Go over to TC and let me know if that ain't the truth:
"For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE. Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" 1 Corinthians 1:18-20
http://troubledcorinthian.blogspot.com/2009/05/wierd-science-of-post-modernists-and-un.html
That is the brilliance of the American system of government as designed and laid out in the US Constitution. The concept is that the more general and large the government, the less ultimate power it possessed. There are checks and balances everywhere to, hopefully, ward off attempts to hijack the government for narrow purposes.
A friend recently wondered aloud whether as Christians, there is nothing we can do other than pray and spread the Gospel, and that we shouldn't worry so much about this world. He may be right, but to paraphrase Hugh Hewitt, we may not be of this world, but we are in it.
I also think some of Dave's writing has to do with the justifiable pride in being a man, with the attendant emotions a man naturally has, notably, the desire to actively defend what is right. A dear old friend of mine, who has been a lifelong Catholic priest, often mentioned he was proud of being: a man, a Catholic (Christian), and a priest. I'll bet most men wouldn't find anything wrong with NOT being ashamed of his gender, however I'll also bet not many have actually contemplated the concept. Yeah, we've heard plenty about "I'm woman, hear me roar," but how many men have consciously said, "I'm proud to be a man." When you consider the post below, about emasculizing our culture with an attack on hunting, think further that post-modern society has elements which suggest being a man is sinful in itself. That woman is holy and man should feel guilty. Isn't this a new Manichean heresy? Now there's some weird social science.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
What's it good for?
I had occassion to attend the NRA convention in Phoenix last weekend, and what a class act that was. Incredibly polite children learning tips at the air rifle range, manicured displays of pistols, shotguns, and rifles of every configuration...most right out there where you could pick them up. Know what? I didn't see one nasty sign or hear one voice raised in anger. And I read that large numbers of the attendees were legally "packing heat." So let's look at this topic.
The most famous Right of the people is the 1st Amendment, an acknowlegement that we possess the right of free speech, assembly, press, petitioning the government, and practicing religion. Now keep in mind the founding fathers did NOT say the government grants these rights, but rather it acknowleges these rights are inherant in human beings. One of the most infamous (to many people) is ironically the 2nd Amendment, which I'll quote here: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Many people would suggest that unless you belong to the militia (which they think means the National Guard), you should not own guns. That's historically disingenuous, since the militia in Revolutionary times meant all able-bodied males from 17-45 who are NOT in the armed forces.
Others suggest guns are O.K. for hunting, but not otherwise. GONG! Not according to our founding fathers, who assumed hunting was a given, for as young a chap as could swing a longarm and bring home dinner. Arms are for defending the rest of our rights, thank you very much. Still others may say, that's all fine and dandy, but "What would Jesus do?" Here's one response (in the Gospel of Luke): And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one."
So, although we should trust in God alone, we do not throw away those rights He endowed us with, rights the U.S. Constitution recognizes. Today we hear much in the news about whether the U.S. should restrict the rights of its citizens to benefit other countries, and other such nonsense. Jesus was a leader, not a follower, and to maintain our rights and live freely, neither should we follow the whims of other nations. Here's a little blast from the recent past...
Too Young To Hunt? By John Hay Rabb, Posted: 10-08-05
... the Humane Society of the U.S. and the rest of the antihunting community argue that youths under age 18 are not mature enough to hunt safely with a firearm. Never mind that millions of 16-year-olds are handed driver's licenses each year. Tragically, thousands of these youthful drivers are killed or seriously injured before their 18th birthdays. By contrast, there were only 89 hunting fatalities in 2002. Of these, 29 involved hunters less than 12 years old.
Celebrity animal rights activist Mary Tyler Moore recently excoriated state fish and game officials for allowing young people to hunt so that license revenues would increase. "The government should not be in the role of promoting and placing firearms in the hands of children," she said. "Basketball, baseball and books are much better alternatives."
...According to the National Sporting Goods Association, there are almost 18 million active hunters in the U.S. As a participatory sport, hunting ranks higher than baseball, soccer, softball, tennis or volleyball. Hunting is also safer than some other popular sports. The National Safety Council reported that in 1995 there were 1,700 swimming-related fatalities and 836 boating-related fatalities. In the same year there were only 87 hunting-related deaths.
