iPandora

Is America a Christian Nation?

Among those brothers and sisters who claim the name of Christ as their redeemer and Lord there are as many social ideas and political persuasions as there are sequins on a glam rockers vest. Or more.

Anybody who thinks all professed Christians believe a certain way about nearly any subject, even many subjects central to the faith, is misinformed or worse. They may be correct in believe that professing Christians ought to believe certain ways, but they are sadly mistaken if they think they actually do.

Especially in recent years, as traditionally more professedly secular ideologies have come to recognize the power and persuasion of faith-based arguments, no one political party or social movement or cultural idea can claim to be leading most Christians in it’s way.

However, there are many social ideas and political ideologies that Christians ought to agree on, and at least basically agree on their importance in the grand scheme of ideas.

First, we must agree that all aspects of life are related. That words mean things, that ideas have consequences, that actions are the outward manifestations of inward ideas, though they can be easily controlled and manipulated to give a wrong impression, positive or negative. We must agree that out of the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks. We must agree that what one does in private is the truer measure of who they are than what they claim in public. We must accept that dishonesty in one part of a life will mean that person cannot be trusted in other ways either. This doesn’t mean we only accept perfection. It means, more than anything else, that we only trust God for those things that are rightfully His to do.

Second we must agree that there are standards of right and wrong, and they are not situationally or culturally defined. When Jesus said He was the only way to the Father, He wasn’t leaving options open. If you don’t believe Jesus is the only way, you’re very welcome to call yourself anything you please, except a Christian. We use labels to mean things and allow useful and necessary classification in order to function as a normal, healthy society. Co-opting a label that has meant one thing for centuries to mean something completely different is to no ones benefit except the deceiver. And referencing to point 1, such deception in more indicative of your own heart issues than any intolerance true Christians may or may not hold.

The same goes for other truths that are defined in human nature and through the Word of God. Killing of innocents is always unjust and immoral. It doesn’t matter if you’re all in a life raft and starving and the weak ones wouldn’t survive anyways. It doesn’t matter if you don’t want to live with the consequences of your actions. It doesn’t even matter if the choice was taken from you and forced upon you by evil people doing evil actions. Taking a life never expunges the memories or heals the wounds. It only adds to the pain and grief and lays actual and real and deserved blame on yourself. Abortion is murder. There is no argument that can change that plain and simple and very obvious fact. And to subscribe to and support any ideology that holds otherwise is to accept a huge burden of responsibility for the ugly truth that is our societies acceptance of this hideous and unconscionable act.

Third, we must agree that in order for God to justly judge the actions and intentions of each and every person, each and every person must be allowed the maximum use of their own abilities to do with as they please. Acting according to conviction or spite, or duplicity or compassion, or cynicism or malice or justice or pleasure, it is each and every one of our prerogative what we shall do with our own resources, got by our own hand, multiplied by our own skill, maximized by our own discipline. If the government or any other group takes from the able to distribute to the needy, they are removing that able person’s ability to show their own character and quality to God and man. And they are, more often than not, removing a powerful motivator for the needy to raise themselves up through honest and accountable charity and use of those resources they do have. A system of mutual dependency removes the onus of responsibility both from those who have and those who need.

I subscribe to conservative social and political beliefs not because I want America to return to its roots as a Christian nation. I don’t hold to my standards and ideas because I hope to create a wondrous theocracy here in the United States of America. Useful theocracies perished with the coming of Christ. At that point the theocracy moved to the heart of each and every man and woman and child. The responsibility is no longer with the nation but with the individual how they will go and who they will serve. The nation bears responsibility for maintaining an atmosphere most conducive to individual expression of their own faith, preventing such beliefs from infringing on others beliefs, and punishing where such infringment occurs. The individual bears the responsibility for using what freedom they have to serve whom they will in what manner they deem best.

The philosophies and ideas our Founding Fathers used to build such a nation were predominantly those derived from the Christian worldview. Because God does not want automatons but people who have freely and willingly chosen Him, He give to us complete choice and builds a framework, a worldview that is most conducive to such freedom while accounting for the human predilection for sin. It is the Christian government that is most conducive to all religions coexisting as peaceably as they may.

I am not Christian because I am conservative. No, political ideas can only at best be results of deeper things. I am a conservative because I am Christian. To be Christian is a deeper thing.

Without equivocation I condemn the murder of Dr. Tiller.

