Faleh Hassan Almaleki moved his family from Iraq to Phoenix, AZ, in the mid 1990's. As his daughter, Noor Almaleki, grew up in America, she developed a longing to live a normal life as an American. At 17, she refused to enter into an arranged marriage in Iraq which infuriated her father. At 19, she moved into her own apartment and began work in a fast food place, but had to quit due to harassment from her parents.
In 2009, she moved into the home of her boyfriends parents due to physical abuse from her father, who continually harassed her and the parents. On October 20, 2009, Noor was visiting a Department of Economic Security Office with Amal Khalaf, the mother of her boyfriend. When departing the office, both women were run over by Faleh Almaleki in a hit and run. Amal recovered, but Noor subsequently died of her injuries.
Her crime? Becoming too Westernized in the eyes of her father.
This was no "Islamic radical", this was a follower of the tenets of mainstream Islam who is rightfully on trial for murder. In an Islamic country, nothing would have come of his actions.
Peaceful religion? How many Christian parents kill their children for refusing to accept Christ?
Monday, January 3, 2011
Friday, December 17, 2010
Unintended Consequences
"Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy."--1 Corinthians 4:2
I just finished watching John Stossel's, "Promises Gone Wrong", which outlined the unintended consequences of government programs initiated by Congress. Now while Congress may have good intentions, when they use our tax dollars for social or economic engineering, things never seem to work out. Here are the programs in order:
1. Cash for clunkers--billions of tax dollars that caused a short term spike in care sales, but did nothing for the long term. The fallout was that used car prices rose by an average of $1800 per car. The question is "What would Americans have done with the money spent on new cars that they did not need.?"
2. Raising the minimum wage--did nothing for the low entry worker but raise the unemployment rate in that sector by 25%.
3. Title 9-The program that required colleges to have a percentage of female/male athletes that reflected the student body as a whole. The result was that many male athletic programs were cut, even if they were self sufficient. Before the act was passed there were over 100 male gymnastics programs, now there are 17. It doesn't bode well for this Olympic sport.
4. Sporting venues--stadiums, including Olympic venues, subsidized by taxpayer dollars with the promise that it would provide jobs and revenue to the local community. This boondoggle never panned out as millions more were spent that was recovered as the venues sat empty for most of the year.
5. Credit cards--congressional reform did nothing but raise interest rates, caused lenders to deny credit to those who previously qualified and drove those borrowers to payday lenders and loan sharks.
6. Health Insurance reform--has already resulted in rising premiums, people having their policies dropped, companies leaving the industry or dropping child only policies because of the "previous condition" requirement. To top it off, there have been over 100 waivers, granted mostly to unions, to escape the requirements.
7. Family based agricultural business-offering billions in tax write offs for individuals to enter certain sectors such as raising and breeding alpacas. Has created a market bubble where supply vastly exceeds demand and will eventually cause billions in losses.
8. Energy--$50 billion in ethanol subsidies equal $1.78 per gallon of ethanol produced. Prices of food and feed have gone up and ethanol production harms the environment more than the use of oil.
9. Home ownership--is costing billions as congress forced banks into high risk loans to people who could not afford it.
10. Government programs--by the hundreds, once funded, never go away and have led to the largest debt and deficit in the nation's history.
In the Christian worldview, there is a concept called "sphere sovereignty". What this means is that God has designed the world to work a certain way, has given specific roles to the family, church, government and the individual. When one of these institutions tries to operate in a "sphere" that is not its purview, things don't work the way they should. Congress seems intent on repeatedly proving that this is true.
I just finished watching John Stossel's, "Promises Gone Wrong", which outlined the unintended consequences of government programs initiated by Congress. Now while Congress may have good intentions, when they use our tax dollars for social or economic engineering, things never seem to work out. Here are the programs in order:
1. Cash for clunkers--billions of tax dollars that caused a short term spike in care sales, but did nothing for the long term. The fallout was that used car prices rose by an average of $1800 per car. The question is "What would Americans have done with the money spent on new cars that they did not need.?"
