MENU

Politics
Category

On August 22, 2013 By In Politics

Sometimes Smeagol is the reason the world gets saved, or Chelsea

mordor is DCNow that Bradley Manning has started campaigning for clemency on the basis of his alleged identity as Chelsea, a lot of Christians who are resisting the call to oppose mass homicide and tyranny are going to use his sexual perversions as an excuse to continue to resist that call. Since one of the other major players in this saga is the Leftist and homosexual Glenn Greenwald, the morality play is set for Christians to play the Punch and Judy show.

But we should know better. If Tolkien can make Gollum indispensable to overcoming Frodo’s faithlessness and breaking the power of the Dark Lord, we should know that such associations are not reasoned arguments.

Let us remember, what Bradley Manning showed us, no matter what he pretends about himself right now.

But that’s not enough. We can be more specific. Bradley Manning was homosexual with “gender confusions” (or is it transgender awakening? The narrative seems confused at this point). Iraqi veteran Ethan McCord was, as far as I can tell, solidly heterosexual.

Thus, we find that McCord could be controlled by his superiors:

I transcribed a couple of parts of the above video. [Note: vulgar army language! Content warning!] Beginning at about the 4-minute mark:

I picked him up in my arms and started running to the Bradly with him, the whole time telling him, “It’s going to be OK. Don’t die! Don’t dies!” At this point he looked up at me just for a split second. Then his eyes rolled back up into his head. At that moment I thought he had died in my arms. But I had gotten to the Bradley.

When I took him to the Bradley, my commanding officer, or [rather] my plattoon leader was there. He told me I needed to “quit worrying about these MFing kids” and to go pull security.

At the time the only thing I could think of was, you know, “Roger that,” and I went to pull security…

And now I’ll skip to six minutes in where we get to the point:

…but later on that night, while I was washing the blood of the children off of me, I couldn’t really cope with it. I was having a hard time dealing with the fact that we did that. The Apaches did that. So I went to my staff sergeant who was in my line, my chain of command, and I told him I think I need to go see mental health. I need to talk to somebody because I’m having a hard time dealing with what I had just seen, what I had witnessed, what I was a part of.

He laughed at me, and told me to get the sand out of my vagina and to quit being a pussy and to suck it up and to be a soldier.

And that, despite some internal pressure, put Ethan McCord back in line. His masculinity was used against him to get him to go against his better judgment.

So what would have happened if someone had tried to use that method of persuasion on Bradley Manning. He couldn’t be controlled that way. The handle wasn’t there to be grabbed.

I wish Manning was not seduced by the pansexual dark side. I wish he had done what he did from his integrity and courage without the sense of alienation making his decision easier for him to make. But the fact that the military’s culture was not able to keep him in line, even for a sinful reason, doesn’t mean the military was or is right to keep him in line.

Sexual perversity counts against Manning’s character, but it doesn’t count against what he was put on trial for. He revealed crimes that never should have been committed and never should have been kept secret. The cover up was directly related to the government’s propaganda efforts to manipulate the American public to comply with a act of aggression that was nationally self-destructive and deadly to the Iraqi people.

Whatever his other sins and evils, Manning fought the Beast and hurt it, however lightly. I can only thank God he did so. In my opinion, he stepped in while too many Christians were clutching after the ring of power.

Finally, one lesson here is that your virtues can be sources of weakness to anyone who knows them in advance. Your desire to be righteous and to have a righteous name can be used to intimidate you and make you doubt your own conscience. Be wary.<>в контакте рекламаseo оптимизация web а

Read more

On August 22, 2013 By In Politics, Theology

Military Intervention & Islamic Terrorism, pt. 2

When Gov. Chris Christie criticized Sen. Rand Paul‘s non-interventionism, he inevitably appealed to the events of September 11th, 2001. Indeed, 9/11 is the go-to argument for anyone wishing to make non-interventionists look naïve, insensitive and weak. This was a common tactic against Congressman Ron Paul during his recent presidential campaigns and it will no doubt be used against libertarian Republicans as we near 2016.

So, how should a Christian view Islamic terrorism and what should our response to it be? The mainstream narrative is that we were attacked on 9/11 because of our freedoms. On the day of the attacks and in the weeks to come, President Bush promoted this theory in his speeches:

“Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts…America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world.”

