for the dying and destitute in Calcutta little seemed to have changed. She replied, "No. God doesn't call me to be successful. God calls me to be faithful."

History will decide whether George W. Bush was a successful President. But he was faithful. He had a charge to keep and he kept it.

Here's the other article I'd like you to read, "The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace" (written by a man who interned with John Kerry's legal team during the 2004 election):

Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.

According to recent Gallup polls, the president's average approval rating is below 30% -- down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.

This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, "Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust."

Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.

The president's original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.

It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.

Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country's current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.

Like the president said in his 2004 victory speech, "We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America."

To be sure, Mr. Bush is not completely alone. His low approval ratings put him in the good company of former Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office. Despite Mr. Truman's low numbers, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll found that he was ranked the seventh most popular president in history.

Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman's presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years -- and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

November 03, 2008

Election Eve 2

I sit here thousands of miles away from the USA on election eve 2008.  As an American, I must confess that I'm quite down because it seems the majority of American voters will vote (or have already voted in early voting) for the "change" Obama offers--though no one seems quite sure what that entails.  Some who apparently are thinking more clearly than others don't seem to think it entails anything good.

This is not simply another election.  I don't believe there has been another election this crucial in my lifetime . . . or my father's (who was born in 1924).  My opinion is that this is the BIG ONE, although, as Amos might say, "I am no prophet neither am I a prophet's son" (Amos 7:14).

I wonder how much we American Christians have truly sought the Lord's face about this election.  Big things, national things, global things, eternal things are in play.  I must say--not with pride but with shame--I am not the 1000th part of the man of prayer I should be.  A phrase from a song I hadn't sung for many years came to mind recently.  Part of one of the verses of Bill Harvey's "I Want that Mountain" goes thus: "I saw the Giant of Prayerlessness upon the mountain high; he laughed so hard at my unbended knee."  I wonder how much laughter is ringing up from the pits of hell at millions of unbended American Christian knees.

A few weeks ago, a weekly prayer meeting was set up for missionaries to gather to pray about the USA and the election.  I am not exaggerating when I say that participation was extremely low.  A missionary friend of mine made the observation (I'm paraphrasing) about how easy it is to get a group of missionaries to go golfing for 6 hours and that it was sad that it was so hard to get them together to pray.

"Lord, teach us to pray."

As I commented at the beginning of this post, as an American I'm gloomy about this election and the likelihood of Obama becoming our president.  As a Christian, however, I am quite optimistic.  Events are running right on God's eternal schedule.  Things are going as planned.  His hand is steady on the rudder.  Soon, we'll leave behind this land of our pilgrimage and dwell with our King and Father eternally.  "The kingdoms of this world [will soon] become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever" (Revelation 11:15).  Amen!  Amen!  Amen!  "Even so, come, Lord Jesus" (Revelation 22:20).  Until then, may we be faithful, obedient and live for His glory.

Election Eve 1

Living outside of the USA is an interesting experience.  On the one hand, we love our country and are concerned about the 99.9999999999999999999999% negative coverage of Bush and McCain.  On the other hand, we are here not primarily as Americans but as citizens and ambassadors of a greater, eternal kingdom.

I prepared some information last week for a Chilean couple, who are friends of ours, about my position on Obama.  As an American and--more importantly--as a Christian, I wanted them to understand my reasonings.  Here (translated into English) is the document I wrote for them:

McCain

  1. More than a vote for McCain, my vote is against Obama.  In fact, some months back I had decided not to vote this year.
  2. McCain is a man with an established character--we know who he is and what he represents (whether we always like it or not).  When he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, he refused to be released before other prisoners who had been in the prisons of North Vietnam for a longer time.

Obama

  1. Obama defends abortion to such an extreme that he fought against legislation to protect babies that survive abortions (infanticide).  He supports partial birth abortion.  Among African American women, the ratio between abortions and live births is 472 to 1,000.  Abortion has as its victim the weakest and most defenseless of society.  It is believed that up to 90% of Downs Syndrome babies are now aborted.  Proverbs 6:16-19: "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, an heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."
  2. Obama believes the United States Constitution has fundamental flaws.
  3. Obama believes the government should practice the redistribution of wealth (socialism).  Even so, he does not concern himself with his own poor relatives: his aunt Zeituni (about whom he writes in his book Dreams from My Father) lives in a Boston slum and his half brother (George Hussein Onyango Obama) lives in Kenya and claims to live on less than 1 dollar monthly.  Obama's campaign has raised over 600 million dollars.
  4. Obama would fill up the Supreme and federal courts with leftists that, instead of guiding themselves by the Constitution, would dedicated themselves to redesigning society.
  5. Obama has had very close dies to people of doubtful reputation.  He was a member for 20 years of the church of Jeremiah Wright, the racist and radical pastor.  He is a friend of William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Weatherman Underground terrorists of the 60's (In fact, his political career began in the living room of this couple.).  He is a friend of and has received money from Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a corrupt businessman.
  6. Obama is the most liberal (leftist) senator.
  7. Obama is a young man who is not prepared for such a large task.  He has zero executive experience (aside from his own political campaign).  He has never directed a company, has never been a mayor, has never been a governor.  We know almost nothing about him and what we do know is troublesome.
  8. His presidential campaign has accepted fraudulent donations.

