Tuesday, August 10, 2010

If Capitalism is so bad...

If capitalism is so bad, why has it given so much freedom, opportunity, and success to the people under the system? Marxists say that capitalists have achieved their success on the backs of the masses. Is that really true? Never before in the history of the world have the masses living in capitalistic societies been able to achieve so much and live in relative security, comfort, and well being. I believe that capitalism is the economic engine that supports freedom. Marxists are the ones who actually rise to their power on the backs of the masses. Every Marxist regime has resulted in failure, poverty, and even death for major portions of their populations. The society supported by capitalism has brought more justice to its people than all of the Marxists regimes combined. Except for the minor corruptions caused by misguided people in a capitalistic society, capitalism is the best economic engine given to man. Marxism is just the opposite. It is a scourge upon the backs of mankind.
It seems to be the delight of some to bash corporations and banks as evil, and granted, there are some very unsavory things that happen in the name of profit, like slave labor on the one hand and opulence on the other. It is these corporations, however (not excusing the evils of greedy human beings), that have given many in this semi-capitalistic society the opportunity for a comfortable life if not the opportunity to achieve financial solidity and success. If you want to seek out the truly evil and greedy operators of such corporations, fine, but that does not mean that corporations themselves are evil and greedy. Quite conversely, they have generated the riches that have made our nation the benefactor of a lot of good in the world. We have fought for freedom all over the globe, and have given aid to nations throughout the earth who are in dire straits. What a dark place the world would be without the United States of America and capitalism.
So, it seems to me that Marxism and its little siblings of socialism, communism and fascism, swept into power by waves of liberalism that are the true evils. Just like no person is 100% good, no system without God’s rule is 100% perfect. When comparing capitalism with Marxism, however, capitalism comes out righteous and Marxism ends up being the evil system.

Friday, June 18, 2010

Answers to responses part 2

Patman wrote: “’ Some would like to re-create the United States in their own image. To accomplish this they need to rewrite the Constitution, interpreting it to fit their image. They also need to rewrite history.’ The only people trying to rewrite history is the Christian right. You need look no further than the Texas state school board. Fundamentalists Christians managed to gain a majority there and set about dumbing down their standards. The problem with this is that Texas is such a large market that their text books will probably end up being used all over the country. This alarmed California so much that they passed a law to insure any text books approved by Texas does not end up in California. http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/culture/2695/art(ful)_history_in_texas
You are wrong about the Christian right trying to rewrite history. If anything they are trying to preserve history as it actually happened. They have no reason to rewrite history as the founding of the nation supports most of their positions. The “Fundamentalists Christians” who gained the majority (finally!) are merely trying to set the record straight as it has been progressively changed to meet the goals of the progressives. It is the Saul Alinsky playbook is being played in the revolutionary left accusing their opponents of doing exactly what they are doing themselves to provide a smoke-screen for their own adverse actions. By the way, the truth is never dumbed down. It might be noted that California is going more and more toward socialism and liberal social norms and the state is dying, politically, financially, and morally. They don’t make a good argument for your point here.