2. Raising the minimum wage--did nothing for the low entry worker but raise the unemployment rate in that sector by 25%.
3. Title 9-The program that required colleges to have a percentage of female/male athletes that reflected the student body as a whole. The result was that many male athletic programs were cut, even if they were self sufficient. Before the act was passed there were over 100 male gymnastics programs, now there are 17. It doesn't bode well for this Olympic sport.
4. Sporting venues--stadiums, including Olympic venues, subsidized by taxpayer dollars with the promise that it would provide jobs and revenue to the local community. This boondoggle never panned out as millions more were spent that was recovered as the venues sat empty for most of the year.
5. Credit cards--congressional reform did nothing but raise interest rates, caused lenders to deny credit to those who previously qualified and drove those borrowers to payday lenders and loan sharks.
6. Health Insurance reform--has already resulted in rising premiums, people having their policies dropped, companies leaving the industry or dropping child only policies because of the "previous condition" requirement. To top it off, there have been over 100 waivers, granted mostly to unions, to escape the requirements.
7. Family based agricultural business-offering billions in tax write offs for individuals to enter certain sectors such as raising and breeding alpacas. Has created a market bubble where supply vastly exceeds demand and will eventually cause billions in losses.
8. Energy--$50 billion in ethanol subsidies equal $1.78 per gallon of ethanol produced. Prices of food and feed have gone up and ethanol production harms the environment more than the use of oil.
9. Home ownership--is costing billions as congress forced banks into high risk loans to people who could not afford it.
10. Government programs--by the hundreds, once funded, never go away and have led to the largest debt and deficit in the nation's history.
In the Christian worldview, there is a concept called "sphere sovereignty". What this means is that God has designed the world to work a certain way, has given specific roles to the family, church, government and the individual. When one of these institutions tries to operate in a "sphere" that is not its purview, things don't work the way they should. Congress seems intent on repeatedly proving that this is true.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" II
Is it just me or does anyone else think it odd that the Pentagon chose this particular time to publish it's report on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Could it be possible that homosexual activists put pressure on the White House, who in turn put pressure on the Pentagon to publish the report in an effort to give Democrats enough cover to repeal the policy during this lame duck session of congress knowing that this is their last chance to do so. Nah! I'm sure the timing is just a coincidence since this is the most pressing problem currently facing the nation.
As for the report itself, the main stream media has trumpeted the finding that seventy percent of soldiers polled said that they did not think that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would harm morale, conveniently leaving out the finding that sixty per cent of combat troops think that reversing the policy would have a negative impact on morale and reduce combat effectiveness.
Now I was a Naval Aviator for twenty-three years, retiring after a squadron command, and one thing I know is that the further up the ladder one climbs in his military career, the more political the environment. This is especially true after an individual starts pinning on stars and finds himself in Washington. Now so far, the two voices who have spoken out in favor of repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" are Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a political appointee, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen. Admiral Mullen, maybe because of his billet as Chairman, seems to have become more politician than warrior on this issue. Maybe concerns over funding is trumping the welfare of those serving under him.
Fortunately for our troops, Admiral Mullen's fellow Joint Chiefs have introduced some sanity into the discussion, because Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Ames, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen Norman Schwartz and Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen. George Casey all have spoken out against repealing "don't ask, don't tell". All three have expressed their opinion before Congress that repeal would harm combat readiness.
We have seen this social experimentation with our armed forces before. After the 1991 Tailhook incident (which was probably a setup), women were allowed into roles that were traditionally off limits. The result has been a predictable degradation in combat effectiveness as young men and women were thrown into close quarters for extended periods of time. The effect of pregnancy on manpower strength and the effects of fraternization on morale have damaged our war fighting capability. Although the military, as always, has adapted and overcome, the insistence of treating military service as another jobs program has had a deleterious effect on our war fighting capability. Now liberals want to add another sexual component.
