Tag Archive for: Legislating Morality

What If I Don’t Like Either Candidate?

If you’re like me, this upcoming election feels like a choice between which electric outlet to jab a fork into. I’m not a big fan of either candidate. It may be tempting to just sit-out this election. But we shouldn’t give up that easily. This November, you won’t be voting for a pastor, or a personality. You’re not just voting for a president either. You’re voting for a package deal. We’re going to get the president and everything that comes with them. So, we owe it to ourselves to look past their personality and consider the rest of the caravan that’s coming along with them. Here are eight reasons why you and I should still vote in this election even if we don’t like either candidate.

If You Won’t Vote for Either Candidate Then . . .

1. Vote Down Ballot

Besides the presidency, there are thousands of other elected officers to be determined this November. History shows that whichever party wins the presidency gets a boost in the elections down ballot. You can help your preferred party win those other elections by endorsing their party for president.

2. Vote For a Cabinet

The president doesn’t work alone. He or she has a cabinet of about 15 different department heads, 10 other cabinet officials, and the Vice President.[1] This cabinet of 26 people advise the president on a regular basis. The president has the authority to appoint all of those officers. If you don’t like either candidate but you would trust a conservative cabinet over a progressive cabinet, then you know who to vote for.

3. Vote For 4,000 Presidential Appointees.

Besides appointing all the cabinet members, the president also appoints 4,000 or so government positions. When people say, “The Trump Administration” or the “Biden Administration” that’s what they are talking about; it’s the president plus the cabinet plus 4,000 or so appointees. The president isn’t just a personality but also a gateway for overhauling Washington DC.

4. Vote For a Vice President

Besides serving as the next in line for president, the VP is the Chief officer in the president’s cabinet. Even if you don’t care for Trump or Harris, you can get a sense of the administration direction through their running mate. Plus, you might see something in a VP candidate to inspire your vote.

5. Vote For a Party Platform

I would say ‘vote for the party’ but there’s no telling what the party stands for without their platform (what they say they’ll do) and their policies (what they do). In the last 5-8 years, the “left” has pulled farther left. “Old-school” democrats are considered moderate or even Republican now. Today’s Republicans are tough to distinguish from libertarians. The point is, you can still read the party platform of the Democrats and the Republicans and vote for the one that best fits our beliefs and values.

6. Vote For the Policies

Beside the party platform, both candidates represents a set of policies. Now, you can expect politicians to make all sorts of campaign promises leading up to the election. But I’m not talking about those empty promises. I’m talking about the party policies that are likely to happen, once that party is in power. The president, of course, can’t just make a new law. Congress does that. But the president, VP, and his cabinet can throw a lot of influence behind their party policies.

7. Vote For the Power of Executive Office

The president has the power to make executive orders including creating or disbanding whole departments if they so choose. Now, you may not trust either candidate with that power. But someone will have that power regardless. I bet you distrust one candidate more than the others.

8. Vote Against the Other Candidate

There is no option to vote for two U.S. presidents in this election cycle. So, when you vote, you’re always voting against the other candidate. Maybe you don’t like either candidate. But you can still vote against whichever candidate you dislike the most.

A Final Warning

If you aren’t convinced yet, and you don’t follow my advice, then you have that right. It’s a free country, for now. It’s not like Christians will lose their salvation for voting third-party or sitting this one out. But I would urge you not to waste your vote. You can still exercise wisdom, love, and courage by voting not for the president but for the policies, platforms, and personnel that they represent. Yes, that means voting in the presidential election, but it’s not just about the president. It never was. It’s about competing visions of what American will become over the next 4 years. You can vote for the future of America by voting on the direction of this country right now.

Otherwise, if you sit this one out, then you’re muffling your God-given influence. You’re wasting a precious gift. And you’re telling all the rot and darkness out there rioting in the streets as we speak that you’d rather keep your “salt and light” to yourself (Matt. 5:13:16). Perish the thought. Let’s go vote!

References:

[1] This number can change with any given administration, whenever a new office or department is formed, or another one is shut down.

Recommended Resources: 

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek

You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek

Legislating Morality (DVD Set), (PowerPoint download), (PowerPoint CD), (MP3 Set) and (DVD mp4 Download Set) 

Does Jesus Trump Your Politics by Dr. Frank Turek (mp4 download and DVD)

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is an educator, writer, and graduate of CrossExamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

/by

Why Did God Allow Stoning?

When it comes to Bible reading, some passages are more challenging than others. Such is the case with the stoning passages (see Leviticus 20:27; 24:16; Numbers 15:32-36; Deuteronomy 13:6-11; 21:18-21). These aren’t our go-to passages for morning devotionals. Personally, I can understand capital punishment, but stoning as a means to achieving it just seems so barbaric, cruel, and harsh, especially when the commandment is issued to parents to indict rebellious sons, as seen in Scripture:

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So, you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear” (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

This is a hard passage to stomach, don’t you think? I prefer death by lethal injection, or death by a laced bong hit, but stoning? What a mess. As believers, how are we to understand these verses? Below are five thoughts to consider as you seek to come to terms with this passage.

1. It’s an Ancient Context.

First, we need to understand this text, like all texts, in context. We can’t overlay our twenty-first century cultural understanding on this ancient milieu. Nothing will lead to more head-scratching confusion and frustration than that. Ours is a culture where a minor swat on our child’s gluteus maximus causes an uproar. No wonder stoning is extra hard for us to digest.

2. It’s a Last Resort.

Second, stoning was the last resort. The son described in these verses exhibits an unbending and rebellious spirit. He’s steeped in sin, freely giving himself to drunkenness and gluttony, and refuses to respond to any parental discipline, altogether shunning the fifth commandment. These verses describe a seemingly hopeless case, one set in his own ways as he strong-arms God, his parents, and the principles of his surrounding theocratic nation. He’s a morally sick son whose sin will spread and undo the moral fabric of the whole community nation, if left unchecked. Once the parents realize their son’s recalcitrance, they seek outside intervention as a final resort.[i]

3. Morality Matters At a Community-Level.

Third, the ultimate purpose of stoning was to purge evil from the community and to create a healthy fear of living an unchecked moral life. The health of the nation depended on the entire community walking in alignment with God. That’s not to say people didn’t sin. They did. A lot. And there was an entire sacrificial system in place so people could once again obtain a clear conscience before the Lord. The son described in these verses wasn’t looking for a clear conscience—his conscience was seared.

4. It’s Rare.

This wasn’t a common custom. Interestingly enough, we have very few instances of stoning that take place in the biblical records and I’m not aware of any extra biblical evidence that this punishment was commonly carried out. Perhaps the threat was enough to deter people from such rebellious behavior.