Putman continues: “’Our Christian heritage is clearly reflected in that Constitution.’ That is a ridiculous statement. Most of the laws found in the bible would be found unconstitutional in this country. The first amendment provides for religious freedom but the first two of the ten commandments demand that people worship only one god. http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/ConstitutionChristianPrinciples.htm
I will admit that you must be somewhat perceptive to see the Christian heritage clearly reflected in the Constitution. When we talk about our Christian heritage being clearly reflected in the Constitution, we are not talking about specific laws given to the Israelites. They were God’s chosen people and thus had a somewhat different relationship with God. Christians are to be lovingly tolerant of other people as an example to them. Granted some do this better than others. For a Christian there is only one God. For a Jew under the Jewish law, there is only one God. In reality there is only one God and only one way to God. The founders were predominately devout orthodox Christians who had fled religious tyranny in the old world and were led to allow religious tolerance in the new world. The ten commandments are the basis of our judicial system which at its inception looked to the one God to give them guidance and direction to execute the system. The founders were following a more general principle in allowing even atheists to function freely without imposing a state religion. That principle is the principle of free will. God gave the right to men even to reject Him. The “most of the laws” you refer to (an overgeneralization if I ever heard one) would, as you say, be found unconstitutional in this country by liberal activist judges that have infiltrated our judicial system and have perverted it and have really “dumbed down” the system. That is why we have some of the problems we do in society today. That was not the original intent of the constitution.
Patman continues: "’History, however, shows that most, including Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, were ardent believers in the Bible, Jesus Christ and prayer.’ Franklin did believe in God and thought God was active in the world. He also thought Jesus was a good moral teacher. However, in a letter he wrote shortly before he died, he admitted that he doubted the divinity of Jesus. It is well know that Jefferson rejected the divinity of Jesus and went so far as to write his version of the new testament in which he left out references to miracles and it ends with the death of Jesus not his resurrection. http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/44/Letter_from_Benjamin_Franklin_to_Ezra_Stiles_1.html
At the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution both Franklin and Jefferson went along with the rest of the founders in that drafting. They were both religious and devout. Both believed in their own way, but both believed. Their skepticism does not constitute disbelief, and it does not negate the Christian basis from which the founding work was done. I personally am not real hot about organized religion. That does not mean I don’t believe in the church. Franklin had some questions and Jefferson had his own way of looking at the Bible. That does not mean they were not devout. In fact they were.
Patman continues: "’I applaud Mayor Cawley for calling our community to prayer. The Constitution protects that right and obligation. It does not separate church and state as the humanists say, but protects us from the state forcing a particular religion upon us.’ Mayor Cawley's call for the community to pray was an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. The first amendment does provide for a separation of church and state and the Supreme Court has affirmed that principle numerous times. Would Mr. Abercrombie be defending Mayor Cawley if the Mayor had called for the community to face Mecca and bow to Allah? I think not!”
I adamantly disagree that the call to prayer was an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. It was a constitutional call to prayer. There was no specific type of prayer being called. If a Buhdist or a Moslem wanted to come and pray, they would have been welcome though they probably would not have been called upon to pray publicly. This call to prayer does not violate a separation of church and state as it was intended to be, that of the government being prevented from forming a state religion and forcing it upon the people. That, by the way, is what virtually every totalitarian regime has done, even the U.S.S.R. in its enforcement of the religion of atheism on its population. In this nation being primarily a Christian nation and founded on Christian principles it is entirely appropriate that most of the prayers would be Christian of various types. Cawley’s call to prayer was entirely appropriate and is backed by decades of precedent.
I would not defend the Mayor if he called for the community to face Mecca and bow to Allah, or to pray the rosary, or to pray to Budah. He did not call people to pray in any special way, but only to pray. I feel strongly that only prayer to the God of the Bible is appropriate, though I would not stop anyone from praying to whoever they wanted to, be it a door knob or a light bulb. I would criticize the Mayor if he called for everyone to face Mecca and bow to Allah because that would be totally out of keeping with the Christian principles upon which the nation was founded and the beliefs of the majority of society. It is entirely appropriate to pray to the God we trust as attested with our currency and whom we ask to bless America. That right is guaranteed by the Constitution!
Charliebickle wrote: “Mr Abercrombie, you are welcome to your religious beliefs, however please don't attempt to force your believes on Me through your misguided efforts to insist that it is codified in the United States or Washington State Constitution. The Washington constitution is also very clear about religion. Please read the following two quotes about religious freedom and our schools. Your desperate attempt to codify your fairytale is perhaps due to less and less people participating. Your god appears to have no magic, otherwise Yakima could just pray away the gang, budget, low wages and street repairs problems. I also think you are mistaken about Franklin, Jefferson and Paine's religious beliefs.”
Mr. Bickle, you are misquoting me. I am not trying to say that any religion is “codified” in the constitution. The constitution reflects the underlying principles of the Bible. It is interesting that you take my expression of my opinion as forcing my beliefs on you. You seem very sensitive about this, yet you would deny me the right to express my beliefs. If you don’t want to believe, you don’t have to, but I have the right to believe and to express that belief in support of our nation and our government. I have the right to pray for the government publicly and officially.
God is not a god of magic. He is the powerful God who created and runs the universe. Because man is sinful we have the ills of our society. God has given man free will to reject Him and His established principles. When that happens we have things like lawlessness, failing budgets, etc. You can’t blame God for that. We have only our human selves to blame for it. When we reject God’s principles He stands back and says, “OK, do it your way.” When that happens we get the results of humanness. That is why secular humanism is such a corrosive thing and always leads to the problems we are seeing in Greece, Spain, Europe, and O yes, the USA.
I guess we can all read into the writings of the founders anything we want to, like we have done with history. We can be revisionist, which is how I think progressives, liberals, and secular humanists view the writings of the founders and true history, or we can take it as it actually happened without revision to meet our subversive political and moral ends. I would be interested in seeing how you interpret the writings of the founders and what you would extrapolate from them. By the way, whose writing really sounds like “spouting off”? I would characterize yours in that category.

