*********************************************************************************
Introduction:
This is Part 3 in a three part series of my thoughts on the Church and it's fear of getting involved in political matters and controversial secular ideas like global warming to name one. Why should they get involved with topics seemingly irrelevant to the Christian religion? Because these ideas and the policies that go with them threaten our Freedoms and Liberties. The Freedoms and Liberties our Founders built into our government came from principles in the Bible. If the Church will not defend these Freedoms and Liberties from the basis of the Bible, who will? The Church must engage in the public discussion of controversial secular ideas. This article got so long that I decided to divide it up into three parts that I will post everyday for three days.
*********************************************************************************
Christians cannot entrust the seemingly weighty matters of government and politics to their elected representatives and live in an ignorant bliss trusting that their representatives have their best interest at heart. Christians may be willing to dive into weighty theological matters but to blindly trust the weighty matters of politics and policy to elected representatives without investigation is irresponsible and dangerous. Politicians intentionally use big words and try to add complexity to issues to discourage the People from actually investigating what they are up to. Most of the complexity is just a red herring, that when stripped away, reveal a less than noble agenda that usually involves them securing more votes, money, and power for themselves and their party. A People cannot be ignorant of the activities of their elected representatives and not lose their freedoms over time. Christians must research the candidates' past in regards to character, morals, and voting record, and hold it up to the Bible.
"Liberty cannot be preserved
without a general knowledge among the people, who have...
a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right
to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge,
I mean the characters and conduct of their rulers." - John Adams
Some might say politics "isn't their thing " or something of the sort. My question to them would be, "do you enjoy your freedoms here in America and do you know how they came about?". How can someone partake in the freedoms of this great nation and be willfully ignorant in matters of government is beyond me. They do not understand the source of freedom, and the nature of governments to enslave it's People. The voice and will of the people is the greatest check and balance of our government. If your not involved and speaking out don't complain to me when your freedoms disappear. I'm not saying you have to be a political junkie, but please pay attention. Be able to rebut the MSNBC talking points with Biblical principles, facts, and solutions. Talk to your friends in a civil manner, if they don't want to be civil, move on to the next person. To be informed is the citizens' duty and The Labor of Freedom and Liberty.
The Church with all it's noble causes and activities cannot afford to just apply the 2 Corinthians 10:5 to matters of theology, it applies to public and secular matters too. I would argue this should be part of the Church's activities and causes. The congregation should be made aware of any legislation or politician that would threaten their God given, Constitutionally affirmed and protected rights. This is where the Church, in large, gets an F-. I hope the tax breaks and attendance numbers were worth the freedoms lost.
Sources:
http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Part 2: Christian's ignorance on political matters and secular ideas is Biblically unacceptable
*********************************************************************************
Introduction:
This is Part 2 in a three part series of my thoughts on the Church and it's fear of getting involved in political matters and controversial secular ideas like global warming to name one. Why should they get involved with topics seemingly irrelevant to the Christian religion? Because these ideas and the policies that go with them threaten our Freedoms and Liberties. The Freedoms and Liberties our Founders built into our government came from principles in the Bible. If the Church will not defend these Freedoms and Liberties from the basis of the Bible, who will? The Church must engage in the public discussion of controversial secular ideas. This article got so long that I decided to divide it up into three parts that I will post everyday for three days.
*********************************************************************************
The principles of the Bible guided our Founders when they formed our government. Principles of Freedom, Liberty, individual responsibility, and the Ten Commandments(the rule of law). Their Christian faith was not confined to church activities, it drove their public service and guided their hands as they designed our form government.
“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” -Patrick Henry, May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses
Noah Webster understood well that a government that protects freedom long term can only come from Christian principles:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams, October 11, 1798
Sources:
http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca
Introduction:
This is Part 2 in a three part series of my thoughts on the Church and it's fear of getting involved in political matters and controversial secular ideas like global warming to name one. Why should they get involved with topics seemingly irrelevant to the Christian religion? Because these ideas and the policies that go with them threaten our Freedoms and Liberties. The Freedoms and Liberties our Founders built into our government came from principles in the Bible. If the Church will not defend these Freedoms and Liberties from the basis of the Bible, who will? The Church must engage in the public discussion of controversial secular ideas. This article got so long that I decided to divide it up into three parts that I will post everyday for three days.
