Dear Friends:
The Constitution requires that “No person … shall be eligible to [the office of President] who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States” (Art. II, Sec. 1). Does this mean that a candidate shouldn’t be questioned about his abilities and limited experience if he is constitutionally qualified at just thirty-six years old? Ronald Reagan was thought by some to be too old. He was 69 when he took office in 1981. Reagan turned concern about his age on its head during his 1984 re-election campaign when he promised not to “exploit, for political purposes,” the “youth and inexperience” of his 56-year-old Democratic challenger, Walter Mondale. The age question haunted John McCain as well. Questions about age are important, and so are questions about religion.
While Article VI does prohibit a “religious test,” the same article states, “the Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution.” Bound to and by what? Nineteenth-century church historian Philip Schaff wrote, “‘in recognizing and requiring an official oath’ for both state and federal officeholders, ‘the Constitution recognizes the Supreme Being, to whom the oath is a solemn appeal.’”1 George Washington seems to have understood this principle since he followed his affirmation to “execute the office of President of the United States and … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” with “So help me God.”2
Oaths and affirmations were deemed important to many of the founders since they bound a person’s word to a higher authority beyond the sanctions of mere mortals who have no jurisdiction over the soul. For example, in his Essay on Toleration (1685), John Locke exempted atheists from the civil protection of toleration when it came to holding political office by arguing that an atheist who denies that God exists could not be expected to tolerate what he believes to be a myth:
Lastly, those are not all to be tolerated who deny the being of God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of toleration.3
In recent years, the words “so help me God” have been challenged. They were stricken from the written oath of office that Notaries take in order to serve in the state of Florida. “Those words never should have been there to begin with,” Ken Rouse, general counsel for the Florida Department of State, said. Religious leaders from Miami to Jacksonville were shocked. “This is frightening, that one person could sway the state to change things like that,” said Glen Owens, assistant executive director of the Florida Baptist Convention in Jacksonville. “How can they completely abolish a system of doing things for one person?” The Reverend Gerard LaCerra, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Miami understands the implications of the ruling. “What are we supposed to base our commitments on if something like this is removed? The state?”4
In 1788, Henry Abbot, a delegate to the North Carolina convention that was considering the Federal Constitution, understood the implications of an oath without specific religious content: “[I]f there be no religious test required, pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain office among us, and the senators and representatives might all be pagans…. Some are desirous to know how and by whom they are to swear, since no religious tests are required – whether they are to swear by Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Proserpine, or Pluto?”5 Abbot feared what would happen to America if it ever claimed that the God of the Bible was somehow irrelevant to good government. Given the long-term goals of Islam, a day could come when America became officially Islamic.
What few people seem to realize is that there are all types of non-religious belief systems that hold to an absolutist ideology and use the power of the State to impose that ideology on the rest of us. Civil governments can confiscate property, tax earnings, put us in prison, send us off to fight in wars, mandate how many MPG our cars must get, order what type of toilets we can use, require that foods contain no trans fats, and so much more. The law of the land is enforced by the full authority of the civil government that makes the law. As long as a law is on the books, that law is absolute. A law doesn’t have to be tied to any particular traditional understanding of religion to be made a law and enforced by the power of the State. In fact, the above short list of government freedom-inhibiting laws is not tied to any particular religious creed, but the result is still the same – absolutism!
A secular ideology can be just as sacrosanct and absolute as any religious doctrine or creedal formulation but with a significant difference:
Pure ideology differs greatly from the Judeo-Christian tradition that locates sin in the human will; ideologists disdain such ideas and cite evil “structures,” “institutions,” and “systems” as the problem. Sin is political, not personal. Get the structure right, so the argument goes, and all will be well with individuals.6
These “structures” can only be restructured and made right by increased government control, bureaucratic management, the curtailment of freedoms, and, as always, more money. We are told that these new freedom-limiting laws are for our own good and the good of society. Liberals have always believed that civil government should be in the personal management business since their ideas for other people are always for their good. They don’t see their laws as ideologically (religiously) motivated. Take the case of taxing soft drinks in San Francisco.7 The mayor says that high fructose corn syrup leads to obesity which puts a strain on the city’s health care system. This proposed law is overtly religious in that it is designed to “save the children” from the potential harm of sugar-saturated soft drinks. What will be next? Pizza? Potato chips? Fries and a Big Mac? Video games and computers that contribute to a sedentary lifestyle among young and old?8 In the same city, a different kind of ideology protects sex acts that result in numerous sexually transmitted diseases that cost billions of dollars in healthcare costs and thousands of lives each year in America.9 The homosexual religious ideology has its own set of anti-blasphemy laws. Anyone who gets caught uttering a negative word about homosexuality is immediately censored. Hate-crime legislation is designed to silence all criticism. These are marks of a secular religious ideology gone mad.
Christians who understand the proper mix of religion and politics would argue that it’s not the role of civil government to micro-manage people’s lives. There is no prescription in the Bible to use the power of civil government to control a person’s diet through taxation. Long before there were high fructose corn syrup drinks, there were fat people. The king of Eglon was fat (Judges 3:17, 22), and Eli is described as “old and heavy” (I Samuel 4:18). The Bible warns against drunkenness and gluttony (Proverbs 23:20-21), but there is no call to tax alcoholic beverages and food in an attempt to modify these behaviors. A change in these behaviors comes by way of persuasion and the marketplace.
The biblical view of change is that what people believe and understand must be restructured before there will be any appreciable change in a person’s lifestyle. Self-government (self-control) is the operating principle. Christians who want to use the power of the State to manage people for what they perceive are good causes are as misguided and dangerous as secularists who believe that their ideology will save us.
In the end, all ideologies are absolute, but it’s only with Christianity that civil government is limited. Christians need to understand this when considering voting for people who promise to use the power of civil government for the supposed common good.
SOURCES:
1 Daniel Dreisbach, “The Constitution’s Forgotten Religion Clause: Reflections on the Article VI Religious Test Ban,” Journal of Church and State 38:2 (Spring 1996), 289.
2 See Forrest Church, So Help Me God: The Founding Fathers and the First Great Battle Over Church and State (Orlando: Harcourt, Inc., 2007), 445-449.
3 John Locke, Two Treatises of Civil Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration, ed. Ian Shapiro (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003), 246.
4 “‘God’ Removed from Notaries’ Oath,” The Kansas City Star (February 18, 1992), 2A.
5 Henry Abbot, North Carolina ratifying convention: Elliot’s Debates, 4:192.
6 Lloyd Billingsley, The Absence of Tyranny: Recovering Freedom in Our Time (Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1986), 71.
7 Jesse McKinley, “San Francisco’s Mayor Proposes Fee on Sales of Sugary Soft Drinks,” The New York Times (December 18, 2007).