BuckarooCoyote56 wrote: “Ya know..opinions are one thing, but to be honest, John Ambercrombie was one of the main reasons I cancelled my subscription to the paper. Put his comments in the Faith section. I get enough religion from the paper, I dont need his misguided quotes every month.
Yes, please read the constitution!”
I am happy that I have had such an impact on your life, but I and many others would say that the misguidedness expressed is not mine, but that of others. Many try to compartmentalize their religion from the rest of their life. I guess that is appropriate with mere religion. Christianity, however, is the expression of our Creator as He reaches out to us. That you cannot put in a box. You can, however, either accept it or reject it. If you reject it do I have to keep quiet about it. I am sorry, I cannot. If you do not want to accept your Creator God and it bothers you to read my acceptance of Him you are not obligated to read my letters, or those of others who have the same or like opinions to mine. As far as reading the constitution, some perception is needed to understand the principle underlying it. Sorry!
Huh wrote: “So, you are all advocating that Mr. Amercrombie be denied his right to have an opinion?
I may not agree with him or you but your right to express yourself is forever engraved in stone.”
Great spellers these leftists.
BuckarooCoyote56 answered huh: “Dear huh..Not true..thats not what I was saying...EVERYONE has an opinion and a right to state it. But when it is continually religious without any valid point or facts, time for him to be moved to the faith section. Sports comments are in the sports section...etc...You have to admit as someone who is here on a regular basis, he does tend to get ink way too much for ramblings...if they choose to continue printing him..preach on brother...I just wont be reading it anymore..my choice! One of Yakimas main problems is that everyone tries to force their moral attitudes and behaviors on everyone else. I was just stating my opinion!”
You want to force your ideas on everyone else, but heaven forbid if someone expresses an opinion different from yours, then they are forcing their ideas on you. You don’t have to like my opinions, and you can make the baseless claim that they have no valid point or fact (the points do have points and facts but with the limitations of 200 words there is not much you can do but state the issue), but to compartmentalize so you can feel like your opinions are not challenged lacks intelligence. We are told we are not to discuss religion and politics. Why? Religion affects virtually all aspects of our lives. To say we cannot consider religion is like saying we can’t take medicine for physical illnesses. Again, as I have stated, I am not really a proponent of organized religion, but I am a strong advocate of God’s plan of salvation, of those who want to be saved, through Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection in payment of our sins. It was predicted that those who rejected this offer of salvation would think it foolishness. If you feel that everyone is trying “to force their moral attitudes and behaviors on everyone else” perhaps you have a sensitivity to your own state. Politics, as we are seeing more and more every day, affects virtually everything we do. I believe that soon we will have politically instigated runaway inflation, expanded financial crisis, more rioting in the streets from leftist agitators, limitations of freedom of speech, and limitations on actually activities like travel and purchases. Religion and politics affects everything we do. It is obvious yours affects you.
Patman answers huh’s question, "Could you please state what religion exactly Mr. Cawley was endorsing?" :

“The dictionary defines prayer as ‘a reverent petition made to God, a god, or another object of worship.’ “All religions practice prayer in some form or another. Prayer is an inherently religious activity. Which religion is irrelevant. The first amendment requires that government have no opinion on religion. If government recommends that people participate in the religious activity of praying, then the government is endorsing religion. The government cannot recommend that people should not pray, either. If government did that it would be endorsing secularism which would also be unconstitutional.

“If, while performing his official duties, Mayor Cawley were to call for the community to reject belief in imaginary invisible beings because there is no evidence that prayer is ever answered, he would be in violation of the Constitution.

