Archive for the 'Politics' Category

Thomas Sowell: The Hunger Hoax

Published on October 8, 2011 in Politics. 1 Comment

Thomas Sowell:

Dan Rather opened a CBS Evening News broadcast in 1991 by declaring, “One in eight American children is going hungry tonight.” Newsweek, the Associated Press, and the Boston Globe repeated this statistic, and many others joined the media chorus, with or without that unsubstantiated statistic.

When the Centers for Disease Control and the Department of Agriculture examined people from a variety of income levels, however, they found no evidence of malnutrition among those in the lowest income brackets. Nor was there any significant difference in the intake of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients from one income level to another.

Read the rest here.

HT: Challies

A Case for Polygamy?

Published on July 24, 2011 in ethics and Politics. 0 Comments

Dr. Mike Wittmer:

Many of us have been saying for some time that the normalization of homosexual marriage will inevitably open the door to the state’s acceptance of polygamy. Proponents of gay marriage typically scoff and say we’re silly for making such a slippery slope argument. Well, not anymore.

In an op-ed in today’s New York Times, Jonathan Turley argues that the same civil liberties that enable homosexuals to marry must also allow for polygamous relationships. He’s right.

If framed in terms of rights and freedoms, then of course homosexuals and polygamists have the right to freely marry however many of whichever gender they choose. A polygamist man would be free to marry two men and three women if he chose and they were agreeable.

But what if the debate is not really about rights and freedoms but about nature? If marriage is by nature the covenantal union between one man and one woman, then . . .

Read the whole thing here.

“Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot”

Published on July 1, 2011 in Politics. 1 Comment

As Americans, along with our American neighbors to the north, celebrate our respective holidays, we would do well to ponder Tocqueville’s opinion that liberty cannot govern a people without faith. Nothing could be more truly patriotic than to be faithfully present in our countries as salt and light in our communities.  With “glowing hearts” from the work of the Spirit (Jeremiah 31:31), let us stand on guard for the faith and contend for Christ together.

In 1830 a 26 year old Frenchman named Alexander Tocqueville was commissioned to travel to America and evaluate the prison system.  He returned and wrote his famous, Democracy in America, an extended reflection on what was contributing to America’s greatness.

One of the things that Tocqueville argued was that for America to continue in greatness it was essential that the faith of the American people continue.  He contended that the reason political freedom in America was not abused was because the faith of the country imposed needed boundaries.

Below is an excerpt from his chapter, “Accidental or Providential Causes Which Contribute to Maintain the Democratic Republic in the United States.”

Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot. Religion is much more necessary in the republic which they set forth in glowing colors than in the monarchy which they attack; it is more needed in democratic republics than in any others. How is it possible that society should escape destruction if the moral tie is not strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed? And what can be done with a people who are their own masters if they are not submissive to the Deity?

Thinking Theologically About Memorial Day

Published on May 29, 2011 in Politics. 2 Comments

Kevin DeYoung:

This is post probably has something to make everyone unhappy. But here goes.

With Memorial Day on Monday (in the U.S.) and, no doubt, a number of patriotic services scheduled for this Sunday, I want to offer a few theses on patriotism and the church. Each of these points could be substantially expanded and beg more detailed defense and explanation, but since this is a blog and not a term paper, I’ll try to keep this under 1500 words.

1. Being a Christian does not remove ethnic and national identities.

In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free (Gal. 3:28), but this does not mean men cease to be male or Jews ceases to be Jewish. The worshiping throng gathered around the throne is not a bland mess of Esperanto Christians in matching khaki pants and white polos. God makes us one in Christ, but that oneness does not mean we can no longer recognize tribes, tongues, nations, and peoples in heaven. If you don’t have to renounce being an American in heaven, you shouldn’t have to pretend you aren’t one now.