5. Jesus Answers This Law With Grace.

Finally, Jesus models the heart of God regarding stoning.[ii] In John 8:7 Jesus said to those who accused the adulterous women, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” The law teaches us that we are all lawbreakers. Everyone under God’s law deserves capital punishment, but Jesus experienced capital punishment on our behalf even though He was the only one to ever fulfill the law. Essentially, He was stoned for us in an act of unconditional love as He experienced death on our behalf.

REFERENCES

[i] Editor’s Note: It should also be noted that there’s a cultural corrective built into this scenario to prevent abusing capital punishment. Children were seen as a blessing, a legacy and a source of pride and joy for parents. Plus, even today, it’s only natural for parents to be biased in favor of their own children. So, if anyone was going to advocate to protect and defend one’s children from capital punishment, it’s the parents. In that way, there was a cultural corrective built-into that relation, to keep parents bearing false witness against their child and from doling out a capital punishment lightly. Second, parents would also be the experts on their own children, knowing them better than anyone else. So, if this child is a menace to society, the parents are in a position to recognize that threat before anyone else does. Third, parents already have relational authority over their own children. That means they can make judgments over their children; that’s part of their job as parents. Now they don’t have the natural right to directly kill their kids, but they do have a judicial role over their children, so that court rulings over their children are treated here as an extension or continuation of parental authority over the child. Fourth, even still, this passage isn’t saying that parents have a right to kill their children. Rather, the parents are coming forward as the chief witnesses against their rebellious child. While they created that child, and they have a normal responsibility to raise and care for them, they cannot kill that child as a general right of parenthood. That’s why they have to present their child before a larger judging body, a court of the elders, Sanhedrin, priests, etc., to make that higher-court decision. The parents, in that case, are not the “Judges” issuing a death sentence, they are more like the arresting officers and lead witnesses against their prodigal child. Sixth, that era also had no standing police force and no prison system, and the judicial/court system was usually a small counsel of community leaders (elders, priests, etc.). All that means the punishments had to fit the crime, without requiring an elaborate police force, prison system, or a complicated court system. Stoning was a low-cost, effective, means of containing serious threats and reducing crime. Plus, it’s administered by the whole community, so the whole community takes responsibility for the court rulings. This means no single person can be both judge and executioner. One or two people could be bribed or tricked into a guilty-verdict, but it’s a lot harder to do that to the whole community.

[ii] I realize our earliest manuscripts do not include John 7:53–8:11. Regardless, these verses depict a consistent vision of the life and actions of Jesus Christ.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Legislating Morality (mp4 download),  (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book)

A Father’s Embrace (DVD), (Mp3), (Mp4 Download), and (PowerPoint download) by Dr. Frank Turek

If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bobby serves as lead pastor of Image Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is well known for his YouTube ministry called, One Minute Apologist, which now goes by the name Christianity Still Makes Sense. He also serves as the Co-Host of Pastors’ Perspective, a nationally syndicated call-in radio show on KWVE in Southern California. Bobby earned his Master of Theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary, his Doctor of Ministry in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary, and his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from the University of Birmingham (England), where he was supervised under David Cheetham and Yujin Nagasawa. Bobby’s also written several books, including The Fifth Gospel, Doubting Toward Faith, Does God Exist, and Fifty-One Other Questions About God and the Bible, and the forthcoming Christianity Still Makes Sense, to be published by Tyndale in April 2024. He’s married to his lovely wife Heather, and together they have two grown kids: Haley and Dawson.

 

/by
The Three Fatal Flaws of Equity

The Three Fatal Flaws of Equity

By Jason Jimenez 

All this talk about more equity in our institutions seems like a good thing, right?

Not so fast.

On the surface, equity seems to be fair, just, and impartial. But upon further investigation, you find that the outcome of equity is anything but fair, just, and impartial.

There are undoubtedly those within the debate over diversity, inclusivity, and equity who genuinely try to reduce discrimination and attempt to unite people of different backgrounds. That’s a good thing. But let’s not be fooled into believing that we must embrace the Left’s dangerous views of equity hook line and sinker.

To prevent you from believing the secular lies of equity, I’ve put together three areas that expose the faulty thinking and the dangerous results that come with this unchecked justice referred to as “equitable treatment.”

The Unequal Treatments of Equity

Equality, as we’ve known it to mean, is treating everyone the same. But that’s no longer the case. Instead, the Left has hijacked equality by socially engineering it into something predicated on equal outcomes (i.e., equity), not based on equal opportunity.

The Austrian-British economist, Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992), distinctively communicated the difference between equality and equity by writing, “There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. While the first is the condition of a free society, the second means, as De Tocqueville described it, a new form of servitude.”

The idea of a “new form of servitude” is to mistreat the fortunate to treat the less fortunate fairly. But how is that just and fair? If equity is about the “systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals,” how is the unequal distribution of benefits to low-income individuals considered equitable? This equitable posture is the classic “fair share” philosophy that has its roots in socialism.

Just because inequities exist doesn’t give the government or some social justice system the right to step in and attempt to level the playing field so that everyone ends up in the same place. That, my friends, is not equality, nor is it following the impartial mandates of the law.

The Injustice of Equity

In his book, Prosperity and Poverty, Calvin Beisner proves this point, “The only way to arrive at equal fruits is to equalize behavior, and that requires robbing men of liberty, making them slaves.”

The truth is equity (according to the Left) doesn’t promote fairness, equal opportunities, or equal outcomes. As a matter of fact, it snubs individuality, stifles creativity, cheapens competition, steals from hard earning workers, lowers the standards of achievement, and actually advances partiality—and often, promotes racism.

On his blog, Neal Hardin writes, “In order for total uniformity of results to be achieved, there would have to be a uniformity of our characteristics and desires. In other words, true equality of outcome could only result if there were no meaningful differences among human beings or the choices we would make, which seems to go completely contrary to the diversity which God intended in creation. Clearly, on some level, God created us with these diverse characteristics and desires expecting different outcomes.”

To ignore each person’s uniqueness, giftedness and not to embrace diversity is in itself an injustice that (if left unchecked) leads to more discrimination and oppression.

The Inconsistencies of Equity

“Black Lives Matter stands in solidarity with Palestinians,” the protest group declared in a tweet. The tweet went on to say, “We are a movement committed to ending settler colonialism in all forms and will continue to advocate for Palestinian liberation (always have. And always will be).”

But here’s the thing. If BLM is for equity, then why don’t they stand with Israel?

Or how about female athletes (who have XX chromosomes) that are losing to transgender athletes (who have XY chromosomes)? How is that equitable treatment? From the start, women athletes are being placed at a disadvantage and have no real chance to arrive at an equal outcome. Where’s the equity in that?

What about Mayor Lightfoot of Chicago? In the spirit of equity, she, a black woman, only gave interviews to black and brown journalists in celebration of her two years in office. Say what? How is that being fair while discriminating against white journalists? Not to mention is that honest journalism?