8 The “Wii” is being used in retirement homes to get the elderly up and moving. The bowling, golfing, and tennis games are great exercise. “The Wii has become so popular at Sedgebrook [retirement community] that on Sunday afternoon there will be a video game bowling tournament in the lounge. More than 20 residents have signed up to compete.” (Dave Wischnowsky, “Wii bowling knocks over retirement home,” Chicago Tribune [February 16, 2007]).
9 John R. Diggs, “The Health Risks of Gay Sex,” Corporate Research Council (2002).
Respectfully,
Mark
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
The Difference Between Capitalism and Socialism
Dear Friends:
We hear a lot these days about the differences between capitalism and socialism. So, I looked into the two systems of thought and came across the following story which, I believe, quite accurately illustrates the difference between these two diametrically opposite worldviews.
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal in her beliefs and ideals. As such, she was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs. In other words, she strongly advocated a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor in an effort to make everybody equal. Like any good socialist, equality was her primary motive.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative capitalist, a feeling she openly expressed to him. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his, what he had worked hard to earn.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated such to her father.
He responded by asking, “How are you doing in school?”
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily, “I have a 4.0 GPA. It’s tough to maintain. I am taking a very difficult course load. I am constantly studying. I have no time to go out and party like other people I know. I don’t even have time for a boyfriend. And I don’t really have many college friends at all because I spend all my time studying.”
Her father listened and then asked, “And how is your friend Audrey doing?”
She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes. She never studies. She barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.’
Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, “That’s a crazy idea, and how would that be fair! I’ve worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Now you’re thinking like a capitalist.”
Believe it or not, our Creator has a lot to say about the proper ordering of society, including economics. Scripture encourages capitalism and discourages socialism. The place to start is with the eighth commandment which is based upon the concept of private property. “You shall not steal” [Exodus 20:15; Deuteronomy 5:19]. Stealing, or theft, is taking another man’s property by coercion, fraud, or without his uncoerced consent. Cheating, harming property, or destroying its value is also theft. It is not necessary for the victim to know of the theft for it to be unlawful. Thus, to ride a train or bus without paying one’s fare is theft, even though the transportation company is unaware of the act.
Our Creator’s order clearly includes private property. It also clearly approves of godly wealth. According to Proverbs 13:11, “Dishonest money dwindles away, but he who makes money little by little makes it grow.” The warning of God’s Word is against the proud who forget God in their wealth, not against the fact of wealth [Deuteronomy 8:17-18]. God blesses His saints with prosperity and wealth, as He did Job, Abraham, David, Solomon, and others. Wealth is one of the possible blessings of obedience to God’s law [Psalm 112:3]. It is arrogant and ungodly wealth which is condemned [James 5:1-6]. Wealth is an aspect of God’s blessing of His faithful ones: “The blessing of the LORD brings wealth, and He adds no trouble to it” [Proverbs 10:22]. The godly pursuit of property and wealth is thus fully legitimate.
Even Jesus taught that we should be rewarded for our hard work [Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-27]. And the principle of the harvest is based upon this same idea – you reap what you sow and in multiples thereof [Galatians 6:7]. Honest hard work results in Godly rewards (until the civil government interferes).
When the Israelites left captivity in Egypt, God (through Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law) revealed to Moses the perfect order of civil government [Exodus 18:13-27]. You see, there were only a few million men, women and children wandering around in the desert. I am sure there were a few “bad apples” in the bunch. So, Moses had to have some way of dealing with the law-breakers. That is why he needed a civil government. That is why civil government was created – to punish the law-breakers [Romans 13:3-4]. The purpose of civil government has not changed (at least not in our Creator’s eyes because God does not change – he doesn’t have to – he is perfect – any change would make Him less than perfect).
God, through Jethro, suggested that Moses set up a hierarchy of judges over the people. Judges “over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens” [Exodus 18:21; Deuteronomy 1:15] The people were to choose these judges [Deuteronomy 1:13]. They were to choose “men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain” [Exodus 18:21]. As long as the people applied these criteria and chose capable and righteous men, justice was swift and fair, and freedom and liberty abounded. But when the people chose dishonest men – no justice, no liberty, loss of freedom.
The Israelites lived as a nation for over 400 years under this form of civil government. During all of this time, no taxes were levied. Revenue for the operation of the civil government was generated by fines paid by the law-breakers. There was no need for prisons as incarceration was never punishment for a crime. The only jails that existed were used to separate potentially violent criminals from the general population until they could be properly tried for their crime. A Godly government has no need to collect taxes or for prisons.
Then, after over 400 years, the Israelites rejected God and His government when they wanted a “king … like all the other nations … to lead [them] and go out before [them] and fight [their] battles” [I Samuel 8:20]. And the Israelites forgot the eighth commandment. And oppressive taxation soon followed. The forced confiscation of property became so oppressive that after about 120 years, the nation of Israel split into two nations [I Kings 12:1-24; II Chronicles 10:1-11:4] and ultimately were taken into captivity because of their rejection of God and His law.
Socialism rejects this principle of private property and as such, changes the eighth commandment to “You shall not steal except by the majority vote of the people.” It is a man-made system of government resulting in oppressive taxation which takes away our freedom and liberty. It eliminates employment opportunities, causes price inflation, and many other economic woes.
Some of you, as support for taxation by the civil government, might point out that Jesus said to “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” [Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25]. It is true. Jesus did say that. And Paul restated Jesus’ principle in Romans 13:6-7.
However, you must remember that during the time both Jesus and Paul walked on the earth, the Israelites, because of their rejection of God and His law, were subjected to the man-made pagan law structure of Rome (Caesar worship). Jesus and Paul were reinforcing the fact that the Israelites were being punished for their disobedience and therefore had to live according to the man-made law structure of a perverse government. The Israelites were forced to pay homage to their captors as long as they rejected God and His law. So, part of Israel’s punishment for rejecting God and His law was forced confiscation of their property by a foreign pagan nation. In fact, every time Israel turned their back on God, the nation was subjected through captivity to a socialistic pagan foreign nation’s laws. In God’s Word, socialism is always associated with paganism.
Private property is a power which our Creator entrusts to man as a stewardship, because it is our Creator’s intention that man should have and exercise power unto the end that the earth be subdued and man’s dominion over the earth under our Creator be established. God gives to the civil government its due power in its domain – the punishment of law breakers. Private property is a power given to man to be used under God and to His glory.
If a nation applies God’s principles as revealed in His Word, then there will be no need for taxes. And, the principle of private property as established by the eighth commandment will result in more freedom and liberty than we have ever experienced in our lifetimes. This is what our founding fathers had in mind back in 1776. What gold is to money, God’s law is to liberty. Without God’s law, men, unions, corporations, and civil governments feel free to be a law unto themselves – to play god. Failure to teach the law of God paves the way to tyranny.