The Media

  1. In general, the media have declared war on McCain and have offered their unconditional worship to Obama.
  2. The media literally are attempting to steal the election.  They want to impose their candidate on us.  It has been suggested that, had the media not been so unconditionally dedicated to Obama, McCain would be 20 points up in the polls.

The Sovereignty of God

Daniel 4: 28-37: "All this came upon the king Nebuchadnezzar.  At the end of twelve months he walked in the palace of the kingdom of Babylon.  The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?  While the word was in the king's mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, saying, O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee.  And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.  The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws.  And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:  And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?  At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me; and my counsellors and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me.  Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase."

October 28, 2008

Obama's Courts

One topic that has gotten far too little attention is what would happen to our nation's judicial system under an Obama presidency, aided and abetted by a Democrat Congress (with, possibly, a filibuster-proof Senate).  Steven Calabresi, a co-founder of the Federalist Society and a professor of law at Northwestern University, has an alarming article in The Wall Street Journal on this issue.  Here's the article, titled "Obama's 'Redistribution' Constitution":

One of the great unappreciated stories of the past eight years is how thoroughly Senate Democrats thwarted efforts by President Bush to appoint judges to the lower federal courts.

Consider the most important lower federal court in the country: the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In his two terms as president, Ronald Reagan appointed eight judges, an average of one a year, to this court. They included Robert Bork, Antonin Scalia, Kenneth Starr, Larry Silberman, Stephen Williams, James Buckley, Douglas Ginsburg and David Sentelle. In his two terms, George W. Bush was able to name only four: John Roberts, Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith and Brett Kavanaugh.

Although two seats on this court are vacant, Bush nominee Peter Keisler has been denied even a committee vote for two years. If Barack Obama wins the presidency, he will almost certainly fill those two vacant seats, the seats of two older Clinton appointees who will retire, and most likely the seats of four older Reagan and George H.W. Bush appointees who may retire as well.

The net result is that the legal left will once again have a majority on the nation's most important regulatory court of appeals.

The balance will shift as well on almost all of the 12 other federal appeals courts. Nine of the 13 will probably swing to the left if Mr. Obama is elected (not counting the Ninth Circuit, which the left solidly controls today). Circuit majorities are likely at stake in this presidential election for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal. That includes the federal appeals courts for New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia and virtually every other major center of finance in the country.

On the Supreme Court, six of the current nine justices will be 70 years old or older on January 20, 2009. There is a widespread expectation that the next president could make four appointments in just his first term, with maybe two more in a second term. Here too we are poised for heavy change.

These numbers ought to raise serious concern because of Mr. Obama's extreme left-wing views about the role of judges. He believes -- and he is quite open about this -- that judges ought to decide cases in light of the empathy they ought to feel for the little guy in any lawsuit.

Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: "[W]e need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

On this view, plaintiffs should usually win against defendants in civil cases; criminals in cases against the police; consumers, employees and stockholders in suits brought against corporations; and citizens in suits brought against the government. Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.

In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical."

He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.

This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a "tax cut" to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth? Perhaps the candidate ought to be asked to answer these questions before the election rather than after.

Every new federal judge has been required by federal law to take an oath of office in which he swears that he will "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich." Mr. Obama's emphasis on empathy in essence requires the appointment of judges committed in advance to violating this oath. To the traditional view of justice as a blindfolded person weighing legal claims fairly on a scale, he wants to tear the blindfold off, so the judge can rule for the party he empathizes with most.

The legal left wants Americans to imagine that the federal courts are very right-wing now, and that Mr. Obama will merely stem some great right-wing federal judicial tide. The reality is completely different. The federal courts hang in the balance, and it is the left which is poised to capture them.

A whole generation of Americans has come of age since the nation experienced the bad judicial appointments and foolish economic and regulatory policy of the Johnson and Carter administrations. If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.

Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation's courtrooms.