Here’s the bottom line. No one denies there are disparities among people. We come from different backgrounds, ethnic groups, families, etc. But just because we are created equal doesn’t mean we are all created the same. We are not all the same. And it is feasibly impossible to make everyone end up at the same place.

Individual freedom doesn’t guarantee equal outcomes. It does, however, provide equal opportunity for people to succeed in life. Our nation was founded on the solid conviction that equality of humanity retains and sustains the essence of human rights in a civil society. That’s the kind of equity Christians should support and defend.

However, when the culture measures human rights based on color, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, that culture will not survive. The more America moves further away from God and his truth, the deeper our nation will slip into spiritual corruption and generate more inequalities and inequities within society.

As Christians, we are to honor the fact that each human is made in the image of God. We need to remember that God has made each of us diverse in color, ethnicity, and personality and learn to appreciate the uniqueness and difference in each of us.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

American Apocalypse MP3, and DVD by Frank Turek

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) downloadable pdf, Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek

The Case for Christian Activism MP3 Set, DVD Set, mp4 Download Set by Frank Turek

You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek

Fearless Generation – Complete DVD Series, Complete mp4 Series (download) by Mike Adams, Frank Turek, and J. Warner Wallace

Legislating Morality (DVD Set), (PowerPoint download), (PowerPoint CD), (MP3 Set) and (DVD mp4 Download Set) 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jason Jimenez is president of STAND STRONG Ministries, a faculty member at Summit Ministries, and the author of Challenging Conversations: A Practical Guide to Discuss Controversial Topics in the Church.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/zQYXmZA

 

/by
Why Does the Media Give A Pass To Biden’s Faith?

Why Does the Media Give A Pass To Biden’s Faith?

By Jason Jimenez

Biden, the 46th president, is America’s second Catholic President. The first was John F. Kennedy—when he became President in 1961.

From the start of his campaign, Biden wanted everything to be about his faith. A favored campaign slogan for the Biden camp was the “battle for the soul of the nation.”

It didn’t matter the media outlet. They all loved reporting on how Biden was a “deeply devout Catholic” and that his faith is a huge factor in “shaping his politics.” Even Speaker Pelosi publicly praises Biden’s faith and willingly admits that his Catholic faith has shaped his career and public policies. An article in The New York Times stated, “President Biden, perhaps the most religiously observant commander in chief in half a century, speaks of how his Catholic faith grounds his life and his policies.”

Interesting, isn’t it? How the media and every single big-time progressive politician have no problem mixing Biden’s faith with politics. But suppose you are a Christian who is pro-life and not in favor of the Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage. In that case, the response you get from the Left is the complete opposite. How was Judge Amy Coney Barrett (also a deeply devout Catholic) treated during the Senate confirmation hearings? Senator Dianne Feinstein and her colleagues didn’t praise Judge Barrett for her faith. Instead, Senator Feinstein expressed her concern about how Judge Barrett’s faith might influence her decisions by stating, “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.” But if the Left is so concerned about a person’s faith interfering with their public service, why isn’t the Left disparaging Biden from talking about how his faith shapes his public policies?

The main reason? Because President Biden is as much of a progressive as he is a Catholic. He is what I refer to as a “Progressive Catholic.” Don’t believe me? Listen to what he said in his book, Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics, “I’m as much a cultural Catholic as I am a theological Catholic.” Biden continues, “My idea of self, of family, of community, of the wider world, comes straight from my religion. It’s not so much the Bible, the beatitudes, the Ten Commandments, the sacraments, or the prayers I learned. It’s the culture.”

Because Judge Barrett is a conservative Catholic and not a progressive, liberal Democrats are concerned about her “dogmatic” positions embedding on her judgment. Therefore, she must be censored at all costs. However, in President Biden’s case, he gets a pass because he’ll keep on advancing progressive policies like the Equality Act (which will eviscerate religious freedoms in America), government funding of abortion, and the Green New Deal.

It’s not a question of whether President Biden has a right to express his religious beliefs. He has that right under the Constitution. It’s really about charging the media for being inconsistent by not allowing conservatives to do the same.

Let’s hope the media will admit to their intolerance and learn to be more receptive to Americans who hold conservative viewpoints.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

American Apocalypse MP3, and DVD by Frank Turek

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) downloadable pdf, Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek

The Case for Christian Activism MP3 Set, DVD Set, mp4 Download Set by Frank Turek

You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek

Fearless Generation – Complete DVD Series, Complete mp4 Series (download) by Mike Adams, Frank Turek, and J. Warner Wallace

Legislating Morality (DVD Set), (PowerPoint download), (PowerPoint CD), (MP3 Set) and (DVD mp4 Download Set) 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jason Jimenez is President of STAND STRONG Ministries and author of Challenging Conversations: A Practical Guide to Discuss Controversial Topics in the church. For more info, check out www.standstrongministries.org.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/Kb4FnXK

 

/by
UK Police Arrest 71-Year-Old Pastor For Defining Marriage The Way Jesus Defined Marriage

UK Police Arrest 71-Year-Old Pastor For Defining Marriage The Way Jesus Defined Marriage

,

By Wintery Knight

I think it’s important for American Christians to learn lessons about what happens to religious liberty by looking at what happens to Christians in other times and places when Democrats (secular leftists) take power. This time, let’s look at a story from the UK, which has been on a 30-year-run into far-left socialism. They’ve embraced atheism, feminism, and socialism. Here’s the result.

The UK Daily Mail reports:

A Christian pastor who was arrested after he preached from the Bible said yesterday he had been treated ‘shamefully’.

John Sherwood, 71, was led away in handcuffs, questioned in a police station and held overnight after being accused of making homophobic comments outside Uxbridge Station in west London.

The grandfather claimed he was left bruised after police pulled him from a mini-stepladder he was using and cuffed his hands behind his back.

Police said they had received complaints the man had been making ‘allegedly homophobic comments’ and arrested him under the Public Order Act, which can be used under the vague proviso that someone is using ‘abusive or insulting words’ that cause ‘harm’ to someone else.

[…]Mr Sherwood, a pastor for 35 years, said: ‘I wasn’t making any homophobic comments, I was just defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. I was only saying what the Bible says – I wasn’t wanting to hurt anyone or cause offence.

‘I was doing what my job description says, which is to preach the gospel in open air as well as in a church building.

‘When the police approached me, I explained that I was exercising my religious liberty and my conscience. I was forcibly pulled down from the steps and suffered some injury to my wrist and to my elbow. I do believe I was treated shamefully. It should never have happened.’

Mr Sherwood, who preaches at an independent evangelical church in north London, was arrested under the Public Order Act for allegedly causing alarm or distress.

Before we go too far, let’s just settle the question of what Bible-believing Christians should believe about the definition of marriage.

Matthew 19:1-6:

1 Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan.

