Dear Friends:
The bean-counters have struck again – this time in the sports pages. Two New York Times sport writers have discovered that baseball coaches from minority groups are found more often coaching at first base than at third base. Moreover, third-base coaches become managers more often than first-base coaches.
This may seem to be just another passing piece of silliness. But it is part of a more general bean-counting mentality that turns statistical differences into grievances. The time is long overdue to throw this race card out of the deck and start seeing it for the gross fallacy that it is.
At the heart of such statistics is the implicit assumption that different races, sexes and other subdivisions of the human species would be proportionately represented in institutions, occupations and income brackets if there was not something strange or sinister going on.
Although this notion has been repeated by all sorts of people, from local loudmouths on the street to the august chambers of the Supreme Court of the United States, there is not one speck of evidence behind it and a mountain of evidence against it.
Ask the bean-counters where in this wide world have different groups been proportionally represented. They can’t tell you. In other words, something that nobody can demonstrate is taken as a norm, and any deviation from that norm is somebody’s fault!
Anyone who has watched football over the years has probably seen numerous black players score touchdowns – and rarely is it a black player that kicks the extra point. Is this because of some twisted racist who doesn’t mind black players scoring touchdowns but hates to see them kicking the extra points?
At our leading engineering schools – M.I.T., Caltech, etc. – whites are under-represented and Asians over-represented. Is this anti-white racism or pro-Asian racism? Or are different groups just different?
As for baseball, there are more blacks playing centerfield than third-base. Since the same people hire centerfielders and third-basemen, it is hard to argue that racism explains the difference.
No one says it is racism that explains why blacks are over-represented and whites under-represented in basketball. Bean-counters only make a fuss when there is a disparity that fits their vision or their agenda.
Years ago, a study was made of the ethnic make-up of military forces in countries around the world. Nowhere was the ethnic make-up of the military the same as the ethnic make-up of the population, or even close to the same.
Nearly half the pilots in the Malaysian air force were from the Chinese minority, rather than the Malaysian majority. In Nigeria, most of the officers were from the southern tribes and most of the enlisted men were from the northern tribes. Similar disparities have been common among various groups in many places.
In countries around the world, all sorts of groups differ from each other in all sorts of ways, from rates of alcoholism to infant mortality, education and virtually everything that can be measured, as well as in some things that cannot be quantified. If black and white Americans were the same, they would be the only two groups on this planet who are the same.
One of the things that got us started on heavy-handed government regulation of the housing market were statistics showing that blacks were turned down for mortgage loans more often than whites. The bean-counters in the media went ballistic. It had to be racism, to hear them tell it.
What they didn’t tell you was that whites were turned down more often than Asians. What they also didn’t tell you was that black-owned banks also turned down blacks more often than whites. Nor did they tell you that credit scores differed from group to group. Instead, the media, the politicians and the regulators grabbed some statistics and ran with them.
The bean-counters are everywhere, pushing the idea that differences show injustices committed by society. As long as we keep buying it, they will keep selling it – and the polarization they create will sell this country down the river.
Respectfully,
Mark
Monday, September 27, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Render Unto Caesar That Which is Caesar's
Dear Friends:
Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?” ”Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away. [Matthew 22:15-22]
You don’t hear much from the pulpit about taxes, but we should not forget that it was oppressive taxation which ignited the American Revolution. Sure, we were taught that the war started because of “taxation without representation”, but I ask you, if the taxes were not oppressive in the first place, would our forefathers have even cared whether they were represented?
Let’s review our history. The year is 1765 – eleven years before declaring our independence from Britain. Parliament imposed a small tax on colonial paper. It was called the Stamp Act. Official transactions had to be printed on taxed paper. So did newspapers. So did playing cards. The paper had to receive an official government stamp from tax collectors who were sent to the colonies.
The response was immediate. “We shall not submit to such tyranny!” Tax collectors were chased out of town, tarred and feathered by mobs, and otherwise treated in ways that would get you ten years in jail today. It was a widespread tax revolt. Most colonists decided that they were not going to pay the tax. One year later, Parliament backed down and repealed the Stamp Act. Clearly, the colonists of 1765 saw the tax imposed by the Stamp Act as oppressive.
The very next year, in 1767, Parliament passed the Townsend Act which imposed lots of taxes on imported goods. Unlike the Stamp Act, the colonists did not consider as oppressive the taxes imposed by the Townsend Act and consequently, did not resist.
The one exception took place in 1768, when customs agents impounded one of John Hancock’s ships. Three years earlier, back in 1765, John Hancock had inherited a shipping company from his uncle making him the richest man in New England. In response to his ship being impounded by British customs agents, Hancock organized protests by writing letters attacking taxation and the quartering of British troops in cities. The resulting riots in Boston persuaded the governor to call in the British Navy. The presence of the Navy and British troops in Boston was a constant irritant to the people who lived there. The troops stayed until March, 1776, some eight years later. On the other hand, the Townsend duties lasted five years and were eventually repealed in 1770, except for a symbolic duty on tea.