2. Patriotism, like other earthly “prides,” can be a virtue or vice.

Most people love their families. Many people love their schools, their home, and their sports teams. All of these loves can be appropriate. In making us for himself, God did mean to eradicate all other loves. Instead he wants those loves to be purer and in right proportion to our ultimate Love. Adam and Eve should have loved the Garden. God didn’t intend for them to be so “spiritual” that they were blind to the goodness around them. In the same way, where there is good in our country or family it is right to have affection and display affection for those good things.

Of course, we can turn patriotism into an idol, just like family can be an idol. But being proud of your country (or proud to be an American or a Canadian or a Russian or whatever) is not inherently worse than being proud of your kids or proud to be a Smith or a Jones or a Dostoevsky. I find it strange that while it is fashionable to love your city, be proud of your city, and talk about transforming your city, it is, for some of the same people, quite gauche to love your country, be proud of your country, and talk about transforming your country.

3. Allegiance to God and allegiance to your country are not inherently incompatible.

Sometimes Christians talk like you should have no loyalty for your country, as if love for your country was always a bad thing. To be sure, this must never be ultimate loyalty. We must always obey God rather than men. But most Christians have understood the fifth commandment to be about honoring not only your parents but all those in authority over you.

Moreover, Jesus shows its possible to honor God and honor Caesar. This is especially clear if you know some of the Jewish history. The tax in question in Mark 12 is about the poll tax or census tax. It was first instituted in AD 6, not too many years before Jesus’ ministry. When it was established a man by the name of Judas of Galilee led a revolt. According to Josephus, “He called his fellow countrymen cowards for being willing to pay tribute to the Romans and for putting up with mortal masters in place of God.” Like the Zealots, he believed allegiance to God and allegiance to any earthly government were fundamentally incompatible. As far as they were concerned if God was your king, you couldn’t have an earthly king.

But Jesus completely disagreed. By telling the people to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” he was saying there are duties to government that do not infringe on your ultimate duty to God. It’s possible to honor lesser authorities in good conscience because they have been instituted by a greater authority.

If you read all that the New Testament says about governing authorities in places like Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2, you see that the normal situation is one of compatible loyalties. The church is not the state and the state is not God, but this does not mean the church must always be against the state. In general, then, it’s possible to be a good Christian and a good American, or a good Ghanaian or a good Korean. Patriotism is not bad. Singing your national anthem and getting choked up is not bad. Allegiance to God and allegiance to your country do not have to be at odds.

4. God’s people are not tied to any one nation.

When Jesus says “go ahead and give to Caesar what belongs to him” he is effectively . . .

Read the rest here.

Per Alexis de Tocqueville, The Secret of America’s Greatness

Published on May 7, 2011 in Family and Politics. 1 Comment

Read below to see what Alexis de Tocqueville saw as America’s most significant asset. It’s worth getting to the end!

In 1831, twenty six year old Alexis de Tocqueville was commissioned to travel to the United States of America.  His official assignment was to evaluate the prison system, but Tocqueville was motivated to understand why the U.S.A. was so immediately prosperous.

Tocqueville stayed less than two years, but he returned with many notes and by 1835 he had published his incredible, Democracy in America.  It came out in two volumes and the edition that I own is just under 1000 pages.  But, what is pertinent for this post was an important paragraph near the end of volume 2 in which Tocqueville makes a statement with which few of us, recognizing God’s good hand in this provision, would disagree!

Continue reading ‘Per Alexis de Tocqueville, The Secret of America’s Greatness’

Douthat reflects on “The Shutdown that Wasn’t”

Published on April 9, 2011 in Politics. 0 Comments

Ross Douthat is almost always worth reading.  This morning he considers the budget compromise from a couple of angles:

I would like to thank John Boehner, Harry Reid and President Obama for vindicating my decision not to write about the budget negotiations this week, on the assumption that the talk of a shutdown was mostly sound and fury, and then when the deadline hit a deal of some sort would be struck. I based that assumption primarily on my reading of the Speaker of the House, who made it abundantly clear — in word, deed, and especially body language — that he wanted the government shut down about as much as Indiana Jones wants to be locked in a room full of cobras.  . .