2 And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”

4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

To be a Christian, minimally, is to be a follower of Jesus Christ. That means that we accept what Jesus teaches, on whatever he teaches about. We don’t overturn the teachings of Jesus in order to make people who are rebelling against God feel better about their rebellion. It is central to the Christian worldview that Christians care more about what God thinks of them than what non-Christians think of them. In fact, Christians are supposed to be willing to endure suffering rather than side with non-Christians against God’s authority.

Matt Walsh had a fine article about this issue.

He said:

As Christians, our goal is not to avoid being like the big bad “other Christians,” but to strive to be like Christ Himself. This is one of the advantages to having an Incarnate God. He went around acting and speaking and teaching and generally functioning in our realm, thereby giving us a model to follow. This is the model of a loving and merciful man, and also a man of perfect virtue who fought against the forces of evil, condemned sin, defended his Father in Heaven with sometimes violent force, spoke truth, and eventually laid down His life for those He loved (which would be all of us).

[…]This is what it means to believe in Christ. Not just to believe that He existed, but to believe that Christ is Truth itself, and that everything He said and did was totally and absolutely and irreversibly true forever and always. Many Christians today — not only the ones in the video, but millions alongside them — seem to think we can rightly claim to have “faith” in Jesus or a “relationship” with Him while still categorically denying much of His Word. This is a ridiculous proposition. We can’t declare, in one breath, that Christ is Lord, and in the next suggest that maybe God got it wrong on this or that point. Well, we can make that declaration, but we expose our belief as fraudulent and self-serving. We worship a God we either invented in our heads, which is a false idol, or a God who is fallible, which is a false idol.

If you really accept Jesus as God, then you can’t think he is wrong when he explains what marriage is. Period. End of issue. And yet today, so many church-attending Christians are anxious to change the definition of marriage so that non-Christians will like them.

Why are some church-attending Christians so progressive?

So, I have quite a few evangelical Christian acquaintances who think they are Christians because they got married, had kids, and attend church. You know. They’re “Christians” culturally. But instead of thinking about what policies are supported by the Bible, all their policy-deciding is done for them by NPR, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, etc. That’s because they want to appear “smart” to non-Christians. And having to read books on your own by people like Thomas Sowell (economics), Heather Mac Donald (crime), Douglas Murray (immigration), John Lott (self-defense), Christopher Kaczor (abortion), Ryan T. Anderson (marriage), etc. is just TOO MUCH WORK. Reading is hard. It makes churchy Christians feel bad. Much better to watch Star Wars / Ellen and read fantasy/romance novels and buy video games/handbags.

The point of having political views, they say, is to look smart and good to others. Not to promote policies that are consistent with the Bible, or that allow Christians to act consistently with the Bible. So you get church-attending Christians voting against the small government, free speech, religious liberty, the rule of law, private property, school choice, etc. because forming beliefs by consuming secular left radio and TV is easier than reading.

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/dbYqTMe

 

/by

Whose Morality Should We Legislate? 44 Quotes from Frank Turek and Norman Geisler

By Luke Nix

“We’re living in a society in which people feel no obligation to control their own actions. Instead, we rationalize and justify every aberrant behavior under the umbrella of freedom granted by the First Amendment, never admitting that freedom without reasonable and responsible limits destroys individual lives and ultimately destroys the fabric of a civilized society.”

“It is critical to recognize that the founders [of America] were pledging their lives to restore not someone’s revealed religion, but everyone’s self-evident morality.”

“It is important to note that even though the Founders believed the Rights of the people came from God, they did not insist that every citizen believe in God; they simply saw no way to justify those natural moral Rights unless there was a God.”

“The Moral Law actually is clear to everyone. It is evident by a person’s reactions rather than by his or her actions.“

“The Moral Law is not always the standard by which we treat others, but it is nearly always the standard by which we expect others to treat us.”

“The moral rightness or wrongness of a law is not determined by whether its enforcement is successful or unsuccessful…We’ve always found it difficult to enforce a number of our laws, including laws against murder, spouse and child abuse, rape, and theft, yet no sane person would ever suggest that these laws should be repealed because they’re difficult to enforce.”

“[Rights] should not be based on what people do, but on what is right as defined by the Moral Law. In other words, by definition, laws are prescriptive—they prescribe what ought to be done, while behaviors are descriptive—they describe what is being done. If everyone were to commit murder that wouldn’t make murder right. And it certainly wouldn’t be wise to discard all laws against murder because enforcement is difficult.”

“Most people are law-abiding citizens who don’t require someone constantly looking over their shoulder to keep them in line. In other words, the law, aside from law enforcement, has a certain restraining effect in itself. So when immoral behavior is legalized (the restraining effect of the law is removed), that behavior eventually loses its stigma of immorality. This is because many believe that whatever is legal is moral. That’s why legalization only result in more immoral behavior.”

“The history of abortion, like that of slavery and Prohibition, shows that laws can change hearts and attitudes when given enough time.”

“Even though many laws are difficult to enforce, most people obey them without the continuous presence of law enforcement. But since many believe that whatever is legal is moral, legalization of immorality will only result in more immoral behavior.”

“When libertarians or liberals seek to give people more freedom (i.e., by passing a law that legalizes a formerly illegal activity), they do exactly what they condemn conservatives for doing. They impose their morals (and thereby the associated effects) on people who do not agree with those morals.”

“A common mistake of relativists is to confuse behavior and value, what is and what ought to be. What people do is subject to change, but what they ought to do is not. This is the difference between sociology and morality. The former is descriptive, the latter is prescriptive.

“The Moral Law tells [atheists] intuitively that genocide is wrong. But they can’t appeal to the Moral Law to justify their belief because acknowledging the Moral Law would logically mean acknowledging the existence of the Moral Law-giver.”

“If man is the ultimate authority, then human beings are perfectly justified in defining morals and ethics that fit their own desires, even if those ethics are the ones espoused by Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and the Chinese government–murder, torture, and abuse.”

“Large-scale evolution is not only a theory that affects how one looks at things in the biology lab; it has a dramatic impact on government, philosophy, law, and ethics, as well.”

“The [First] Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion or denomination, but…it logically cannot prohibit Congress from establishing a national morality.”

“Allowing the [Supreme] Court to read their own meaning into the Constitution defeats the whole purpose of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

“If an unelected tribunal of judges can pour any interpretation they desire into a law, then the intentions of the people expressed in that law can be frustrated and usurped. The law ultimately means nothing if its original intent is not honored. Stop signs are useless if drivers are free to interpret them as ‘Go!'”

“While the Bible does not call for its political imposition on civil governments, it does call for those who believe in the Bible to be politically active.”

“The Bible does not command Christians to set up a Christian America; it simply commands them to help create a moral America.”

“What the Left really means when it asserts relativism is that all traditional absolutes are relative—their new absolutes are the only true absolutes. Reasonable people know better.”