Murder is murder, and one murder never justifies another.

We live in a land of law and justice. No man is above the law or a law to themselves, when such a personal law conflicts with the law of the land.

The only way a person can lose their life legitimately and legally at the hand of man is when that person has been found guilty of some crime worthy of the death penalty by the justice system of that land. In America this means being found guilty by a jury of their peers of certain specific crimes.

In the small way I am aware of Dr. Tiller, I find his career to be revolting and disgusting in the highest sense. I find it difficult to even consider the occupation with which he has spent his life: killing innocent, unborn children late in their term.

If he did not repent, prior to his death, of this heinous sin, God has perfect justice ready for him. But it is not mine to mete out to him.

I grieve for Dr. Tiller in that it is very likely did not accept the salvation of the Lord. Eternal punishment is a fearful thing that I cannot wish on any person, ever. It is not mine to wish.

As a Christian, I take both comfort and warning from God’s claim to perfect justice:  “‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay’ says the Lord.”

Comfort because I know God will do a much better job of justice than any human court ever could. He judges the innermost thoughts and wishes, the heart and the mind. Things a human judge could never see clearly to judge on.

And yet warning, because God reserving, without qualification, all vengeance to Himself leaves none for me. Not even the vengeance of thought or hope.

I should not feel giddy or happy that God may indeed be judging an evil man for his sin. Instead, there is anguish that Satan succeeded in destroying another life entrhalled in deception and pride. Another life is doomed forever to torment and there isn’t another chance to rescue this soul from the depredations of sin and score another victory against the prince of darkness and his failing, faltering, now conquered kingdom.

Dr. Tiller was a sinner, as am I.

And his murderer ought to be brought to justice, as should the murderer of any other sinner.

To the pro-life people: We are against death. It’s the morally superior position and all those who dispute this argue against sense and reason.

When pro-abortion people state that our general position for the death penalty makes our argument false, they only reveal the moral bankruptcy of their own feeble stand.

We are for the life of the innocent and the protection of that life through the rare but possible, lawfully imposed death of the guilty at the hands of the law and the government.

They are for the death of the innocent, damage and destruction of their mothers, freedom from responsibility of the fathers, and protection of those who would kill other innocents.

There really isn’t much comparison.

If we’re tempted to support, in any way, the murder of Dr. Tiller. No matter how we may despise the sin he dug himself so deeply into, we succumb to lawlessness and anarchy. Which leads, without exception, to the death of innocents.

Burris is a crook. Whodathunkit?

And a liar, of the worst kind. Pretentiously hiding behind his squeaky clean image and claiming he’d never talked to Blagojevich about favors that resulted in his appointment to the Senate. Santimoniously sermonizing ad nauseum about how he was about the people’s business and wouldn’t allow sordid speculation sway his resolve.

There’s no sordid speculation here and that sactimonious sermonizing can go right back down the vile gullet it emerged from to add it’s putrid mass to the seething stench that inhabits that man’s soul.

Just a question, an honest one here: knowing the FBI had recorded phone conversations and in all likelihood had him incriminating himself with incontravertible proof, how did Burris walk the halls of Congress with his debonaire smile? Was  his conscience eating him at all? Or is his corruption so complete that he’s quelled all better things within him?

Oh, and now he’s “torn” over helping Blagojevich.

This much is true: as a parent we want our child to feel bad about doing wrong, not about being caught.

Burris is feeling bad about being caught. His emotional development is very likely so incredibly stunted it would take a redemptive work in his life to make him feel grief over his actual wrong.

So throw the Senator out already.

Judge Sotomayor has lots of things going for her: Obama likes her, and… Obama thinks she’ll do a good job.

Why?

A significant number of her decisions have been reversed, and of those upheld, her arguments have been faulted by superior judges. This indicates a consistency only in fallacy and not in skilled jurisprudence.

Reading through a list of Sotomayor decisions, one finds very quickly she is anti-business, pro-union,  and pro-regulation.

She believes business is out to hurt people.

She believes unions are completely good and no bad thing can come from them.

She believes generally that government knows best, especially when the right kind of people run government.

One thing conspicuously absent from her beliefs is a belief in the rule of law and the supremacy of law over all men equally.

It’s no unfair fear tactic to quote her (from the NY Times):

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life

Would a white male judge saying a version of that phrase last any longer than a water drop on a hot iron skillet? Of course not, and for good reason. There’s no place for preference or opinion in the law.