As our founding father James Madison said of God’s law:
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. [Cited by F. Nymeyer, in Progressive Calvinism (South Holland, Ill.: Libertarian Press, 1958), IV, 31.]
What about you? Are you a capitalist, or a socialist? Which do you prefer?
Respectfully,
Mark
We hear a lot these days about the differences between capitalism and socialism. So, I looked into the two systems of thought and came across the following story which, I believe, quite accurately illustrates the difference between these two diametrically opposite worldviews.
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal in her beliefs and ideals. As such, she was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs. In other words, she strongly advocated a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor in an effort to make everybody equal. Like any good socialist, equality was her primary motive.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative capitalist, a feeling she openly expressed to him. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his, what he had worked hard to earn.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated such to her father.
He responded by asking, “How are you doing in school?”
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily, “I have a 4.0 GPA. It’s tough to maintain. I am taking a very difficult course load. I am constantly studying. I have no time to go out and party like other people I know. I don’t even have time for a boyfriend. And I don’t really have many college friends at all because I spend all my time studying.”
Her father listened and then asked, “And how is your friend Audrey doing?”
She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes. She never studies. She barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.’
Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, “That’s a crazy idea, and how would that be fair! I’ve worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Now you’re thinking like a capitalist.”
Believe it or not, our Creator has a lot to say about the proper ordering of society, including economics. Scripture encourages capitalism and discourages socialism. The place to start is with the eighth commandment which is based upon the concept of private property. “You shall not steal” [Exodus 20:15; Deuteronomy 5:19]. Stealing, or theft, is taking another man’s property by coercion, fraud, or without his uncoerced consent. Cheating, harming property, or destroying its value is also theft. It is not necessary for the victim to know of the theft for it to be unlawful. Thus, to ride a train or bus without paying one’s fare is theft, even though the transportation company is unaware of the act.
Our Creator’s order clearly includes private property. It also clearly approves of godly wealth. According to Proverbs 13:11, “Dishonest money dwindles away, but he who makes money little by little makes it grow.” The warning of God’s Word is against the proud who forget God in their wealth, not against the fact of wealth [Deuteronomy 8:17-18]. God blesses His saints with prosperity and wealth, as He did Job, Abraham, David, Solomon, and others. Wealth is one of the possible blessings of obedience to God’s law [Psalm 112:3]. It is arrogant and ungodly wealth which is condemned [James 5:1-6]. Wealth is an aspect of God’s blessing of His faithful ones: “The blessing of the LORD brings wealth, and He adds no trouble to it” [Proverbs 10:22]. The godly pursuit of property and wealth is thus fully legitimate.
Even Jesus taught that we should be rewarded for our hard work [Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-27]. And the principle of the harvest is based upon this same idea – you reap what you sow and in multiples thereof [Galatians 6:7]. Honest hard work results in Godly rewards (until the civil government interferes).
When the Israelites left captivity in Egypt, God (through Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law) revealed to Moses the perfect order of civil government [Exodus 18:13-27]. You see, there were only a few million men, women and children wandering around in the desert. I am sure there were a few “bad apples” in the bunch. So, Moses had to have some way of dealing with the law-breakers. That is why he needed a civil government. That is why civil government was created – to punish the law-breakers [Romans 13:3-4]. The purpose of civil government has not changed (at least not in our Creator’s eyes because God does not change – he doesn’t have to – he is perfect – any change would make Him less than perfect).
God, through Jethro, suggested that Moses set up a hierarchy of judges over the people. Judges “over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens” [Exodus 18:21; Deuteronomy 1:15] The people were to choose these judges [Deuteronomy 1:13]. They were to choose “men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain” [Exodus 18:21]. As long as the people applied these criteria and chose capable and righteous men, justice was swift and fair, and freedom and liberty abounded. But when the people chose dishonest men – no justice, no liberty, loss of freedom.
The Israelites lived as a nation for over 400 years under this form of civil government. During all of this time, no taxes were levied. Revenue for the operation of the civil government was generated by fines paid by the law-breakers. There was no need for prisons as incarceration was never punishment for a crime. The only jails that existed were used to separate potentially violent criminals from the general population until they could be properly tried for their crime. A Godly government has no need to collect taxes or for prisons.
Then, after over 400 years, the Israelites rejected God and His government when they wanted a “king … like all the other nations … to lead [them] and go out before [them] and fight [their] battles” [I Samuel 8:20]. And the Israelites forgot the eighth commandment. And oppressive taxation soon followed. The forced confiscation of property became so oppressive that after about 120 years, the nation of Israel split into two nations [I Kings 12:1-24; II Chronicles 10:1-11:4] and ultimately were taken into captivity because of their rejection of God and His law.
Socialism rejects this principle of private property and as such, changes the eighth commandment to “You shall not steal except by the majority vote of the people.” It is a man-made system of government resulting in oppressive taxation which takes away our freedom and liberty. It eliminates employment opportunities, causes price inflation, and many other economic woes.
Some of you, as support for taxation by the civil government, might point out that Jesus said to “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” [Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25]. It is true. Jesus did say that. And Paul restated Jesus’ principle in Romans 13:6-7.
However, you must remember that during the time both Jesus and Paul walked on the earth, the Israelites, because of their rejection of God and His law, were subjected to the man-made pagan law structure of Rome (Caesar worship). Jesus and Paul were reinforcing the fact that the Israelites were being punished for their disobedience and therefore had to live according to the man-made law structure of a perverse government. The Israelites were forced to pay homage to their captors as long as they rejected God and His law. So, part of Israel’s punishment for rejecting God and His law was forced confiscation of their property by a foreign pagan nation. In fact, every time Israel turned their back on God, the nation was subjected through captivity to a socialistic pagan foreign nation’s laws. In God’s Word, socialism is always associated with paganism.
Private property is a power which our Creator entrusts to man as a stewardship, because it is our Creator’s intention that man should have and exercise power unto the end that the earth be subdued and man’s dominion over the earth under our Creator be established. God gives to the civil government its due power in its domain – the punishment of law breakers. Private property is a power given to man to be used under God and to His glory.
If a nation applies God’s principles as revealed in His Word, then there will be no need for taxes. And, the principle of private property as established by the eighth commandment will result in more freedom and liberty than we have ever experienced in our lifetimes. This is what our founding fathers had in mind back in 1776. What gold is to money, God’s law is to liberty. Without God’s law, men, unions, corporations, and civil governments feel free to be a law unto themselves – to play god. Failure to teach the law of God paves the way to tyranny.
As our founding father James Madison said of God’s law:
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. [Cited by F. Nymeyer, in Progressive Calvinism (South Holland, Ill.: Libertarian Press, 1958), IV, 31.]
What about you? Are you a capitalist, or a socialist? Which do you prefer?
Respectfully,
Mark
Monday, November 15, 2010
The Churches' Dual Standard on Working Wives and the Welfare State
Dear Friends:
Pastors for almost 2,000 years have preached against sin in general. Preaching against a specific sin can get a pastor in a lot of trouble if any of the church’s leaders commit this sin regularly. Pastors who preach against specific sins preach against those that are not common in their congregations.
This is why pastors do not preach against practices that are widely accepted in the culture or region in which the church is located. Pastors know that many of those inside their churches are also participating. Only when self-consciously not practicing something is part of the denomination’s tradition that defines it do pastors preach against it. A classic American example is the Amish practice of bringing under discipline any man who uses a zipper, which is considered “modern.” They also preach against participating in the Social Security System. This deserves some attention.
Before World War II, wives in the West did not work for a living outside the home. Farmers’ wives worked long and hard, but they worked at home. This was best for the children, but as taxes rose, wives were forced to work outside the home to pay them.
You will not ever hear a sermon on the evil of high taxation because it forces wives to work outside the home.
There are still denominations that preach against wives working outside the home. But these denominations do not preach against Social Security and Medicare. Yet these two programs make most retired people wards of the state.
If a husband does not earn enough money to pay all of the modern state’s taxes and also build a retirement portfolio that will sustain him and his wife in their old age, they will be left to the tender mercies of the state. If it requires a wife in the labor force to build up such a portfolio, why is this wrong?
Letting the wife contribute to the family’s income is a case for having a home-based business.
To preach that wives should not work outside the home places a burden on the preacher to preach the requirement of a home-based business. If he refuses to preach this, then he owes it to his flock to preach a household savings rate of at least 20% after the tithe. Anyone who does not save at this rate will be impoverished in old age.
If he refuses to preach the moral requirement of a home-based business or above-average thrift, then he must preach against retirement. He must teach husbands to run the numbers so that the men can see that they will not be able to retire. They will not have enough capital to leave to their widows to carry the widows through to death.
If a pastor refuses to preach any of this, then he must preach on the moral necessity of members’ becoming dependent on their adult children when they retire. Otherwise, they will be dependent on the state. But you won’t hear a sermon on this. It would not be appreciated by members who say, “I do not want to become dependent on the charity of my children.” They do not also say, “I do not want to become dependent on the state,” meaning the taxes extracted from their children and other families’ children.
Pastors never preach such sermons. If their denominational tradition favors stay-at-home mothers, they preach this occasionally, but they refuse to preach the ethical corollaries to this doctrine: home-based businesses, highly disciplined thrift, dependence on adult children, or the moral obligation not to retire.
Any church that teaches that wives should not work outside the home after they become mothers is preaching half a gospel if they do not also preach the moral necessity of not becoming wards of the state in retirement. If the church refuses, it is preaching this:
God is honored by families that keep mothers at home. However, God is in no way dishonored by families that become economically dependent on the state. Compulsory state welfare is a good thing, biblically speaking, because it relieves the church of its Bible-mandated obligation to support indigent members (I Timothy 5). The state picks up the tab, so we don’t have to. Praise God! Hallelujah! This is especially true of retired church members.
So, wives, don’t work outside the home. So, husbands, don’t worry about going on Social Security. God is honored when His people become wards of the state.
Pastors never spell it out in this way. That might get them fired.
Pastors are allowed to opt out of Social Security during the first 18 months of their ordination, if they do so for moral objections. Only the Amish and other Mennonite protesters are allowed this liberty. But no denomination recommends to its new ministers that they do this. That would mean taking a moral stand against Social Security. So, very few ministers opt out.
In 1957, Rev. Francis Mahaffy’s article against entering into the Social Security system was published in The Freeman. It was titled, “A Clergyman’s Security.” It is online at www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/a-clergymans-security. It is still as valid today as it was then.
The modern church is blind to the moral evil of state-imposed welfare programs. Members are not taught about the great threat of dependency on the state.
When the day of reckoning comes, and the modern welfare state goes bankrupt, churches will discover how expensive it is to follow the requirements of I Timothy 5. They will have far more indigents on their roles. There will be a stream of oldsters, hats in hand, who say: “No one in our pulpits ever taught us to plan for our future in order to avoid dependency on the state.” They will be telling the truth. No one ever did.
Nobody teaches them that they have a moral obligation to tithe. Nobody teaches them that they have a moral obligation to save and avoid consumer debt. No one teaches them that the voters are sinning when they vote to establish programs of tax-funded charity. “That’s politics,” pastors say. “We don’t get mixed up in politics.” Oh, yeah? They get mixed up in politics the day they send an indigent member to the state for tax-funded care.
So, who will teach the younger members that they must pay for the oldsters whose families will not help them financially, after the state goes belly-up?
“I see that hand!”
No, actually, I don’t.
Respectfully,
Mark
Pastors for almost 2,000 years have preached against sin in general. Preaching against a specific sin can get a pastor in a lot of trouble if any of the church’s leaders commit this sin regularly. Pastors who preach against specific sins preach against those that are not common in their congregations.
This is why pastors do not preach against practices that are widely accepted in the culture or region in which the church is located. Pastors know that many of those inside their churches are also participating. Only when self-consciously not practicing something is part of the denomination’s tradition that defines it do pastors preach against it. A classic American example is the Amish practice of bringing under discipline any man who uses a zipper, which is considered “modern.” They also preach against participating in the Social Security System. This deserves some attention.
Before World War II, wives in the West did not work for a living outside the home. Farmers’ wives worked long and hard, but they worked at home. This was best for the children, but as taxes rose, wives were forced to work outside the home to pay them.
You will not ever hear a sermon on the evil of high taxation because it forces wives to work outside the home.
There are still denominations that preach against wives working outside the home. But these denominations do not preach against Social Security and Medicare. Yet these two programs make most retired people wards of the state.
If a husband does not earn enough money to pay all of the modern state’s taxes and also build a retirement portfolio that will sustain him and his wife in their old age, they will be left to the tender mercies of the state. If it requires a wife in the labor force to build up such a portfolio, why is this wrong?
Letting the wife contribute to the family’s income is a case for having a home-based business.
To preach that wives should not work outside the home places a burden on the preacher to preach the requirement of a home-based business. If he refuses to preach this, then he owes it to his flock to preach a household savings rate of at least 20% after the tithe. Anyone who does not save at this rate will be impoverished in old age.
If he refuses to preach the moral requirement of a home-based business or above-average thrift, then he must preach against retirement. He must teach husbands to run the numbers so that the men can see that they will not be able to retire. They will not have enough capital to leave to their widows to carry the widows through to death.
If a pastor refuses to preach any of this, then he must preach on the moral necessity of members’ becoming dependent on their adult children when they retire. Otherwise, they will be dependent on the state. But you won’t hear a sermon on this. It would not be appreciated by members who say, “I do not want to become dependent on the charity of my children.” They do not also say, “I do not want to become dependent on the state,” meaning the taxes extracted from their children and other families’ children.
Pastors never preach such sermons. If their denominational tradition favors stay-at-home mothers, they preach this occasionally, but they refuse to preach the ethical corollaries to this doctrine: home-based businesses, highly disciplined thrift, dependence on adult children, or the moral obligation not to retire.
Any church that teaches that wives should not work outside the home after they become mothers is preaching half a gospel if they do not also preach the moral necessity of not becoming wards of the state in retirement. If the church refuses, it is preaching this:
God is honored by families that keep mothers at home. However, God is in no way dishonored by families that become economically dependent on the state. Compulsory state welfare is a good thing, biblically speaking, because it relieves the church of its Bible-mandated obligation to support indigent members (I Timothy 5). The state picks up the tab, so we don’t have to. Praise God! Hallelujah! This is especially true of retired church members.
So, wives, don’t work outside the home. So, husbands, don’t worry about going on Social Security. God is honored when His people become wards of the state.
Pastors never spell it out in this way. That might get them fired.
Pastors are allowed to opt out of Social Security during the first 18 months of their ordination, if they do so for moral objections. Only the Amish and other Mennonite protesters are allowed this liberty. But no denomination recommends to its new ministers that they do this. That would mean taking a moral stand against Social Security. So, very few ministers opt out.
In 1957, Rev. Francis Mahaffy’s article against entering into the Social Security system was published in The Freeman. It was titled, “A Clergyman’s Security.” It is online at www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/a-clergymans-security. It is still as valid today as it was then.
The modern church is blind to the moral evil of state-imposed welfare programs. Members are not taught about the great threat of dependency on the state.
When the day of reckoning comes, and the modern welfare state goes bankrupt, churches will discover how expensive it is to follow the requirements of I Timothy 5. They will have far more indigents on their roles. There will be a stream of oldsters, hats in hand, who say: “No one in our pulpits ever taught us to plan for our future in order to avoid dependency on the state.” They will be telling the truth. No one ever did.
Nobody teaches them that they have a moral obligation to tithe. Nobody teaches them that they have a moral obligation to save and avoid consumer debt. No one teaches them that the voters are sinning when they vote to establish programs of tax-funded charity. “That’s politics,” pastors say. “We don’t get mixed up in politics.” Oh, yeah? They get mixed up in politics the day they send an indigent member to the state for tax-funded care.
So, who will teach the younger members that they must pay for the oldsters whose families will not help them financially, after the state goes belly-up?
“I see that hand!”
No, actually, I don’t.
Respectfully,
Mark
Monday, November 8, 2010
John Boehner's "GobGop" Plan to Sell Out the Tea Party in 2013. It Will Begin in January 2011.
Dear Friends:
This plan will work. The Tea Party folks will not know what hit them. But it will take two years. This is a done deal.
First, you must understand that John Boehner is a GobGop: a Good Old Boy of the Grand Old Party. The GobGops’ goal is to keep the present system funded by the Bigs: Big Business, Big Pharma, Big Oil, and Big Banking. If you do not understand this, then you are as naive as a Democrat who thinks Obama speaks for The Common Man.
Boehner shilled for Hank Paulson and Goldman Sachs by begging the Republicans to vote for the $750+ billion Big Bank Bailout in 2008. “We just have to do it!” No, they didn’t. Ron Paul told it straight. He is no GobGop.
Boehner is going to do it again. He has already told us what he intends to do.
The obvious target is Obamacare. The Tea Party voters hate it. They regard it as an affront.
You’ve probably seen this. It’s all over the Web. It’s supposedly from Maxine, the cartoon character who speaks for geezerdom.
Let me get this straight …. We’re going to be “gifted” with a health care plan
we are forced to purchase and fined if we don’t,
Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor,
but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,
written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it,
passed by a Congress that didn’t read it
but exempted themselves from it,
and signed by a President who smokes,
with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes,
for which we’ll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect,
by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,
all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese,
and financed by a country that’s broke!!!!!
‘What the heck could possibly go wrong?’
This is all true. Tea Party people know it’s all true. They threw the rascals out … but left enough of them behind to sell us out.
Boehner told a Fox News interviewer what he plans to do: (1) repeal Obamacare; (2) pass another heath care law. Here is a direct quote:
“This health care bill will ruin the best health care system in the world, and it will bankrupt our country. We are going to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with common sense reforms that will bring down the cost of health insurance.”
Big Pharma is not threatened by this. Big Pharma will clean up either way.
If Boehner is politically savvy, he will have the Republicans introduce a repeal bill as soon as he takes over as Speaker of the House. The following will then take place.
1. A straight party vote will pass it.
2. In the Senate, the Democrats will not pass it.
3. Boehner will then begin a two-year campaign:
“The Republican Party is committed to a repeal of Obamacare. In 2012, you will have another opportunity to vote the Democrats out of power in the Senate, and give the Republicans a President who will sign this bill.”
He will play to the Tea Party. He will gain their trust. He will throw down the gauntlet on health insurance from day one. He will hammer relentlessly on this for two years.
The goal here is to get the Tea Party voters into his camp. He is a GobGop. But it’s obvious that he will score lots of points by doing this.
In 2012, the Republicans will take over the Senate and elect a President. It will repeal Obamacare. Then the Republican GobGops will introduce another huge bill that they promise will cut medical costs.
They will not cut spending. They will not raise taxes. They will preside over a gigantic deficit.
The pork will continue to flow.
The Tea Party people will sense betrayal. Then we will see how committed they are to getting the spending under control … in 2015. But, it will be too late. We will have moved beyond the point of no return.
The sell-out is coming. It will be business as usual. The GobGops now control the House. They can posture all they want, knowing the Senate will block their token spending cuts. The GobGops will scream: “If we only controlled the Senate! If we only controlled the White House! Then we could get spending under control!” You know: the way they did under Bush. Yeah, right!
It will make great political theater. Punch and Judy will perform a real donnybrook. A good time will be had by all.
The Bigs will get bigger. They always do.
Remember, in 1980, we were the largest creditor nation in the world. Jimmy Carter (Democrat) was president. In 1981, Ronald Reagan moved into the White House. And the debt spiral began. By 2010, we had become the largest debtor nation in the world. Thirty years to go from the largest creditor to the largest debtor. And during those 30 years, we had 20 years of Republican presidents and 10 years of Democrat presidents: Ronald Reagan (Republican 1981-1989); George H.W. Bush (Republican 1989-1993); William J. Clinton (Democrat 1993-2001); George W. Bush (Republican 2001-2009); and Barack Hussein Obama (Democrat 2009-present).
Also, during those 30 years, Republicans controlled the House for 10 years (1995 to 2005) while the Democrats controlled it the remaining 20 years.
Finally, during that same 30 years, Republicans controlled the Senate only 10 ½ years (1981-1987, 1995-mid 2001, 2003-2007), while the Democrats controlled it the remaining 19 ½ years.
As you can see, neither party has been good for our nation. I say throw them all out. You just can’t trust a politician!!!
Respectfully,
Mark
Monday, November 1, 2010
The Evil of the Pity of Man
Dear Friends:
For handfuls of barley and fragments of bread, you have profaned Me to My people to put to death some who should not die and to keep others alive who should not live, by your lying to My people who listen to lies. [Ezekiel 13:19]
Pity is the secular humanists’ chief moral virtue. If you are a secular humanist, it is mandatory that you show pity to someone. And do it publicly so that everyone knows how much pity you feel toward those who are “unfortunate.” There are so many people out there that are victims – or can be made to look like victims – to evil circumstances or institutions or simply evil reality. What better opportunity to show the world how moral and compassionate and tenderhearted you are. Over the last century the secular humanists, not having any discernible moral standard at all, still had quite a few moral causes, all of them based on this one single moral virtue – pity. Everyone and everything can be turned into an unfortunate victim that deserves the secular humanists’ pity. Communist guerillas, Muslim terrorists, single mothers, married mothers, children without parents, children with parents, poor people without houses and cars, poor people who own houses and cars, people without health insurance, whether they want it or not, people with health insurance, legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, minorities – and especially minority leaders who live off the backs of their minorities like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton – animal populations that are dwindling, animal populations that are thriving, icebergs with polar bears on top, icebergs without polar bears on top, warmer climate, cooler climate, changing climate … everything.
On September 23, 2010, the paragons of the Pity of Man had a priceless occasion to remind the world of their moral superiority: The Commonwealth of Virginia executed Teresa Lewis. Eight years earlier, on the night of October 30, 2002, Teresa Lewis organized the murder of her husband and her stepson. The motive was her stepson’s life insurance from his military service. Lewis used money and sexual favors – offering her 16-year old daughter – to recruit two men more than 10 years older than her daughter, to shoot the victims. After the crime, she waited for more than an hour before she called the police, while her husband, still alive, bled to death. In the meantime, she cold-bloodedly searched the victims’ clothes and belongings for money. When police officers arrived, her husband was still able to tell them that his wife knew everything about the murder.
At the trial, she pleaded guilty, and she allowed the judge to decide her sentence. Her attorneys believed she had a better chance to get a life term from a judge who never sentenced anyone to death. However, the judge found that the crime was so horrible that it deserved death, and he declared that Teresa Lewis, the mastermind behind the crime, must be executed. So, on September 23, 2010, Lewis was executed.
Just sentence, given the crime, every sensible person would say. Just sentence, indeed. But for secular humanists, that’s exactly where the problem lies.
Nothing can enrage secular humanists so much as a just sentence of a real criminal. And nothing gives them a better opportunity to exhibit to the world their superior pity. Groups from within the US and abroad started campaigning against the sentence. Even the European Union decided to intervene and petition the governor of Virginia. Different reasons were cited.
First, of course, she was a woman. In the eyes of the secular humanists, that surely made her a victim, no matter how heinous the crime she committed. “The first woman to be executed in Virginia in 100 years,” declared one secular humanist website, as if the frequency of death sentences has anything to do with the specific case. Of course, the same source is quick to inform us, that “her sexuality made her a victim in uniquely female ways.” Even though women receive only two per cent of the death sentences in this country, the website says,
[T]he whole capital punishment machine is hugely gender-biased, and always has been. Capital punishment has to be one of the most sexist systems left in America.
And of course, since the secular humanists need to go further in creating a victim out of a cold-blooded murderer, the following statement is mandatory:
While women are sentenced to death far less frequently than men, often the offenses for which they are sentenced are also rooted in antiquated gender stereotypes. When women are sentenced to die, say experts, it tends to be for the most sexist reasons.
Then there was the question of her mental abilities. Her IQ, as some psychologist found out, was 72, right on the border of “mental retardation.” Additional proof from “witnesses” was that she “never lived alone, couldn’t buy more than one day’s worth of groceries at a time, and could never balance a checkbook. For her, this meant marrying at a very young age (16) and a lifetime of being dependent on men.” Compelling evidence for mental retardation.
Think about it. She devises a plot to offer sex and money to two men, so that they – and not her – shoot her stepson, and her husband, in order to get the money from her son’s life insurance. It seems she has enough IQ to think things through. She may not be able to “buy more than one day’s worth of groceries at a time,” but she surely could think far enough ahead to know that she was getting a quarter million dollars from her stepson’s insurance. Besides, how could we know Lewis wasn’t simulating all the tests? An intelligent person can simulate low IQ. It’s the unintelligent person that can’t simulate high IQ. What if Lewis was “advised” to play dumb as a way to save herself from a just sentence? And what signal does that send to our society, to our young people? “The dumber you are the better chance of getting away with a crime you commit.”
Of course, secular humanists never used the same argument concerning Terri Schiavo’s case. If anyone really had some brain damage, it was Terri. She hadn’t committed any crime – which, I suppose, is itself a crime in the secular humanists’ eyes – and her IQ was much lower than 70. In fact, she wasn’t conscious. You would think it would be a good reason for the secular humanists to campaign against her execution. But they didn’t. In fact, they campaigned for Terri to be executed.
Then there was the argument for Teresa Lewis’ “exemplary behavior” as a prisoner. She even “ministered to Christian women” in prison, believe it or not. (Yup, counseling services are a piece of cake for a mentally retarded person, you know.) She is very sorry, and she wouldn’t do it again, if she could. So exemplary she has become that her attorney had the face to declare, “A good and decent person is about to lose her life because of a system that is broken.” Now, the scale of values that would declare Lewis “a good and decent person” is beyond human abilities to comprehend. But the main point is in the idea that she is a victim of a “broken system.”
We cannot miss the Iranian president Ahmadinejad who used Lewis’ case to justify the death sentence of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani in Iran. His propaganda effort was joined by our own secular humanists who were quick to point out how our Justice system is not different from Shariah. Left out of the picture was the fact that Sakineh was tortured in jail by male guards to admit adultery, was at first acquitted, then illegally tried again for the same crime, a new accusation of manslaughter (without witnesses or names) was added to the charge, and the Iranian court refused to let her have translation of the court documents in her spoken language, Azeri. The so-called “adultery” was alleged to have happened after the death of her husband, and the men with whom she allegedly committed it were never summoned in court, nor were their names mentioned in the court documents. She wasn’t allowed to summon any witnesses, and she was completely cut off from any communication with the outside world, in an attempt to silence the campaigns in her support. Nothing of this happened to Teresa Lewis, but neither Ahmadinejad nor American secular humanists are people who would let facts get in the way of their propaganda.