“If we continue to let the Supreme Court and the Left suppress the Moral Law morality from our public life, our country is not likely to survive the evil that will continue to grow within it.”

“Like the physical universe, the moral universe is governed by unforgiving laws that we do not have the power to alter.”

“The truth of the objective Moral Law is most clearly seen by analyzing the tangled rhetoric of those who ignore it.”

“A Moral Law government avoids the intolerance of a purely religious government and the moral relativism of a purely secular government.”

“As history has proven, again and again, human beings have an unfailing propensity to suppress the Moral Law when that law gets in the way of their desire for pleasure, power, or property.”

“Today, our moral positions are more often fueled by feelings and emotions than by careful thought.”

“As a society, we rightfully discriminate against all kinds of harmful behaviors (e.g., drunk driving, theft, rape, etc.) regardless of the fact that some people may have been ‘born’ with a propensity to commit those crimes.”

“Even if we are ‘born’ heterosexual or homosexual, we are not required to engage in any particular form of sexual conduct. While we may have strong desires, our conduct is not mandatory. A choice must still be made. 

“The fundamental problem in our world is that people willingly choose to do things that deep down they know they shouldn’t do. The fact that we’re all flawed to some extent—is precisely the reason we need a system of laws in our society.”

“We are not saying that all women who have abortions are murderers but victims themselves, deceived by the euphemisms of the abortion propaganda machine.”

“If the ‘pro-choicers’ were truly ‘pro-choice’, they would invite pro-life advocates to their meetings and into their clinics. After all, life is the only other choice a woman can make. Instead, pro-abortion advocates greet pro-lifers with court orders to keep as far away as possible. The pro-abortionists have only one choice in mind. The other choice isn’t good for business.”

“No one has the moral right to choose anything that directly ends the life of another innocent human being. The right to life is the right to all other rights. Without life, we’d all have no rights whatsoever.”

“Because of the legality of abortion, family and friends often feel free to pressure women into killing their babies when they wouldn’t otherwise do so.”

“When the [Supreme] Court ignores the intent of a particular law, it is ignoring the will of the people. Instead of the people governing themselves, they are governed by the imposed will of unelected judges. That’s not representative democracy, that’s closer to tyranny.”

“[Some men with whom women are sexually active] favor abortion because it frees them of what would normally be a long-range responsibility. In effect, abortion makes women more susceptible to predatory males who want to use women for sex but aren’t really interested in making long-term commitments to them.”

“All moral positions impose values. Even the moral position that you should not impose values on others does just that: it imposes values on others. For if we are not to restrain people legally from doing wrong, then we impose on others the effects of the wrongdoing.”

“It is precisely because humans are not animals that we do not kill them in difficult situations. That is, since we believe human life has a higher value than that of animals, we do not treat humans like laboratory rats. Moreover, human beings don’t lose their value when they lose their health. People are valuable because of their humanity, not because they lack an infirmity.”

“Laws favoring abortion impose values on the life of the unborn; pro-life laws impose values on the liberty of the mother. In other words, the pro-life side wants to impose continued pregnancy on the mother, while the pro-abortion side wants to impose death on the baby.”

“If money made people happy, the United States would be the happiest place on earth. Instead, we lead the world in indicators of unhappiness such as suicide, drug use, and divorce.”

“Money without morality leads to the kind of materialistic madness we’ve been experiencing. We have everything to live with and nothing to live by.”

“How can those responsible for legislating morality do so when they have trouble discerning right from wrong? Are such people really qualified to make decisions of the highest moral consequences?”

“Why won’t those who use immoral means to get what they want in their private lives use immoral means to get what they want in their public lives? Those who refuse to restrain their appetites in private are unlikely to resist the enormous temptation to abuse their political power to get what they want (and to use that power to cover up their ‘private’ indiscretions).”

“When the ideal is not realizable, then we should legislate the optimum achievable within the existing conditions. That is when the maximum is not possible, we should not settle for the minimum but should legislate the optimum.”

All these quotes came from Drs. Frank Turek’s and Norman Geisler’s book Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible. Check out the full chapter-by-chapter review of the book and other featured posts:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book)

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek

Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World (Mp3) by Frank Turek

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD) by Frank Turek

 

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3dxnbf0

/by

5 Casualties of the Court’s LGBTQ Sex Ruling

“Sex” in civil rights law now legally means sexual orientation or whatever gender you think you are. That’s the result of a surprising Supreme Court decision (Bostock vs. Clayton County) from Justice Neil Gorsuch. Problem? Yes, here are five casualties of this ruling:

  1. We the People: If you think you have the ability to govern yourselves through your elected representatives, the United States Supreme Court again made a mockery of that Constitutional principle. You can work to elect the right people and pass all the laws you want, only to see a handful of unelected lawyers on the Supreme Court nullify or replace your laws with their own.

That’s what six justices did this week.  They changed the 1964 civil rights law into a law that they desired, despite the fact that the very changes they made have been rejected by Congress in recent years.  Now, just like that, “sex” no longer means biological sex but sexual orientation and whatever a person thinks their sex is at the time.

As Justices Alito and Thomas wrote in dissent, there’s only one word for what the Court did: “legislation.” “A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall.”

Now, many actually agree with the result (it has some big negatives I’ll get to in a minute). But the means by which this result was achieved should disturb everyone because it strikes at the very heart of our Constitution and our rights as people to govern ourselves. It’s an injustice for judges to impose their legislative will on the people. If judges want to change the law, then they should do what any citizen has to do—convince fellow citizens to go through the legislative process to get the law changed.  To merely impose their will on the people is tyranny.

  1. Women: Justice Gorsuch’s opinion furthers the Leftist claim that sex is defined not by biology, but by one’s state of mind. Therefore, if a man thinks he’s a woman, then the law must treat him as a woman.  Although Gorsuch tries to deny this result, what he’s done is given legal grounds for biological men to gain a legal advantage over actual women in the workplace, in the bathroom, and elsewhere.

Ladies, you want that promotion?  All other things being equal, who do you think your employer is now going to promote—you or the man transitioning to a woman who now has heightened legal grounds as an even smaller minority to sue for “discrimination”?

Do you want privacy and safety in the bathroom and showering facilities?  What policy is your employer or gym going to adopt—the common sense one where biological men and women are kept separate, or the one that prevents a costly discrimination suit by inviting men into women’s facilities?

  1. LGBTQ People: Gorsuch has not just made it harder for women; his reasoning contradicts the very rationale for the existence of women and the LGBTQ people he’s supposedly trying to help. For when someone identifies as a woman, man, lesbian or gay, they are presupposing there is such a thing as objective biological sex.  How else can one have sex with someone of the same sex unless one can differentiate that person from the opposite sex?  And how can a man transition into becoming a woman unless men and women actually exist?