Justice is supposed to be blind.

Sotomayor, in her arrogance and conceit, proudly claims her judgement issued with her eyes of justice wide open and uncovered is best.

It may indeed her best judgement, but it’s not the judgement we require of those occupying the highest chairs of justice in our land.

The proof is in the pudding, they say.

Timothy P. O’Neill claims the history and roots of the current members of the High Court are too similar, their backgrounds too homogeneous, to allow for true justice to be dispensed.

According to O’Neill, President Obama has an historic opportunity to correct the court. To broaden it’s foundation and strengthen it’s ability to work in this modern time with an open-minded understanding of our current situation.

Professor Lee Epstein of Northwestern has observed that “Diversity of inputs makes for stronger outputs.” Obama should cast the widest possible net to find a person who can bring a fresh set of experiences and perspectives to the work of the Supreme Court.

O’Neill claims as evidence of the problem the dearth of unanimous decisions in recent court history. And states as a possible cause the acrimonious attempted appointment of Bork and the travesty of political murder that borked Bork.

With the reticence of succeeding Presidents to propose any but established Federal judges to the high court, the court’s base has indeed narrowed, but is the non-unanimous nature of the court a bad thing?

I say not. And I say that a preconceived notion with an aim toward heterogeneity is not the solution to any problems the court now faces.

The purpose of the high court is to apply and interpret the law in difficult cases. It is not to have empathy or to make exceptions or to make law. Anything more or less than application and interpretation of the law is a failure and a grab for power not allocated to the judicial branch by the Constitution.

Reasonable people may disagree and the stress of disagreement slows down a mad human rush towards oblivion.

Such enforced conflict is not the best solution, but in our current era of stratified ideology, it’s pragmatic and effective.

The aim, in selecting judicial appointees, for any President, ought to be whether or not the person selected has an understanding and appreciation for the law. That is the only criteria which is reasonable.

Thomas Sowell counters with the basic argument of Constitutional rationality:

People who are speculating about whether the next nominee will be a woman, a Hispanic or whatever are missing the point.

That we are discussing the next Supreme Court justice in terms of group “representation” is a sign of how far we have already strayed from the purpose of law and the weighty responsibility of appointing someone to sit for life on the highest court in the land.

That Obama has made “empathy” with certain groups one of his criteria for choosing a Supreme Court nominee is a dangerous sign of how much further the Supreme Court may be pushed away from the rule of law and toward even more arbitrary judicial edicts to advance the agenda of the left and set it in legal concrete, immune from the democratic process.

It is always interesting to me that those who are so (mistakenly) tied up with the “Democracy” of America are so very un-Democratic about critical moral, cultural, and social issues. America is designed to be a Republic (if we can keep it) because of the innately sinful nature of man.

Those claiming the mantel of Democratic ideals are often the first to bypass them and the will of the people, or directly contravene it, by seeking attention and action from the legislative and judicial branches to impose their minority ideas upon the majority.

Fairness is too often very unfair for someone else, and the flip-side of tolerance is tyranny.

We are an equal society, say many. But Sowell cautions that this is often no more than smoke and mirrors:

We would have entered a strange new world where everybody is equal but some are more equal than others. The very idea of the rule of law would become meaningless when it is replaced by the empathies of judges.

Obama solves this contradiction, as he solves so many other problems, with rhetoric. If you believe in the rule of law, he will say the words “rule of law.” And if you are willing to buy it, he will keep on selling it.

We live in a society governed by the rule of law. Our society requires that it’s members be knowledgeable and intelligent and involved.

When we sacrifice knowledge and intelligence at the altar of equality we lose the ability to be involved.

As more and more power is usurped from it’s right and proper owners, we all lose.

Thomas Sowell ends his article with a somber warning we would all do well to heed:

The biggest danger in appointing the wrong people to the Supreme Court is not just in how they might vote on some particular issues — whether private property, abortion or whatever. The biggest danger is that they will undermine or destroy the very concept of the rule of law — what has been called “a government of laws and not of men.”

Under the American system of government, this cannot be done overnight or perhaps even during the terms in office of one president — but it can be done. And it can be done over time by the appointees of just one president, if he gets enough appointees.

Some people say that who Obama appoints to replace Souter doesn’t really matter, because Souter is a liberal who will probably be replaced by another liberal. But, if no one sounds the alarm now, we can end up with a series of appointees with “empathy” — which is to say, with justices who think their job is to “relieve the distress” of particular groups rather than to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

What makes us so special?