Not allowing homosexuals to serve openly is not a matter of fairness and cannot equated to the struggle to racially integrate the services. One does not have to do anything to be born with a certain ethnicity, but one does have to perform an act to be a homosexual. Homosexual activists make the argument that those who want to serve their county should be able to do so, regardless of conduct, but military service is not a right, it is a privilege. There are plenty of young Americans who would love to serve their country but cannot do so because of various disqualifications as such as height, weight, age, fitness, etc. "Don't ask, don't tell" is just one more such restriction that maintains the combat integrity of our combat arms.
No one seems to want to acknowledge the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room: that homosexual acts are a sexual perversion. That is not a religious statement, it is a common sense observation. If one stands a nude male and female side by side, one can readily see how they fit together sexually. One would have to really stretch credulity to explain how the body is designed for homosexual sex. It is no wonder that the majority of our combat troops would feel uncomfortable in serving with open homosexuals. They are instinctively repulsed by the thoughts of what homosexuals do and have a perfect right to be repulsed by that which is repulsive.
There is a vast difference between sleeping in a fifty man bunk room with someone that you suspect may be a homosexual and having that person openly convey his same sex preference. If homosexuals are so patriotic, and want to do the most good for their country, it seems to me that they would not want to harm the nation's ability to defend itself by repeal of "don't ask, don't tell".
Now call me crazy, but I was of the opinion that the only reason that we have a military is so that we have the combat capability to defend the nation. Anything that would detract from this capability should be rejected out of hand.
As for the report itself, the main stream media has trumpeted the finding that seventy percent of soldiers polled said that they did not think that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would harm morale, conveniently leaving out the finding that sixty per cent of combat troops think that reversing the policy would have a negative impact on morale and reduce combat effectiveness.
Now I was a Naval Aviator for twenty-three years, retiring after a squadron command, and one thing I know is that the further up the ladder one climbs in his military career, the more political the environment. This is especially true after an individual starts pinning on stars and finds himself in Washington. Now so far, the two voices who have spoken out in favor of repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" are Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a political appointee, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen. Admiral Mullen, maybe because of his billet as Chairman, seems to have become more politician than warrior on this issue. Maybe concerns over funding is trumping the welfare of those serving under him.
Fortunately for our troops, Admiral Mullen's fellow Joint Chiefs have introduced some sanity into the discussion, because Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Ames, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen Norman Schwartz and Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen. George Casey all have spoken out against repealing "don't ask, don't tell". All three have expressed their opinion before Congress that repeal would harm combat readiness.
We have seen this social experimentation with our armed forces before. After the 1991 Tailhook incident (which was probably a setup), women were allowed into roles that were traditionally off limits. The result has been a predictable degradation in combat effectiveness as young men and women were thrown into close quarters for extended periods of time. The effect of pregnancy on manpower strength and the effects of fraternization on morale have damaged our war fighting capability. Although the military, as always, has adapted and overcome, the insistence of treating military service as another jobs program has had a deleterious effect on our war fighting capability. Now liberals want to add another sexual component.
Not allowing homosexuals to serve openly is not a matter of fairness and cannot equated to the struggle to racially integrate the services. One does not have to do anything to be born with a certain ethnicity, but one does have to perform an act to be a homosexual. Homosexual activists make the argument that those who want to serve their county should be able to do so, regardless of conduct, but military service is not a right, it is a privilege. There are plenty of young Americans who would love to serve their country but cannot do so because of various disqualifications as such as height, weight, age, fitness, etc. "Don't ask, don't tell" is just one more such restriction that maintains the combat integrity of our combat arms.
No one seems to want to acknowledge the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room: that homosexual acts are a sexual perversion. That is not a religious statement, it is a common sense observation. If one stands a nude male and female side by side, one can readily see how they fit together sexually. One would have to really stretch credulity to explain how the body is designed for homosexual sex. It is no wonder that the majority of our combat troops would feel uncomfortable in serving with open homosexuals. They are instinctively repulsed by the thoughts of what homosexuals do and have a perfect right to be repulsed by that which is repulsive.
There is a vast difference between sleeping in a fifty man bunk room with someone that you suspect may be a homosexual and having that person openly convey his same sex preference. If homosexuals are so patriotic, and want to do the most good for their country, it seems to me that they would not want to harm the nation's ability to defend itself by repeal of "don't ask, don't tell".