Sam Adams saw an opportunity for some political mischief and in December, 1773, he persuaded a group of colonial tea merchants to conduct what has become known as the Boston Tea Party. The merchants dressed up as Indians, boarded a ship belonging to the British East India Company, and tossed a bunch of their tea overboard into the harbor of Boston. The British retaliated by closing the port of Boston which gave Adams a chance to organize a national protest. On April 19, 1775, the American Revolution began in Concord, Massachusetts, when colonists shot and killed British troops in a successful effort to protest the tax on tea.
So, what the colonists considered as excessive taxation ignited the American Revolution. The truth is, however, the total tax burden imposed by the British Empire on the colonies at the outset of the American Revolution was approximately 1% of income in the North, and about 2.5% in the South. It was over this “intolerable tax tyranny” that Americans fought and died for seven years.
Now, it is important to note that our forefathers were not poor, oppressed individuals. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Sam Adams – they were all men of means – wealthy men. Yet, they felt so strongly about these “excessive taxes” that they were willing to risk everything they had to oppose them – even their very lives. Think about it, had the American Revolution failed, do you think that the King of England would have allowed these men to carry on their respective businesses? Of course not, the King would have had these men thrown into prison and probably executed.
The fact that our forefathers fought for their independence from England in response to oppressive taxation raises several questions, however. Was the revolution justified by Scripture? If not, then what should be the Christian’s response to oppressive taxation?
Let’s look to our life manual which contains several examples of oppressive taxation. It is important to note that in each instance, the oppressive taxation was a result of that nation’s apostasy. In other words, the Bible teaches us that when a nation rejects God as its provider and savior, the result is oppressive taxation.
You should further take note that oppressive taxation is not the problem, it is a symptom of the problem. It is an indicator that a nation has rejected God.
Let us consider the story of Joseph. He was the favored son of his father, Jacob. And his brothers hated him because of it. His brothers hated him so much that they plotted to murder him, but Rueben convinced the other brothers not to and so Joseph was sold as a slave to a band of Ishmaelites and wound up in Egypt.
Now Egypt was not a Christian nation. They did not worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Rather, the Egyptians worshipped Pharaoh as their god. The people of Egypt looked to Pharaoh as their provider and savior.
As if things weren’t bad enough for Joseph, he was eventually thrown in jail for something he did not do.
But Joseph had a knack for interpreting dreams. And the Pharaoh had some dreams that even the smartest men in Egypt could not interpret. But Joseph did.
According to Joseph, Pharaoh’s dreams meant that Egypt would experience seven years during which food would be plentiful followed by seven years of terrible drought. But Joseph did not merely interpret Pharaoh’s dreams, he also outlined a plan to overcome the disastrous effects of a drought. What an opportunist!
Pharaoh bought into Joseph’s plan and as a result, Pharaoh made him the second most powerful man in Egypt subject only to the Pharaoh. Joseph was only thirty years old at the time. Joseph’s task was to collect food during the seven good years and store it for use in the seven years of drought so that the people of Egypt would not starve.
So, for the next seven years, Joseph confiscated food from the people of Egypt. In fact he confiscated a fifth of all that was produced during the seven years of plenty. A fifth – that’s 20% – two times the tithe. A 20% tax on production. Think about what is happening here. Pharaoh – the government – through his appointed agent – Joseph – forcibly confiscated 20% of all the food produced by the people for seven years – all based upon one man’s interpretation of some dreams. Does that sound reasonable? And remember, Joseph was a Jew – a foreigner – who came to Egypt as a slave. Furthermore, Joseph was a criminal – although wrongly accused – but nevertheless we would consider him a criminal because of his time spent in prison. What if our President declared war on another country based upon a criminal’s interpretation of the President’s dreams? Why, he would be immediately subjected to impeachment proceedings, wouldn’t he? Well, those sort of things happen when you place your faith in the government, rather than our Creator.
As it turns out, however, Joseph was right. After seven good years, a drought hit. And was it a drought. In fact, it was so terrible that the people of Egypt completely forgot about the seven good years. Isn’t it interesting how the bad things in life can sometimes make us forget about the good things in life?
So, Joseph opened up the warehouses and sold grain to the people. Did you catch that? The government forcibly confiscated the people’s property and then made the people pay to get it back! Talk about a win-win proposition for the government!
So how did it end?