Rather than embarking on a long dialogue, as is my norm, I want to instead throw some things out on the table for you to think about.

First . . . do we really readthe Bible, or do we just preview it through our Americanized mindset? In American culture, my actions are treated as my own, and the consequences are solely mine. However, read the Bible. Truly read it. The story of Achan clearly demonstrates that not only is a person responsible for their crime, but their wife, children, and grandchildren are to suffer for the sin and their possessions are to be destroy. Do I condone this? No, with fulfilment of the law, God brought grace. But guess what? God hasn’t changed, we are still responsible for the sins of those we are connected to (accountability) are our sins still effect those we are around (responsibility), to a much larger extent than our American minds want to accept.

Second . . . what makes us so special (American Christians)? We walk around acting like being an American Christian is a benefit to God. Somehow, we have a general mindset (not when we think about it, but when we just normally act) that God is in debt to us since we are American Christians and he owes us providence and goodwill. I got news . . . I am of no more value to God than a Chinese Christian who is of no more value to God than a Chinese heathen. We act like God owes it to us to keep our country “safe” and prosperous, but God owes us no such thing.

Third . . . are we (American Christians) the ones who decided who is a Christian nation and who gets God’s blessings? Somehow, we feel like we have a direct line to God and can dictate to Him who he should bless (us) and how the world should be run (through our prosperity). However, here is a though . . . maybe God is using, and blessing the Chinese. Here is an even harder thought, maybe God is using the Chinese to reshape the world for the next stage of human development. That is a hard pill to take, but guess what . . . we (as Christians) should rejoice in that because it is the next good  step in God’s good plan.

In closing, maybe we should get over ourselves, read what God really says (not what fits our mindset), and take joy in world event (and prepare for joyous persecution) because God has ordained it for his glory.

California Proposition 22 stated:

“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Sounds clear and unequivocal to me, but apparently perversions of a sexual nature tend to affect the linguistic comprehension ability as well.

In November 2000 the measure was approved by a resounding majority of votes, 61.4%, a landslide no matter how you look at it.

I was involved in the debate over Prop 22 due in part to my participation in a debate/speech class at the local Junior College during the Fall 2000 semester.

California is often considered a Socialist state, but when you get down to serious issues, there is a significant and vocal Conservative, Classical Liberal, and Christian population which have and will be mobilized.

When the California Supreme Court swept away the true voice of the people in June by declaring the words of Prop 22 invalid, the fire was lit once again.

A ballot iniative has been submitted again, with the exact same wording as Prop 22 because it is strong and unquestionable, despite what the California Supreme Court claims.

Prop 8 has received an incredible level of support across the state, submitting nearly twice the number of signatures needed to quality for the November Ballot.

The presidential contenders have weighed in on this critical issue: Barak Hussein Obama is against it and for Homosexual Marriage, while John McCainis for Prop 8 and supports Real Marriage.

Those who would expand the government and silence the vote of the people filed a lawsuit to block this initiative, which was just denied.

JPennStar: What is your take on the pulse of the people regarding this initiative? Is it generating the buzz that existed for Prop 22?

Work hard. Pray, but don’t stop just with that. California needs to be pulled back to it’s mooring once again.

His being on the 9th Circuit should have caused an irrevocable prejudice against him in me.

Cyrus may still be a bad guy, but he’s merely giving the devil his due in this case.

Apparently Judge Kozinski has been at the forefront of judicial legislation in favor of pornography in libraries and in the judicial offices. He was simply then caught in the net of his own creation, with his pants down.

First, the Duh!

Gay men get HIV, and they’re getting it faster. 12% faster, says a new CDC report.

And of course, to remind those hotheads whose brains have boiled out: HIV is the disease the US Government released in Africa to desimate the black population.

The rest of us know it’s transmitted by homosexual relations between men. And that it’s not bias or bigotry that caused it, but pride, willful ignorance, and the natural result of an unnatural act.

Now the Interesting Stuff

Investor’s Business Daily reports that an architect the the Canadian socialized health-care system, that one we hear is so incredible and worthy of emulation from the leftist socialist running for POTUS, has had a change of heart:

“We thought we could resolve the system’s problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it,” says (Claude) Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: “We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice.”