Read the rest here.

Bad Mr. Huckabee, Bad

Published on February 28, 2011 in Missions and Politics. 1 Comment

John Mark Reynolds interacts with the criticism that Mike Huckabee has recently fielded for speaking out against the Islam religion.  For the record, I don’t necessarily Reynold’s critique of Huckabee, but I do appreciate the gist of the post.

Mike Huckabee thinks Islam is wrong and evidently the chattering classes think this is a serious issue.

The Christians of Constantinople cannot use one of the ancient churches of Christendom, because Islamic rulers will not allow it, but Mike Huckabee said something harsh about Islam so he must be rebuked.

The spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians, the Ecumenical Patriarch, cannot open a seminary, because the Muslim rulers of his nation will not condone it, but a Fox news commentator said something that offends Muslims so we must attend.

There is no land where Muslims are the majority and Christians are not second-class citizens, but a former Baptist minister publically disagrees with Islam and we must ponder the pain Huckabee may have caused Muslims.

I have friends doing humanitarian work in nations where Islamic tribes enslave Christians, but a former governor of Arkansas was politically incorrect, so Americans must discuss Christian tolerance of Islam.

Read the rest here.

What is really at stake with TSA naked body scans?

Published on December 4, 2010 in Politics. 3 Comments

“It was Benjamin Franklin who wrote, ‘They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety,’” and in that spirit, Amy Scott raises legitimate concerns about what is happening in airport security:

We can not have a temporary perspective on this. It is too short-sighted, too weak, too unAmerican to cede our Constitution because of some Uzi toting cave man with no running water in the Middle East.

Read Part I

Read Part II

Instead of asking casinos for financial advice, look to the ladies of the Red Brick Church

Published on November 19, 2010 in Church and Politics. 1 Comment

Would you click through to my guest column in the Register Star and comment about whether or not you think bringing a casino to Rockford will help our financial situation?

***********

The Rockford Register Star is one of the most influential papers in Illinois.  The Register Star editorial board recently argued that Rockford should pursue a downtown casino (see here).

I responded with a guest editorial in which I contend that the route to true financial recovery is not taxing the gambling industry.  Instead, we should cultivate sound financial values in our citizenry.

Government leaders who face the brutal task of making decisions about budget cuts are looking for answers. In this column, my proposal is that they receive counsel from a group of ladies right here in northern Illinois.
Many Sundays at the Red Brick Church in Stillman Valley, I have noticed how classy the ladies from my parents’ generation look.

I’m more than a little biased, and our men may be a different story, but where the ladies are concerned, there isn’t a better looking group around. Often, as I shake hands at the front door as people leave, my wife and I comment about how nice we think the ladies look.

When my wife and I do directly compliment one of these ladies, perhaps on a particular dress or jacket, there is a typical response we often receive. The lady who received the kind word will say quietly, “Pastor, I got this on sale for 40 percent off.” Or, “Pastor, would you believe that this dress is over 10 years old?”

The reason, of course, that the ladies from my parents’ generation respond to a compliment about an outfit in this way is because being frugal is deeply ingrained in their value system. Granted, they like the minister noticing that they look nice. But it wouldn’t do for him to think they are throwing money around like sailors on shore leave.
So, there you have my recommendation. . . .

Read the rest here and consider commenting on the Register Star web site.  What’s important on the Register Star web site is not so much that you agree our ladies look nice (they do).  Rather, give input on the decision about whether or not casinos are the right solution.

Al Mohler reflects on the mega-shift of last night’s election

Published on November 3, 2010 in Politics. 0 Comments

Al Mohler:

The meaning of the 2010 election is destined now to be the Great Debate of the next political season. While this is true after most election days, it is especially true this year, given the scale and scope of the political change this election will bring about. The scale is seismic and the scope is vast. In terms of national politics, this election amounts to a megashift.

Read the whole thing here.