Now call me crazy, but I was of the opinion that the only reason that we have a military is so that we have the combat capability to defend the nation. Anything that would detract from this capability should be rejected out of hand.
Monday, November 29, 2010
The Value of Marriage
A recent study by the Pew Research Center purports to show that 39 per cent of young Americans say that marriage is becoming obsolete. This is alarming news and does not bode well for the future of the nation, because the basis of any society is the family, and the basis of the family is a marriage whereby a couple raises and trains the next generation to take their place in society as socialized, productive, contributing citizens.
The Pew Study reveals that twenty-nine per cent of children in this country are living with a parent who is divorced, separated or never married. This is a five fold increase from 1960. It is no surprise to learn that the younger generation has a dim view of marriage since one third of marriages in this country end in divorce. Those who are Christians may decry this state of affairs, but those who are identified as evangelical Christians by George Barna actually have a divorce rate that is slightly greater than the population at large.
Andrew Cherlin, a professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University is quoted as saying, "Now there are several ways to have a successful family life, and more people accept them". Nothing could be further from the truth. More people may accept different definitions of family, but the trend away from the two parent, married heterosexual couple is a recipe for disaster for our country.
Today, most get married fully expecting their new partner to fulfill all of their expectations. When in the natural course of events, the partner doesn't, then the choice is usually to opt out of the marriage.
Divorce has been sold as a normal occurrence when one partner is not "fulfilled". We have bought into the lie that it is better for everyone involved to opt out of an "unhappy" marriage rather than remain and have everyone be miserable. Never mind research that reveals that those who stay and work out their problems claim to be happier five years later than they have ever been in their lives.
For Christ Followers, marriage has a religious aspect to it, but even for the non-religious it has utilitarian benefits that no other institution brings to the table.
When children are involved the absence of both a mom and dad in the home has a tremendous social cost. Of the children under age 6 who live below the poverty line, 59 percent live with single mothers, while a mere 6 percent live in households with married couples. Single parent families make less than one third of two parent families and the poverty rate for single parent families is six times that of two parent families. Divorce and out-of-wedlock births are extraordinarily costly to American taxpayers. The Institute for Marriage and Family puts the price tag at over $100 billion every year. We have spent billions on the "war on poverty", but if Congress wants to combat poverty, the place to start is to institute policy that strengthens marriage.
The financial cost is not the only price that America is paying for devaluing marriage. Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship says, "Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves. .........Every time I set foot inside a prison, I see the results of splintered families. So many of the prisoners I talk to tell me about growing up without dad."
Indeed, the Department of Justice reports that more than 60 percent of prisoners grew up in households without a father. Some 70 percent of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes. Without a doubt the absence of a father in the home contributes to the reason that we can not build prisons fast enough. If we want to solve the crime problem, we have to find a way to strengthen marriage.
The psychological effect of divorce on children is disastrous. By almost every measure, children in divorced families fare worse: emotional problems, early sexual experimentation, dropping out of school, delinquency, teen pregnancy and drug use. Adults may think that they are doing the right thing to abandon a marriage that no longer provides them the thrill of romance, but their inability to sustain the relationship that counted the most to them and the subsequent loss of connection to their fathers seems to have eroded the young peoples' sense of identity and ability to trust others and commit themselves.
Nor does remarriage seem to be a solution: children in step families were two to three times more likely than their counterparts to suffer emotional and behavioral problems and twice as likely to have learning problems. The associated social costs to American taxpayers for these social ills is in the billions every year.
After viewing how their parents have walked away from marriage, the young are trending toward co-habitation in an attempt to avoid the pitfalls, but this is not the answer either. Living together without commitment is not the same as marriage. One of the partners has his "stuff" and the other has her "stuff" with the idea that either can leave at any time. If a co-habiting couple does marry, they have an 80% greater chance of divorce, which puts them back at square one.
In an era when Americans are looking for answers to their economic, social and crime problems they have to look no further than the solution of strengthening the institution of marriage. Far from being obsolete, solid marriages are more in need than ever before.