*********************************************************************************
The principles of the Bible guided our Founders when they formed our government. Principles of Freedom, Liberty, individual responsibility, and the Ten Commandments(the rule of law). Their Christian faith was not confined to church activities, it drove their public service and guided their hands as they designed our form government.
“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” -Patrick Henry, May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses
Noah Webster understood well that a government that protects freedom long term can only come from Christian principles:
Let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God [Exodus 18:21]. . . . If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted . . . If our government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws. [Noah Webster, The History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie and Peck, 1832), pp. 336-337, 49]
“All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.” [Noah Webster. History. p. 339]
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams, October 11, 1798
Sources:
http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca
Part 1: Christian's ignorance on political matters and secular ideas is Biblically unacceptable
*********************************************************************************
Introduction:
This is Part 1 in a three part series of my thoughts on the Church and it's fear of getting involved in political matters and controversial secular ideas like global warming to name one. Why should they get involved with topics seemingly irrelevant to the Christian religion? Because these ideas and the policies that go with them threaten our Freedoms and Liberties. The Freedoms and Liberties our Founders built into our government came from principles in the Bible. If the Church will not defend these Freedoms and Liberties from the basis of the Bible, who will? The Church must engage in the public discussion of controversial secular ideas. This article got so long that I decided to divide it up into three parts that I will post everyday for three days.
*********************************************************************************
As Christians, in addition to focusing on the great commission to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth and our own spiritual growth, we must not forget about another command in the Bible:
2 Corinthians 10:5
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.
Christians, not all but in large, have failed this charge miserably when it comes to the public square. We have a charge to challenge the ideas the politicians, media, academia, and public schools force on us. We must demolish every idea that sets itself up against the knowledge of God. It doesn't say politely agree to disagree. It doesn't say come up with some kind of Christian feel good compromise with a Godless human theory or idea. It says DEMOLISH!
We must take every idea coming from politicians, academia, etc. and hold it up to the principles in the Bible. And yes, the Bible is clear on more political topics than just abortion. We can't just sit in our churches and focus on typical religious activities and think that we have no Biblical responsibility to engage secular ideas being pushed in the public square and everywhere. We can't just do our typical religious activities and ignore the politics of the day and expect to have no consequences. The Christian Church's lack of involvement, appeasement, and compromise with the world of secular ideas will result in the loss of the right for Christians in America to practice and speak out against anti-Christian ideas and lifestyles.
The Hate Crimes bill, that will be hidden in a huge "must pass now" bill, will begin the blatant persecution of the American Christian Church. If the Church's sole reason in not speaking out (about the Biblical roots of our founding and the Biblical adherence or lack thereof of today's politics and pending legislation) is to retain their tax exempt status and large attendence, shame on them. They will foolishly have exchanged freedom for money and human approval by being silent on matters of politics, country, and freedom. This act of appeasement may protect the Church's budgets in the short term but not their freedom to preach the gospel and speak out against Godlessness. I doubt the early churches in the Bible had any such accommodations like tax breaks from government. They were chopped to pieces, skinned alive, fed to wild animals, and crucified upside down to name a few "accommodations" of the early Church. We have it easy at the moment.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Sources:
http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca
Introduction:
This is Part 1 in a three part series of my thoughts on the Church and it's fear of getting involved in political matters and controversial secular ideas like global warming to name one. Why should they get involved with topics seemingly irrelevant to the Christian religion? Because these ideas and the policies that go with them threaten our Freedoms and Liberties. The Freedoms and Liberties our Founders built into our government came from principles in the Bible. If the Church will not defend these Freedoms and Liberties from the basis of the Bible, who will? The Church must engage in the public discussion of controversial secular ideas. This article got so long that I decided to divide it up into three parts that I will post everyday for three days.
*********************************************************************************
As Christians, in addition to focusing on the great commission to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth and our own spiritual growth, we must not forget about another command in the Bible:
2 Corinthians 10:5
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.
Christians, not all but in large, have failed this charge miserably when it comes to the public square. We have a charge to challenge the ideas the politicians, media, academia, and public schools force on us. We must demolish every idea that sets itself up against the knowledge of God. It doesn't say politely agree to disagree. It doesn't say come up with some kind of Christian feel good compromise with a Godless human theory or idea. It says DEMOLISH!