“Mayor Cawley should spend his time doing the job he was elected to do: tending to city business. There are enough preachers in this town to take care of religious business.”
Your definition of prayer is right, but your application is absolutely wrong. The first amendment requires that “Congress shall not make any laws respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This does not prohibit praying, the exercise of religious activity even collectively and officially as has been demonstrated by decades of precedent. That is different than having “no opinion on religion.” The government can recommend that people pray as it can recommend that people not eat trans fats. The first is completely appropriate though the second may not be so much. The government does recommend and endorse secularism, or haven’t you been listening. It is entirely appropriate for a government official to recommend that people pray. This does not violate the constitution and never has, except in the minds of secular humanists. If you don’t want to pray, you are not forced to do so. If Mayor Cawley wants to pray and to encourage others to do so, he may. The constitution guarantees that right, even in his official capacity.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Answers to Responses

Thank you to all who responded to my letter to the editor listed below which also follows closely, though not as explanatory based on the 200 word limitation placed by the opinion section editors.
Here is what I submitted and what was printed:
“Some would like to re-create the United States in their own image. To accomplish this they need to rewrite the constitution, interpreting it to fit their image. They also need to rewrite history. One recent contributor to the opinion page did just that when he claimed that Yakima’s Mayor acted inappropriately when he called the people of the city to prayer. The truth is the mayor’s action were entirely appropriate, backed by precedent, grounded in the true history of our founding fathers and the true intent of the constitution. Our Christian heritage is clearly reflected in that constitution. Secular humanists have been working for years to rewrite history saying the founders were not even religious. History, however, shows that most, including Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were ardent believers in the Bible, Jesus Christ, and prayer. I applaud Mayor Cawley for calling our community to prayer. The Constitution protects that right and obligation. It does not separate church and state as the humanists say, but protects us from the state forcing a particular religion upon us. That is actually what these humanists attempt to do with their actions, even recently encouraging churches to promote their secular agenda from the pulpit.”

From pdf6161 this comment was made: “John, one clarification: Even Ben Franklin, though he did not believe in Jesus, was an ardent believer in the Bible and prayer, and he argued successfully for daily prayer at the Constitutional Convention.” My answer: Thank you. You are almost correct. Ben Franklin admitted to having some doubts about the divinity of Jesus. He did believe in the historic Jesus, besides merely having some doubts does not make one a non-believer and a secular humanist as those who totally reject the idea. I maintain that Ben Franklin was more of a believer than many who profess to be believers today, though he may not have been as much so as some of the ministers who were among the founding fathers. He certainly was devout and believe in the Christian principles reflected in the Constitution.
Jlang wrote: “’Some would like to re-create the United States in their own image. To accomplish this they need to rewrite the Constitution, interpreting it to fit their image.’ In this, Mr. Abercrombie is entirely correct. However, it is those [who] wish to ascribe a Christian foundation to the Constitution that are guilty of this particular conceit. Jefferson made it abundantly clear in both his autobiography and his letter to the Danbury Baptists that the intent of the First Amendment was exactly to build a wall of separation between church and state. That is what the First Amendment states. ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…’”
Let me make a comment on Mr. Lang’s comments here. I believe the difference here is in how the words are interpreted and how they were intended. I believe it is the secular humanists who have misinterpreted the words. Jefferson did not intend a “wall of separation” that would preclude government officials from praying in public and/or in their official capacity. His intent, and that of the words quoted from the Constitution were intended to preclude Congress from imposing on the American people a prescribed doctrine, church organization, or form of worship, or to prescribe what is to be preached or prohibited from being preached from the pulpit of any church. Does it allow prayer before Congress, courts, city council meetings, or in public schools. No! We have decades of precedence saying it is legal according to the Constitution to pray in public and even in official capacity which was ignored by the Supreme Court and other courts in making subsequent rulings, as was the intent of the Constitution itself. I believe if we were able to ask Jefferson himself what he intended he would be in favor of public and official prayer.
Mr. Lang continues: “This means that people are free to observe whatever religion they believe is correct for their lives and most accurately reflects their beliefs. To state that the Constitution has a Christian basis creates a logical non-sequitur. Why would the Founders state that you have the freedom to choose your own beliefs while at the same time saying that it is a Christian nation? The assertion is essentially logically bankrupt.”
I believe the founders did state that you have the freedom to choose your own beliefs while at the same time saying that it is a Christian nation. Those who are somewhat enlightened and perceptive would see beyond logically bankruptcy and understand the actual situation. I believe that the founders were looking at religious freedom primarily as that among differing Christian faiths. They wanted all Christian faiths and beliefs to be allowed as Mr. Lang stated above. To do so they did not discriminate between Christian and non-Christian beliefs. They even allowed atheists, but all allowed the others to believe and worship as they pleased. It was a Christian nation and the vast majority of the founders were ardent, devout, Christians, and some were even ministers of the Christian faith. The overwhelming majority of the population were also Christian. It seems that only the secular humanists want to limit what people believe and want to force people to accept their point of view, not practicing any faith that would offend them. The founding fathers were not so. It was, in fact, the benevolence of the Christian faith and the principles reflected in the Constitution that gave men the freedom to practice the worship of their Creator as they desired.
Mr. Lang continues: “Though the Declaration does mention a higher power, it fits in with the concept of a personal and individual view of who that higher power may or may not be. ‘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...’ Note that the text specifically mentions 'their Creator', not 'THE Creator' nor 'OUR Creator' nor even 'Jesus'. This points to the choice of Creator being with the individual, not a view of any particular faith or any particular god.”
In that most of the founders were devout Christians, ardent believers in God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible, it would be logical that their definition of “Creator” would have been the God of the Bible, the Creator of the Universe, and not some abstraction of the idea to fit one’s own personal desires. Their view of the Creator mentioned in the Declaration would logically be the God of the Bible. It is revisionist, and somewhat dishonest, to impose some different intent.
Mr. Lang continues: “Though many point to quotations from some of the founders expressing opinions about the proper place of religion in people's lives, these are simply that. Opinions. In Jefferson's autobiography he states that it was the intention of the majority of those debating the Constitution that there be no connection between church and state, and that is how it is written, from beginning to end.”
Let us suppose that Mr. Jefferson meant “no connection between church and state” as you have stated it, and lets suppose that this was the intention of the majority (we should probably take a vote to see if it was actually a majority), that does not mean that they meant that there could be no public or official prayer, because they prayed publically and in their official capacities, probably even Jefferson. It also does not mean that there could be no prayer in schools, or in courts, or that a national day of prayer could be declared where each person prayed (or did not pray) as he or she desired. If they did have this intent, it would be logical that it referred to specific church organizations, not to official and public calls to prayer. Here again Jefferson’s words are being twisted to mean something he may not have intended.
Lang continues: “Mr. Abercrombie is entirely correct in his first sentence. However, it is his view of the subject that contradicts what the Constitution clearly says. As well, he has apparently not studied Mr. Jefferson very well, as he was adamant regarding his opinion of organized religion.”
It is my opinion that my position is correct and it is Mr. Lang’s that contradicts what the Constitution clearly says, and I do not study any of the founders to make their words mean something they did not intend. When taken in the overall context of the writings of the founders, the words of Jefferson that are cited by most secular humanists are an infinitesimal part of the body of literature. Most adamantly supports the Christian principles clearly evident in the Constitution.
Let me clear something up. I think organized religion is OK, but it has many flaws. Christianity in its truest form is not a religion but a relationship with Jesus Christ, our Creator, showing a way of salvation from our sins that are condemning us to death. I also believe it is built into the Constitution for me as a Christian to support our government in prayer and service publicly and officially.
Mr. Lang quotes several sources. Let’s decipher what they may really be saying about this issue – separation of church and state, and what was truly their intent:
“Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
God can indeed be questioned, and the evidence for Him is clear to those who want to see it. There is no need to give God homage out of fear because He is a loving God. Those who refuse to give Him homage are the ones who need to fear.
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." -Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813
Remembering history, those who came to America were fleeing countries where the head of the national religion dictated to the people by law or decree was a part of the government. They did not just support the government and put input into it, but many times had power equal to the king of that country. They were dictators. The founders did not want a government dominated by a single religious organization. They did, however, recognize the principles of Christianity that make a government stronger, and did want that incorporated into the administration of the nation, such principles as equal justice, seeking God in prayer for those things men had no control over, and protection from outside enemies and influences that would seek to destroy the nation. I believe this is the intent of Jefferson’s statement. It is backed by his actions and a bulk of his own writings.
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789
I wonder how Jefferson would feel about the move by secular humanists and atheists to impose their religious views on the rest of the nation by their misguided view of the separation of church and state. I am sure he would not agree with Phil Maher’s statement that 60% of Americans don’t believe in evolution and it is “our” (his word) duty to drag them to it. If you are a thinking man and you don’t want to pray, don’t pray. But don’t limit other thinking men from doing what they think is right.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
I have already discussed this letter above. Those who want all prayer or acknowledgement of God taken out of the public sector and government are in violation of Jefferson’s intent.
Mr. Lang concludes: “This nation had founders who were Christian, but it is NOT a Christian nation any more than it is a Muslim nation or a Jewish nation or an Atheist nation. It is all of those things and we are freed from the tyranny of the religious expectations of others by the Constitution, which grants us the right to believe as we choose.”
I totally disagree with this statement. I would probably agree that it is no longer a Christian nation, but the intents of the founders reflected Christian principles and reflected them in the Constitution and in the workings of the government as a whole. There is no tyranny of religious expectations and yes, the Constitution grants us all the right to believe what we choose. I believe it is the tyranny of secular humanism and atheism that wants to force their beliefs on everyone else, all of whom have the right to pray and support our government as they see fit unrestricted by the restrictions that the secularists would force upon us.