The Pew Study reveals that twenty-nine per cent of children in this country are living with a parent who is divorced, separated or never married. This is a five fold increase from 1960. It is no surprise to learn that the younger generation has a dim view of marriage since one third of marriages in this country end in divorce. Those who are Christians may decry this state of affairs, but those who are identified as evangelical Christians by George Barna actually have a divorce rate that is slightly greater than the population at large.
Andrew Cherlin, a professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University is quoted as saying, "Now there are several ways to have a successful family life, and more people accept them". Nothing could be further from the truth. More people may accept different definitions of family, but the trend away from the two parent, married heterosexual couple is a recipe for disaster for our country.
Today, most get married fully expecting their new partner to fulfill all of their expectations. When in the natural course of events, the partner doesn't, then the choice is usually to opt out of the marriage.
Divorce has been sold as a normal occurrence when one partner is not "fulfilled". We have bought into the lie that it is better for everyone involved to opt out of an "unhappy" marriage rather than remain and have everyone be miserable. Never mind research that reveals that those who stay and work out their problems claim to be happier five years later than they have ever been in their lives.
For Christ Followers, marriage has a religious aspect to it, but even for the non-religious it has utilitarian benefits that no other institution brings to the table.
When children are involved the absence of both a mom and dad in the home has a tremendous social cost. Of the children under age 6 who live below the poverty line, 59 percent live with single mothers, while a mere 6 percent live in households with married couples. Single parent families make less than one third of two parent families and the poverty rate for single parent families is six times that of two parent families. Divorce and out-of-wedlock births are extraordinarily costly to American taxpayers. The Institute for Marriage and Family puts the price tag at over $100 billion every year. We have spent billions on the "war on poverty", but if Congress wants to combat poverty, the place to start is to institute policy that strengthens marriage.
The financial cost is not the only price that America is paying for devaluing marriage. Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship says, "Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves. .........Every time I set foot inside a prison, I see the results of splintered families. So many of the prisoners I talk to tell me about growing up without dad."
Indeed, the Department of Justice reports that more than 60 percent of prisoners grew up in households without a father. Some 70 percent of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes. Without a doubt the absence of a father in the home contributes to the reason that we can not build prisons fast enough. If we want to solve the crime problem, we have to find a way to strengthen marriage.
The psychological effect of divorce on children is disastrous. By almost every measure, children in divorced families fare worse: emotional problems, early sexual experimentation, dropping out of school, delinquency, teen pregnancy and drug use. Adults may think that they are doing the right thing to abandon a marriage that no longer provides them the thrill of romance, but their inability to sustain the relationship that counted the most to them and the subsequent loss of connection to their fathers seems to have eroded the young peoples' sense of identity and ability to trust others and commit themselves.
Nor does remarriage seem to be a solution: children in step families were two to three times more likely than their counterparts to suffer emotional and behavioral problems and twice as likely to have learning problems. The associated social costs to American taxpayers for these social ills is in the billions every year.
After viewing how their parents have walked away from marriage, the young are trending toward co-habitation in an attempt to avoid the pitfalls, but this is not the answer either. Living together without commitment is not the same as marriage. One of the partners has his "stuff" and the other has her "stuff" with the idea that either can leave at any time. If a co-habiting couple does marry, they have an 80% greater chance of divorce, which puts them back at square one.
In an era when Americans are looking for answers to their economic, social and crime problems they have to look no further than the solution of strengthening the institution of marriage. Far from being obsolete, solid marriages are more in need than ever before.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Homecoming
My oldest son Saddler came home Saturday after a year's tour in Afghanistan with the 178th Field Artillery of the South Carolina Army National Guard. This was the unit's second combat deployment, having deployed previously to Iraq in 2005. All of the South Carolina troops made it home safely although they did lose two soldiers from the Pennsylvania Guard who were attached to their unit. Needless to say, it is a burden lifted from the hearts of a father and mother to have their son safely back on U.S. soil and we grieve for those whose ultimate fear has been realized.