We must take every idea coming from politicians, academia, etc. and hold it up to the principles in the Bible. And yes, the Bible is clear on more political topics than just abortion. We can't just sit in our churches and focus on typical religious activities and think that we have no Biblical responsibility to engage secular ideas being pushed in the public square and everywhere. We can't just do our typical religious activities and ignore the politics of the day and expect to have no consequences. The Christian Church's lack of involvement, appeasement, and compromise with the world of secular ideas will result in the loss of the right for Christians in America to practice and speak out against anti-Christian ideas and lifestyles.
The Hate Crimes bill, that will be hidden in a huge "must pass now" bill, will begin the blatant persecution of the American Christian Church. If the Church's sole reason in not speaking out (about the Biblical roots of our founding and the Biblical adherence or lack thereof of today's politics and pending legislation) is to retain their tax exempt status and large attendence, shame on them. They will foolishly have exchanged freedom for money and human approval by being silent on matters of politics, country, and freedom. This act of appeasement may protect the Church's budgets in the short term but not their freedom to preach the gospel and speak out against Godlessness. I doubt the early churches in the Bible had any such accommodations like tax breaks from government. They were chopped to pieces, skinned alive, fed to wild animals, and crucified upside down to name a few "accommodations" of the early Church. We have it easy at the moment.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Sources:
http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca
Friday, June 19, 2009
"Social Injustice" and "Unearned Privilege"
This is another excerpt from a conversation with a friend concerning "Social Injustice" and "Unearned Privilege".
I would argue that programs and policies sold as programs that will eliminate or reduce poverty or rectify social injustices are the programs the promote poverty and agitate class hatred. Not that they didn't start out with good intentions, but they have been failing for the past 50 years and to speak out against welfare means you immediately get labeled a heartless, capitalist, racist, monster who is too privileged to even be allowed to comment on the hardships of those repressed by an unjust society ruled by the rich and privileged.
My understanding of Social Justice as proclaimed by the media, Obama, and academia is, there are minorities or groups of people who because of their race, geographic location, and economic situation are held down, or oppressed by a society run by rich capitalists that discriminates based on race, or economic status. Because of these insurmountable societal obstacles and injustices, they cannot succeed like typical middle class or wealthy white people. Therefore it is the government's moral obligation to wage "war" on the aspects of society, mainly the wealthy, that "force" poverty on these minorities or groups and bring about social and economic equality by redistributing the spoils of this war.
My definition of social injustice is a strategy of the left whereby they target the lower economic class, whites and minorities, and by inciting class hatred, convince them that they are victims of an unfair society run by a rich, privileged majority class, that discriminates against them and intentionally keeps them down to enrich themselves. They are told they cannot succeed without a "hand-up" from the government. Therefore if they vote for left, the left will right the wrongs of society and give them what they deserve, what is their right: food, shelter, clothing, and a job (job is optional sometimes). And if your unfortunate enough to be classified as "rich and privileged" by the left, it's the governments moral obligation to take, I say steal, money from you and give it to these poor underprivileged people. After all, what are the rich and privileged going to do with all that money, it's not like they earned it fairly, it's not like they may have been in poverty and worked their asses off to succeed. It's not like charities are funded by these selfish rich and privileged people. The tragedy of it is that those people exchanged their freedom and possibly a prosperous future for a check, for a book of food stamps. Why work hard and try to reach your full potential when society is against you and wants you to fail, when you can do little to nothing and live off the government coffers instead. After all it's only fair that government take money from those rich privileged people and give it the poor underprivileged. That's "social justice." Take from the so called "rich" and give to the so called "poor". That's also called socialism, which is the transitional period between capitalism and communism. It's failed everywhere it's been tried and leads to misery, stagnant economies, and an oppressed people. Socialism cuts down the wealthy and middle class and lifts the poor to a mutual level of misery, while leaving a rich and powerful ruling class. Communism has also been responsible for some of the greatest human atrocities and loss of life, estimated around 260 million. True Economic Conservatism doesn't bring down the rich or lift up the poor, it creates and preserves an environment where individuals can succeed and be prosperous free from government intrusion, but they have to work hard and earn it. Conservatism rewards hard work and achievement, it doesn't pick winners and losers. Socialism kills the human initiative to provide for oneself and trains people to think they are entitled to goodies from the government, the left calls them "rights", the government in turn takes from the "rich" and gives it to it's dependent voter base.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. - William Boetcker
I graduated from High school with a 1.9/4.0 GPA. But you know, I had it rough. I was going through a very difficult emotional experience. You probably did a lot better than me. Things were probably better for you than me. It's not fair that you have all those good grades because you were privileged with better circumstances than me. In fact I think it's only fair that I get some of your GPA. I think about 1.0 point would be fair. That feels like justice to me. Doesn't sound so just for you does it? That's because it is not. I reaped the consequences of my High school GPA and it was a 4 year detour for me to get into the Penn State Aerospace Engineering program. I worked my ass off and graduated with better than a 3.5 Cumulative GPA. Quite an accomplishment for a high school flunky. I still am burdened with the consequences of my High school GPA in the form of College debt. I accept those consequences of my decisions and do not expect a bailout or charity from anyone. If I could go back to high school, I would kick my own ass and say, "Snap out of it! You're screwing your future!"