There was no food, however, in the whole region because the famine was severe; both Egypt and Canaan wasted away because of the famine. Joseph collected all the money that was to be found in Egypt and Canaan in payment for the grain they were buying, and he brought it to Pharaoh’s palace. When the money of the people of Egypt and Canaan was gone, all Egypt came to Joseph and said, “Give us food. Why should we die before your eyes? Our money is used up.” ”Then bring your livestock,” said Joseph. “I will sell you food in exchange for your livestock, since your money is gone.” So they brought their livestock to Joseph, and he gave them food in exchange for their horses, their sheep and goats, their cattle and donkeys. And he brought them through that year with food in exchange for all their livestock. When that year was over, they came to him the following year and said, “We cannot hide from our lord the fact that since our money is gone and our livestock belongs to you, there is nothing left for our lord except our bodies and our land. Why should we perish before your eyes – we and our land as well? Buy us and our land in exchange for food, and we with our land will be in bondage to Pharaoh. Give us seed so that we may live and not die, and that the land may not become desolate.” So Joseph bought all the land in Egypt for Pharaoh. The Egyptians, one and all, sold their fields, because the famine was too severe for them. The land became Pharaoh’s, and Joseph reduced the people to servitude, from one end of Egypt to the other. However, he did not buy the land of the priests, because they received a regular allotment from Pharaoh and had food enough from the allotment Pharaoh gave them. That is why they did not sell their land. Joseph said to the people, “Now that I have bought you and your land today for Pharaoh, here is seed for you so you can plant the ground. But when the crop comes in, give a fifth of it to Pharaoh. The other four-fifths you may keep as seed for the fields and as food for yourselves and your households and your children.” ”You have saved our lives,” they said. “May we find favor in the eyes of our lord; we will be in bondage to Pharaoh.” So Joseph established it as a law concerning land in Egypt – still in force today – that a fifth of the produce belongs to Pharaoh. It was only the land of the priests that did not become Pharaoh’s. [Genesis 47:13-26]
So, the people of Egypt ultimately became slaves to the government of Egypt. Why? Because they did not look to God as their provider and savior, but rather looked to Pharaoh – a man. There is no neutrality. Either God is our provider, or man is.
Let’s consider another example of oppressive taxation – the nation of Israel. After Moses led the nation of Israel out of slavery in Egypt, he set up a government consisting of a hierarchy of judges – judges over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens. The nation of Israel operated under this hierarchy of judges for about 400 years. During this period, the only tax levied by the government was the atonement tax which was a tax collected only during the taking of a census and only from males twenty years old and older because these were the only individuals counted during a census. The women and children were not counted. Each individual paid the exact same amount – a half shekel (about 28 cents in today’s currency). They each paid this amount irrespective of whether they were rich or poor. [Exodus 30:11-16] In addition to the atonement tax, the government also collected fines from law breakers. This atonement tax and the fines collected was all the revenue that the government needed to operate. And yet, the nation of Israel had everything they needed. They were living in the land of milk and honey.
After about 400 years had passed, the High Judge over Israel was a man named Samuel. Now, Samuel was a Godly man and an honest judge. But, many of the other judges were not, and corruption was widespread throughout the government. Such corruption is the result of apostasy. The people of Israel became weary of this corruption and asked Samuel to appoint a king as other countries have. In other words, the people of Israel wanted to be like the rest of the world, rather than a chosen people set apart from the other nations. In other words, the people of Israel rejected God as their provider and savior. When you reject God as your provider and savior, guess who steps up to take His place? Man.
Well, Samuel warned the people of what would happen when man takes the place of God.
This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day. [I Samuel 8:11-18]
Basically, Samuel warned the Israelites that rejecting God would result in oppressive taxation. And guess what, it did. Solomon, the third king of Israel, placed heavy tax burdens upon the people in order to build his magnificent temple, as well as all of his palaces for his 500 wives, and other majestic and extravagant buildings throughout Israel.
After Solomon died, and his son, Rehoboam, succeeded him as king, the people of Israel came to Rehoboam and asked him to give them relief from the heavy tax burden that Solomon had placed upon the people. But Rehoboam would not reduce the burden, and instead, made the burden heavier. He told the people, “My father made your yoke heavy; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions.” [I Kings 12:14] And the people of Israel rebelled. Rehoboam was left as king only of the people who lived in the territory of Judah. Rehoboam never had the opportunity to be king over the whole nation of Israel.
So, we see that oppressive taxation also leads to rebellion and division among God’s chosen people.
Where are we today? Do you believe that the taxes imposed upon us by our various levels of government are oppressive? According to the organization Americans for Tax Reform, for the year 2010, July 31 marked the day upon which the average Mississippi resident earned enough to pay for his or her share of government spending – federal, state, and local – plus the cost of government regulation. That amounts to about 58% of your gross income. In 2009, cost of government day for Mississippians was July 18, or about 55% of gross income. And in 2008, the cost of government day was June 30, or about 50% of gross income.
To put it another way, during the year 2010, we were Uncle Sam’s slaves from January 1 through July 31. How much longer before we are Uncle Sam’s slaves all year long?
The Bible is clear: When the civil government collects as much in taxes as God demands in the form of a tithe – 10% – the nation has moved into tyranny. It has moved in the direction of Egypt, and remember, the Egyptian citizens willingly placed themselves in bondage to the government. To get back to the tyranny of Egypt – 20% of production – the various levels of government today would have to cut taxes by more than half. So again, do you believe that the taxes imposed upon us by our various levels of government are oppressive?