The unit left Afghanistan on November the 5th, went to Kyrgyzstan, Bosnia, Maine and on to Camp Atterbury, Indiana where they were debriefed and went through some family counseling sessions on reintegration into family life. Having a husband away from home for a year is extremely hard on active duty wives, but more so on National Guard wives as they don't have the built in support system of having others around that are going through the same hardship. While those who are not military families can sympathize, they can not possibly really know the sacrifice that is being paid to keep them free. Not only are the troops paying a tremendous price to keep us free and safe, but the families, especially the wives are paying a steep price also. During my Navy career, we had a saying, "Navy wife, the toughest job in the Navy", and I think during these times, its true for every branch of service.
We were down for the welcome home ceremony at Eagle Aviation in Columbia and I am not ashamed to admit that there were tears in my eyes when the hangar doors opened and the unit marched in. I am so proud of the sacrifice that the young men have made and to see the joy on the faces of the families at their return is almost overwhelming.
There is one neat story, at least I think its neat, about Saddler's return. During his deployment, we kept a lighted electric candle in our window signifying his absence. The bulb had lasted, without replacement, throughout the deployment. In fact it was still lit on Sunday morning when we left to go welcome him home. Upon our return, it was out. Now some may consider this a coincidence, but I prefer to think that it is God's way of telling us that He has been faithful to answer our prayers.
In any event, just like Ty Pennington on Extreme Home Makeover. There is only one thing left to say: Welcome home, 178th, Welcome home!!!!!!
The unit left Afghanistan on November the 5th, went to Kyrgyzstan, Bosnia, Maine and on to Camp Atterbury, Indiana where they were debriefed and went through some family counseling sessions on reintegration into family life. Having a husband away from home for a year is extremely hard on active duty wives, but more so on National Guard wives as they don't have the built in support system of having others around that are going through the same hardship. While those who are not military families can sympathize, they can not possibly really know the sacrifice that is being paid to keep them free. Not only are the troops paying a tremendous price to keep us free and safe, but the families, especially the wives are paying a steep price also. During my Navy career, we had a saying, "Navy wife, the toughest job in the Navy", and I think during these times, its true for every branch of service.
We were down for the welcome home ceremony at Eagle Aviation in Columbia and I am not ashamed to admit that there were tears in my eyes when the hangar doors opened and the unit marched in. I am so proud of the sacrifice that the young men have made and to see the joy on the faces of the families at their return is almost overwhelming.
There is one neat story, at least I think its neat, about Saddler's return. During his deployment, we kept a lighted electric candle in our window signifying his absence. The bulb had lasted, without replacement, throughout the deployment. In fact it was still lit on Sunday morning when we left to go welcome him home. Upon our return, it was out. Now some may consider this a coincidence, but I prefer to think that it is God's way of telling us that He has been faithful to answer our prayers.
In any event, just like Ty Pennington on Extreme Home Makeover. There is only one thing left to say: Welcome home, 178th, Welcome home!!!!!!
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Protestants and Catholics
The Pope was recently in Spain for the dedication of Barcelona's basilica, the Sagrada Familia. While there he criticized the policies of Spain's socialist government and its laws allowing homosexual marriage, fast-track divorce and easy access to abortions. Predictably, he took a lot of criticism for his views.
I applaud the Pope for this stand on homosexual marriage, the institution of marriage and abortion. Evangelicals have also spoken out on this, but the Pope has tremendous worldwide stature and respect. In my view, his voice is welcome.
The fact remains that there was a reason for the Protestant Reformation. Catholics and Protestants have some major theological differences, none more stark than the means of salvation. Catholics believe in salvation through Jesus Christ plus, i.e., plus having to be a member of the Catholic Church and the faith adds works as a requirement for forgiveness of sins. Protestants believe in salvation by grace through faith in Christ plus nothing. These differences are non-negotiable for Protestants.
My question is: In light of these differences and many more, can we make common cause with Catholics on social issues such as was done with the Manhattan Declaration and still remain faithful to Scripture and to Christ? Can we ally with Catholics in social causes such as these without damaging our message?