“They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.” (more…)

Read more

On August 10, 2013 By In Politics, Theology

Why Hating Government Keeps It In Power

rules-for-radicals“In any successful attack on freedom the state can only be an accomplice. The chief culprit is the citizen who forgets his duty, wastes away his strength in the sleep of sin and sensual pleasure, and so loses the power of his own initiative.” –Abraham Kuyper

Let us imagine that there is a nation somewhere that is ruled by a wicked government. Let us further imagine that God doesn’t like the nation’s current regime and is looking for a way to change it.

You’re thinking, “But God is omnipotent so he doesn’t ‘look for a way.'”

Right, but I’m speaking of God’s actions within certain God-ordained constraints. God said he would not destroy Sodom for the sake of ten righteous persons (Genesis 19). So we can say, without denying God’s omnipotence that he was looked for an excuse to save Sodom and didn’t find it.

But what would be the God-ordained constraint that would make Him “look for a way” to replace a wicked government with another.

In the case of regime-change, let’s assume God has more foresight than, say, American imperialists. He is not going to overthrow a government just to see it replaced with a worse one. He wants a better government to take the place of the one he wants to overthrow.

What that means is that God is going to look for an available group of people who can reliably govern.

(I realize various de-centralist ideals might cause some readers to ask why God would bother to replace it. But even if we are talking about fifty righteous independent state governments, or people with enough respect and understanding of property rights to produce a purely private sector order, the same factors will still apply.)

What kind of people will God look for?

Will he choose people who think that the world needs them to be in control because they alone are right?

Will he choose people who can’t tolerate opposition?

Will he choose people who respond to adversaries by lashing out?

Will he choose people who long to destroy all their enemies?

Look at it this way: Either the world is changed by God in his providence or he has left us alone to save ourselves. If the latter is true, then the qualities of a good ruler will be whatever are best suited to take power by any means necessary. Otherwise, he cannot ever gain power.

But if God gives authority to those he wants to have it, then other considerations should be important. If one wants to be put in power by God one must develop the will and skill to use power in a way that God commends. “Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master” (Matthew 25.21). In that case, gaining more power is not your primary responsibility. Your responsibility is learning to do well with what little power you already have.

Most people, when they have little power or wealth or responsibility of significance, tell themselves that their habits and speech don’t matter that much. But the Bible says differently. “One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much” (Luke 16.10)

Won’t God prefer people who are cheerful in adversity, humble about themselves, and able to extend mercy, be tolerant, and show prudence?

If God prefers these latter qualities, are they ones he is likely to find in hate-the government sub-cultures, even those that have a just cause?

Back when Obama was running for his first presidential term, it came out that he taught from Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals. Here’s the deal: the Bible has one of those. It is a book that talks about authority being wielded by the wicked and provides guidance for those who would like to see that authority transferred to the righteous.

So go read the book of Proverbs!

Proverbs will tell you that hard work and restraint of your mouth is a strategy for overthrowing tyrants. I know it sounds dodgy to use a Ghandi quotation as if he had anything in common with Solomon, but “Be the change you want to see in the world” does seem pretty close to the basic idea of Proverbs regarding social change. If you want your world to be governed well, show God you are sincere by governing yourself well. Train your children and select your friends to be God’s ideal ruling class without craving to rule anything or anyone. Let God give that to you or your progeny in his own timing.

If you want a new and better government you need to be one yourself first.<>консультантпримеры контекстной рекламы

Read more

On August 9, 2013 By In Politics

The snares of politics: Did David really learn from Abigail?

1 Samuel 25 – ESVBible.org.

david abigailThis is one of my favorite Bible stories. It shows David trying to run an honest protection racket as best he can. The pressure must have been immense. Consider who followed David:

David departed from there and escaped to the cave of Adullam. And when his brothers and all his father’s house heard it, they went down there to him. And everyone who was in distress, and everyone who was in debt, and everyone who was bitter in soul, gathered to him. And he became commander over them. And there were with him about four hundred men. (1 Samuel 22:1-2, ESV)

I don’t think you want four hundred “bitter of soul” men with swords hungry and angry at you. Later, after the group had grown to six hundred (1 Sam 27.2), they almost decided to stone David to death because of a defeat they suffered under his leadership (1 Sam 30.1-6).