Concerning the Israelites in Samuel’s era, it is important to note that they wanted a change in administration. They wanted a highly centralized government. They wanted all authority in one man – the king. They voted for it. And they got what they asked for.
How much like those Israelites are we today? We keep looking to the government to provide for us. Think about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. To whom did the people look for salvation from that devastating hurricane? The government.
What about all the flooding in the Midwest? Again, people looked for salvation to come from the government.
What about health care. People, even well meaning Christians, think that it is the government’s responsibility to fix the health care system. Same goes for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the farm program, education, poverty, etc.
Remember, oppressive taxation is not the problem – it is a symptom. Much like a fever is a symptom of a greater problem – an infection of some sort. You can treat the fever – the symptom – but the problem will not go away. Likewise, you can treat oppressive taxation directly by lowering the tax rates, but until you treat the problem – a general rejection of God – oppressive taxation will only become more oppressive.
We must turn our back on man as our provider and savior, and return to God. That’s what repentance is all about. To turn around – to move in the opposite direction – to change your heart. The Bible says, “When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people, if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” [II Chronicles 7:13-14]
Therefore, to return to God we must do four things. First, as a nation, we must humble ourselves. As a nation, we must submit all things to our Creator who has endowed us with certain unalienable rights. As a nation, we must openly and publicly acknowledge His power and His authority over us and over His creation.
Second, as a nation, we must pray. As a nation, we must get on our knees before our Creator and confess our sins against Him. Then, as a nation, we must beg His forgiveness.
Third, as a nation we must openly and overtly seek our Creator’s face. As a nation, we must relearn what God’s Word says concerning the proper place and the proper authority of government. As a nation, we must rediscover the legitimate authority which our Creator has granted to government. And, as a nation, we must implement God’s commands concerning the legitimate authority of government. We must reestablish the display of the Ten Commandments in our court rooms, and on all government property.
Finally, as a nation, we must turn away from our wicked ways. We must openly and overtly acknowledge that we are a Christian nation and those who do not approve can either change (be saved) or leave. There is no room for other religions. As a nation, we must repent of our evil deeds.
Only after these four steps are taken by us as a nation, as a people – openly, overtly, and publicly – will God heal our land. Only then, will our Creator restore us to the nation we were meant to be.
The Bible teaches us that “People do not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.” [Deuteronomy 8:3] And Jesus referred to this principle. [Matthew 4:4 & Luke 4:4] Our Creator is our provider and our savior, and we, as a nation, must recognize that fact or we will become slaves to Caesar – and God will not answer us when we cry out for relief from Caesar.
Respectfully,
Mark
Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?” ”Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away. [Matthew 22:15-22]
You don’t hear much from the pulpit about taxes, but we should not forget that it was oppressive taxation which ignited the American Revolution. Sure, we were taught that the war started because of “taxation without representation”, but I ask you, if the taxes were not oppressive in the first place, would our forefathers have even cared whether they were represented?
Let’s review our history. The year is 1765 – eleven years before declaring our independence from Britain. Parliament imposed a small tax on colonial paper. It was called the Stamp Act. Official transactions had to be printed on taxed paper. So did newspapers. So did playing cards. The paper had to receive an official government stamp from tax collectors who were sent to the colonies.
The response was immediate. “We shall not submit to such tyranny!” Tax collectors were chased out of town, tarred and feathered by mobs, and otherwise treated in ways that would get you ten years in jail today. It was a widespread tax revolt. Most colonists decided that they were not going to pay the tax. One year later, Parliament backed down and repealed the Stamp Act. Clearly, the colonists of 1765 saw the tax imposed by the Stamp Act as oppressive.
The very next year, in 1767, Parliament passed the Townsend Act which imposed lots of taxes on imported goods. Unlike the Stamp Act, the colonists did not consider as oppressive the taxes imposed by the Townsend Act and consequently, did not resist.
The one exception took place in 1768, when customs agents impounded one of John Hancock’s ships. Three years earlier, back in 1765, John Hancock had inherited a shipping company from his uncle making him the richest man in New England. In response to his ship being impounded by British customs agents, Hancock organized protests by writing letters attacking taxation and the quartering of British troops in cities. The resulting riots in Boston persuaded the governor to call in the British Navy. The presence of the Navy and British troops in Boston was a constant irritant to the people who lived there. The troops stayed until March, 1776, some eight years later. On the other hand, the Townsend duties lasted five years and were eventually repealed in 1770, except for a symbolic duty on tea.
Sam Adams saw an opportunity for some political mischief and in December, 1773, he persuaded a group of colonial tea merchants to conduct what has become known as the Boston Tea Party. The merchants dressed up as Indians, boarded a ship belonging to the British East India Company, and tossed a bunch of their tea overboard into the harbor of Boston. The British retaliated by closing the port of Boston which gave Adams a chance to organize a national protest. On April 19, 1775, the American Revolution began in Concord, Massachusetts, when colonists shot and killed British troops in a successful effort to protest the tax on tea.