I applaud the Pope for this stand on homosexual marriage, the institution of marriage and abortion. Evangelicals have also spoken out on this, but the Pope has tremendous worldwide stature and respect. In my view, his voice is welcome.
The fact remains that there was a reason for the Protestant Reformation. Catholics and Protestants have some major theological differences, none more stark than the means of salvation. Catholics believe in salvation through Jesus Christ plus, i.e., plus having to be a member of the Catholic Church and the faith adds works as a requirement for forgiveness of sins. Protestants believe in salvation by grace through faith in Christ plus nothing. These differences are non-negotiable for Protestants.
My question is: In light of these differences and many more, can we make common cause with Catholics on social issues such as was done with the Manhattan Declaration and still remain faithful to Scripture and to Christ? Can we ally with Catholics in social causes such as these without damaging our message?
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Election results
But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people -John 2:24
If the polls can be believed, the mid-term election should be a landslide victory for Republicans. Now I admit up front that I am all for this as I vehemently oppose the policies of President Obama and the Democratic congress. But having said that, we are fooling ourselves if we think that a change of the guard is going to solve all of our problems. The people we are electing, no matter what party, are still flawed human beings.
The reason the country is in this mess is because of bad policy, but that bad policy comes from a breakdown of ethics in Congress, the business world and in society. Everyone seems to be focusing on the economy, but you can not separate economics and morality. Capitalism is a three legged stool and requires religious freedom, economic freedom and Biblical ethics. Removed the ethics and the system doesn't work.
We have seen that in the recent recession. Congress forced lending to individuals who can't afford the mortgages, families lied to buy houses that they can not afford and Wall Street manipulated the system for short term profits. It did not take long for the Ponzi scheme to come crashing down. Was the solution to let the "Law of the Harvest" run its course? Of course not.
We want the solutions to our problems to be painless. We have lost the Protestant work ethic: a willingness to postpone gratification, work hard and invest for the future. We had rather assign blame than take responsibility for our actions. We demand a bailout. And Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, in their quest to retain and extend power, are only too happy to meet our demands while abandoning the Biblical precept of stewardship. Thus we find ourselves in debt that we can't possibly pay off.
While we may justifiably rejoice over the results of today's election, if we put new people in Congress and continue to expect them to meet all of our needs, we are pursuing a false god. "We the people" can not continue to elect politicians and keep them in power based solely on the amount of "free" goodies that they provide. Covetousness destroys the moral fabric of any society.
If the polls can be believed, the mid-term election should be a landslide victory for Republicans. Now I admit up front that I am all for this as I vehemently oppose the policies of President Obama and the Democratic congress. But having said that, we are fooling ourselves if we think that a change of the guard is going to solve all of our problems. The people we are electing, no matter what party, are still flawed human beings.
The reason the country is in this mess is because of bad policy, but that bad policy comes from a breakdown of ethics in Congress, the business world and in society. Everyone seems to be focusing on the economy, but you can not separate economics and morality. Capitalism is a three legged stool and requires religious freedom, economic freedom and Biblical ethics. Removed the ethics and the system doesn't work.
We have seen that in the recent recession. Congress forced lending to individuals who can't afford the mortgages, families lied to buy houses that they can not afford and Wall Street manipulated the system for short term profits. It did not take long for the Ponzi scheme to come crashing down. Was the solution to let the "Law of the Harvest" run its course? Of course not.
We want the solutions to our problems to be painless. We have lost the Protestant work ethic: a willingness to postpone gratification, work hard and invest for the future. We had rather assign blame than take responsibility for our actions. We demand a bailout. And Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, in their quest to retain and extend power, are only too happy to meet our demands while abandoning the Biblical precept of stewardship. Thus we find ourselves in debt that we can't possibly pay off.
While we may justifiably rejoice over the results of today's election, if we put new people in Congress and continue to expect them to meet all of our needs, we are pursuing a false god. "We the people" can not continue to elect politicians and keep them in power based solely on the amount of "free" goodies that they provide. Covetousness destroys the moral fabric of any society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)