By seeking to limit hunting to those individuals who are at least 18 years of age, the animal rights movement has carefully planned the ultimate demise of hunting in America. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Sporting Goods Manufacturing Association, 80 percent of all first-time hunting experiences occur between the ages of 6 and 15. There is only a brief window of opportunity to interest young men and women in hunting. After about age 12, young people are increasingly drawn to computer games, cars and the opposite sex.
...But if hunting must wait until a child reaches age 18, then parents may see little reason to buy guns for their children. Taken to its logical extreme, interest in firearms could virtually disappear in the next generation. For the coercive utopians this would constitute a victory beyond their wildest imagination
In reality, the HSUS will never persuade a majority of congressmen and state legislators to go along with its hare-brained scheme to increase the minimum hunting age to 18. But in politics, sometimes you win by losing. Even after its plan crashes and burns, the HSUS will derive solace from the knowledge that it has put its issue on the radar screen. The organization needs only keep its powder dry until the next congressional and state legislative sessions begin.
The most important responsibility for today's hunter is to train his replacement. He must pass along his love of hunting to the next generation. ...
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/cs/Satellite/IMO_GA/Story_C/Too+Young+To+Hunt?packedargs=recid%3D1198098376868&rendermode=flush
Indeed, we must train our "replacements" and pass along our love of Christ as well. This is a most important responsibility if they are to remain free: in body, soul, and spirit.
The most famous Right of the people is the 1st Amendment, an acknowlegement that we possess the right of free speech, assembly, press, petitioning the government, and practicing religion. Now keep in mind the founding fathers did NOT say the government grants these rights, but rather it acknowleges these rights are inherant in human beings. One of the most infamous (to many people) is ironically the 2nd Amendment, which I'll quote here: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Many people would suggest that unless you belong to the militia (which they think means the National Guard), you should not own guns. That's historically disingenuous, since the militia in Revolutionary times meant all able-bodied males from 17-45 who are NOT in the armed forces.
Others suggest guns are O.K. for hunting, but not otherwise. GONG! Not according to our founding fathers, who assumed hunting was a given, for as young a chap as could swing a longarm and bring home dinner. Arms are for defending the rest of our rights, thank you very much. Still others may say, that's all fine and dandy, but "What would Jesus do?" Here's one response (in the Gospel of Luke): And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one."
So, although we should trust in God alone, we do not throw away those rights He endowed us with, rights the U.S. Constitution recognizes. Today we hear much in the news about whether the U.S. should restrict the rights of its citizens to benefit other countries, and other such nonsense. Jesus was a leader, not a follower, and to maintain our rights and live freely, neither should we follow the whims of other nations. Here's a little blast from the recent past...
Too Young To Hunt? By John Hay Rabb, Posted: 10-08-05
... the Humane Society of the U.S. and the rest of the antihunting community argue that youths under age 18 are not mature enough to hunt safely with a firearm. Never mind that millions of 16-year-olds are handed driver's licenses each year. Tragically, thousands of these youthful drivers are killed or seriously injured before their 18th birthdays. By contrast, there were only 89 hunting fatalities in 2002. Of these, 29 involved hunters less than 12 years old.
Celebrity animal rights activist Mary Tyler Moore recently excoriated state fish and game officials for allowing young people to hunt so that license revenues would increase. "The government should not be in the role of promoting and placing firearms in the hands of children," she said. "Basketball, baseball and books are much better alternatives."
...According to the National Sporting Goods Association, there are almost 18 million active hunters in the U.S. As a participatory sport, hunting ranks higher than baseball, soccer, softball, tennis or volleyball. Hunting is also safer than some other popular sports. The National Safety Council reported that in 1995 there were 1,700 swimming-related fatalities and 836 boating-related fatalities. In the same year there were only 87 hunting-related deaths.
By seeking to limit hunting to those individuals who are at least 18 years of age, the animal rights movement has carefully planned the ultimate demise of hunting in America. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Sporting Goods Manufacturing Association, 80 percent of all first-time hunting experiences occur between the ages of 6 and 15. There is only a brief window of opportunity to interest young men and women in hunting. After about age 12, young people are increasingly drawn to computer games, cars and the opposite sex.
