About Me

Name: JayPeriod
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Obama Slowly Destroying America

In the vein of Michelle Obama, today, for the first time in my life, I am embarrassed of my country.

Today, Obama will sign an executive order, rather than suggest legislation, granting federal benefits to same-sex partners of government employees.  This despite the fact that a majority of Americans believe it to be a lifestyle choice and immoral.  This effectively forces those who are opposed and offended by this choice to pay for this choice.  This all the while religion is forced out of the public arena because it might offend someone.

Between this and his extreme liberal abortion policies, he is engaging in the kind of policy that Rev. Jeremiah Wright would suggest gives God reason to condemn America.  Yet, Wright is only concerned with the Jews.  So, yes, I'm very disappointed and embarrassed of what used to be America.

America seems lost now.

Read more:
Ideally Conservative
Townhall.com
Fox News
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Religion And The Democratic Party

God is not a Republican or Democrat.  That's what we hear, usually from Democrats, when the idea of religion gets infused into politics.  I'm sure that's what we'll be hearing this week as the Democratic Party tries to paint itself and the choice for young evangelicals.

I heard an interview this morning with Relevant Magazine founder, Cameron Strang.  He had been scheduled to open the Democrat Convention in prayer, but as he realized he could be viewed as endorsing one candidate over another, one with polarizing views on abortion, he retreated from the engagement.  In his explanation, he cited that young evangelicals looked at both parties and their positions, and believed that both held positions that were in line with their beliefs.  He specifically mentioned the positions of abortion and war, stating that the Republican's view of war seemed at odds with the pro-life issue.

I'd like to give some clarification for our young evangelicals who might be a bit confused on the issues.

Evangelicals have held to a pro-life position on abortion since before Roe v. Wade in 1972.  The idea that life begins at conception, is valued by God and deserves special protection fits neatly in the Bible and the faith of most Christians, if not all.  On this issue, almost all Democrats struggle to identify themselves with evangelicals.  They have looked at ways to overcome this for the last several election cycles.

This year, many have decided to bring in the war issue into the pro-life argument.  This is really nothing new, as they have tried with the death penalty for years, trying to show some "inconsistency" in the view.  On the surface, one could make the argument that killing innocent people in the midst of war seems a bit out of line with the pro-life position.  On the surface, that could be a strong argument.

As you dig deeper, though, the fallicy becomes clearer.  Unlike most evangelicals, Democrats view the actions of all people as equal morally.  Careful here, I said actions.  All people are created equal, as evangelicals hold to, but not their actions.  Thus, Democrats will view the actions of Saddam Hussein and Mother Theresa as morally equal.  Thus, they would view an attack on Saddam just as they would an attack on Mother Theresa.  To evangelicals, this is just no the case.  Justice must be served, and God does have a history of using governments and war to mete out that justice.

The Bible is repleat with war.  When the children of Israel disobeyed and abandoned God for idols, He sent the Babylonians to destroy Jerusalem and carry away into captivity the Israelites.  As time went on, the Babylonians were defeated by the Persians for their disobedience, and so on and so on.

There can be no doubt that innocent people have suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the actions of the Jihadists could not be allowed to continue.  Add to that the fact that Saddam had gassed his own people, condemned them to unjust prisons and rape rooms, and it does not become difficult to see the greater good of war to dispose someone like him.  In fact, we are currently facing similar problems in places like Darfur.  Relying on the "good" of the oppressors will never provide the relief the oppressed will need.  Action may be required.

So, while there are many pro-lifers who feel action to protect the innocent, even at their own risk, may be inevitible, they do not do so without compassion for the innocent.  What happens on the other side of the coin is that there is no action taken on the guilty and the innocent suffer far further.  I'm sure at this point in time, most Iraqis would admit to some suffering and loss, they would admit, though, that it would have been far worse if no action had been taken and would express great thanks for the gift of life and freedom they have been given.

So, as young evangelicals begin to look for politicians to look to, I hope they will not simply look at the surface.  I hope and pray they will dig deep into issues and see which really are more in-line with the foundations of their beliefs.  If they can't, then how deep are their beliefs, if they can't handle a little digging?

**While this deals with just one aspect of the argument, other issues need to be looked at more deeply, including welfare and social security, among other things.  Many times the "easy" solution is actually the least Scriptural and compassionate.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Socialism, Capitalism and Christianity

Compassion is a word that is thrown around by both Democrats and Republicans.  While both sides approach the subject from complete different directions, both are determined that their brand of compassion is the Christian attitude.  So, I thought I would address what both forms of compassion entail, in respect to Christianity (since this really is a Christian nation).

First of all, socialism cannot be compatible with Christianity.  It is, in fact, at odds with Christian teaching.  Socialism is determined to provide equality and welfare by government intervention.  This is what both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama want.  The idea is that the government must take care of every aspect of life, from fair wages to health care to care for the poor.  Christianity, as Jesus taught, teaches that it is up to the people, as individuals, to care for one another.  This is why they are incompatible; socialism preaches government responsibility by compulsion and Christianity preaches individual responsibility from love.

Capitalism, on the other hand, relies on Christian compassion.  Without that, it has the potential to be detrimental to society.  If capitalism is to be compassionate, people must respect one another and be driven by love for one another.  It becomes mandatory that those with means care for those who do not.  They must exercise restraint, resist greed and help those who cannot help themselves.

As we look at the early days of Christianity, communal living was evident.  Scriptures teach that all lived in harmony and had all things in common, where those who had used their excess to care for those in need, as they had need.  That does not mean that all were equal, or that those who had means split those means equally with those who did not have means, but rather they provided for the necessities of those who could not do so for themselves.  It by no means meant that they simply gave to the poor without requirement that they attempt to care for themselves, but that they were expected to attempt to work and provide what they could.

In this respect, socialism is the antithesis of Christianity.  It expects that all will take what they have and distribute it to those who have less, regardless of their need or attempt to care for themselves.  It, then, produces class warfare, envy and laziness.  It is often done by compulsion rather than freewill.  Therefore, it goes against the very teachings of Christ.

Yet, capitalism that has lost its Christian soul, is ruled by greed and selfishness.  That will have no compassion, either.  When, though, a capitalist realizes his duty to be a blessing through his Christian principals, he will have compassion and will fulfill the teachings of Christ.

The problem with our American society, though, is that we have lost our Christian soul.  This is not to say that those without a Christian underpinning are unable to act with compassion, but those that follow the teachings of Christ, dutifully, are more predisposed to show consistent compassion.  On the other side, socialists hold that the greatest form of good in the world is government, therefore violate the very foundation of Christian teaching.

Truly, unless this country return to its Christian foundation, neither socialism nor capitalism will provide the true compassion required to return this country to greatness.  Clearly, though, capitalism provides the only path to that.  The socialism of the left can only lead us down a destructive path, to be sure.

***This is reposted at Ideally Conservative, a new blog by JayPeriod.***

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »