Professor Drury continues his arguments outlining why he believes Christian ideas support a Democrat ideology. The last several parts of his argument are smaller, secondary points that I do not generally consider as essential to a particular belief system. For the most part they come down to meddling. An annoyance, but a secondary issue.
But a few of them aren’t.
Nationalism & The Military
With the caveat that Christians ought always to consider any earthly allegiance secondary to their heavenly allegiance, that secondary allegiance to earthly powers-that-be is an important part of being involved and engaged in our culture, our communities. It is said that Christians make the best of citizens, but a requirement of citizenship is some sort of allegiance to that of which we are citizens.
Regarding military involvement, the Professor argues, fallaciously, that God’s leadership of the Israelites is of secondary importance to Christ’s words of peace. However, he never notes which of Chris’s words of peace are against any and all war. This is one point the Professor is sure of, to be Christian is to be against any and all war.
The fallacy of this argument is found in the fact it denies the more realistic view of human nature Christians hold, that of original and inescapable sin permeating the entirety of the human experience. When power corrupts or the corrupt achieve power and enslave entire peoples in their evil vision of some personal utopia, it is the responsibility of free people everywhere and especially Christian people, to liberate them. War is hell, and to save some from hell on earth while giving them a better chance of escaping Hell to come, hell can be justified.
And stemming from that, due to the wisdom and foresight of the Founding Fathers of our nation, the grace and mercy of the Eternal Father in allowing this once in all human history nation that, while far from perfect and heading quickly further from where it was first destined towards, and the hells we’ve been through, internally and externally, the United States of America is the last and best hope of oppressed people everywhere.
In the government and social systems and structures of the United States of America you find the climate best suited to allowing people to live according to the dictates of their own conscience, to freely choose for or against God.
That is the basis for my allegiance to the United States of America.
Capital punishment: I believe it ought to be rare but possible. To preclude the chance of the ultimate punishment for certain heinous crimes is to remove a powerful deterrent and expose more innocents to the horrors which earn evil people their date with God. Thankfully the Professor is too sensible to get into that ugly argument mixing objections to abortion with objections to capital punishment. Regrettably, he does get into the racial argument, claiming, by inference, that racial minorities are more likely to be given the death penalty than white people. And his jealousy gets the best of him when, tongue in cheek, he comments that he’d still be against the death penalty if all we executed were rich white men. If you wanted to be rich, Professor, you chose the wrong profession or place to practice it.
States rights and the size of government: The whole point of states rights is that the federal government can and should only create and maintain those laws that are best applied to all people in the entirety of the United States. The states are capable of creating a system of government within the broader framework of the U.S. Constitution that fits best the people and resources of their particular geographical responsibility. This is the same reason that a one-world government would fail. It would be top heavy and unwieldy, incapable of addressing properly the vast array of different cultures and nations for which it would be responsible.
Alcohol and tobacco: I believe cigarettes are unhealthy, dirty, a nuisance, and making people smoke them outside has made entering any building an exercise in holding my breath longer than I’d like. They are a typically American excess, and one which is being copied all over the world by people who idolize America and it’s Americana. Cigars and pipes are not so. Being an example of moderation and maturity, with their few health risks far outweighed by the health benefits of lower blood pressure and stress levels in their adherents. Until someone stands up and actually says that cigarettes ought to be illegal, I will accept no claim for reparations. Until there is courage found to actually stand up and accept the obvious end result of your views and not stop at some convenient and popular point, I find “sin taxes” and calls for increased regulation to be at best cowardly, and at worst, despicable. Alcohol is the same. And in both cases to prevent the one who indulges in excess is to punish the one who enjoys in moderation. A central point of conservatism is that in any such case where some use to excess where others enjoy responsibly, the error is made towards those who moderate, protecting their rights while allowing reasonable legal or social systems to punish those who damage with their excess. For example, drunk drivers ought to have no excuse or moderated punishment in cases where they harm others.
Corporations: Corporations are currently a handy scape-goat. Few people seem to grasp that corporations employ people, allow them to make money, produce higher standards of living, more accessible technology, longer life through medical progress. They are not all white knights, and most are more of a dappled grey, to be honest. But before we demonize, we must understand. Too often, people seem only to see as far as the vast piles of money corporations are believed to have. In all likelihood, you are employed by a corporation. In fact, if you’re self-employed you probably ARE a corporation. And the United States of America already taxes corporations at one of the highest levels of any of the industrialized nations. 35% of net profits (that is, profits after expenses) are taken from the businesses that create jobs and progress by a government that kills jobs and revels in backwardness. To argue that corporations find loopholes to lower their burdens is to miss the point. Loopholes are written into law to further the collusion of government and business. Businesses, acting in self-preservation, have found they can as easily legislate themselves a profit as they can innovate themselves a profit. And the solution to this is not to demonize the corporation. A corporation will do what is necessary preserve itself. To break this collusion we must cast out the fat-cats, the porkers and grubreaucrats who ask for and accept these bribes, and then enact tax law that is not confiscatory and has no special considerations or loopholes. The problem is the government, not the corporations.
Emissions standards: Should we ban cows too? Not that I’m against cleaner cars. But to focus on one small source of emissions for the sake of global warming, a questionable tale championed by questionable people of questionable morals with, you got it, questionable intent, is to show yourself the pawn of a lobby whose goal is not the cleaning of the air, but the chaining of the people. It has been said that marxists, after their initial reasons for existence stood up and told them “no thank you, 70 years of communism to achieve your wet dream isn’t something we asked for” searched for a victim that could not protest their offer of protection, and found the environment.
Occupational Health and Safety (OSHA): The Professor’s argument is that the rich ought to be compelled to act in accordance with God’s word. The Professor really is one jealous, mean-spirited individual. Wasn’t it those mean nasty rich who make and sell wheel chairs and walkers and canes and all sorts of mobility devices that aid the old and infirm in participating in lifestyles a hundred times more active than if they’d not had those devices? So should we compel the mean and nasty rich to give those devices away for free? Oh wait, many already do. No, Professor, the Christian will never compel Christian habits from another. God wants people who have freely chosen Him, not slaves or automatons. The Christian thing to do is to allow people to freely choose how they will run their businesses. Then those who want to live in Christian love will do so, and those who don’t, wont’. Yes, it won’t be as convenient, and if I were in a wheel chair I’d roundly curse that store which did not put a ramp up for me. But it would be honest and obvious. And further, this is another case of punishing many for the wrong attitudes of a few. For if I am starting a business, perhaps I had to choose between employing three staff and paying for the ramp and the larger bathroom. And now, because the government compels me to make certain accommodations, I can’t employ those nice people after all. Or maybe I won’t be in business at all because all these regulations and costs raise the bar of entry too high. Rather, let those who can and will freely choose to act in a moral way, and allow society to punish those who don’t.
Education: Considering the Professor does not want to government specifying the prayers that are to be said, I find it odd that he wants the government to specify how children ought to be trained, and that he uses for his argument God’s command that we are to bring children up… Oh, wait, how does that verse go? …in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Let’s see here, God’s command is that we train children in His way. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. It’s a regular mantra throughout the Bible. If the government can’t (and I believe it oughtn’t) include God in their “bring(ing) up the children” then they oughtn’t be responsible for the children at all.
Immigration: Immigration is great and amazing and our system ought to be revised, heavily. It should be easier to get into the United States and to be a citizen. And it ought to be harder to do that illegally. Red tape and quotas and preferential treatment for particular groups or education types are all wrong. The United States of America should accept, as it has, the dregs of the earth, the cast outs, the feeble and the poor, anyone wishing to come should be allowed to come. And the only requirement is that they must become Americans. To leave their home country is to forswear their allegiance there, and to transfer that allegiance to their new home. Make legal entry easy and those law-abiding yet persecuted people fleeing their own nations will come here legally. And those who insist on subverting the laws of the nation they would seek to take advantage of should not benefit from the largesse of that nation.
- Christian Woman Seeking Christian Roommate is Charged on Civil Rights Violations (maggiesnotebook.blogspot.com)
- Letters: Government spending and waste (independent.co.uk)
- “Barack Obama Said What … Nancy Pelosi “will go down in history as one of the finest speakers in the United States of America.”” and related posts (scaredmonkeys.com)
- You’ve got the “We Got Nothing Party” and the “We’ve Got No Spine Party” (washblog.com)
- States Weigh Letting Noncitizens Vote (foxnews.com)
- Portland, Maine, weighs letting noncitizens vote (sfgate.com)
- Maine city asks: Should noncitizens vote? (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- Patriotism shocks debate moderators (blogs.dailymail.com)
- League of Women Voters Progressive liberal moderator of Joe Walsh/Mellisa Bean debate refuses to allow Pledge of Allegiance, crowd does it anyway! (fireandreamitchell.com)