The war on poverty has been the longest fought most expensive war. No matter how much we spend on this war, the state of poverty in our country has not improved since the creation FDR's welfare program. But conservatives are not allowed to talk about the results, just the good intentions of welfare and the moral obligation we all have to keep funding it.
Consequently because of these perceived social injustices, we have laws like Affirmative Action that force Universities and Companies to have to meet racial quotas not based on merit or qualifications, but based on race. Sounds a little racist not to hire someone because he's white. Sounds a little sexist not to hire someone because he's not a she. How is that social justice for the middle class white person who doesn't get a job even though he is more qualified and credentialed than another minority candidate? How is that good for a company to be forced to take on individuals who aren't the best at their disciplines? How is that company supposed to be competitive on the international market with companies who hire the best regardless of race? How is that good for the minority candidate who gets a job they're not qualified for. That individual will have a false sense of being qualified and will have missed out on the personal development required to be the best, and to be hired for their excellence and not because of their race. You are robbing that minority candidate of personal accomplishment and the opportunity to reach their full potential. You are also setting that minority candidate up for humiliation and antagonism when their incompetence is discovered in the workplace. How is it social justice that I couldn't get a grant or scholarship because I am white, my parents are middle class and not divorced, and I happen to be heterosexual? I would say now the tables have turned and the social injustice is toward the achievers and white people who work hard and pay taxes. There are people out there who don't want social injustices and the racism that African Americans have experienced to go away.
There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well. - Booker T. Washington
I don't buy the idea that all the hardships of the poor both here and around the world is a result of American capitalism. If anything it is the leftovers of communism as well as the current full fledged communist/totalitarian governments and dictators that are responsible for the economic devastation and human suffering in the world.
It has been the Environmental Extremists on the Left that have blockaded 3rd world countries from getting the cheap electricity available through modern power plants and technologies that could bring them into the 21st century, provide jobs and wealth, and stop many pointless deaths. All based on an undebated and easily debunked myth of Global Warming. We are on the verge of knee-capping our economy with Cap and Trade (a misnomer for "Cap and Tax"), and imposing crippling CAFE standards on our struggling automotive companies, all for a politically hyped, completely unscientific theory that man is affecting Global Temperatures and unless we act drastically now, human life will end, which is the true Environmentalists perfect world (a world without humans). Global Warming is an emotional red herring and provides a vehicle for the largest increase in government power, taxation, and control over every little aspect of our lives. It has absolutely nothing to do with helping the planet. Scientifically and historically, plant life flourishes with warmer temperatures and increased CO2. If plants could talk, I think they'd have a problem with reducing global temperatures and CO2.
Capitalism has provided the most wealth for the most people and the best standard of living in the world for America as opposed to other nations who refuse to learn from the past history of socialism and communism. America is also the most charitable nation in the world. Obama and his administration are waging an all out war on Capitalism and American Exceptionalism. He's knowingly destroying the vehicle which made America great, Capitalism. He is punishing America for her sin of prosperity and is aggressively erasing America's Judeo Christian heritage. I hope his attempts to do so fail.