...But if hunting must wait until a child reaches age 18, then parents may see little reason to buy guns for their children. Taken to its logical extreme, interest in firearms could virtually disappear in the next generation. For the coercive utopians this would constitute a victory beyond their wildest imagination
In reality, the HSUS will never persuade a majority of congressmen and state legislators to go along with its hare-brained scheme to increase the minimum hunting age to 18. But in politics, sometimes you win by losing. Even after its plan crashes and burns, the HSUS will derive solace from the knowledge that it has put its issue on the radar screen. The organization needs only keep its powder dry until the next congressional and state legislative sessions begin.
The most important responsibility for today's hunter is to train his replacement. He must pass along his love of hunting to the next generation. ...
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/cs/Satellite/IMO_GA/Story_C/Too+Young+To+Hunt?packedargs=recid%3D1198098376868&rendermode=flush
Indeed, we must train our "replacements" and pass along our love of Christ as well. This is a most important responsibility if they are to remain free: in body, soul, and spirit.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Reading through, for the 1st time
My friend Dave over at Troubled Corinthian mentioned recently that non-believers may think the Bible isn't much of a good read. After they become Christians, the Bible takes on a whole different meaning. As an adult convert, he discovered the Bible as literature in a way that "cradle Christians" don't naturally appreciate, since that kind of reading generally implies a suspension of disbelief. For Christians, the belief itself is primary, and suspension of disbelief plays into the more existential/philosophical battle.
At any rate, this year I'm going for it, on track to reading the Bible through in 2009. As with other literature, I've found I look for characters with whom I can associate, however I also look to the opposing character, to see how I also relate to him: Job and his "friends," Saul and David, Naomi and Boaz, and so on. These interrelationships are archetypes for humanity, and I usually see a little of myself in all of them.
So I'm connecting with God as I appreciate the depth of His Word. I found a 365 day Bible which also organizes chapters chronologically, so David's Psalms are inserted throughout the events he was experiencing. Great read. So here's a challenge: find 20 minutes a day to profoundly change your life for the better. Worst case, it's a notable accomplishment. And you probably already have a Bible, so you don't have to buy anything or go anywhere...or get on the StairMaster, or do yoga...
And if you need a little political reflection (don't put off the Bible for it, though!) go here:
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2009&month=04
At any rate, this year I'm going for it, on track to reading the Bible through in 2009. As with other literature, I've found I look for characters with whom I can associate, however I also look to the opposing character, to see how I also relate to him: Job and his "friends," Saul and David, Naomi and Boaz, and so on. These interrelationships are archetypes for humanity, and I usually see a little of myself in all of them.
So I'm connecting with God as I appreciate the depth of His Word. I found a 365 day Bible which also organizes chapters chronologically, so David's Psalms are inserted throughout the events he was experiencing. Great read. So here's a challenge: find 20 minutes a day to profoundly change your life for the better. Worst case, it's a notable accomplishment. And you probably already have a Bible, so you don't have to buy anything or go anywhere...or get on the StairMaster, or do yoga...
And if you need a little political reflection (don't put off the Bible for it, though!) go here:
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2009&month=04
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Who's the boss...For the children
Two concepts which drive me bonkers, and which so many people (especially men) unthinkingly support by repetitive use: one's wife is "the boss," and "we're doing it for the children." Analyze the use of these throw-off phrases, to see if they reflect an imbalance in relationships.
First off, even to some modern thinking that men and women are basically the same in addition to being equal, the concept of the wife being the boss is at times disingenuous, weak, or a backhanded compliment. If the husband should actually husband his family, this term is philosophically self-defeating as well. I understand it's a term of endearment, and "if Mom's not happy, the family's not happy," and so forth. However, to call one's wife "the boss" is unhealthy and may even, in some circumstances, cover up her actual disempowerment.
Whether married or not, a woman wishes her man is prepared with great ideas and things to do, even if that occassion is "her choice," in addition to him being a chivalrous gentleman and her defender. For now, we won't go into other ramifications of being a husband, but let's suffice to say that we should ceast and desist this practice of calling the female spouse "the boss." Reasonable alternatives may include "cruise director," CFO, and so on.
Second, our generation seems overly preoccupied with the concept (or excuse) that life is "for the children." Now I'll grant that so much of what we do has eternal consequence and, for many if not most, the greatest inheritors (for better and worse) of our earthly example are our children. However, it's crucial not to equate our children with that eternal consequence.