The practical outcome of the Court’s opinion is that either one’s biology or psychology can determine one’s sex.  But if a person’s subjective psychology usurps their objective biology, then there is no objective way of identifying anyone as a man, woman, or LGBTQ. Sex and sexual identity are just figments of the imagination (much like Gorsuch’s justification for his opinion).

That’s why some lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and feminists have been against the subjective transgender psychology standard that Gorsuch just affirmed—it defines them out of existence!

  1. 96% of the Population: Ask anyone in corporate America this question: Are you more likely to experience problems at work for supporting LGBTQ political goals or opposing them? It’s not even close, as I found out personally.

HR departments in corporate America are proponents of everything LGBTQ, and those who identify as such are actually better off than their straight counterparts. LGBTQ households, on average, earn more than traditional households, and gay men earn 10% more than straight men.  While there are individual exceptions (hence the lawsuit that brought this case to the Supreme Court), there appears to be NO systemic problem of anti-LGBTQ bias in the workplace.

Yet, this Court’s decision will employ the strong arm of government to fix a problem that doesn’t exist.  The decision will force companies to give employment preference to a long list of sexual orientations that, at best, 4% of people claim (a 4% that already has a financial advantage).  Anyone who claims an LGBTQ identity will now have more job security than John or Jane Doe.  How so?  Because if a company has to downsize, who are they going choose—one of the helpless Doe’s, or the person of a new legally-preferenced minority who can bring a costly lawsuit alleging “discrimination”?

While reverse discrimination may not be the intent of this decision, it is an inevitable consequence.  As soon as you give preferential treatment to one group of people, you are automatically disadvantaging anyone not part of that group.

Moreover, there isn’t any medical consensus as to what sexual orientation or transgenderism is.  But the effect of this decision is that businesses are now forced to give preference to those who identify as “ambigender; bigender; blurgender; collgender; conflictgender; cosmicgender; crystagender; deliciagender; duragender; demiflux; domgender; fissgender; gemelgender; gendercluster; genderfluid; gendersea; genderfuzz; genderfractal; genderspiral; genderswirl; gendervex; gyaragender; libragender; ogligender; pangender; polygender; trigender (whatever that all means).  How is it possible to even know you’re in compliance if you can’t define what compliance is?  How many young workers will claim one of these nebulous labels just to get an advantage?  (Their claims for special treatment can’t be objectively disproven like Elizabeth Warren’s claim to be a Native American.)

In short, this decision doesn’t fix an existing workplace problem (thankfully, LGBTQ folks are doing quite well).  Instead, it creates legal and administrative chaos, and it legally justifies reverse discrimination against an already underperforming 96% of the population. That’s anything but “equality.”

  1. Religious Freedom: If any group is being discriminated against in corporate America, it is Christians and other conservatives who are hiding under their desks for fear of being outed, excluded, and shamed by the “inclusion and diversity” police. Are their First Amendment rights now nullified?  How about Christian, Muslim, and Jewish schools: are they now forced to hire teachers and administrators who contradict their natural law and scriptural views of proper sexual behavior?  Will religious people now need special permission from the Supreme Court to live as if there are two genders created for one another?

Judge Gorsuch says those questions are for another case. Given his faulty reasoning skills and legislative impulses, in this case, I’m not optimistic he’ll respect reason or the Constitution the next time either.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) downloadable pdf, Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

American Apocalypse MP3, and DVD by Frank Turek

You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek

Fearless Generation – Complete DVD Series, Complete mp4 Series (download) by Mike Adams, Frank Turek, and J. Warner Wallace

 

Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) is an award-winning author and frequent college speaker who hosts a weekly TV show on DirectTV and a radio program that airs on 186 stations around the nation.  His books include I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist and Stealing from God:  Why atheists need God to make their case 

/by
Are Pro-Lifers Who Own Guns Hypocrites?

Are Pro-Lifers Who Own Guns Hypocrites?

By Nathan Apodaca

Another assertion has become commonplace in discussions of abortion. Pro-lifers who own firearms, or support military actions abroad are misled at best, and at worst, hypocrites. The critic assumes that any inconsistently held pro-life beliefs are evidence pro-lifers aren’t actually motivated by a desire to protect human life, but rather a desire to control women’s liberty. This line of criticism lacks substance and misunderstands both the essential pro-life position as well as why people support gun rights or particular military actions.

Suppose for a moment it’s true that the vast majority of pro-lifers are hypocritical in how they hold their views on protecting life across various issues. Would that supposition invalidate the pro-life position as a whole? The essential pro-life argument is as follows:

  1. It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings
  2. Elective Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings
  3. Therefore, elective abortion is wrong.

If the premises are true (and there’s good reason to believe they are) and the conclusion logically follows, then the argument is sound. Would a subset of the pro-life community being hypocrites demonstrate that either premise is untrue? Of course not. Neither the wrongness of killing innocent human beings nor the nature of abortion and its victims are in any way impacted by whether some pro-life advocates behave inconsistently toward life in regards to the views they champion.

In fact, this is little more than a personal attack. It’s highly unlikely that if the moral consistency of particular pro-lifers changed overnight, these critics would then drop their support for abortion. It’s a smokescreen, an attempt to poison the well of the pro-life cause, not an actual rebuttal of the above argument.

Guns Protect Life

That being said, the claim that supporting gun rights or military service is inconsistent with the pro-life view is mistaken. As philosopher Tim Hsaio points out, self-defense is an extension of the right to life, intrinsic to all human beings. Since all human beings have the natural (intrinsic or God-given) right to life, then it is perfectly just for human beings to take steps to prevent themselves from being victimized by those with an evil intent. Writes Hsaio,

“Now since the purpose of a right is to protect my well-being, the possession of a right entitles me to protect that which I have a right to. Thus, if I possess the right to life, then I must also possess the corresponding right to secure or protect my life. I must, in other words, possess the right to self-defense. The right to self-defense follows immediately from the right to life—in fact, the right to self-defense is an integral part of the right to life itself. It is what gives substance to the right to life.”[1]

Remember, the reason abortion is wrong is because it intentionally kills an innocent human being. The vast majority of Americans who purchase firearms do not do so for the purpose of going out and intentionally killing innocent human beings, but for self-defense purposes or for protecting friends and family from those with wicked intentions.

What About Military Service?

Military action is a bit more complicated but still serves as a further extension of this principle. Being a service-member myself (Going on six years as a Cavalry Scout in the Army National Guard) I have received the question on numerous occasions, why do I oppose abortion if I am engaged in a line of work where my job is predicated upon the taking of human life?

The question ultimately relies on a confusion of moral principles. Remember, pro-lifers oppose elective abortion because it intentionally takes the life of innocent human beings. We could be mistaken in that claim, but that doesn’t necessarily make us inconsistent if we support or serve in the Armed Forces. It’s impossible to find a valid comparison between an ISIS fighter or a Nazi executioner and an unborn child. It’s not even worth pondering.