So, what the colonists considered as excessive taxation ignited the American Revolution. The truth is, however, the total tax burden imposed by the British Empire on the colonies at the outset of the American Revolution was approximately 1% of income in the North, and about 2.5% in the South. It was over this “intolerable tax tyranny” that Americans fought and died for seven years.
Now, it is important to note that our forefathers were not poor, oppressed individuals. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Sam Adams – they were all men of means – wealthy men. Yet, they felt so strongly about these “excessive taxes” that they were willing to risk everything they had to oppose them – even their very lives. Think about it, had the American Revolution failed, do you think that the King of England would have allowed these men to carry on their respective businesses? Of course not, the King would have had these men thrown into prison and probably executed.
The fact that our forefathers fought for their independence from England in response to oppressive taxation raises several questions, however. Was the revolution justified by Scripture? If not, then what should be the Christian’s response to oppressive taxation?
Let’s look to our life manual which contains several examples of oppressive taxation. It is important to note that in each instance, the oppressive taxation was a result of that nation’s apostasy. In other words, the Bible teaches us that when a nation rejects God as its provider and savior, the result is oppressive taxation.
You should further take note that oppressive taxation is not the problem, it is a symptom of the problem. It is an indicator that a nation has rejected God.
Let us consider the story of Joseph. He was the favored son of his father, Jacob. And his brothers hated him because of it. His brothers hated him so much that they plotted to murder him, but Rueben convinced the other brothers not to and so Joseph was sold as a slave to a band of Ishmaelites and wound up in Egypt.
Now Egypt was not a Christian nation. They did not worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Rather, the Egyptians worshipped Pharaoh as their god. The people of Egypt looked to Pharaoh as their provider and savior.
As if things weren’t bad enough for Joseph, he was eventually thrown in jail for something he did not do.
But Joseph had a knack for interpreting dreams. And the Pharaoh had some dreams that even the smartest men in Egypt could not interpret. But Joseph did.
According to Joseph, Pharaoh’s dreams meant that Egypt would experience seven years during which food would be plentiful followed by seven years of terrible drought. But Joseph did not merely interpret Pharaoh’s dreams, he also outlined a plan to overcome the disastrous effects of a drought. What an opportunist!
Pharaoh bought into Joseph’s plan and as a result, Pharaoh made him the second most powerful man in Egypt subject only to the Pharaoh. Joseph was only thirty years old at the time. Joseph’s task was to collect food during the seven good years and store it for use in the seven years of drought so that the people of Egypt would not starve.
So, for the next seven years, Joseph confiscated food from the people of Egypt. In fact he confiscated a fifth of all that was produced during the seven years of plenty. A fifth – that’s 20% – two times the tithe. A 20% tax on production. Think about what is happening here. Pharaoh – the government – through his appointed agent – Joseph – forcibly confiscated 20% of all the food produced by the people for seven years – all based upon one man’s interpretation of some dreams. Does that sound reasonable? And remember, Joseph was a Jew – a foreigner – who came to Egypt as a slave. Furthermore, Joseph was a criminal – although wrongly accused – but nevertheless we would consider him a criminal because of his time spent in prison. What if our President declared war on another country based upon a criminal’s interpretation of the President’s dreams? Why, he would be immediately subjected to impeachment proceedings, wouldn’t he? Well, those sort of things happen when you place your faith in the government, rather than our Creator.
As it turns out, however, Joseph was right. After seven good years, a drought hit. And was it a drought. In fact, it was so terrible that the people of Egypt completely forgot about the seven good years. Isn’t it interesting how the bad things in life can sometimes make us forget about the good things in life?
So, Joseph opened up the warehouses and sold grain to the people. Did you catch that? The government forcibly confiscated the people’s property and then made the people pay to get it back! Talk about a win-win proposition for the government!
So how did it end?
There was no food, however, in the whole region because the famine was severe; both Egypt and Canaan wasted away because of the famine. Joseph collected all the money that was to be found in Egypt and Canaan in payment for the grain they were buying, and he brought it to Pharaoh’s palace. When the money of the people of Egypt and Canaan was gone, all Egypt came to Joseph and said, “Give us food. Why should we die before your eyes? Our money is used up.” ”Then bring your livestock,” said Joseph. “I will sell you food in exchange for your livestock, since your money is gone.” So they brought their livestock to Joseph, and he gave them food in exchange for their horses, their sheep and goats, their cattle and donkeys. And he brought them through that year with food in exchange for all their livestock. When that year was over, they came to him the following year and said, “We cannot hide from our lord the fact that since our money is gone and our livestock belongs to you, there is nothing left for our lord except our bodies and our land. Why should we perish before your eyes – we and our land as well? Buy us and our land in exchange for food, and we with our land will be in bondage to Pharaoh. Give us seed so that we may live and not die, and that the land may not become desolate.” So Joseph bought all the land in Egypt for Pharaoh. The Egyptians, one and all, sold their fields, because the famine was too severe for them. The land became Pharaoh’s, and Joseph reduced the people to servitude, from one end of Egypt to the other. However, he did not buy the land of the priests, because they received a regular allotment from Pharaoh and had food enough from the allotment Pharaoh gave them. That is why they did not sell their land. Joseph said to the people, “Now that I have bought you and your land today for Pharaoh, here is seed for you so you can plant the ground. But when the crop comes in, give a fifth of it to Pharaoh. The other four-fifths you may keep as seed for the fields and as food for yourselves and your households and your children.” ”You have saved our lives,” they said. “May we find favor in the eyes of our lord; we will be in bondage to Pharaoh.” So Joseph established it as a law concerning land in Egypt – still in force today – that a fifth of the produce belongs to Pharaoh. It was only the land of the priests that did not become Pharaoh’s. [Genesis 47:13-26]
So, the people of Egypt ultimately became slaves to the government of Egypt. Why? Because they did not look to God as their provider and savior, but rather looked to Pharaoh – a man. There is no neutrality. Either God is our provider, or man is.