Again, I understand we often laugh while we say this, while appreciating an elementary school band for instance, yet if we spend the overwhelming majority of our extracurricular hours being occupied with or for our children, our relationships with God and spouse will suffer for it. It's a slippery slope to provide more and more opportunities for the children while denying them for ourselves. Life apart from our children has eternal consequence as well, and we must not allow parenthood to become idolatrous.
Edit, 9/19/09:
Lat night my wife and I discussed another reason why men do wrong in saying, "My wife wouldn't let me do such and such." This allows men to suggest they are not responsible to make decisions. It also demeans their marital relationship. By "not allowing" a spouse to do something, this put them into more of a parent-child relationship. So, whether or not you really mean it, please refrain from these trite sayings.
First off, even to some modern thinking that men and women are basically the same in addition to being equal, the concept of the wife being the boss is at times disingenuous, weak, or a backhanded compliment. If the husband should actually husband his family, this term is philosophically self-defeating as well. I understand it's a term of endearment, and "if Mom's not happy, the family's not happy," and so forth. However, to call one's wife "the boss" is unhealthy and may even, in some circumstances, cover up her actual disempowerment.
Whether married or not, a woman wishes her man is prepared with great ideas and things to do, even if that occassion is "her choice," in addition to him being a chivalrous gentleman and her defender. For now, we won't go into other ramifications of being a husband, but let's suffice to say that we should ceast and desist this practice of calling the female spouse "the boss." Reasonable alternatives may include "cruise director," CFO, and so on.
Second, our generation seems overly preoccupied with the concept (or excuse) that life is "for the children." Now I'll grant that so much of what we do has eternal consequence and, for many if not most, the greatest inheritors (for better and worse) of our earthly example are our children. However, it's crucial not to equate our children with that eternal consequence.
Again, I understand we often laugh while we say this, while appreciating an elementary school band for instance, yet if we spend the overwhelming majority of our extracurricular hours being occupied with or for our children, our relationships with God and spouse will suffer for it. It's a slippery slope to provide more and more opportunities for the children while denying them for ourselves. Life apart from our children has eternal consequence as well, and we must not allow parenthood to become idolatrous.
Edit, 9/19/09:
Lat night my wife and I discussed another reason why men do wrong in saying, "My wife wouldn't let me do such and such." This allows men to suggest they are not responsible to make decisions. It also demeans their marital relationship. By "not allowing" a spouse to do something, this put them into more of a parent-child relationship. So, whether or not you really mean it, please refrain from these trite sayings.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Everyday Miracles
Around 5 or 6 years ago I watched "Signs," a Mel Gibson movie which made me re-think the existence of coincidence, or things which occur "by chance." Since then, my worldview has more and more solidified into the belief that there is no such thing. This occurred during the growth of the "intelligent design" movement in U.S. education, which came to the public noteably via Ben Stein's movie, "Expelled," and to me in the "Truth Project." The deeper my relationship with God grows, and the more I ponder, the more I realize God's hand in everything, in all of creation: His creation. He can no more adopt a laissez-faire attitude than can parents ignore their children's pleas for help. At times you let them learn hard knocks but, when they come back, your arms enfold them again. God always wants to be in good relation with us.
In other attributes we enjoy, like humor and creativity, God shows through. This is what I think about most when I recognize what some would say is a coincidence. God taps on my shoulder and says, "Hey, it's Me! Got yer back! Don't forget!" God, acting through daily events and in our imagination, as we recognize interrelated occurences in our lives, which are designed to bring us closer to Him and each other...these are miracles. And what do you know, but this exact same lesson sings through the theme of the below referred book, "The Shack." Is it a perfect display of doctrinal Truth? Probably not. And I doubt the author would suggest that. However there's plenty of goodness going on in that novel, such as this quotation with which I'll conclude, by Elizabeth Barrett Browning:
In other attributes we enjoy, like humor and creativity, God shows through. This is what I think about most when I recognize what some would say is a coincidence. God taps on my shoulder and says, "Hey, it's Me! Got yer back! Don't forget!" God, acting through daily events and in our imagination, as we recognize interrelated occurences in our lives, which are designed to bring us closer to Him and each other...these are miracles. And what do you know, but this exact same lesson sings through the theme of the below referred book, "The Shack." Is it a perfect display of doctrinal Truth? Probably not. And I doubt the author would suggest that. However there's plenty of goodness going on in that novel, such as this quotation with which I'll conclude, by Elizabeth Barrett Browning:
Earth's crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God,
But only he who sees takes off his shoes;
The rest sit round it and pluck blackberries.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Centipede's Tail
I came across this desert creature in the middle of a trail, its head buried in the abdomen of a dead mouse. Eight or nine inches long, its orange segmented torso the diameter of a flattened pencil, 100 yellow legs continually shifting--gaining purchase--in the sandy ground. After watching for a spell, I blew at it and POOF, the last pair of legs flinched up, readying to pinch like poisonous, monstrous earwig jaws. After a few more puffs, I gingerly poked that pair of legs with a stick, and over and over they nabbed at the stick...
