Featured Sponsors
Christian Living Resources, Bible Study Tools, Jesus Christ
Recently Posted
RSS This Blog-
Thomas Jefferson said, “Liberty is to the collective body, what health is to every individual body. Without health no pleasure can be tasted man; without liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society.”Monday, June 15, 2009It Was For Freedom Christ Has Set Us Free
The sham election just completed in Iran dangled the carrot of freedom in the face of a liberty-starved populace and the result has been stunning. Even the religious and politically all power Mullahs could not have predicted three days of the biggest and most anti-government protests since the 1979 Islamic revolution. The faint flicker of the flame of hope that all dictators allow to shine for the briefest of moments just so they can snuff if out, fostering despair and resignation; burst into an unexpected and passionate flame at the possibility of the election of Mirhossein Mousavi. As the Iranian people flooded into the streets of Tehran they chanted, “we fight, we die!” Mousavi said he was “ready to pay any price” as he continued his fight against election irregularities.
Reuters news agency reported, “Some formed a human chain in front of the Basij Islamic militia.” The militia opened fire, causing chaos as some died in the street and thousands more ran for their lives. But still the people refused to disperse. They responded to the bloodshed by chanting, “tanks and guns have no use any longer.” It was a faint echo of the slogans that filled the air prior to the 1979 revolution. It could be an echo that rises to a deafening chorus as the Iranian people find their voice to demand they be granted a full course of the freedom that have yet merely tasted.
Will this be the moment the Iranian people cast off the shackles of theocratic totalitarianism in favor of some measure, however small, of liberty? Realistically, the chance of full revolution is remote. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the worst kind of puppet dictator. He is a theocratic, religious madman who believes he can singlehandedly bring about the glorious return of world Islamic domination. Even if Mousavi were to somehow manage to wrest power from Ahmadinejad, he would simply be a slightly less mad alternative. The Mullahs, the Supreme Leader, and the Council of Guardians are where the real power of Iran rests. This triumvirate of evil will not allow real revolution. They will provide the illusion of an investigation into the so called “election irregularities” but it will be merely an illusion. The findings will support Ahmadinejad, therefore the only hope of freedom for the Iranian people lies in their determination to possess it.
Just as the people of Romania faced down the guns of the Communist despot Nicolae Ceausescu in the revolution of 1989, and just as the people of Poland embraced “Solidarity” which led to free elections also in 1989; so must the people of Iran refuse to allow this small flicker of liberty to be snuffed out. In Romania the crowd, surrounded by soldiers with orders to fire, tore open their shirts and marched straight into the guns. The army refused to fire on their countrymen freedom rose from the rubble of tyranny.
The story of freedom is a story that fires the soul of every true American. The image the statue of Saddam Hussein being ripped from its foundation by throngs of grateful Iraqis drunk with their first intoxicating taste of freedom bring tears to our eyes. The sight of proud Iraqis holding up their purple finger in the face of death threats takes us back to our own fight for freedom. On a cold Boston night, December 16, 1773, a group of 200 patriots descended upon three ships operated by the East India Company and threw the hated cargo into Boston harbor. It wasn’t the tax, the tea itself, or even the harsh actions of the British government that started a revolution that has become and inspiration to millions around the world. It was the idea, the possibility, no matter how faint, that people might be allowed to govern themselves. A people who would transform thirteen original colonies into the most powerful, free nation the world has ever seen.
What will the Obama administration do in the face of this cry of freedom rising from Iran? Will President Obama speak brave words of freedom that might just become the wind that will fan the flames of freedom? Will he call the election a sham and call for the Iranian government to hear the cry of the people? Just as it is not likely the Iranian government will permit the voice of freedom to prosper, it is not likely President Obama will take sides. The political costs would be too high. The President has invested too much in the idea of diplomacy based on his personal powers of persuasion to risk having all diplomatic efforts rejected if the revolution in Iran fails to fully materialize. He is in an understandably precarious political position.