The ethics of warfare are complex and involve a great amount of moral ambiguity, but at their core are the same basic principles which underlie both the pro-life position and self-defense. Just as a toddler cannot adequately exercise the ability to defend their life or well-being, and therefore needs an adult (such as a parent) to fill this role, governments must protect the lives of citizens against immoral aggressors such as foreign states and terror groups. This is why we have police, intelligence services, and the military provided by civil government.

Debates over the ethics of contemporary military actions abroad usually come down to finer details about how to effectively engage enemy combatants and achieve victory with minimal loss of innocent life. While a military commander may foresee the loss of life on the battlefield, this in no way makes a conflict inherently immoral, provided steps are taken to mitigate the loss of life without compromising the overall mission. For instance, the introduction of laser-guided weaponry, thermal imaging, communications, and better surveillance/reconnaissance equipment has been a major boon towards limiting the risk to civilians(and friendly forces) caught in the crossfire of a battle.[2]

Even when an attack or war is being fought for justified reasons, the loss of innocent human life can sometimes be unavoidable. For instance, during the D-Day landings in Normandy, due to uncontrollable circumstances such as bad weather, enemy anti-aircraft fire, and other factors, Allied bombers often overshot their objectives and accidentally bombed civilian centers as well as Allied fighting positions.[3][4] While undoubtedly tragic, few would argue that the invasion would have been inherently unjust unless no civilian lives were lost. In war, a variety of unseen and unavoidable variables can pop-up in an instant and impact battlefield decision making. The advent of modern military technologies helps, but similar problems can still impact the battlespace resulting in tragedy. Communications errors, equipment failures, bad intelligence, and unethical behavior on the part of soldiers sometimes tragically lead to unintended results in conflict. Fatigue and cynicism can also play a role. Decision making on the battlefield changes within split seconds while still being guided by the commander’s intent, which is guided by an overall strategy and “big picture” mission of friendly forces. All of these safeguards can’t prevent the occasional unethical and immoral behavior (human beings aren’t basically good), which is why a clearly defined Rules of Engagement (ROE for shorthand) and Uniform Code of Military Justice are essential for a morally upright military. In the circumstances where soldiers behave unethically or even wickedly towards non-combatants, the military justice system corrects and punishes bad behavior, while promoting and honoring good behavior on the parts of service-members. Leaders should model good behavior and combat bad behavior within the ranks. As retired Marine Corps General James Mattis poignantly puts it, people should know that they have no better friend and no worse enemy “than a United States Marine.” The same is true for the rest of the Armed Services.

As Army Major Pete Hegseth points out, by and large, it has been the United States military (with help from countless invaluable allies worldwide), which has promoted stability, justice, and peace at home and abroad by serving as a sort of world sheriff.[5] Perfect, no, but until a better alternative presents itself, those who love justice shouldn’t feel ashamed for supporting the United States military. As the noted British historian Andrew Roberts argues, when the United States military is weak, wicked men like Adolf Hitler are able to make growing threats to the lives of millions of marginalized people; however, when the American military is strong, even oppressive superpowers like the Soviet Union are forced to tread carefully.[6]

The decision to engage in conflict must be guided by sound moral principles, which includes considering the possible unintended consequences of one’s decision. Good intentions alone are not good enough.

Conclusion 

In light of this, pro-lifers are not hypocritical to support either gun ownership or armed conflict provided both are guided by sound moral reasoning. Debates over both are a sign of healthy functioning social conscience.

However, the debate over abortion has nothing to do with what sort of human beings pro-lifers are; it has everything to do with whether the unborn are human, and will be granted recognition as fellow members of the human family. Debates over the Ethics of war, capital punishment, and gun ownership are ultimately irrelevant to the humanity of the unborn and the inhumanity of abortion.

Notes

[1] Hsiao, Tim “Natural Rights, Self-Defense, and the Right to Own Firearms,” The Public Discourse https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/10/42765/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_bomb

[3] United States Army, “Invasion of Normandy” https://history.army.mil/brochures/normandy/nor-pam.htm

[4] Beevor, Antony D-Day: The Battle for Normandy

[5] Maj. Hegseth, Peter “Who Should Win the Nobel Peace Prize?” PragerUniversity, Nov 11, 2019

[6] Roberts, Andrew “Why America’s Military Must Be Strong” PragerUniversity, May 26, 2014

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Legislating Morality (mp4 download),  (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book)

You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek

The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

The Apologetics of Abortion mp3 by J. Budziszewski 

Reaching Pro-Abortionists for Christ CD by Francis Beckwith

The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

 

Nathan Apodaca is a staff apologist for the Life Training Institute, equipping pro-life advocates to make the case for life. Also a contributing writer at The Millenial Review and CampusReform.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/36ZNbwi

/by
When C.S. Lewis Warned Us About Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard

When C.S. Lewis Warned Us About Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard

By Bob Perry

Unfortunately, everybody has heard about Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans. They were both born with eerily similar and rare genetic disorders. They both died before they reached age two. Sadly, those kinds of things happen too often. But neither of them are the reason you’ve heard of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans. You’ve heard of them because they became icons for the inherent dangers of a state-controlled health care system. C. S. Lewis warned us about this more than 70 years ago.

Charlie Gard

Charlie Gard was born in England on August 4, 2016, with an exceptionally rare genetic disorder. His prognosis was not good, but his parents found a hospital in the U.S. that agreed to offer an experimental treatment for the disease. They even raised the 1.3 million Pounds (about $1.74 million) required for the treatment. But the hospital where Charlie was born, and the grossly misnamed European High Court of “Human Rights” (ECHR), would not allow him to go receive the treatment. They didn’t want his case to set a precedent. Charlie Gard died on July 26, 2017.

Alfie Evans

In a more recent but similar story, Alfie Evans was born in England on May 9, 2016. Shortly thereafter, Alfie was diagnosed with another rare degenerative genetic disease. Once again, the prognosis was dire, but Alfie’s parents arranged for their son to be treated at a hospital in Italy. Again, the British hospital refused to allow him to go. The case was appealed to the same ECHR (Family Division) and got the same response. Alfie died on April 28, 2018.

Remember, the families of both of these children were not allowed to seek treatments outside the state-controlled health care system, Britain’s National Health Service. The power of a state bureaucracy trumped the wishes of the family, even when the family had raised the money for treatments on their own.