October 25, 2008

Thougts on Fundamentalism

Kevin Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary of Minneapolis, is a thoughtful and articulate fundamentalist.  After the announcement that Pillsbury Baptist Bible College will close its doors on December 31 of this year, Dr. Bauder wrote an essay entitled "Reflections upon Hearing the Announcement"  This article was included in his electronic newsletter In the Nick of Time.

This article is worth being read and meditated upon by all those who love God and Biblical truth.  I have reproduced Dr. Bauder's article for your convenience and benefit:

Word arrived earlier this week that Pillsbury Baptist Bible College will cease operations in December. This announcement was not entirely unexpected. Nearly two years ago, announcements were made nation-wide that if the situation did not improve, Pillsbury would be in jeopardy. Those of us in Minnesota have been watching the slow strangulation of our college ever since.

Pillsbury nearly closed in the mid-1990s, when it experienced multiple turnovers of administration and a purge of the faculty. This was not the first controversial period in the history of the college, but it was the one that did the most enduring damage. At that time, the decision was made to try to keep the doors open, and Dr. Bob Crane finally accepted the presidency. Frankly, no one expected it to survive. It is a testimony to Dr. Crane’s leadership and to the faculty’s commitment that it has remained in operation for more than a decade since.

Dr. Crane has been trying to retire for years, but Pillsbury has had difficulty finding a qualified person who would accept the responsibility of the presidency. Dr. Greg Huffman was led into that office earlier this year. When he came to Pillsbury, he knew that the situation was already dire. He accepted the presidency knowing that he had only a couple of strategies at his disposal. Huffman had to watch those strategies evaporate in the current economic meltdown. Nevertheless, he rates as a hero in my book for having the faith and courage to make the attempt.

The faculty and staff of Pillsbury Baptist Bible College have shown enormous commitment, and they have served at significant personal sacrifice. Surely they have taught as much by example as by word. Only eternity will show what a rich return their investment will receive, but students cannot remain unaffected by such models and mentors.

In a way, Pillsbury Baptist Bible College is a microcosm of what is happening within institutional fundamentalism everywhere. The fundamentalist movement has never been really cohesive, but during the past decade it has shown significant deterioration. Whether the overall numbers of fundamentalists are increasing or decreasing is hard to say. What is clear is that the mainstream of historic fundamentalism is dwindling.

The reasons for the weakening of fundamentalism are varied, and should probably be discussed elsewhere. What is clear is that its churches are shrinking and often closing while new ones are being planted with less frequency. Fewer young people are answering the call to missions and ministry. Materialism and amusement-Christianity are nearly unbridled. With shrinking constituencies, most of the institutions are finding survival to be a challenge.

The question is not whether fundamentalism is collapsing. The question is how we should respond to the collapse. More fundamentally, the question is how we should even be thinking about these events.

What ought to occur to us first is that God does not need fundamentalism. God did not create or ordain the fundamentalist movement. He did not erect the institutions. We made them up, and even if we offered them to Him, we need to remember that they are the works of our hands. If He chooses not to preserve them, then that is His business.

We ought humbly to recognize that God’s work in the world is much larger than institutional fundamentalism. Some days I wonder whether all of fundamentalism put together accounts for more than a footnote in the book of God’s present dealing with humanity. Much as we might prefer to think otherwise, wisdom will not die with us.

At one time God raised up mighty Reformers. At another He raised up Puritans and Separatists. At still another He raised up the powerful preachers of the Great Awakening. All of those are gone now, but God is still doing His work. If someday the fundamentalist movement is relegated to the museum of theological curiosities, God will still be doing His work. He will still be God.

If it is true that fundamentalism is not everything that God is doing, it is also true that not all of fundamentalism is of God’s doing. In fact, not all of fundamentalism is worth saving. Fundamentalist structures have not infrequently been used to perpetrate abuses or to perpetuate silliness. If those districts of the fundamentalist movement were to disappear, we would be none the worse.

Lest I be misunderstood, let me make it clear that I do value fundamentalism. But the fundamentalism that I value is not essentially a movement or a collection of institutions. It is an idea. It is a good idea, even a great idea. As a friend once remarked, fundamentalism may have been the last great idea.

If we are going to talk about saving fundamentalism, then let us be clear that the thing we need to save is the idea. All of our associations, colleges, seminaries, mission agencies, preachers’ fellowships, networks, alignments, and coalitions are of value only to the extent that they maintain and perpetuate the idea. If they are not propagating the idea, then let them perish.

And here is the real problem: the idea of fundamentalism invariably gets mixed up with other ideas. It can get mixed up with populism, revivalism, imperialism, pragmatism, obscurantism, or any of a variety of unworthy ideas. It has even been known to get mixed up with fascism. Of course, the idea of fundamentalism can also be mixed together with worthy ideas, such as the variety of confessionalism and conservatism that emphasizes orthopathy alongside of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. This much is clear: nobody ever was simply a fundamentalist. Every fundamentalist has also been something else, and that “something else” has defined the quality of every variety of fundamentalism.