But imagine for just a moment the President calling a press conference. He notifies the national news media outlets and requests all T.V. networks to broadcast his remarks around the world via satellite. The room is packed and the air is filled with the anticipation of what the President will say. Imagine, just imagine the President stepping up to the microphone, clearing his throat and saying in a confident voice amplified by the spirit of freedom, “To the people of Iran…the people of the United States support your quest for freedom. Stand firm and look behind you. You will see the spirit of freedom.”
Yes…as one trained in the discipline of hermeneutics, I know the proper context of Galatians 5:1 is freedom from the law unto grace. But even so, those words of Paul fire the soul of freedom in me. I pray that I will never lose my sense of gratitude that it is for freedom that Christ has set me free. I pray that I will always have the courage to add my voice to people everywhere when they raise their voice for freedom.
-
Not long after we learned our ABC’s in grade school we learned to recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. For the past two decades the words “under God” have been considered controversial because of our cultural wrangling over whether or not it is appropriate to mention God in public. What seemed like a natural expression of who we are as a society in 1954 has led to multiple modern day legal challenges seeking to remove the phrase on the grounds that some find any mention of God offensive.Monday, June 8, 2009President Obama Wants "Liberty and Empathy For All"
But now it seems President Obama is seeking surreptitiously to change the pledge once again. By citing empathy as a key characteristic of a qualified Supreme Court Justice, the President, whether he realizes it or not, is seeking to replace the concept of blind justice with a form of justice that is built on feeling rather than objective truth. A simple, working definition of empathy would be the ability to identify with, or otherwise vicariously experience the emotions, thoughts, and feelings of another person.
Any potential Supreme Court nominee who brings empathy to the judicial equation removes the blindfold from lady justice and provides her with rose colored glasses which will allow justice to bent in favor of the background or circumstance of the people involved rather than the rule of law. That action would be a direct violation of the part of the Supreme Court Justice Oath of Office that says, “I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” It is impossible enter into the feelings a person may have based on their race, gender, background, or life circumstances and then render a decision “without respect to persons.”
Commenting on his reason for refusing to vote to give Justice John Roberts a seat on the Supreme Court, even though he acknowledged, “There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land” then Senator Obama said, “he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak.” To then Senator Obama, now Chief Justice Roberts’s knowledge of the law and his ability to apply the law rightly protecting both the strong and the weak became a reason to disqualify him from office.
When Senator Obama asked Roberts about how he viewed balancing the rights of the weak and the strong, Roberts answered and he saw the law and the court as a means of leveling the playing field between the strong and the weak. Roberts was right in that it is the law and the right application of the law by the court that balances the field, not the empathy of the justices.
The examples Senator Obama used as to when a justice would need to rule in favor of the weak over the strong included affirmative action and a woman’s so-called “right to privacy.” But in Roe vs. Wade, a majority of the justices found the rights of a weak, helpless, unborn child to be subservient to the rights of a strong, healthy female. And the main purpose of affirmative action is to make a person’s race a position of strength in order to weaken the idea of equality based on the strength of individual qualifications.
During the press conference announcing Justice David Souter would be retiring this summer, President Obama spoke about the qualifications he would look for in a replacement. Empathy became the centerpiece of those qualifications when Obama said, “I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”
In nominating Sonya Sotomayor to fill Souter’s seat, President Obama found his champion of empathy. Speaking at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley in 2001, Sotomayor said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” She was questioning the famous notion often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Conner that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.
Given the comment in its context, Sotomayor obviously believes empathy is a key ingredient in making wise judicial decisions. While her comments about a wise Latina woman have received the most press they are by no means the only example of her intention to take gender and race into consideration in her case renderings. At the same conference in 2001, Sotomayor said, “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging”(emphasis mine).
When confronted with Sotomayor’s remarks, President Obama said he is “sure she would have restated it.” But just last week, five boxes of files were delivered to Capitol Hill filled with the speeches and writings of Sotomayor. A quick look at those speeches reveal an almost verbatim repeating of her remarks in speeches given in 2002 and 2003. A fact that would suggest she often reiterated her position and rather than restating it.