More responses to come.

Saturday, May 29, 2010

Revising History

Secular humanists are revising history to make it fit their world view. It does not seem to matter to them that the revisions are untrue. One might wonder why they would do such a thing. It is very simple. They cannot implement their world view when the majority of the people, not only of the United States, but of the world can clearly see that what they are doing is practically, not to mention morally, wrong.
God has a plan for mankind, but men, starting with Adam, have decided that they don’t want to follow God’s plan, but they want to do their own thing. It is easy for thinking people to see that God’s way is advantageous to man’s way, but those who insist upon man’s way are either blind or merely obstinate. Those who want man’s way seem to insist that everyone follow their way and will resort to force to do so. They have not yet mustered that force, so while they wait until the population is properly aligned with them, they resort to indoctrination. That indoctrination requires that they revise history, discredit the real heros of our past, and shed doubt on what has been known as truth. They resort to liberal interpretations of biblical scripture that denies its authority and that of its Author. They had to come up with an alternative story of our origins so the natural longing of human beings to know their Creator can be answered with a Godless version of the origins of mankind and the universe. So they invented a story of evolution based on misapplication of data and outright lies. Now the find themselves needing to control the economies of the world and have invented the story of global warming or climate change which is again based on misapplication of scientific data, yes, and even outright lies.
Secular humanists have a need to control the human race and set themselves up as the “governing class.” That is the only way they can mold the world in their own image. They hate free market economies because they cannot control it. They hate the truly intellectual and educated because again they cannot control them, so they have replaced intellectualism with conformity and education with indoctrination. They have to appease the masses, so they turn the working person and middle class into drones to do their bidding at the price the ruling class wants to pay while enriching themselves. All the while they accuse those opposed to their movement of doing the very things they themselves are doing. They can’t adequately govern because they are mere humans with human limitations. Governing can only be done with God’s guidance. They can’t allow people to succeed on their own so they manipulate the markets and economies while pointing to others as the culprits for any deficiencies.
What secular humanists are revising us into is not a pretty sight. It is not good for any person in our society. It will make the poor poorer, the unhappy unhappier, while making those who have been prudent with their earnings part of the poor and the happy unhappy. It will make the governing class wealthy, and I suppose that is why many espouse the revisions because they think they will become a part of that class. Maybe they will and maybe they won’t. What humanists are revising us into is a miserable and cruel lot for humanity. Hopefully it will last for only a short period of time. We need to pray that God will shorten the hand of these who hope for such misery, tyranny, and oppression of the human race, lest they just can’t stand the misery.
Pray, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven!”

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Why Socialism?