Let’s consider another example of oppressive taxation – the nation of Israel. After Moses led the nation of Israel out of slavery in Egypt, he set up a government consisting of a hierarchy of judges – judges over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens. The nation of Israel operated under this hierarchy of judges for about 400 years. During this period, the only tax levied by the government was the atonement tax which was a tax collected only during the taking of a census and only from males twenty years old and older because these were the only individuals counted during a census. The women and children were not counted. Each individual paid the exact same amount – a half shekel (about 28 cents in today’s currency). They each paid this amount irrespective of whether they were rich or poor. [Exodus 30:11-16] In addition to the atonement tax, the government also collected fines from law breakers. This atonement tax and the fines collected was all the revenue that the government needed to operate. And yet, the nation of Israel had everything they needed. They were living in the land of milk and honey.
After about 400 years had passed, the High Judge over Israel was a man named Samuel. Now, Samuel was a Godly man and an honest judge. But, many of the other judges were not, and corruption was widespread throughout the government. Such corruption is the result of apostasy. The people of Israel became weary of this corruption and asked Samuel to appoint a king as other countries have. In other words, the people of Israel wanted to be like the rest of the world, rather than a chosen people set apart from the other nations. In other words, the people of Israel rejected God as their provider and savior. When you reject God as your provider and savior, guess who steps up to take His place? Man.
Well, Samuel warned the people of what would happen when man takes the place of God.
This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day. [I Samuel 8:11-18]
Basically, Samuel warned the Israelites that rejecting God would result in oppressive taxation. And guess what, it did. Solomon, the third king of Israel, placed heavy tax burdens upon the people in order to build his magnificent temple, as well as all of his palaces for his 500 wives, and other majestic and extravagant buildings throughout Israel.
After Solomon died, and his son, Rehoboam, succeeded him as king, the people of Israel came to Rehoboam and asked him to give them relief from the heavy tax burden that Solomon had placed upon the people. But Rehoboam would not reduce the burden, and instead, made the burden heavier. He told the people, “My father made your yoke heavy; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions.” [I Kings 12:14] And the people of Israel rebelled. Rehoboam was left as king only of the people who lived in the territory of Judah. Rehoboam never had the opportunity to be king over the whole nation of Israel.
So, we see that oppressive taxation also leads to rebellion and division among God’s chosen people.
Where are we today? Do you believe that the taxes imposed upon us by our various levels of government are oppressive? According to the organization Americans for Tax Reform, for the year 2010, July 31 marked the day upon which the average Mississippi resident earned enough to pay for his or her share of government spending – federal, state, and local – plus the cost of government regulation. That amounts to about 58% of your gross income. In 2009, cost of government day for Mississippians was July 18, or about 55% of gross income. And in 2008, the cost of government day was June 30, or about 50% of gross income.
To put it another way, during the year 2010, we were Uncle Sam’s slaves from January 1 through July 31. How much longer before we are Uncle Sam’s slaves all year long?
The Bible is clear: When the civil government collects as much in taxes as God demands in the form of a tithe – 10% – the nation has moved into tyranny. It has moved in the direction of Egypt, and remember, the Egyptian citizens willingly placed themselves in bondage to the government. To get back to the tyranny of Egypt – 20% of production – the various levels of government today would have to cut taxes by more than half. So again, do you believe that the taxes imposed upon us by our various levels of government are oppressive?
Concerning the Israelites in Samuel’s era, it is important to note that they wanted a change in administration. They wanted a highly centralized government. They wanted all authority in one man – the king. They voted for it. And they got what they asked for.
How much like those Israelites are we today? We keep looking to the government to provide for us. Think about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. To whom did the people look for salvation from that devastating hurricane? The government.
What about all the flooding in the Midwest? Again, people looked for salvation to come from the government.
What about health care. People, even well meaning Christians, think that it is the government’s responsibility to fix the health care system. Same goes for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the farm program, education, poverty, etc.