Counteracting the tales of woe and terror which are peppering the debate south of our northern border, the IBD tells a tale of truth which ought to give those considering the proposed socialized utopia pause:

Sick with ovarian cancer, Sylvia de Vires, an Ontario woman afflicted with a 13-inch, fluid-filled tumor weighing 40 pounds, was unable to get timely care in Canada. She crossed the American border to Pontiac, Mich., where a surgeon removed the tumor, estimating she could not have lived longer than a few weeks more.

Because she’s a woman, and it’s her ovaries, it’s a real tear-jerker.

No, the point is that the capitalistic, profit-based system provides better care to a greater number of people with two primary reasons:

1. The costs cause people to evaluate themselves whether they really need that procedure, freeing the system from a glut of unnecessary and frivolous procedures.
2. Those same costs entice more skilled labor and research and development into medical/technological advances, enhancing quality and quantity of available care.

Read more at IBD.

Republican ‘”Obama”, Only With History And Substance’ Jindal takes the hard line

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who has actually accomplished things in his life, was outraged over the Supreme Court’s liberal judges finding the death penalty is not applicable or valid for use in extreme cases of child rape, so he signed a bill allowing chemical castration in certain specific cases of rape and sexual abuse.

Sponsored by Democrat Senator Nick Gautreaux of Meaux, LA, arguments surrounding the bill were mostly on scope and effect, rather than validity and right.

It sounds like, unlike the members state houses in many of the states, the members of the Louisiana State House are a group who actually have backbones connected to their brains.

The Lady Roxanne de Luca, contributing author at Haemet, has penned this gem regarding the recent Supreme Court decision finding it illegal to sentence those guilty of raping children to the death penalty:

(L)iberals have just written a Supreme Court opinion which is the jurisprudential equivalent of “If rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it.”

Well put Roxanne.

Here we have one more glaring reason why this election matters so very, very much.

Like many Americans I am concerned with the progressive growth of the federal government. However, unlike many of my fellow Americans, I don’t blame any party, business or particular person; rather I blame the American individual. From our nation’s inception the government was designed with the bottom/up model – “a government for the people and by the people.” To better assist the people the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to specifically limit the powers of the federal government. Clearly the Founders realized a society produces the most when it has the most freedom possible and the only body that could limit this freedom was the federal government; if you read The Federalist Papers you’ll see how concerned the first thirteen states were. I think it is reasonable to argue that ‘freedom’ can be classified as an untangle resource, like truth, love, morals, etc, because where one finds freedom in abundance one will find a prosperous nation; and you’ll notice if you look back into history mankind has traded freedom for things. This also leads me to ask what has been a big contributor to the growth of the federal government and how does one take back and renew freedom?

Now surveying American history I notice a very clear link between warfare and American freedoms and the general moral/ethical condition of the nation. Beginning with the War of Independence, Congress had a very hard time funding, organizing and keeping troop levels up to supply the war. After the providential victory, Congress ensured they would be better prepared for war by expanding its power to fund and supply. America next had smaller wars with, for example, Native Americans and Mexico but none of these would compare to the inevitable Civil War over slavery. The American Civil War took some 500,000 lives and witnessed a relatively large growth of the federal government to ensure the Union stayed together; and to pay for it the federal government instituted the income tax.

The link between warfare and statism can no better be seen than in the 20th century during WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, the Cold War, Korea/Vietnam. In just 100 years America has suffered all of these wars and even today in the 21st century we are at war. Each event marks a progressive growth of the federal government to answer the war which is needed. Honestly if America did not fight in WWI or WWII surely all of Europe would be under, at the very least, some form of Nazi government; and possibly Russia. Today we don’t regret these two great wars and for all that they cost in money and life we realize it was necessary because today American see the fruits of our grandparents’ sacrifices. Europe and Japan have more freedoms today because of America. During the Great Depression FDR began the “New Deal” which funded federal programs to employee Americans and slowly bring the nation out of the hard times. Prior to and after WWII the government continued its growth by increasing federally funded programs such as social security; all with taxes. Today with the War on Terror this freedom is continuing to be exported directly to Afghanistan and Iraq. I can’t argue with the fact that the people of these nations have more freedoms now and more hope; but logically at the cost to me, my fellow American and the soldiers’ life, which is a piece of freedom. Therefore, in a real sense American “freedom” like a resource has been exported to other nations throughout history.