I would argue that programs and policies sold as programs that will eliminate or reduce poverty or rectify social injustices are the programs the promote poverty and agitate class hatred. Not that they didn't start out with good intentions, but they have been failing for the past 50 years and to speak out against welfare means you immediately get labeled a heartless, capitalist, racist, monster who is too privileged to even be allowed to comment on the hardships of those repressed by an unjust society ruled by the rich and privileged.
My understanding of Social Justice as proclaimed by the media, Obama, and academia is, there are minorities or groups of people who because of their race, geographic location, and economic situation are held down, or oppressed by a society run by rich capitalists that discriminates based on race, or economic status. Because of these insurmountable societal obstacles and injustices, they cannot succeed like typical middle class or wealthy white people. Therefore it is the government's moral obligation to wage "war" on the aspects of society, mainly the wealthy, that "force" poverty on these minorities or groups and bring about social and economic equality by redistributing the spoils of this war.
My definition of social injustice is a strategy of the left whereby they target the lower economic class, whites and minorities, and by inciting class hatred, convince them that they are victims of an unfair society run by a rich, privileged majority class, that discriminates against them and intentionally keeps them down to enrich themselves. They are told they cannot succeed without a "hand-up" from the government. Therefore if they vote for left, the left will right the wrongs of society and give them what they deserve, what is their right: food, shelter, clothing, and a job (job is optional sometimes). And if your unfortunate enough to be classified as "rich and privileged" by the left, it's the governments moral obligation to take, I say steal, money from you and give it to these poor underprivileged people. After all, what are the rich and privileged going to do with all that money, it's not like they earned it fairly, it's not like they may have been in poverty and worked their asses off to succeed. It's not like charities are funded by these selfish rich and privileged people. The tragedy of it is that those people exchanged their freedom and possibly a prosperous future for a check, for a book of food stamps. Why work hard and try to reach your full potential when society is against you and wants you to fail, when you can do little to nothing and live off the government coffers instead. After all it's only fair that government take money from those rich privileged people and give it the poor underprivileged. That's "social justice." Take from the so called "rich" and give to the so called "poor". That's also called socialism, which is the transitional period between capitalism and communism. It's failed everywhere it's been tried and leads to misery, stagnant economies, and an oppressed people. Socialism cuts down the wealthy and middle class and lifts the poor to a mutual level of misery, while leaving a rich and powerful ruling class. Communism has also been responsible for some of the greatest human atrocities and loss of life, estimated around 260 million. True Economic Conservatism doesn't bring down the rich or lift up the poor, it creates and preserves an environment where individuals can succeed and be prosperous free from government intrusion, but they have to work hard and earn it. Conservatism rewards hard work and achievement, it doesn't pick winners and losers. Socialism kills the human initiative to provide for oneself and trains people to think they are entitled to goodies from the government, the left calls them "rights", the government in turn takes from the "rich" and gives it to it's dependent voter base.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. - William Boetcker
I graduated from High school with a 1.9/4.0 GPA. But you know, I had it rough. I was going through a very difficult emotional experience. You probably did a lot better than me. Things were probably better for you than me. It's not fair that you have all those good grades because you were privileged with better circumstances than me. In fact I think it's only fair that I get some of your GPA. I think about 1.0 point would be fair. That feels like justice to me. Doesn't sound so just for you does it? That's because it is not. I reaped the consequences of my High school GPA and it was a 4 year detour for me to get into the Penn State Aerospace Engineering program. I worked my ass off and graduated with better than a 3.5 Cumulative GPA. Quite an accomplishment for a high school flunky. I still am burdened with the consequences of my High school GPA in the form of College debt. I accept those consequences of my decisions and do not expect a bailout or charity from anyone. If I could go back to high school, I would kick my own ass and say, "Snap out of it! You're screwing your future!"
The war on poverty has been the longest fought most expensive war. No matter how much we spend on this war, the state of poverty in our country has not improved since the creation FDR's welfare program. But conservatives are not allowed to talk about the results, just the good intentions of welfare and the moral obligation we all have to keep funding it.