Her appointment to the Supreme Court would certainly correspond with President Obama’s theme of change. Her judicial philosophy would exchange empathy for blind justice, and change the motto of the Supreme Court from “Equal justice under the law” to “Empathy for all under the law.” Eventually, we would need to change the Pledge of Allegiance to “liberty and empathy for all."
-
The brutal murder of George Tiller inside the foyer of the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita may signal the end of reasoned discourse concerning controversial issues. Without doubt, George Tiller was a symbol of all that is wrong with the pro-abortion position in America. He performed late term abortions with some bordering on infanticide.Monday, June 1, 2009Tiller's Murder May Destroy Civil Discourse
While his actions were inexcusable, they certainly didn’t warrant the execution of vigilante justice doled out by a misguided crusader for the unborn. If our culture is going to survive we must all agree to adhere to the rule of law and keep our disagreements, no matter how passionate or critical, within the boundaries of reasonable protest and civil discourse.
George Tiller’s murder illustrates the irony of ironies. The taking of a life in the pursuit of the sanctity of human life is absurd. It falls in the category of someone who would set fire to a forest to bring attention to the importance of trees. If life is precious it is precious inside and outside the womb. The life of George Tiller was precious because he was created in the image of God and he carried the possibility of redemption…until Scott Roeder, allegedly acting as judge, jury and executioner removed that possibility.
I have heard the arguments that suggest the law has failed to protect the unborn and therefore taking the law in our own hands is the only way to restore their protection. People with good intentions but misguided thinking invoke the name of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his involvement in the Abwehr plot to kill Hitler in Nazi Germany as justification for extreme measures in the defense of life.
While it is true once Bonhoeffer realized the extent of Hitler’s atrocities against the Jews he decided he had to take drastic measures to stop him, it should be noted that Germany was in a state of war and the only rule of law was Hitler’s rule as a dictator. Bonhoeffer resisted Hitler from the beginning. Two days after Hitler was installed as Chancellor, Bonhoeffer attacked him in a radio address and was taken off the air in the middle of a sentence. He could have called for the death of Hitler long before the war but he realized as long as there were avenues of redress within the law to stop Hitler that must be his course.
After spending some time in Great Britain and America, Bonhoeffer eventually returned to Germany and joined the resistance that eventually plotted to take Hitler’s life. Every avenue of resistance was exhausted and Bonhoeffer felt he had no choice but to join those would intervene through violence. But even then, he became a double agent of the Abwehr (German military resistance to Hitler) and worked within the framework of military resistance to try to end Hitler’s reign of terror. He didn’t just pick up a gun in a free society and execute a form of vigilante justice.
That appears to be exactly what Scott Roeder is alleged to have decided to do. He allegedly picked up a gun, walked into the foyer of a church, and violated the sanctity of life by depriving George Tiller of his life.
But Roeder didn’t make his desperate decision to intervene in the middle of a war or under a dictator where a mad man suspended the rule of law. He made his decision in a society that still offers the opportunity for peaceful dissent through a representative government. Every time we go to the polls and vote we have the power protect life by electing representatives who believe life is sacred.
We are not reduced to violence or vigilantism in a constitutional republic. If we need to start pointing fingers in the direction of who is responsible for the continued death of the unborn maybe we should start by pointing in a mirror. We all have the opportunity to make our voices heard through the political process.
Other than an act of barbarity (and yes, I realize Tiller was guilty of barbaric acts against unborn children) I fail to see what the murderer of George Tiller hoped to accomplish. The clinic where Tiller worked is scheduled to be open next Monday. Someone will step into Tiller’s shoes and the death of the unborn will continue.
Those who wish to use this act to paint pro-life adherents, as extremist will waste little time in doing so. Most people found Homeland Security’s inclusion of people who are pro-life, pro-second amendment rights and pro-legal immigration on a watch list of possible domestic terrorists to be over the top. Now, many people will wonder if the inclusion was valid.