It is very much necessary during times of hardship (economic or war) for the people of a society to come together and pool their resources for the benefit of each other. The early Christian Church and the Plymouth colony, for example, exercised a form of socialism to ensure everyone survived; so I understand the importance of this socio-economic structure. America also had to do this during its many hardships. However, the problem is the federal government did not relinquish its power once the hardship was over and the people were capable of providing for their needs. This fact of not demanding the freedoms back I blame on the American citizen and I also believe this is where the moral/ethical condition of America plays into the growth of the “nanny state.” As people have moved away from self government they have naturally turned to the State government because they are lazy and would rather trade their freedom for security; they like the idea of not having to work as hard to pay for their living. But like what Benjamin Franklin said:

For those who are willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither.

Only freedom guarantees security. Too bad the people who are complaining about the failure and shortcomings of all these State programs don’t understand this. Therefore, the answer to turning back the wheel of socialism in America and taking our freedoms back is with self-government – with limited federal government. It is my argument that the level of socialism is determined by the level sin, therefore, we’ll always have some level of socialism, but the goal is to have the least. We will clearly always need government to protect our border, make war and treaties, deal with issues between states, standardize things such as money and food quality, check monopolies, etc. This leads me to the final question: In order to renew the resource of freedom how is one to self-govern?

I think it is very reasonable to consider our founding Fathers as a good starting point to determine this because they are the ones who best understand the ideal of self government and freedom; they lived it.

• “ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” - John Adams

• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.” – John Adams

• “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” –John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress October 11, 1798

•”I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen.” December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson

•”Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell.” John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817

•”God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” – Benjamin Franklin. Constitutional Convention of 1787

“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.” - Jefferson

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.” - Jefferson

“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” - Jefferson

Quotes of our Father

It is quite clear that self-government entailed believing in a higher power, the God, our Father, Savior, Holy One and Christ, in order to know how we should conduct ourselves; even Jefferson and Franklin believed in a higher power. Also by the Constitution it is clear the Founders wanted the people to mediate the moral/ethical standards and not the State. I’m not about to begin the debate over whether or not one religion is superior to another (although I will declare my bias of believing the Holy Bible is superior to all other works) but I will say due to history we should attribute the success of America in regard to developing a society of freedom to Christianity; broadly speaking because all of Europe was influenced by it. In contrast let us look at the fruits of humanism, atheism, pantheism, etc. The horrific events resulting from Nazism and Communism under Hitler, Stalin and Mao come to mind. Furthermore, the bloody history of Egypt, Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire come to mind. I am not dealing in absolutes but statistics and in this context Christian influenced cultures have been the least violent; even though so many ignorant people believe religion is the source of war.

Freedom is indeed a resource and it is renewable by self-governing with preferably the word of God. Now I know would have a heart attack over this and begin foaming at the mouth because they confuse the Bible with bad experiences as a child with lukewarm Christians or a bad church. What I am stating is that God’s word is the source of self-government and not the imperfect people who attempt to live it out. Is there a problem with the Ten Commandments? Which ones and why? I have many questions and there are things of which I do not have an answer for but it is not reasonable to require oneself to be omniscient (about the Bible) before accepting what is being said. I realize this is the point, as it is always, where people are not willing to do what it takes for the sake of freedom. However, mark my words this is the only means to permanent freedom.

Wars, natural disasters, economic hardships are guaranteed to happen again and again and deplete our resource of freedom, as well as others, but what will determine the future prosperity or downfall will be whether or not Americans renew this resource by self-government because the only source of limitless freedom is to follow the Holy Bible; which doesn’t mean you have to be a Jew or Christian or go to Church. At the very least just following the instructions will enable self-government; the later part, being a Christian, enables one to have a deeper understanding and eternal life. It sounds unreasonable to many but it’s more than just another book because it speaks of a rich history of people who’ve gone through fundamentally the same as we have; it is very personal and applicable.

In conclusion, I’d like to say that I realize this is hardly a thorough dissertation of history, government, morality, religion, etc and there are many premises which I presuppose – such as the very definition of ‘freedom’ (Another post maybe). I honestly don’t have the time and patients to break it down because while we’re bickering over the premises while the structures of America are falling down around us. I’m a keen observer of history and its patterns, more than a philosopher, and history points in the direction of which I am arguing for; the specifics can be figured out as we go. I just wanted to introduce the concept that freedom is a resource, America has seen the exportation and depletion of this resource, and that it is possible to renew it by obeying the Holy Bible.