As stated above, everything can be made a victim worthy of the secular humanists’ pity. But reality is, the secular humanists have their preferences; they identify much more easily with certain classes of people, and ignore other classes. At the top of their scale of worthy victims are those that are real, real criminals. The more people a criminal robs, kills, or oppresses the better candidate he is for the Pity of Man. Che Guevara, for example. The heartbreaking story of his capture and execution was made known to the whole world. No story is recorded of the thousands he killed while being a high official in the Cuban Communist government, or in his “revolutionary” activities in Congo and Bolivia. Muslim terrorists are other worthy candidates for pity. Or abortionists. Secular humanists don’t just make them victims deserving pity, they even make them heroes deserving admiration – like Mao, or Ho Chi Minh, or Hugo Chavez, or Mugabe.
When illustrious ideological mass murderers are not available for pity and heroization, smaller criminals would suffice. Teresa Lewis, for example. Or illegal aliens.
On the bottom of the scale of the Pity of Man are those that haven’t committed any crime and therefore deserve no pity. Unborn babies, to start with. The victims of Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Che, or Stalin. The victims of Teresa Lewis. The families of those who died in the 9/11 attacks. Christians persecuted in Muslim countries. Women oppressed and mutilated by Muslim societies. Closer to home, small businesses pressed by the Federal government with increasing taxes. Law-abiding citizens whose lifetime savings are drained by taxes and inflation.
In other words, the secular humanists’ pity has moral priorities. The worse criminal a person is, the more deserving of pity. The more a person is innocent, the less they deserve pity. Secular humanists’ pity has moral preferences; it is moral identification with criminals. More than that, a justly sentenced criminal is even easier to identify with. The problem for secular humanists comes when there are real victims of real crimes. Then, try as much as he can, the secular humanist remains unmoved. He can’t identify with an innocent person.
It is a complete reversal of God’s mercy. God identifies with the real victims; he lets the victims decide if a criminal deserves mercy or justice. Mercy can only come from God, or from His judicial representative in the crime – the victims. A righteous person would let the victims show mercy if they want. A judge or a civil ruler is not to show mercy to proven criminals; such “mercy” would be cruelty to the victims of crimes, it would be a perversion of justice. Most importantly, it is a rebellion against God Whose Law only can preserve a civilization, as we know from our Founding Fathers.
The world of the secular humanists’ pity is a world that creates and encourages a culture of impunity for criminals. It is a world of cultural suicide, a world that cannot find the moral fiber to resist its own destruction. It is a world that is going to extinction. By morally siding with criminals like Teresa Lewis, secular humanists dig their own grave. In their ideal secular humanist world, criminals would face no opposition to their crimes, and therefore will be left free to destroy the society.
The end of this secular humanists’ world is near. Fewer and fewer people listen to their lies, and more and more people demand justice be restored in the land and throughout the world. The Governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, refused to commute the death sentence of Lewis, giving an example of a responsible civil magistrate concerned with justice and not with self-destructive pity. God is here to restore His justice over our land. As He Himself says concerning those that “put to death some who should not die and to keep others alive who should not live, by your lying to My people who listen to lies.” [Ezekiel 13:19]
I will also tear off your veils and deliver My people from your hands, and they will no longer be in your hands to be hunted; and you will know that I am the LORD. [Ezekiel 13:21]
It will be our job as His church to declare His justice throughout the land.
Respectfully, Mark
For handfuls of barley and fragments of bread, you have profaned Me to My people to put to death some who should not die and to keep others alive who should not live, by your lying to My people who listen to lies. [Ezekiel 13:19]
Pity is the secular humanists’ chief moral virtue. If you are a secular humanist, it is mandatory that you show pity to someone. And do it publicly so that everyone knows how much pity you feel toward those who are “unfortunate.” There are so many people out there that are victims – or can be made to look like victims – to evil circumstances or institutions or simply evil reality. What better opportunity to show the world how moral and compassionate and tenderhearted you are. Over the last century the secular humanists, not having any discernible moral standard at all, still had quite a few moral causes, all of them based on this one single moral virtue – pity. Everyone and everything can be turned into an unfortunate victim that deserves the secular humanists’ pity. Communist guerillas, Muslim terrorists, single mothers, married mothers, children without parents, children with parents, poor people without houses and cars, poor people who own houses and cars, people without health insurance, whether they want it or not, people with health insurance, legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, minorities – and especially minority leaders who live off the backs of their minorities like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton – animal populations that are dwindling, animal populations that are thriving, icebergs with polar bears on top, icebergs without polar bears on top, warmer climate, cooler climate, changing climate … everything.
On September 23, 2010, the paragons of the Pity of Man had a priceless occasion to remind the world of their moral superiority: The Commonwealth of Virginia executed Teresa Lewis. Eight years earlier, on the night of October 30, 2002, Teresa Lewis organized the murder of her husband and her stepson. The motive was her stepson’s life insurance from his military service. Lewis used money and sexual favors – offering her 16-year old daughter – to recruit two men more than 10 years older than her daughter, to shoot the victims. After the crime, she waited for more than an hour before she called the police, while her husband, still alive, bled to death. In the meantime, she cold-bloodedly searched the victims’ clothes and belongings for money. When police officers arrived, her husband was still able to tell them that his wife knew everything about the murder.
At the trial, she pleaded guilty, and she allowed the judge to decide her sentence. Her attorneys believed she had a better chance to get a life term from a judge who never sentenced anyone to death. However, the judge found that the crime was so horrible that it deserved death, and he declared that Teresa Lewis, the mastermind behind the crime, must be executed. So, on September 23, 2010, Lewis was executed.
Just sentence, given the crime, every sensible person would say. Just sentence, indeed. But for secular humanists, that’s exactly where the problem lies.
Nothing can enrage secular humanists so much as a just sentence of a real criminal. And nothing gives them a better opportunity to exhibit to the world their superior pity. Groups from within the US and abroad started campaigning against the sentence. Even the European Union decided to intervene and petition the governor of Virginia. Different reasons were cited.
First, of course, she was a woman. In the eyes of the secular humanists, that surely made her a victim, no matter how heinous the crime she committed. “The first woman to be executed in Virginia in 100 years,” declared one secular humanist website, as if the frequency of death sentences has anything to do with the specific case. Of course, the same source is quick to inform us, that “her sexuality made her a victim in uniquely female ways.” Even though women receive only two per cent of the death sentences in this country, the website says,
[T]he whole capital punishment machine is hugely gender-biased, and always has been. Capital punishment has to be one of the most sexist systems left in America.