Remember, oppressive taxation is not the problem – it is a symptom. Much like a fever is a symptom of a greater problem – an infection of some sort. You can treat the fever – the symptom – but the problem will not go away. Likewise, you can treat oppressive taxation directly by lowering the tax rates, but until you treat the problem – a general rejection of God – oppressive taxation will only become more oppressive.
We must turn our back on man as our provider and savior, and return to God. That’s what repentance is all about. To turn around – to move in the opposite direction – to change your heart. The Bible says, “When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people, if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” [II Chronicles 7:13-14]
Therefore, to return to God we must do four things. First, as a nation, we must humble ourselves. As a nation, we must submit all things to our Creator who has endowed us with certain unalienable rights. As a nation, we must openly and publicly acknowledge His power and His authority over us and over His creation.
Second, as a nation, we must pray. As a nation, we must get on our knees before our Creator and confess our sins against Him. Then, as a nation, we must beg His forgiveness.
Third, as a nation we must openly and overtly seek our Creator’s face. As a nation, we must relearn what God’s Word says concerning the proper place and the proper authority of government. As a nation, we must rediscover the legitimate authority which our Creator has granted to government. And, as a nation, we must implement God’s commands concerning the legitimate authority of government. We must reestablish the display of the Ten Commandments in our court rooms, and on all government property.
Finally, as a nation, we must turn away from our wicked ways. We must openly and overtly acknowledge that we are a Christian nation and those who do not approve can either change (be saved) or leave. There is no room for other religions. As a nation, we must repent of our evil deeds.
Only after these four steps are taken by us as a nation, as a people – openly, overtly, and publicly – will God heal our land. Only then, will our Creator restore us to the nation we were meant to be.
The Bible teaches us that “People do not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.” [Deuteronomy 8:3] And Jesus referred to this principle. [Matthew 4:4 & Luke 4:4] Our Creator is our provider and our savior, and we, as a nation, must recognize that fact or we will become slaves to Caesar – and God will not answer us when we cry out for relief from Caesar.
Respectfully,
Mark
Monday, September 13, 2010
Thomas Jefferson and the Ground Zero Mosque
Dear Friends:
President Obama stepped into it a few weeks ago. Speaking Friday, August 13, 2010, at a White House dinner to honor Ramadan, the President told his audience, “Muslims have the right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country,” an obvious reference to the controversy surrounding the Ground Zero mosque. The next day, Saturday, while spending the day in the Gulf, the president attempted to clarify his earlier remarks: “I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.”
Utah’s attempts at statehood were held up over the religious practice of polygamy. It wasn’t until Utah agreed to include in its constitution a ban on polygamy that the territory was considered for statehood. Statehood was officially granted on January 4, 1896.
Prior to Utah’s statehood, the Supreme Court had ruled that “Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries”1 and “the spread and practice of polygamy is …. contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western world.”2 So contrary to President Obama, it’s not true that all people have “the right to practice their religion.” The First Amendment does not give unlimited freedom to individuals or groups who act in the name of religion, especially when that religion’s goal is the domination of the world or even a part of it by force.
On a side note, Judge Vaughn Walker, in the Proposition 8 decision, is arguing that the more than seven million people who voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman have no standing in their appeal of the case because they could not prove how homosexual marriage harms them.3 The same argument could be made over bigamy and polygamy since no one is forced into multiple marriages and thereby can’t suffer harm by the polygamous practices of others. The Supreme Court in 1890 saw great societal harm in the religious practice of polygamy. The same argument can be made for Islam. Consider that German authorities “have closed a Hamburg mosque used by the September 11 attackers as a meeting place before they moved to the United States. A statement by Hamburg officials says the Taiba mosque was shut down and its cultural association was banned” August 9, 2010.
The First Amendment begins: “Congress shall make no law….” There is no prohibition on municipalities, counties, or states. Constitutionally, Congress, since it is supposed to be the only law-making national body, cannot make any law regarding religion that would affect the states. Cities, counties, and states can make determinations based on religion. An appeal to “our founding” will prove this to be true. Nearly all the state constitutions at the time had particular requirements dealing with religion over which the national government had no jurisdiction. If the states wanted the same, less, or more freedoms than found in the national constitution, the states had to provide for them in their constitutions. For example, here are the religious provisions in Alabama’s constitution:
That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.
Why include these words if the First Amendment applied to the states?
President Obama and other supporters of the Ground Zero Mosque appeal to our nation’s “founding,” in particular Thomas Jefferson. Here are some additional comments the President made on August 14 in reference to Jefferson:
And tonight, we are reminded that Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity. And Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been a part of America. The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan – making it the first known iftar4 at the White House, more than 200 years ago.