So David upon hearing that a rich farmer/rancher was not going to provide rations for his militia, immediately promised to exterminate him and every male in his company, referring to them by their capacity to urinate standing up. In other words he deliberately reverts to crude soldier talk that depersonalizes the people he plans to murder (Notice the ESV totally euphemizes what David says about the men he promises to kill).

Abigail, the wife of Nabal the foolish ranch and farm owner, intercedes. She makes two things clear:

  1. Because of the exemplary behavior of David and his militia, it was reasonable and right for them to request and receive a gift of food.
  2. David’s intended response was sinful because it was both murder and self-aggrandizement.

Thus:

When Abigail saw David, she hurried and got down from the donkey and fell before David on her face and bowed to the ground. She fell at his feet and said, “On me alone, my lord, be the guilt. Please let your servant speak in your ears, and hear the words of your servant. Let not my lord regard this worthless fellow, Nabal, for as his name is, so is he. Nabal is his name, and folly is with him. But I your servant did not see the young men of my lord, whom you sent. Now then, my lord, as the Lord lives, and as your soul lives, because the Lord has restrained you from bloodguilt and from saving with your own hand, now then let your enemies and those who seek to do evil to my lord be as Nabal. And now let this present that your servant has brought to my lord be given to the young men who follow my lord. Please forgive the trespass of your servant. For the Lord will certainly make my lord a sure house, because my lord is fighting the battles of the Lord, and evil shall not be found in you so long as you live. If men rise up to pursue you and to seek your life, the life of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of the living in the care of the Lord your God. And the lives of your enemies he shall sling out as from the hollow of a sling. And when the Lord has done to my lord according to all the good that he has spoken concerning you and has appointed you prince over Israel, my lord shall have no cause of grief or pangs of conscience for having shed blood without cause or for my lord working salvation himself. And when the Lord has dealt well with my lord, then remember your servant.” (1 Samuel 25:23-31, ESV)

David responds in part by frankly admitting that he was intending on committing the sin of homicide. “Blessed be your discretion, and blessed be you, who have kept me this day from bloodguilt and from working salvation with my own hand!” Samuel 25:33, ESV) David doesn’t say his planned reprisal was justified he admits it would have left him guilty of what Abigail claimed: shedding blood “without cause.” He also admits that he, king though he may be, is supposed to allow room for the wrath of God, and allow YHWH to save him, rather than take his own vengeance. He should have trusted God to provide for his men and protect him from their anger.

So, in the past, I have seen this story as one with a happy ending. David turns away from murder and learns to not pillage even when he thinks he is being mistreated by a lack of hospitality. David has to somehow restrain himself from the real temptation of exercising power the way other kings would exercise it. And God vindicates Abigail’s word. God fights for David and kills Nabal once David has renounced his plan to commit his own vengeance.

So all’s well that ends well.

But the story doesn’t end well.

When David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, “Blessed be the Lord who has avenged the insult I received at the hand of Nabal, and has kept back his servant from wrongdoing. The Lord has returned the evil of Nabal on his own head.” Then David sent and spoke to Abigail, to take her as his wife. When the servants of David came to Abigail at Carmel, they said to her, “David has sent us to you to take you to him as his wife.” And she rose and bowed with her face to the ground and said, “Behold, your handmaid is a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord.” And Abigail hurried and rose and mounted a donkey, and her five young women attended her. She followed the messengers of David and became his wife.

David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel, and both of them became his wives. Saul had given Michal his daughter, David’s wife, to Palti the son of Laish, who was of Gallim. (1 Samuel 25:39-44, ESV)

The remark about Palti sets us up for one of the more sad scenes from David’s exaltation (2 Samuel 3.12-16). But apart from that, this story ends with David violating God’s commands for kings in Israel:

“When you come to the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,’ you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’ And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold. (Deuteronomy 17:14-17, ESV)

David, even in exile, is asserting his authority and kingly status by establishing a polygamous dynasty for himself. To David’s credit, it takes another generation for his precedent to work out to the full blown result in his son Solomon, whose heart is “turned away” by his wives. But it starts here. David thinks he knows what it means to be a king, and he has learned that it means to have several wives (and later concubines as well).