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the
wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working
for, another person must work for without receiving. The government
cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take
from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other
half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is
going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of
any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
The late Dr. Adrian Rodgers
Consequently because of these perceived social injustices, we have laws like Affirmative Action that force Universities and Companies to have to meet racial quotas not based on merit or qualifications, but based on race. Sounds a little racist not to hire someone because he's white. Sounds a little sexist not to hire someone because he's not a she. How is that social justice for the middle class white person who doesn't get a job even though he is more qualified and credentialed than another minority candidate? How is that good for a company to be forced to take on individuals who aren't the best at their disciplines? How is that company supposed to be competitive on the international market with companies who hire the best regardless of race? How is that good for the minority candidate who gets a job they're not qualified for. That individual will have a false sense of being qualified and will have missed out on the personal development required to be the best, and to be hired for their excellence and not because of their race. You are robbing that minority candidate of personal accomplishment and the opportunity to reach their full potential. You are also setting that minority candidate up for humiliation and antagonism when their incompetence is discovered in the workplace. How is it social justice that I couldn't get a grant or scholarship because I am white, my parents are middle class and not divorced, and I happen to be heterosexual? I would say now the tables have turned and the social injustice is toward the achievers and white people who work hard and pay taxes. There are people out there who don't want social injustices and the racism that African Americans have experienced to go away.
There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well. - Booker T. Washington
I don't buy the idea that all the hardships of the poor both here and around the world is a result of American capitalism. If anything it is the leftovers of communism as well as the current full fledged communist/totalitarian governments and dictators that are responsible for the economic devastation and human suffering in the world.
It has been the Environmental Extremists on the Left that have blockaded 3rd world countries from getting the cheap electricity available through modern power plants and technologies that could bring them into the 21st century, provide jobs and wealth, and stop many pointless deaths. All based on an undebated and easily debunked myth of Global Warming. We are on the verge of knee-capping our economy with Cap and Trade (a misnomer for "Cap and Tax"), and imposing crippling CAFE standards on our struggling automotive companies, all for a politically hyped, completely unscientific theory that man is affecting Global Temperatures and unless we act drastically now, human life will end, which is the true Environmentalists perfect world (a world without humans). Global Warming is an emotional red herring and provides a vehicle for the largest increase in government power, taxation, and control over every little aspect of our lives. It has absolutely nothing to do with helping the planet. Scientifically and historically, plant life flourishes with warmer temperatures and increased CO2. If plants could talk, I think they'd have a problem with reducing global temperatures and CO2.
Capitalism has provided the most wealth for the most people and the best standard of living in the world for America as opposed to other nations who refuse to learn from the past history of socialism and communism. America is also the most charitable nation in the world. Obama and his administration are waging an all out war on Capitalism and American Exceptionalism. He's knowingly destroying the vehicle which made America great, Capitalism. He is punishing America for her sin of prosperity and is aggressively erasing America's Judeo Christian heritage. I hope his attempts to do so fail.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
The Left's addition to the Bill of Rights
This is an excerpt from a conversation with a friend concerning food, shelter, and clothing being rights.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." - Declaration of Independence.
This country was founded on the idea that individuals have a right to be free from government intrusion in their life (aka liberty). Much blood was shed to rid Americans from the heel of the King of England. Our Government's original purpose was to secure and protect those rights and leave individuals free to pursue happiness and provide for themselves. This was not a promise of happiness. It was never the intention of the founders that government was to provide for the people, they have no enumerated power in the Constitution to do so.
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." - Thomas Jefferson
It was government's responsibility to protect and ensure an environment where individuals could provide for themselves, acquire property and wealth free of government interference. Food, Shelter, and Clothing are not rights; they are things to be earned and worked for. If they are treated as rights, you must violate the actual rights of one who's earned, and give those earnings to another. Apart from the government forceably taking one's earnings and giving it to another through law (aka socialism which is heralded as "social justice"), this is called theft and is punishable as a crime. The idea of People having rights to "things" previously earned was popularized by FDR and his new Bill of Rights during the disaster that was the New Deal. These new rights consisted of rights to a house, a livable wage, health care, clothing, food, a job etc. The Constitution states the enumerated powers government has, what powers not enumerated in the Constitution are left to the states and to the People. The Bill of Rights specifically says what government cannot do to the People, not what it must do for the People.