...but the head worked away in the gullet of the mouse. Most creatures would scamper away, or defend their meal, or quit eating in any case. This one continued to feed as its defensive rear pair of legs mindlessly groped at the annoyance. Finally I swept it to the side of the trail, lest it be crushed by a nervous hiker, and it turned this way and that. Until I re-joined it with its dinner, and it plunged head-first, back into the belly, back to the best meal it may have seen in some time.
On one level, these rear legs are our security systems, whether store-bought or mind-forg'd--upon which we depend for our sanity. A gated community, a cynical attitude, a pistol: these fill the gap so we need not perpetually mind the barbarians at our gates. However defense works best in layers. Merely one of these tools won't suffice, and may even work to our detriment. And yet, at the logical extreme, all of these may be defeated by paranoia .
Without God, humans have their heads buried: if not in the sand, in their work, in their hobbies, in their own "personal Jesus" (or, as a friend mentioned to me, their "substitute saviour.") Those defense mechanisms are working away, and usually on a program separate from our present-time consciousness! Much has been made of the "mind-body" dualism, however we know there's a much deeper division at work. We will discuss a proper defense, of the mind and body, however I pray we are granted the Grace never to consider these without a defense of the spirit.
...but the head worked away in the gullet of the mouse. Most creatures would scamper away, or defend their meal, or quit eating in any case. This one continued to feed as its defensive rear pair of legs mindlessly groped at the annoyance. Finally I swept it to the side of the trail, lest it be crushed by a nervous hiker, and it turned this way and that. Until I re-joined it with its dinner, and it plunged head-first, back into the belly, back to the best meal it may have seen in some time.
On one level, these rear legs are our security systems, whether store-bought or mind-forg'd--upon which we depend for our sanity. A gated community, a cynical attitude, a pistol: these fill the gap so we need not perpetually mind the barbarians at our gates. However defense works best in layers. Merely one of these tools won't suffice, and may even work to our detriment. And yet, at the logical extreme, all of these may be defeated by paranoia .
Without God, humans have their heads buried: if not in the sand, in their work, in their hobbies, in their own "personal Jesus" (or, as a friend mentioned to me, their "substitute saviour.") Those defense mechanisms are working away, and usually on a program separate from our present-time consciousness! Much has been made of the "mind-body" dualism, however we know there's a much deeper division at work. We will discuss a proper defense, of the mind and body, however I pray we are granted the Grace never to consider these without a defense of the spirit.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Freedom's crossroads
A great advocate of human freedoms, I hereby introduce you to Oleg Volk:
http://www.a-human-right.com/
Oleg is a professor and photographer, and one of his photos is captioned thusly:
I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness,
nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory.
I love only that which they defend.
(hattip to Tim @ USCCA, quoted from J.R.R. Tolkien's Two Towers, 2nd book of 3--also the shortest, and the best IMHO--in the Lord of the Rings trilogy)
To dramatize the relationship between physical and religious freedom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uprising_(film)
How much have you pondered your physical security?
How does your physical freedom affect your ability to think freely?
Would God be in control of both, given the invitation?
http://www.a-human-right.com/
Oleg is a professor and photographer, and one of his photos is captioned thusly:
I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness,
nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory.
I love only that which they defend.
(hattip to Tim @ USCCA, quoted from J.R.R. Tolkien's Two Towers, 2nd book of 3--also the shortest, and the best IMHO--in the Lord of the Rings trilogy)
To dramatize the relationship between physical and religious freedom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uprising_(film)
How much have you pondered your physical security?
How does your physical freedom affect your ability to think freely?
Would God be in control of both, given the invitation?
If it comes across your desk, don't veto it
I'll go into the historical derivation later...
Bill of Grace is a play on Bill of Rights, since I'm particularly interested in the relationship between religion and politics in our conception of freedom.