So did David really learn his lesson? I think the story ends with an ominous feeling. And it makes me re-read David’s own confession when he meets with Abigail:

And David said to Abigail, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, who sent you this day to meet me! Blessed be your discretion, and blessed be you, who have kept me this day from bloodguilt and from working salvation with my own hand! For as surely as the Lord, the God of Israel, lives, who has restrained me from hurting you, unless you had hurried and come to meet me, truly by morning there had not been left to Nabal so much as one male.” (1 Samuel 25:32-34, ESV)

Again, David doesn’t say “male,” but refers to urination methods to identify which sex he was going to kill. Perhaps I’m overly suspicious, but it seems as if David is still posturing for the sake of his men-at-arms. And why spell out what would have happened as an oath before God? (“For surely as the Lord, the God of Israel, lives..”) It makes me wonder if David still wants to re-assure people that he would have done the deed, rather than simply confess to wickedness.

Hard to say.

But I can say that the story shows us David being prevented from one sort of self-aggrandizement but seduced by another.

Does this story have a moral for us? I suppose some people think one should never read an OT story moralistically. Here we see that David, as a type of Christ, but still stuck in the corruption of the Old Adam, falls short of the one to Whom he points.

OK fine. But I still think there is a moral.

Politics is an arena fraught with temptation that can be covered easily with self-deception. People can avoid one danger and fall into another. Beware.

(cross-posted)<>разработка и изготовление овокна пвх реклама

Read more

On August 6, 2013 By In Politics, Theology

Military Intervention & Islamic Terrorism, pt. 1

This past week has given us two conflicting turn of events in the Republican camp. First, Gov. Chris Christie criticized Sen. Rand Paul for his non-interventionist foreign policy. This lead to an entertaining, back-and-forth feud between the two that still has the media talking. Secondly, Newt Gingrich – a self-proclaimed neoconservative – admitted on Sunday that he admires Paul’s non-interventionism and that he now questions the validity of our military adventures around the world. On one hand, we have a big government politician simply being himself. On the other hand, we have a big-government politician openly suggesting that his views may need to be reformed. If this shows us anything, it shows us that militarism and terrorism will be major topics in the Republican primaries of 2016. It’s important that Christian libertarians and constitutionalists have a firm position on both. Today, we’ll discuss military intervention.

I’ve written previously on what a biblical war policy looks like. In summary, God revealed to the Israelites that military violence should be a last resort and always defensive rather than aggressive. We might say the only exception to this rule was in regard to the inheritance nations listed in Deuteronomy 20:16-18. Israel was to destroy these nations in order to fulfill God’s promise to Abraham. This was the only type of aggressive war God allowed Israel to be involved in. They did defeat the nations and received their rightful inheritance (Jos. 21:43-45). In the New Covenant, the only type of aggressive war we are told to partake in is the Great Commission, converting people to Christianity through evangelism. The conditions for aggressive war have been fulfilled but the defensive-only policy still stands. (more…)

Read more

On August 5, 2013 By In Politics

A Neo-Conservative Repents!

Repentance is the turning away from one view of the world to another. This theological definition may fit well this story. This is not the Onion reporting. This is not a Paleo-Conservative dreaming. There is actual news that a self-proclaimed Neo-Conservative has offered a form of apology. Neo-Conservatives have never been the type to offer apologies, so what is happening? A representative view of the Neo-Conservative philosophy comes from the lips of its greatest advocate in the last fifty years, George W. Bush:

Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well — a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.

This high liturgical rhetoric is inspirational. But it lacks one component to it: truth.  Bush, who took the interventionist foreign policy to heavenly bliss in his eight years at the White House, is now long gone, but the “freedom voices” have continued in his footsteps. Or have they? Giuliani’s furious response to Ron Paul in the 2008 election was a symbolic echo of Bush’s foreign policy. In those days invoking 9-11 was a blank check to say whatever you wanted in the public arena. Giuliani used it well and often. In fact, even his close friends were getting tired of it.

But the times, they are a-changin’.

Ron Paul and his “wacko birds”–to use McCain’s kind description–have been on a tour. They have used the large sums of money that flowed continually during this past election season, and like good capitalists they have invested well. They travel and educate; preparing the next generation through an abundance of resources. Paul has since retired and his insanely accurate prophecies have virtually all come to pass. The nanny state has left America filled with orphans, as the old sage predicted. But though orphans, mommy still reserves the right to check up on them when convenient through one of her demons called The National Surveillance Agency. Be that as it may, the tide is changing.