And of course, since the secular humanists need to go further in creating a victim out of a cold-blooded murderer, the following statement is mandatory:
While women are sentenced to death far less frequently than men, often the offenses for which they are sentenced are also rooted in antiquated gender stereotypes. When women are sentenced to die, say experts, it tends to be for the most sexist reasons.
Then there was the question of her mental abilities. Her IQ, as some psychologist found out, was 72, right on the border of “mental retardation.” Additional proof from “witnesses” was that she “never lived alone, couldn’t buy more than one day’s worth of groceries at a time, and could never balance a checkbook. For her, this meant marrying at a very young age (16) and a lifetime of being dependent on men.” Compelling evidence for mental retardation.
Think about it. She devises a plot to offer sex and money to two men, so that they – and not her – shoot her stepson, and her husband, in order to get the money from her son’s life insurance. It seems she has enough IQ to think things through. She may not be able to “buy more than one day’s worth of groceries at a time,” but she surely could think far enough ahead to know that she was getting a quarter million dollars from her stepson’s insurance. Besides, how could we know Lewis wasn’t simulating all the tests? An intelligent person can simulate low IQ. It’s the unintelligent person that can’t simulate high IQ. What if Lewis was “advised” to play dumb as a way to save herself from a just sentence? And what signal does that send to our society, to our young people? “The dumber you are the better chance of getting away with a crime you commit.”
Of course, secular humanists never used the same argument concerning Terri Schiavo’s case. If anyone really had some brain damage, it was Terri. She hadn’t committed any crime – which, I suppose, is itself a crime in the secular humanists’ eyes – and her IQ was much lower than 70. In fact, she wasn’t conscious. You would think it would be a good reason for the secular humanists to campaign against her execution. But they didn’t. In fact, they campaigned for Terri to be executed.
Then there was the argument for Teresa Lewis’ “exemplary behavior” as a prisoner. She even “ministered to Christian women” in prison, believe it or not. (Yup, counseling services are a piece of cake for a mentally retarded person, you know.) She is very sorry, and she wouldn’t do it again, if she could. So exemplary she has become that her attorney had the face to declare, “A good and decent person is about to lose her life because of a system that is broken.” Now, the scale of values that would declare Lewis “a good and decent person” is beyond human abilities to comprehend. But the main point is in the idea that she is a victim of a “broken system.”
We cannot miss the Iranian president Ahmadinejad who used Lewis’ case to justify the death sentence of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani in Iran. His propaganda effort was joined by our own secular humanists who were quick to point out how our Justice system is not different from Shariah. Left out of the picture was the fact that Sakineh was tortured in jail by male guards to admit adultery, was at first acquitted, then illegally tried again for the same crime, a new accusation of manslaughter (without witnesses or names) was added to the charge, and the Iranian court refused to let her have translation of the court documents in her spoken language, Azeri. The so-called “adultery” was alleged to have happened after the death of her husband, and the men with whom she allegedly committed it were never summoned in court, nor were their names mentioned in the court documents. She wasn’t allowed to summon any witnesses, and she was completely cut off from any communication with the outside world, in an attempt to silence the campaigns in her support. Nothing of this happened to Teresa Lewis, but neither Ahmadinejad nor American secular humanists are people who would let facts get in the way of their propaganda.
As stated above, everything can be made a victim worthy of the secular humanists’ pity. But reality is, the secular humanists have their preferences; they identify much more easily with certain classes of people, and ignore other classes. At the top of their scale of worthy victims are those that are real, real criminals. The more people a criminal robs, kills, or oppresses the better candidate he is for the Pity of Man. Che Guevara, for example. The heartbreaking story of his capture and execution was made known to the whole world. No story is recorded of the thousands he killed while being a high official in the Cuban Communist government, or in his “revolutionary” activities in Congo and Bolivia. Muslim terrorists are other worthy candidates for pity. Or abortionists. Secular humanists don’t just make them victims deserving pity, they even make them heroes deserving admiration – like Mao, or Ho Chi Minh, or Hugo Chavez, or Mugabe.
When illustrious ideological mass murderers are not available for pity and heroization, smaller criminals would suffice. Teresa Lewis, for example. Or illegal aliens.
On the bottom of the scale of the Pity of Man are those that haven’t committed any crime and therefore deserve no pity. Unborn babies, to start with. The victims of Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Che, or Stalin. The victims of Teresa Lewis. The families of those who died in the 9/11 attacks. Christians persecuted in Muslim countries. Women oppressed and mutilated by Muslim societies. Closer to home, small businesses pressed by the Federal government with increasing taxes. Law-abiding citizens whose lifetime savings are drained by taxes and inflation.
In other words, the secular humanists’ pity has moral priorities. The worse criminal a person is, the more deserving of pity. The more a person is innocent, the less they deserve pity. Secular humanists’ pity has moral preferences; it is moral identification with criminals. More than that, a justly sentenced criminal is even easier to identify with. The problem for secular humanists comes when there are real victims of real crimes. Then, try as much as he can, the secular humanist remains unmoved. He can’t identify with an innocent person.
It is a complete reversal of God’s mercy. God identifies with the real victims; he lets the victims decide if a criminal deserves mercy or justice. Mercy can only come from God, or from His judicial representative in the crime – the victims. A righteous person would let the victims show mercy if they want. A judge or a civil ruler is not to show mercy to proven criminals; such “mercy” would be cruelty to the victims of crimes, it would be a perversion of justice. Most importantly, it is a rebellion against God Whose Law only can preserve a civilization, as we know from our Founding Fathers.
The world of the secular humanists’ pity is a world that creates and encourages a culture of impunity for criminals. It is a world of cultural suicide, a world that cannot find the moral fiber to resist its own destruction. It is a world that is going to extinction. By morally siding with criminals like Teresa Lewis, secular humanists dig their own grave. In their ideal secular humanist world, criminals would face no opposition to their crimes, and therefore will be left free to destroy the society.
The end of this secular humanists’ world is near. Fewer and fewer people listen to their lies, and more and more people demand justice be restored in the land and throughout the world. The Governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, refused to commute the death sentence of Lewis, giving an example of a responsible civil magistrate concerned with justice and not with self-destructive pity. God is here to restore His justice over our land. As He Himself says concerning those that “put to death some who should not die and to keep others alive who should not live, by your lying to My people who listen to lies.” [Ezekiel 13:19]
I will also tear off your veils and deliver My people from your hands, and they will no longer be in your hands to be hunted; and you will know that I am the LORD. [Ezekiel 13:21]
It will be our job as His church to declare His justice throughout the land.
Respectfully, Mark
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)