When I taught History long ago, a student posited: "But doesn't the government give us the right to..."
Then I cut her off, stood up from the child-sized desk I was squeezed into, and tossed it behind me for show. Well, it scooted across the carpet several feet and bumped the door behind me, and the students immediately gawked as I proclaimed: "The government doesn't GIVE you ANY rights!"
Then I spent a few minutes preaching about where the founding fathers thought our rights originated, what POWERS the government lawfully has, and why the concept of federalism is crucial. That event came in handy for several topics thereafter, such as the Nullification Crisis, the Civil War, and so on. Sadly the event also broke a bridge with that student, for which I am still sorry.
We'll discuss the Bill of Rights occassionally, but for now let's consider that they were an affirmation of the human rights already existant before the founding of any nation. This is astounding. But even more poignant is the Grace upon which these rights were founded.
Bill of Grace is a play on Bill of Rights, since I'm particularly interested in the relationship between religion and politics in our conception of freedom.
When I taught History long ago, a student posited: "But doesn't the government give us the right to..."
Then I cut her off, stood up from the child-sized desk I was squeezed into, and tossed it behind me for show. Well, it scooted across the carpet several feet and bumped the door behind me, and the students immediately gawked as I proclaimed: "The government doesn't GIVE you ANY rights!"
Then I spent a few minutes preaching about where the founding fathers thought our rights originated, what POWERS the government lawfully has, and why the concept of federalism is crucial. That event came in handy for several topics thereafter, such as the Nullification Crisis, the Civil War, and so on. Sadly the event also broke a bridge with that student, for which I am still sorry.
We'll discuss the Bill of Rights occassionally, but for now let's consider that they were an affirmation of the human rights already existant before the founding of any nation. This is astounding. But even more poignant is the Grace upon which these rights were founded.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Bill of Grace
Get a hold of a copy of "The Shack" (Young). Worst case, you've had a quick read which will inevitably come in real handy for a friend. More likely, you'll enjoy this page-turner, and it will be a conduit to change the way you live. Then pass it on. Now here's some context for our discussion:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/05/04/jim-demints-freedom-tent/
Mr. DeMint is spot on: "We can argue about how to rein in the federal Leviathan; but we should agree that centralized government infringes on individual liberty and that problems are best solved by the people or the government closest to them" (originally in the 5/2/9 WSJ).
The issue posed to me, via Young, is that individual freedom shouldn't be the ultimate goal. For the U.S., for human politics, maybe. But for the human soul? We grant that freedom to our deepest-seated values. We set our brains to process certain values daily, and even minute-by-minute...and to satisfy our responsibilities to those values. On what or Whom do you spend your mental energies? For some, that's God. For others, it's their kids. For others, it's a sense of security. To what or Whom do you grant your freedom?
Still quite young in world history, our country is experiencing growing pains: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/09/state-sovereignty-movement-quietly-growing/
James Madison in The Federalist:
“”The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.”
The founding fathers believed in a balance between state and federal power. This state sovereignty movement clearly arises from the belief that the balance of power has tilted too far and for too long in the direction of the federal government and that it’s time to restore that lose balance.
My question for you is: are you ready to allow a sovereignty movement in your soul?
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/05/04/jim-demints-freedom-tent/
Mr. DeMint is spot on: "We can argue about how to rein in the federal Leviathan; but we should agree that centralized government infringes on individual liberty and that problems are best solved by the people or the government closest to them" (originally in the 5/2/9 WSJ).
The issue posed to me, via Young, is that individual freedom shouldn't be the ultimate goal. For the U.S., for human politics, maybe. But for the human soul? We grant that freedom to our deepest-seated values. We set our brains to process certain values daily, and even minute-by-minute...and to satisfy our responsibilities to those values. On what or Whom do you spend your mental energies? For some, that's God. For others, it's their kids. For others, it's a sense of security. To what or Whom do you grant your freedom?
Still quite young in world history, our country is experiencing growing pains: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/09/state-sovereignty-movement-quietly-growing/
James Madison in The Federalist:
“”The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.”
The founding fathers believed in a balance between state and federal power. This state sovereignty movement clearly arises from the belief that the balance of power has tilted too far and for too long in the direction of the federal government and that it’s time to restore that lose balance.
My question for you is: are you ready to allow a sovereignty movement in your soul?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)