Those of us who are pro-life must not let the death of George Tiller chill our resolve to continue to speak out in defense of life. We must redouble our efforts to peacefully, prayerfully and purposefully to defend all life through the power of the ballot box, counting on the power of God through the Holy Spirit to be our guide.
-
I am beginning to wonder if principles still have a place in a post- modern world. I am also starting to feel somewhat like a dinosaur for believing that principles should always take precedent over the prestige of a national platform. That should be especially true if the platform is attached to the largest and most revered Catholic University in America.Tuesday, May 12, 2009Notre Dame Trades A Platform for Principle
But on May 17th, Notre Dame will join the ranks of those with stars in their eyes and a lack of starch in their spin. They will allow President Barack Obama, the most pro-abortion rights President in our nation’s history, to address their graduating class. His place of honor will be a moment of dishonor for devout Catholics around the world who believe that life begins at conception and should therefore be proclaimed by the Church and protected by law.
Opinions on Obama’s visit are split between those who believe he deserves to speak because he holds the office of president and those who believe he should be disqualified because he holds no respect for the sanctity of life. So far, at least 60 Catholic bishops have publicly denounced the visit and at least 354,000 people have signed various petitions expressing their outrage. Bishop John D’Arcy, the Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend, issued a statement describing his thoughts about Obama’s role in the sanctity of life debate. “While claiming to separate politics from science, he has in fact separated science from ethics and has brought the American government, for the first time in history, into supporting direct destruction of innocent human life.”
But not everyone agrees that President Obama should not be allowed to speak. In fact, the consensus on campus seems to be that any president should be welcomed at Notre Dame. The Observer, the Notre Dame campus newspaper reported receiving 313 letters from alumni and 299 letters from students. Seventy percent of the alumni letters strongly disagreed with Obama’s visit while Seventy-three percent of students supported the scheduled appearance. Thomas Heitker, freshman biology major, expressed the personal conflict between principles and prestige saying, “We can’t just forgive his viewpoints, we can’t just let it go without expressing out thoughts on it. But he’s only speaking at three universities this year and to be one of out so many is something we should be proud of.” Clearly for Heitker, the prestige that comes with a presidential visit trumps the viewpoints that defy forgiveness.
Of course, it should be noted that President Obama has not asked for forgiveness over his views on abortion. After declaring during the Saddleback debate that the ultimate question of when life beings was “above his pay grade,” President Obama must have received a substantial pay raise shortly after his inauguration. He moved swiftly and confidently to send American tax dollars around the world to pay for abortions and he seemed to be very sure that life is expendable when he sentenced countless human embryos to be sacrificed on the alter of questionable science.
Perhaps the most bizarre twist to this already twisted tail comes with the realization that Notre Dame, in inviting President Obama to speak and award him an honorary degree, is violating a 2004 directive issued by the U.S. Conference of Bishops. The directive reads: “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” Notre Dame’s action of ignoring the Bishops directive sets up a collision of ideology and theology between Catholic religious leaders and the educators who are supposed to support and teach Catholic doctrine. Trading the defense of Catholic Church teaching for a personal audience with the most powerful political leader in the world will leave the Catholic Church with little or no moral authority.
In Haggai’s day, God condemned the children of Israel for “living in paneled houses while the house of God remains a ruin.” How much more will God condemn those who live in the false security that comes with the prestige of this world while the truth of His Word is set aside? Perhaps those who believe Notre Dame should turn a blind eye to President Obama’s views on abortion should consider the question of Amos who asked, “Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so?” Or maybe they would be swayed by the words of Paul who said, “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” Surely they would resonate with the words of Jesus in Matthew 12:30, “He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.”
First, Georgetown University agrees to cover the symbol of Jesus at the request of the Obama Administration and now Notre Dame agrees to honor Obama by giving him a platform of plausibility in the eyes of the world. It appears that at least among Catholic educators, the precepts and principles of God’s Word are taking a back seat to the prestige of the office of President of the United States.