And then enters Newt Gingrich, that old fox; lover of foreign interventions. He has come to the American public and made a confession. In an interview with the Washington Times, Gingrich says that U.S. military interventions in the Middle East geared to “export democracy” didn’t work and a better focus is on “American interests.”  “I am a neoconservative. But at some point, even if you are a neoconservative, you need to take deep breath to ask if our strategies in Middle East have succeeded,” Gingrich tells the Times, adding that countries where the religion and culture are not hospitable to Western values haven’t been the best breeding grounds for change.”  Is this a death-bed confession? Is this Gingrich’s last attempt at joining the winning side as 2016 nears? Is Gingrich hoping the American public hears his confession and bestows an indulgence? Whatever the answer, Gingrich has uttered the unthinkable; perhaps a mortal sin. He admitted that a) the Middle East is no friend to America’s democracy dreams, and b) that a country’s agenda is first and foremost to the interest of her own people.

Gingrich also took the time to compliment Rand Paul. The former presidential candidate sees Rand Paul’s cautious foreign policy as something to be considered. The Kentucky Senator sees foreign wars as a last resort. Neo-Conservatives have never pondered a last resort; they have always relied on the first. Whether Gingrich is seeking asylum from his failed policies or not, one thing is sure at least in word: a Neo-Con has repented! Time to slay the calf and party!<>siteраскрутка а оплата по факту

Read more

On August 5, 2013 By In Politics

J Gresham Machen understood the tyranny of laws over the prosperity of spontaneous order

At the time I’m writing these words, we have experienced almost a week of technical problems making our website unavailable. I have been constantly checking and re-checking the site because I have wanted to post this excellent piece by J. Gresham Machen. Dr. Machen was the leader of the conservative or “fundamentalist” resistance to modernism or liberalism in the American churches (he was Presbyterian but the scope of his work went beyond his denominations). To give the reader some idea of his importance in history and his greatness as a man, I have also appended the obituary for him that was penned by the notorious (and delightful) infidel, H. L. Mencken.

These anti-pedestrian laws are intended either for the protection of the pedestrian, or for the convenience of the motorist. In either case . . . they are wrong.

If they are intended to protect the pedestrian from himself, they are paternalistic. I am opposed to paternalism. Among other far more serious objections to it is the objection that it defeats its own purpose. The children of some over-cautious parents never learn to take care of themselves, and so are far more apt to get hurt than children who lead a normal life. So I do not believe that in the long run it will be in the interests of safety if people get used to doing nothing except what a policeman or a traffic light tells them to do, and thus never learn to exercise reasonable care. (more…)

Read more

On August 1, 2013 By In Culture, Politics, Theology

A Life of Plunder: The First Temptation of Foolishness

wal-martProverb begins with a promise of, and praise for, the value of wisdom. Verse 7 warns that fools despise it and/or being instructed in it.

But the first warning Proverbs gives of a specific sin seemed, at first, counter-intuitive to me:

Hear, my son, your father’s instruction,
and forsake not your mother’s teaching,
for they are a graceful garland for your head
and pendants for your neck.

My son, if sinners entice you,
do not consent.
If they say, “Come with us, let us lie in wait for blood;
let us ambush the innocent without reason;
like Sheol let us swallow them alive,
and whole, like those who go down to the pit;
we shall find all precious goods,
we shall fill our houses with plunder;
throw in your lot among us;
we will all have one purse”—
my son, do not walk in the way with them;
hold back your foot from their paths,
for their feet run to evil,
and they make haste to shed blood.
For in vain is a net spread
in the sight of any bird,
but these men lie in wait for their own blood;
they set an ambush for their own lives.
Such are the ways of everyone who is greedy for unjust gain;
it takes away the life of its possessors. (Proverbs 1:8-19, ESV)

Why is this temptation the first concern of wisdom”

After the Fall, as we find it recorded in Genesis 3, the first big sin was brother murdering brother–the sin of Cain against Abel. One might be inclined, at first glance to associate this story with Solomon’s warning to resist the lure, “let us ambush the innocent without reason.” But I don’t think that hold’s up. Here “without reason” isn’t referring to the motivations of a psychotic thrill killer (though there is a hint in much of Proverbs that this way of life leads to an addictive thrill), but it means simply unjustly–that is, “without cause.”