Many in our society are clamoring for a socialist society. I wonder why. What is so great about socialism? It is supposed to be utopian. What makes it utopian? The proponents of socialism might say that it removes oppression of the masses, yet every socialist society has proven to provide that very oppression. It can go as far as the Soviet Union with its oppressive communism, or Nazi Germany with its oppressive fascism. Both were socialist and both were oppressive to the masses. If we look at what could be considered moderately socialist, like France, modern Germany, or England, we find that the masses are oppressed with low quality services, if they can get them at all, and high taxes. The very system that was supposed to free the masses from oppression ended up oppressing them. So why do we still have the clamor for socialism? What socialism does is widens the gap between the haves and the have nots, the very thing it says it does not do. The middle class is virtually eliminated and becomes poor, but the ruling class, now with access to government and government power and money, becomes richer. So I ask again, why such a clamor for socialism? Anarchists join with communists to create unrest in governments to unseat them, but end up bowing to a more ruthless and oppressive government when their former communist or fascist friends come into power because these powers cannot tolerate their anarchy once their goals have been achieved. The revolution turns against the anarchists and they are either killed or severely abused. So why the clamor for socialism? Is it because those in such a clamor are lazy and want a government to support them and take care of their every need? Is it because they are afraid of competing with those who may do better than they in a system where competition and performance determines success?
As a Christian I believe that one can survive with their faith intact in an oppressive regime. Christians are actually made stronger when persecuted and kept in poverty. Riches improperly used, or the love of money are the downfall of a life devoted to God. But that is not reason to allow socialism to take over. I believe the whole liberal agenda, from simple liberalism to socialism to Marxism to communism is a plot of a higher power than any one individual or collective of individuals. I do not believe that mankind, and liberals specifically, are intelligent enough to orchestrate such a take-over as we are seeing in human society today. Liberalism is merely one of the facets being used to create chaos and death in society. It is all being orchestrated by the prince of this world who wants badly to prove himself as worthy of leadership. He wants to control and oppress. He hates Christians. He tolerates others who acknowledge God as long as they give him preeminence. He has designed the religious systems of this world which are another facet of his design to create chaos among mankind in an effort to orchestrate their oppression, demise, and destruction. This is why Christians must oppose him, his system, and his movement. They don’t, however, have to fight against his agents with anything except resistance to his destructive power and the positive adherence to their faith in Christ. Christ will defeat the prince of this world, and will shelter His people in the cleft of the Rock which itself takes on many forms.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

The Promised Land

My daughter, a PHD candidate in political science bristles at the idea of America being the Promised Land. Is it? She, and many on the left think America is the bad guy in the world. I think it is a promised land given by God for the last 200 years as a place where people can worship Him freely. To not worship Him as some may choose is a by-product of the freedom of choice granted to us by our Creator. To force someone to worship in a prescribed manner is the result of a state sponsored church, which is what Jefferson meant when he wrote about a wall separating church and state, not that the state was secular and could not be sponsored by churches, is for men to take away the God-given freedom of choice. To take away symbols of our faith is also denying freedom of choice as well as freedom of speech. Why would I say the United States of America is the Promised Land? Just look at the people who risk everything to get here. Look at the opportunity for prosperity for everyone who is willing to work hard for it. Look at the relative safety of this nation. Compare those things with any other nation in the world and the USA becomes a promised land. When the nation honors God, we prosper. When we deny God, our prosperity wanes. Our freedoms are being eroded by those who hate America and want to conform it to their own image. Those who love God and the land He has provided are the ones who are preserving our freedoms. Freedom has been provided for all people in America by men who were dedicated to God in founding our nation. It is amazing that the Promised Land even provides freedom for those who don’t believe there is a God, by the very God in whom they refuse to believe. That is a Promised Land!

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Capitalism and Marxism

If capitalism is so bad, why has it given so much freedom, opportunity, and success to the people under the system? Marxists say that capitalists have achieved their success on the backs of the masses. Is that really true? Never before in the history of the world have the masses living in capitalistic societies been able to achieve so much and live in relative security, comfort, and well being. I believe that capitalism is the economic engine that supports freedom. Marxists are the ones who actually rise to their power on the backs of the masses. Every Marxist regime has resulted in failure, poverty, and even death for major portions of their populations. The society supported by capitalism has brought more justice to its people than all of the Marxists regimes combined. Except for the minor corruptions caused by the people in a capitalistic society, capitalism is the best economic engine given to man. Marxism is just the opposite. It is a scourge upon the backs of mankind.