-
Since the election of President Obama, marriage has been under a relentless assault as proponents of same-sex marriage sense the tide of public opinion turning in their favor. The new White House website, which was posted on the day of President Obama’s inauguration, calls for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. In relatively quick succession, the Iowa and Connecticut state supreme courts declared same-sex marriage legal and Vermont became the first state to pass same-sex marriage through their legislature. The people of Iowa have yet to have their say in the matter and it is likely, if the legislature will allow it, there will be a constitutional amendment protecting marriage on a future Iowa ballot that will pass with plenty of votes to spare.Monday, May 4, 2009The Church Needs A Marriage Apologetic
While it is true same-sex marriage activists suffered a major setback in California with the passage of Proposition 8, they haven’t lost heart because recent national poll numbers suggest traditional marriage may be on the way out. Two very biased polls, one conducted by CBS News and the other conducted by Newsweek, suggest that support for same-sex marriage is surging. The CBS poll reported forty-two percent believed same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry while only twenty-eight percent said they should have no legal recognition. The poll also revealed twenty-five percent would support civil unions. What CBS fails to mention is that those who favor no legal recognition and those who favor civil unions both agree that same-sex couples should not be allowed to legally marry. That means the split is actually forty-two percent in favor of same-sex marriage and fifty-three percent opposed. But of course the reader comes away from the presentation of the date believing the majority favor same-sex marriage.
The Newsweek poll skews the numbers in a similar way, combining those who approve of civil unions with those who approve full marriage benefits to create the illusion that a majority of Americans are now favor of full marriage rights for homosexual couples. But a close look at the numbers shows those who are in favor of civil unions oppose full marriage rights.
The latest and most extensive polling data comes from Quinnipiac University and offers some encouragement for those who believe in biblical marriage. The poll, released last Thursday, is based on a survey of 2,041 registered voters nationwide and claims to be one of the most comprehensive polls ever on the attitudes of Americans on a variety of gay-rights questions. The poll found strong support for the protection of traditional marriage with fifty-five percent favoring a ban on same-sex marriage in their state and only thirty-seven percent approving.
But other questions concerning homosexuals did not turn out so well for those who hold to traditional, biblical values. Fifty-six percent said the ban on gays in the military should be repealed while just thirty-seven percent supported the current ban. Perhaps the most disappointing result came in the form of the answer to the question about gay adoption. Fifty-three percent believed homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt while forty percent support a ban against same-sex adoptions.
How did we get to this point in our culture? Just twenty-five years ago almost eighty-percent of Americans were opposed to homosexual unions of any kind and homosexual couples adopting children was unthinkable. How have we strayed so far, so fast from God’s Word on homosexual behavior?
I believe there are two causes for this incredible shift in cultural attitudes toward sexual behavior. First, people are bombarded today with pro-homosexual images in the culture through movies, television, the Internet, and through the mainstream news media. The public school system is busy teaching future generations about Heather’s two mommies and what it means to have two dads. The end result is being gay is now cool to a whole generation of Americans.
The second fault for shifting values on sexuality falls squarely on the teaching of the local church. Many churches have abandoned their “watchman on the wall” roll in the culture leaving their leaders fearful of preaching the whole counsel of God’s Word concerning the sin of homosexuality. Many have abandoned the defense of the traditional family and therefore, the defense of marriage for fear of alienating the lost people they are trying to reach. While radical homosexual advocates continue to shout down those like Carrie Prejean, (Miss California) who dare to publically express their support for the traditional family, the pulpits of America barley speak above a whisper when it comes to a biblical defense of traditional marriage.
For now, a slim majority of Americans still believe biblical marriage should be protected by law. However, there is a strong and disturbing trend toward the acceptance of same-sex marriage. If that trend is going to be reversed, the reversal must begin with a powerful, Spirit-filled, and spirited defense of marriage from the churches. Christian pastors, teachers, and other church leaders need to find their prophetic voice, speaking the truth in love to a generation that is on the verge of embracing a lie.