By the very act of providing for someone what they would otherwise have to work for to provide for themselves, you destroy the human spirit, initiative, and desire to work and provide and consequently enslave them. This prevents them from realizing their full potential and makes them dependent on the government's conditional "generosity", which is a "bait and switch" by the government to get more power and votes. These recipients of the government's conditional generosity are then the subjects to government which is ultimately a theft of their freedoms. Our founders knew this is the end result of the welfare state: a loss of freedom and liberty, rampant poverty, and a tyrannical government. Our founders were very aware of the dangers of the welfare state and that it wasn't the answer to poverty. Ben Franklin says it well:
“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.” — Benjamin Franklin
Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. ... Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them. - Benjamin Franklin
What about the people who cannot work or provide for themselves due to a physical or psychological condition? I would most prefer that these individuals be provided for by private charity and by their families. Ideally in a society with a Christian consensus or Christian-like principles, private charity would be adequate, as that is a Biblical exhortation to Christians. The Bible does not advocate charity through government seizing my money through taxes and redistributing it (the small fraction they don't absorb) according to their discretion. The Bible says be charitable yourself to others, there is no middle man. It is not government's job to force me to be charitable. That is socialism and it is oppression. If they don't have family or adequate private charity, I would very reluctantly allow for government welfare to such individuals upon proving that there is a legitimate and existing condition that prevents them from earning an income. The goal of any welfare assistance should be to get people off of it if at all possible as soon as possible. Government should encourage and provide incentives for private charity, not tax it like Obama plans to do now.
"Once the government becomes the supplier of people's needs, there is no limit to the needs that will be claimed as a basic right." - Lawrence Auster
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." - Declaration of Independence.
This country was founded on the idea that individuals have a right to be free from government intrusion in their life (aka liberty). Much blood was shed to rid Americans from the heel of the King of England. Our Government's original purpose was to secure and protect those rights and leave individuals free to pursue happiness and provide for themselves. This was not a promise of happiness. It was never the intention of the founders that government was to provide for the people, they have no enumerated power in the Constitution to do so.
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." - Thomas Jefferson
It was government's responsibility to protect and ensure an environment where individuals could provide for themselves, acquire property and wealth free of government interference. Food, Shelter, and Clothing are not rights; they are things to be earned and worked for. If they are treated as rights, you must violate the actual rights of one who's earned, and give those earnings to another. Apart from the government forceably taking one's earnings and giving it to another through law (aka socialism which is heralded as "social justice"), this is called theft and is punishable as a crime. The idea of People having rights to "things" previously earned was popularized by FDR and his new Bill of Rights during the disaster that was the New Deal. These new rights consisted of rights to a house, a livable wage, health care, clothing, food, a job etc. The Constitution states the enumerated powers government has, what powers not enumerated in the Constitution are left to the states and to the People. The Bill of Rights specifically says what government cannot do to the People, not what it must do for the People.
By the very act of providing for someone what they would otherwise have to work for to provide for themselves, you destroy the human spirit, initiative, and desire to work and provide and consequently enslave them. This prevents them from realizing their full potential and makes them dependent on the government's conditional "generosity", which is a "bait and switch" by the government to get more power and votes. These recipients of the government's conditional generosity are then the subjects to government which is ultimately a theft of their freedoms. Our founders knew this is the end result of the welfare state: a loss of freedom and liberty, rampant poverty, and a tyrannical government. Our founders were very aware of the dangers of the welfare state and that it wasn't the answer to poverty. Ben Franklin says it well:
“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.” — Benjamin Franklin
Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. ... Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them. - Benjamin Franklin
What about the people who cannot work or provide for themselves due to a physical or psychological condition? I would most prefer that these individuals be provided for by private charity and by their families. Ideally in a society with a Christian consensus or Christian-like principles, private charity would be adequate, as that is a Biblical exhortation to Christians. The Bible does not advocate charity through government seizing my money through taxes and redistributing it (the small fraction they don't absorb) according to their discretion. The Bible says be charitable yourself to others, there is no middle man. It is not government's job to force me to be charitable. That is socialism and it is oppression. If they don't have family or adequate private charity, I would very reluctantly allow for government welfare to such individuals upon proving that there is a legitimate and existing condition that prevents them from earning an income. The goal of any welfare assistance should be to get people off of it if at all possible as soon as possible. Government should encourage and provide incentives for private charity, not tax it like Obama plans to do now.
"Once the government becomes the supplier of people's needs, there is no limit to the needs that will be claimed as a basic right." - Lawrence Auster
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)