The only versions of fundamentalism that deserve to be saved are the ones that have mixed the idea of fundamentalism with other right ideas. Sadly, those versions of fundamentalism are in the minority. Not surprisingly, many of the upcoming generation have begun to wonder whether the fundamentalist movement is worth the effort that they are being asked to put into it. They are asking whether we might not be further ahead if the whole thing were simply obliterated and we were to start all over again.

If the fundamentalist movement continues to decline, even that choice will be taken out of our hands. For the moment, however, some of us are still committed to combining the idea of fundamentalism with other good and permanent ideas. And we need each other. We do not need territorialism or institutionalism. We need to build one another up in our most holy faith.

We are no longer trying to win a battle. We are trying to keep an idea (or a combination of ideas) alive. Some day, whether sooner or later, the fundamentalist movement will die. Our task is to articulate our key ideas, including the idea of fundamentalism, so clearly that those ideas will survive in whatever movements or structures may be erected in the future. If we fail in that task, then nothing else that we accomplish will matter.

October 23, 2008

The Election

The current election cycle has prompted me to end my blogging hiatus.  I recently e-mailed an essay on “Presidential Character” to a number of people. (For those interested, that essay can be read here.)  One of the recipients of my e-mail responded to me, which led to a brief e-mail exchange within the space of a couple of hours.

I’ll share our e-mails with you (leaving out some details which might identify the other gentleman). I believe many things are at stake in this upcoming presidential election. No doubt, future generations will someday look back on this moment as a watershed—for better or for worse—in our nation’s history.

The first response I received from this particular gentleman to the essay I sent out was the following:

Bro. Philip,

I have been a loyal Democrat for 47 years.  Your email does not sway me to switch horses.

My response to his response was . . .

Bro. _____,

Knowing you (what little I do know), there are 2 possibilities regarding your e-mail:

1.        You’re joking. (If so, I’ll chuckle with you.)

2.        You’re serious. (If so, I’m appalled.)

Sincerely,

Philip

His response to my response to his response was . . .

I don't believe in divorce. McCain is divorced. I don't subscribe to adultery. McCain is an adulterer. Sorry to rattle you but I am serious.

My response to his response to my response to his response to the essay I e-mailed him was . . .

Bro. _____,

I don’t believe in adultery and divorce, either. In fact, I don’t believe in sin at all—but that doesn’t keep me, or you, or anyone else from sinning.

I believe McCain is remorseful over those sins of adultery and divorce, as evidenced by his reply to Pastor Rick Warren regarding his greatest moral failure (“My greatest moral failing, and I have been a very imperfect person, is the failure of my first marriage. It’s my greatest moral failure.”).  Besides that point, however, instead of simply dwelling on what he did a number of years ago, we need to focus on him and Obama now.  One of them—unless God has decreed otherwise—will be our next president.

I do know that I prefer McCain (even though he wasn’t my first choice by a long stretch) over Obama for a few basic reasons:

1.        Obama unashamedly defends and promotes the murder of babies.  Notice the words of Proverbs 6:17-19 (emphasis mine): “These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, an heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.”  I can think of no human beings more innocent than unborn babies.  God hates (the Bible’s, not my, choice of words) abortion and abortionists—and those who defend this bloody, barbaric practice in the name of “choice” (certainly not the baby’s “choice”).

2.        Obama sat for 20 years under the “preaching” of Jeremiah Wright (who also performed his wedding ceremony and baptized his children).  We have all heard of his insane rage and hatred of this country as he desired God to “damn America.”

3.        Obama is married to a woman who has proclaimed that “for the first time in [her] adult life [she is] proud of [her] country.”  The only thing, therefore, she is proud of about the USA is that her husband is running for president.

4.        He is the friend of unrepentant (key word) terrorists who fought our own country in the 1960’s in bombing and other kinds of attacks.

5.        He is a socialist who promotes class envy and the redistribution of wealth.

6.        I could go on but I have other things to do.  Furthermore, if those 5 reasons aren’t convincing, none will be.

No doubt this won’t change the mind of someone who is unswervingly loyal to a party, but I did feel the need to respond.  That’s all I’ll say in this exchange.

Sincerely,

Philip

He did not respond to my response to his response to my response to his response to the essay I e-mailed him.

July 19, 2007

Calvinism and Romans 9

As you may or not have noticed . . . I haven’t blogged for awhile. I’ll not bore you with all the details behind this but a lot has been happening that has kept me busy on other projects.