The Prescience of C. S. Lewis

Many people are unaware that C. S. Lewis wrote a three-book science fiction series called The Space Trilogy. The third installment of that series was titled, That Hideous Strength. In that book, the main character (Mark Studdock) was seduced to corruption by the promise of joining the inner ring of a powerful English society. It was an organization of men who used questionable tactics to establish an “efficient” state bureaucracy run by controllers who saw themselves as being a cut above the rest of the world. The name of the society Mark yearned to join was the National Institute of Co-ordinated Experiments — N.I.C.E. Lewis described N.I.C.E. as:

the first fruits of that constructive fusion between state and laboratory on which so many thoughtful people base their hopes for a better world. It was to be free from almost all the tiresome restraints… which have hitherto hampered research in this country. It was also largely free from the restraints of economy…

This was a fictional foreshadowing of what Lewis feared would become a socio-political reality. Some of his reviewers begged to differ. At the time, the New York Times described That Hideous Strength as “superlatively nonsensical excitement, challenging implications,” while Time magazine called it a “well-written, fast-paced satirical fantasy.” That was in 1946.

Fast forward to 2009. Writing in National Review on September 21, 2009, John C. Goodman reported on the contemporary Britain’s National Health Commission:

“which currently recommends against any treatment that costs more than $45,000 to save a year of life. Because of [the commission], British cancer patients are denied access to drugs that are routinely available in the U.S. and on the European continent, and thousands die prematurely.”

The name of the commission he is talking about is the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The British people refer to it by the more commonly recognized acronym: N.I.C.E.

I wish I could make this stuff up. In fact, when I read this story, I assumed that Mr. Goodman had made it up. He hadn’t. But the creepy stuff doesn’t stop there.

N.I.C.E. Roots of a State-Controlled Health Care System

Mr. Goodman’s story was about the fact that some American politicians thought N.I.C.E. was a great model to use in America. Then Senator Tom Daschle said so in his book, Critical: What We Can Do About The Health-Care Crisis.

Ten years later, the relentless pursuit of state-controlled health care systems continues. And make no mistake. Even though the issue is currently on the back burner of American politics, it won’t stay there for long. Politicians of both parties will revivify it. They will tout a better system. There will be promises of no “death panels.” They will sell it as a more economically efficient system.

Your Children Are Not Your Own

I am reminded of the late Senator Phil Gramm. During hearings about education reform in the 1990s, he was bantering with a bureaucrat who was defending government control. Gramm stated that his policies were based on the fact that “I care more about my children than you do.”

The bureaucrat responded, “No, you don’t.”

To which Gramm replied, “Okay, What are their names?”

The State Has No Moral Conscience

Senator Gramm’s pithy response illuminates the obvious. No government bureaucrat cares more about your family than you do. And the implications of that are inevitable. Behind all the N.I.C.E. talk you hear there will be budget constraints and bureaucrats tasked with keeping them. There will be medical review boards and “human rights” courts happy to enforce them. The state will decide which persons are worthy of living. And the state will replace your family and doctor as the moral authority for the decision.

But the state has no moral accountability or conscience. The state seeks only to be efficient. And when the time comes, you will have no say in the matter. Some bureaucrat will be responsible for deciding who gets what treatment.

Someone like Mark Studdock.

That is a hideous strength for anyone to wield. Just ask the parents of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans.

 

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at: truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal, and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and a M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.

Original Blog Source:http://bit.ly/2JSWlm2

/by
Would Jesus Participate in Politics?

Would Jesus Participate in Politics?

By Luke Nix

Introduction

“Would Jesus participate in politics?” This has been a common question posed among followers of Jesus Christ since he was asked about paying taxes to Caesar. It came across my Facebook feed a few weeks ago, so I thought I’d take some time to prepare a careful answer. Some Christians believe that a theocracy should be established on earth, while some other Christians believe that we should not have anything to do with politics. The rest of us believe that the correct position falls somewhere in the middle, and we struggle to find where. While I do not claim to know exactly where the correct balance is located, I do want to offer some observations and reflections that may help us identify an acceptable range of options.

Foundations of Politics

Politics usually focus on laws- laws that are legislated because the legislators believe the moral duties that they reflect are objectively true and that those governed by the laws are morally responsible beings. Without objective morality, laws have no objective foundation; this results in “might makes right” as the ultimate governing principle of morality. Under that principle, whoever has the most power, whoever has the loudest voice, and/or whoever has the most money makes the laws. Without the Image of God, man is not a morally responsible being thus is not morally responsible for keeping the moral duty of obedience to the laws (given that the laws in place do not violate objective morality). That means that even if “might makes right,” without the Image of God, humans have no moral duty to obey the laws. Without objective morality and the Image of God, laws are pointless beyond the sophomoric desire to control everyone and everything.

Scripture reveals much about morality (including its objective nature, grounded in God’s eternal nature) and human beings’ intrinsic value and moral responsibility (being created in the Image of God). The Bible very much has a lot to say about morality and ethics, thus it has a lot to say about politics. Jesus is God (as the second person of the Trinity), and since we are created in God’s Image, our moral responsibility to obey laws is grounded in God. It is only if morality is objective and man is created in God’s image that politics is logically inseparable from Christianity. Since Christianity is true, both of those conditions are met, thus politics and Christianity cannot be separated from one another. Because they are inseparable, we are not permitted to live a political life uninformed by the reality of Christianity.

Jesus and Politics

Now, while this is true, we have to remember two things about Jesus: First, He did not come to abolish The Law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17), and second, His ultimate Kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). The tension between these two must be recognized and accounted for in our political lives. While we do not necessarily need to concern ourselves overly with the politics of earthly kingdoms, we do need to be concerned enough to protect the lives of God’s Image bearers by promoting the legislation and enforcement of laws designed to do so. By protecting God’s Image bearers, we give them more time to hear and accept Jesus’ sacrifice for them on the Cross and for them to become a member of the future Kingdom that is “not of this world” (Matthew 28:19). So, since our view of the future Kingdom informs our interaction with and effects on earthly kingdoms, we keep both truths of Christ in mind and in practice.

Would Jesus Participate in Politics?

Interestingly enough, that is not really the question that needs to be asked, for it assumes that Jesus is not participating in politics already. As members of the Body of Christ (being His “hands and feet” in this world), Jesus already is participating in earthly politics through Christians who are politically active. It is our duty to ensure that we accurately represent our Savior in the political arena. Since “all Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16) and Jesus is God, then we must take into account all that Jesus said (all of Scripture, not just the “red letters”) when we try to determine which proposed laws we will support, which existing ones we have a duty to obey, and which existing ones need to be either amended or removed.

Recommended Books

One of my favorite books on the topic of the Bible and politics is “Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible.” I strongly encourage any Christian concerned with politics (that should be all of us, based on what I argued above) to read this book to help prepare them to not only act Christianly in their political duties but to be able to articulate the reasons for doing so to their friends and family. I also recommend four other books to help inform the Christian in their political decisions in my Top 5 Books on Ethics and Politics. That post will link to my chapter-by-chapter reviews of each book to give the reader a taste of their content.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2C1RTP2

/by