Cain was motivated by resentment due to God’s approval of Abel. That is not the temptation here in Proverbs 1. Rather, the bloodshed is a means to an end. The temptation here is for a life of plunder, a shortcut to wealth:

we shall find all precious goods,
we shall fill our houses with plunder;
throw in your lot among us;
we will all have one purse…

Such are the ways of everyone who is greedy for unjust gain.

So of all the sins that could possibly head the list in Proverbs, why does Solomon start with the temptation to join a gang and acquire loot? Why is a life of plunder the first temptation?

A general observation: From my reading in Proverbs, I think the main concern is how people drift into sin–how they start down a wrong path. If so, it is not surprising that Cain’s sin wouldn’t be the forefront. His hatred of Abel, who had done him no harm at all, and from whose death he gained nothing, seems to go far beyond what we have here in the beginning of Proverbs.

If my instinct is right to look back at the first stories of Genesis as the background to Biblical wisdom (stories that include a contrast between God’s way and humanity’s way to “become wise”) perhaps we should go back earlier than the story of Cain and Abel. Rather than looking for a negative example of embracing a life of plunder, we might look for a corresponding positive command.

The first recorded command in the Bible is to embrace a life of productivity:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Genesis 1:26-28, ESV)

So what are the alternatives. If you don’t want to take dominion over world, you survive and attempt to thrive by taking dominion over people. If you don’t live by being fruitful, you find those who have done so and cut them off, stealing the fruits of their life and labors.

Notice how rejecting God’s ways are parasitic. Someone has to work the land and produce good things by labor and exchange. Without such people, human life is impossible. But some find it tempting to let others do the work, and then take a shortcut by using violence to plunder such people.

One implication of all this which I believe Proverbs repeatedly addresses, is that it is not enough to repudiate plunder. Knowing you should not steal or rob is insufficient. You have to embrace as best you can a life of work and savings and investment. Otherwise, you will always find yourself tempted to resort to the other means of acquisition. In fact, by failing to work, you’ve taken the first step toward theft.

I can’t help but think of the national media campaigns against Wal-mart and McDonald’s for the crime of not handing over more cash to their employees. I’ve written several times about this recently:

One way to teach plunder is to rationalize it as if it was owed. While people who have truly wrecked the economy (a crime perpetrated by as many Republicans as anyone else, by the way) are only given a passing glance, or even treated as saviors, companies who have no control over the economy, and who depend on the will of consumers to live, are used as scapegoats.

If laws are passed to match these impulses, we can say of the reduced employment and/or string of bankruptcies that result: “these men lie in wait for their own blood; they set an ambush for their own lives.”<>регистрация а googleтехническая поддержка а в контакте

Read more

On July 30, 2013 By In Politics

Would You Let the State Take 61% From You?

Two weeks ago Phil Mickelson won the British Open. He received 1.43 million dollars in prize money. He was allowed to keep around $570,000.  Who got the rest? England and the State of California where Phil Mickelson lives.

Phil Mickelson1

Let’s work this out for all those, who like me, are not great with math. Imagine you make $50,000 per year and the state takes 61%. What would that look like? You would bring home $19,500. Imagine you make $75,000 per year and the state took 61%. You would bring home $29,250. I think you get the picture. No average person would stand for the state taking 61% of their income. Some may complain that England is the one levying the taxes, not the U.S. But if you earned $50,000 on English soil would you be happy if the English took $22,500 (45%)? Would you be happy if your home state took 13.3% of your earnings every year before Medicare, Social Security, etc.? That would be $6,500 out of your $50,000 going to the state.  In the U.S. the average federal tax on the top 1%, those households averaging 1.4 million, is 35.5%.  So if you live in California and made $50,000 and were taxed at the same rate as Phil Mickelson, you would pay 13.3% in state taxes and 35.5% in federal taxes.  You would be handing over $24,400 to the government and that does not include Social Security, Medicaid, or self-employment taxes. Would you stand for this? S0 why are we happy to let them to do it to others? Why do we think it is okay to take excessive amounts of money from men, who have lawfully earned it, just because they have more than others?