What prompted to post now is a letter I received from Don Ross. Don and his wife, Betty, have been friends of our family since long before I was born. They were in seminary with my parents, Eldwyn and Alice June, in the 1940’s. Furthermore, the Rosses and my parents worked together in Brazil as missionaries for seven years (1959-1966). The Rosses, who arrived in Brazil before my folks, served in that country for over 30 years. The Lord eventually moved my parents on to Paraguay and then Chile.

Don e-mailed me some comments regarding the Calvinism issue which was on this blog back in April. I’m reproducing his comments verbatim below:

DOES ROMANS CHAPTER NINE REALLY SAY WHAT SOME THINK IT SAYS?

I never cease to be amazed at the way this chapter is used by my Calvinist brothers to establish their concept of God’s sovereignty in saving some and leaving others (or, as some say, appointing others) to eternal destruction. The problem seems to lie mostly in an interpretation of Rom. 9:21-23.

Two distinct purposes of God are indicated here in God’s strategy toward Pharoah (and now toward unbelieving Israelites, for this is the real issue of Rom. chaps. 9 through 11). Paul begins with the expression "What if…?" Paul uses the "Rabbinic" (or Semitic) method of argumentation against his opponents (unbelieving Jews) something akin to this: "What if (God did this or that), then what would you have to say to that?" Well, let us look at his premise: "God used tremendous patience and restraint in ‘enduring’ (tolerating) certain ‘vessels of wrath, fitted (prepared..not "appointed") for destruction…" The argument has been made that these vessels had been totally abandoned by God to a destination of hell-fire with no chance of recovery. If this were the meaning, we must ignore Paul’s argument in Rom. 2:3-5 (same objectors in mind, that is, Jews who pooh-poohed the idea that God, who had once chosen Israel, could now be rejecting hardened Jewish rejectors of salvation through Jesus, the Christ…They were the first Augustinian unconditional electionists!). He points out that they condemned themselves for the following reasons: "Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know11 that God's kindness leads you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness12 and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when God's righteous judgment is revealed!" NIV This clearly shows by what means these unrepentant Jews became "vessels of wrath", that is how they were "prepared for destruction". Note it does not say "who were BEFORE fitted out for destruction" as the verb "before prepared for glory" which is said of the "vessels of mercy". The truth is, if you go to hell, you personally choose freely to do so! And it is not merely for "being a depraved sinner" (though certainly that’s what the unbeliever is), but because of refusing to repent and believe in Jesus Christ. "He that believeth not is condemned already, BECAUSE he has NOT believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God". If language means anything, this verse says that a person is condemned to hell BECAUSE of his choice not to believe. The same is affirmed in II Thess. 2:10b and 12: "They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. …and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in (chosen) wickedness." NIV emphasis mine. (Note in following verses the contrast between these condemned and those whom God had chosen "through the sanctification of the Spirit and faith in the truth!" v. 13)) Which is all to say that God was sparing such "vessels of wrath" through His patience (according to Rom. 2 which is discussing the same problem of Jewish unbelief) in order to give them time for repentance (cf. with II Pet.3:9 which states the purpose of God’s "longsuffering" toward the wicked).

Another overlooked factor is that the Rom. 9 passage about God being the potter and the Israelites (Paul’s target audience) being the clay is based on Jer. 18:1-17. New Testament writers like Paul expected their Jewish hearers to connect any brief (or otherwise) quote from the O. T. to the CONTEXT of that passage. In this case, Paul’s argument in Rom. 9 becomes clear: Jeremiah was sent down to the "potter’s house" to learn an important lesson about God’s manner of dealing with Israel or "any nation". The potter is shaping the clay on his wheel into a certain vessel, but it is "marred (spoiled, ruined) in his hand". He then uses the SAME clay to form another kind of vessel. God asks the question of Israel through the pen of Jeremiah: "Don’t I have the same (sovereign) right to do the same thing with you, Israel, as the potter does with his clay?" He goes on to affirm that the principle is also true in his treatment of any other nation. If he has promised to bless that people, but they turn their backs on Him and say "we will do as we please and follow our own ways" God has the right to renege on the blessing and instead bring on them a calamity. The argument here is the same as Paul’s in Rom. 9: either way, whether they repent or rebel, God will get glory! And woe be unto the arrogant rebel who questions God’s right to do so!

As others have expressed, I have a good many great friends in the ministry who are either "moderate" or "hyper" Calvinists, and I do not hesitate to fellowship them because of their position. This is no "personal vendetta", but rather a brief statement to add to the discussion!

Don Ross
Hurst, TX
2007