First, Islam is not noted for its religious diversity. Christians cannot evangelize in Muslim countries. Churches are burned while police do nothing. Muslims who convert to another religion can be executed. Even the presence of the Bible is prohibited by our own military and the behest of Islamic officials when American soldiers are deployed in Muslim nations:
Bibles were confiscated and destroyed after Qatar-based Al Jazeer television showed soldiers at a Bible class on a base with a stack of Bibles translated into the local Pashto and Dari languages. The U.S. military forbids its members on active duty – including those based in places like Afghanistan – from trying to convert people to another religion. Reuters quotes Maj. Jennifer Willis at the Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul, who said “I can now confirm that the Bibles shown on Al Jazeera’s clip were, in fact, collected by the chaplains and later destroyed. They were never distributed.”5
Second, President Obama’s favorable appeal to Jefferson is only part of the story. The Koran’s peace initiatives are Orwellian: “Submission to Islam is peace.” Peace is the absence of any religious or political opposition. This is the indisputable history of Islam as Paul Johnson writes:
Koranic teaching that the faith or “submission” can be, and in suitable circumstances must be, imposed by force, has never been ignored. On the contrary, the history of Islam from Arabia was followed by the rapid conquest of North Africa, the invasion and virtual conquest of Spain, and a thrust into France that carried the crescent to the gates of Paris. It took half a millennium or reconquest to expel the Moslems from Western Europe. The Crusades, far from being an outrageous prototype of Western imperialism, as is taught in most of our schools, were a mere episode in a struggle that has lasted 1,400 years and were one of the few occasions when Christians took the offensive to regain the “occupied territories” of the Holy Land.6
What did Jefferson learn from his study of the Koran? As early as 1786, Jefferson, who was serving as the ambassador to France, and John Adams, the Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Ambassador Abdrahaman, the Dey of Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress’ vote of funding. Peace would come at a price. If America wanted “temporary peace,” a one-year guarantee, it would cost $66,000 plus a 10% commission. “Everlasting peace” was a bargain at $160,000 plus the obligatory commission. This only applied to Tripoli. Other Muslim nations would also have to be paid. The amount came to $1.3 million. But there was no assurance that the treaties would be honored. In vain Jefferson and Adams tried to argue that America was not at war with Tripoli. In what way had the U.S provoked the Muslims, they asked? Ambassador Abdrahaman went on to explain “the finer points of Islamic jihad” to the Koranically challenged Jefferson and Adams. In a letter to John Jay, Jefferson wrote the following:
The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.7
Abdrahaman was paraphrasing the Koran’s “rules of engagement” found in the 47 Surah: “Whenever you encounter the ones who disbelieve [during wartime], seize them by their necks until once you have subdued them, then tie them up as prisoners, either in order to release them later on, or also to ask for ransom, until war lays down her burdens.” Unless a nation submitted to an Islamic nation, whether it was the aggressor or not, that nation was by definition at war with Islam. Jihad means “to submit.” A non-aggressing nation is still at war with Islam as long as it hasn’t embraced Islam. Islam’s goal is to conquer the world, either by the submission of one’s will or by Allah’s sword.8
When President Jefferson refused to increase the tribute demanded by the Islamists, Tripoli declared war on the United States. A United States navy squadron, under Commander Edward Preble, blockaded Tripoli from 1803 to 1805. After rebel soldiers from Tripoli, led by United States Marines, captured the city of Derna, the Pasha of Tripoli signed a treaty promising to exact no more tribute.
President Obama is not the first person who has tried to whitewash Islam’s history with America. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a Muslim, took his constitutional oath on Jefferson’s copy of the Koran. How ironic given Jefferson’s disdain for Islam’s principles. There’s a reason the “Marines’ Hymn” begins with these words:
From the Halls of Montezuma,
to the shores of Tripoli.
The line “To the shores of Tripoli” refers to the First Barbary War, specifically the Battle of Derne in 1805. Jefferson, embroiled in a war with Islamic terrorists in his day, commented, “Too long, for the honor of nations, have those Barbarians been suffered [permitted] to trample on the sacred faith of treaties, on the rights and laws of human nature!”9 Little has changed since Jefferson’s day. The Muslims of the Ground Zero Mosque will say one thing and mean another.
SOURCES:
1 Davis v. Beason, 133 U. S. 333, 341-344, 348 n. (1890).
2 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 49 (1890).
3 The seven million people have standing because their votes were nullified by a single judge. In addition, the process of amending the California constitution is by referendum: “A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise” (Art. 18, sec. 4). This, too, was violated by a single judge’s poorly argued decision.
4 “Iftar (Arabic: إفطار), refers to the evening meal when Muslims break their fast during the Islamic month of Ramadan.”
5 Fred Jackson, “U.S. military destroys soldier’s Bibles,” OneNewsNow (May 5, 2009).
6 Paul Johnson, “‘Relentlessly and Thoroughly’: The Only Way to Respond,” National Review (October 15, 2001).
7 Quoted in Joseph Wheelan, Jefferson’s War: America’s First War on Terror, 1801–1805 (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2003), 40–41.
8 Robert Spencer, The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2006) and Robert Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2005).
9 Thomas Jefferson, congratulatory letter to Lt. Andrew Sterett (1760–1807). Quoted in Joseph Wheelan, Jefferson’s War: America’s First War on Terror, 1801–1805 (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2003), 102.
Respectfully,
Mark
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)