Before asking a few questions about excessive taxation, here is a quick primer on the poor and rich in Scripture.

As Christians, we know that those to whom much is given, much is required. Paul says in I Timothy 6:17-19 that the wealthy are to be rich in good works and not trust in their riches. The rich are to give more.  We also understand that all Christians have an obligation to care for the poor. So wealthy Christians should give often and a lot, but they should give secretly (Matthew 6:1-4) and wisely.

In Exodus 30:15 the rich and the poor both give 1/2 a shekel. In Leviticus 14:21 the poor could give less than the rich, but this was not a percentage less. In other words, it wasn’t the rich offering 35% and the poor offering 3%. It was poor bringing less numerically because the poor had less numerically.  The poor brought one male lamb (vs. 21) instead of the two male lambs and the one ewe lamb of the rich (vs. 10).  Oppressing the poor was always forbidden. This is clear in the year of Jubilee instructions (Leviticus 25; see also Deuteronomy 15). The rich were supposed to provide ways for the poor to get food, such as not gleaning to the edges of the field or gathering fallen grapes (Leviticus 19:10 and 23:22).  There does not appear to any civil penalty for not doing these things, but the Lord does hear the cry of the poor and will avenge them.

Throughout the OT the poor and the rich are to be treated with equity by the law.   For example in Exodus 23:2-3 it is clear that poor and rich are both entitled to justice. Notice especially verse 3, which says we are not to show partiality to the poor. Leviticus 19:15 says something similar. The poor do not get special treatment in court. There is more about the poor in the prophets. In these texts there is no indication that the state should take more, percentage wise, from the rich simply because they have more and give it to the poor.  So let me be clear. I am not saying the poor should be ignored. Nor am I a saying the rich have no obligation to do good deeds. What I am saying is the state does not have a Scriptural right to steal from the rich to give to the poor. Theft perpetuated by the government against the rich is still theft.

Christian pastors should encourage the wealthy among them to give with cheerful hearts to those who need it. But Christian pastors should also call excessive taxation what it is: codified theft. And they should say it from the pulpit. Finally, Christian pastors should encourage their congregation to ask, “Would you want someone doing that to you? Then why do you vote for men who do it to other people?”

Here are few more questions  about excessive taxation.

Do we really believe that the state will be wiser with Phil’s $830, 000 than Phil would be?  All around us is economic disaster fueled by the policies of the state (see Detroit) and yet the state wants us to trust them with more and more of our money. What would Phil have done with money? He would have invested it somewhere, which normally leads to jobs and economic prosperity for many.  Does anyone actually believe that Phil’s money won’t be lost in endless cesspool of government programs that bear no fruit?

Do we believe it is okay to steal from someone simply because they have more? Envy is explicitly forbidden by Scripture (Mark 7:22, Romans 1:29, I Corinthians 13:4). And yet Christians often buy into the rhetoric that because the guy is driving a Porsche instead of a Ford Escort we can steal from him. Envy is what drives 99% of the efforts to increase taxes. They have more than they deserve and we are going to take it back. Christians must reject this way of thinking.

Do those who push higher taxes suffer from the higher taxes themselves? Often the answer to this is no. Both the poor and politicians often vote or push for higher taxes when they are not subject to.  Just like Congress avoids the consequences of their own legislative decisions.

Do we really believe that the poor and weak among us are helped by receiving stolen funds? Has any government program for the poor actually produced less poor people? Why can we not look at the last 20 years of fiscal policy and see that it has not worked? Do we really believe the government, state or federal, actually cares about the poor?

Can we not see that these policies will eventually lead to more and more money being taken from everyone? Why stop with Phil Mickelson? Why not take Phil Smith’s money as well? Maybe we should tax the upper 25% at this rate instead of just the upper 1%.

Finally, those who get money back from the government during tax season, would you be willing to pay your share? There are numerous Americans who pay no Federal taxes at all. Often Christians rejoice when they get a refund, such as Earned Income Credit, etc.  As Christians, we should be willing to pay taxes. We should not rejoice in the government taking more from the rich so I have to pay less.

In the end, excessive taxation of the rich is theft that creates less jobs, hurts the economy, destroys the desire to earn more, cultivates envy and class strife, oppresses the poor, and opposes the freedom that comes from God.<>как узнать pr страницы

Read more

On July 29, 2013 By In Politics

Reza Aslan’s “Zealot” and the Jesus Seminar

The news of Fox News’ Islamaphobia has gone viral. And what is the proof of such hatred of Muslims? The proof is an interview with Professor Reza Aslan’s concerning his new book Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. 

The interview is supposed proof that Fox News orchestrated this interview as a further demonstration of its anti-Islam bias. The host seems intrigued that Professor Aslan is writing a book about Jesus when he is a Muslim. She implies that when a Muslim writes about Jesus there is then a definite agenda at play. Aslan responds incredulously:

I am a scholar of religions with four degrees including one in the New Testament . . . I am an expert with a Ph.D. in the history of religions . . . I am a professor of religions, including the New Testament–that’s what I do for a living, actually . . . To be clear, I want to emphasize one more time, I am a historian, I am a Ph.D. in the history of religions.

If this is the case, is he then justified in making some of the claims in the book? One assertion made in the book, according to Aslan, is that Jesus was an illiterate Jew. a

In Chapter 4 he writes,

Whatever languages Jesus may have spoken, there is no reason to believe that he could read or write in any of them, not even Aramaic. Luke’s account[s of Jesus’s literacy] … are both fabulous concoctions of the evangelist’s own devising. Jesus would not have had access to the kind of formal education necessary to make Luke’s account even remotely credible. b

This is a rather comic observation, especially in light of the fact that Luke himself is committed to accurately writing from detailed witness accounts (Lk. 1:2). The same Luke concludes that Jesus grew in wisdom, stature, and in favor of God and man (Lk. 2:52). Another observation is that when Jesus opens the Isaianic scroll he not only reads it, but also explains it revealing his rabbinic reputation.

Further, as Alan Jacobs writes at the American Conservative, Aslan’s conclusions are nothing new. They are simply following the general outline of The Jesus Seminary guru, John Dominic Crossan. Crossan and others argued in the 80’s and 90’s that Jesus did not say the majority of things he claimed to say.  Part of this conclusion meant attributing certain colors according to degree of certainty. Red meant the sayings of Jesus were authentic. The other colors pink, gray, and black were used to claim whether a saying of Jesus was paradoxical or not said by Jesus.

But a more embarrassing fact for Aslan’s assertion is that they are false, especially as it relates to his repeated mention of his Ph.Ds in history. As Matthew Franck writes in First Things:

None of these degrees is in history, so Aslan’s repeated claims that he has “a Ph.D. in the history of religions” and that he is “a historian” are false.  Nor is “professor of religions” what he does “for a living.” He is an associate professor in the Creative Writing program at the University of California, Riverside, where his terminal MFA in fiction from Iowa is his relevant academic credential. It appears he has taught some courses on Islam in the past, and he may do so now, moonlighting from his creative writing duties at Riverside. Aslan has been a busy popular writer, and he is certainly a tireless self-promoter, but he is nowhere known in the academic world as a scholar of the history of religion. And a scholarly historian of early Christianity? Nope.

One must also conclude that though the Fox News host (Laura Green) did not appear to be particularly interested in the book’s content as much as the book’s author, she was right to challenge his credentials as a Muslim. As Kuyperians we know well that to expect a Muslim to represent Jesus accurately is an impossibility. Therefore, the author’s claim to neutrality concerning our blessed Lord is an academic sham and should be seen for what it is: another public attack upon Jesus, the Messiah.<> аренда 8-800

  1. Alan Jacobs writes: Aslan asserts that Luke was a conscious fabulist. Yet even if Luke were wrong about Jesus’s literacy — or about anything else — there is more than one way to explain those errors. For instance, Richard Bauckham’s important and much-celebrated book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses — which Aslan appears not to know — makes a strong case that Luke’s Gospel, like the others, is based on the testimony of those who claimed to be eyewitnesses. Especially since Luke places such emphasis on his attempt to gather reliable witnesses to the life of Jesus, wouldn’t it make sense to attribute his errors (if they exist) to his interviewees’ lively imaginations or poor memories, and to his own credulousness, rather than to intentional deception? Yet Aslan never considers any other possible explanation than the one he blandly asserts without argument.  (back)
  2. From Alan Jacob’s “More About Reza Alan’s Zealot”  (back)

Read more