How to Be Consistent in Christian Thought

Often times, I tend to be too opinionated. I'm very prideful and struggle with accepting others' ideas. So you might think that I'm following in that vein when I say that I think Christians should be conservatives. At first glance, it seems bigoted. The Bible says no such thing! You are indeed correct. Hear me out.


Clearly, the Bible does not say one must be a conservative. I won't pretend that it does. I would never claim that someone who votes Democrat can't be a Christian. In fact, some of the things that liberals claim to champion can be quite enticing to Christians. Love, tolerance, and helping the poor are absolutely Christian ideals! However, being a Christian and a Liberal at the same time is inconsistent.  The fundamental foundation of liberalism is at odds with God. God and liberalism are the antithesis of each other. Admittedly, not on the surface. It's easy to be fooled. But, the fundamental principles of liberalism are the eradication of God and the deification of the State. In essence, the goal of liberalism is to replace God with the government. This is absolutely logical from an atheistic point of view. With no God, the government is the highest institution of morality and perfection. If men's minds can define reality than what can the greatest minds all working in concert with one another achieve? They would be as gods.
Ever social program, every infringement of religion, every attempt to control people's minds, is all aimed at elevating the state to fill the role of God. Upton Sinclair said, "The American people will take socialism without the label." That's exactly what is happening right now! It's all the little things. We don't see them as major battlegrounds. But I'll tell you, this war isn't blitzkrieg. It's trench warfare.



My point is this: liberalism is the champion of these ideals. Whereas, conservative ideals preserve the dignity of man, freedom, and government's proper role. To claim that one is a Christian and yet vote for someone who is liberal is absolutely inconsistent. That's like being a vegan and voting for a butcher. Liberalism is absolutely dead-set on dethroning God and crowning the state. Many liberals don't even know that. They think they're helping the poor. Yes, that's admirable. But ultimately, you're just slowly handing over your freedom so that they can be your new king and savior. That's what the State wants to do. They don't want their people to have freedom! That means LESS power for them. Why would they want that? Hand them all of yourself. They won't stop until they've got your heart, mind, and allegiance. That's exactly what Christ requires. So, I pose this question to you, "Who do you choose? Who's it gonna be? Christ or the State?" That's what it all comes down to. That's what is at stake. It's a lot more than "I want guns." The real issue is "I want Christ to be my King. Not the state."

If you're reading this and you're a Christian democrat, I want you to think hard. Consider the implications of what you really believe. My goal is not to make you ashamed. That is the last thing I want. I want you see the root of what you really believe. I want you to abhor it for what it is. It's war against God. 


God Bless,

Stanley

Don't Hate The Lorax

Sunday was my birthday. Yay. It's tradition to go see a movie for my birthday. Being a lover of Dr. Seuss, I couldn't resist seeing the Lorax. I'd say that I made a really good choice. Not only was the animation beautiful, but the story was well written and fun. Also, the movie stays very true to the original book despite adding much to it. Overall, if I were Dr. Seuss, I would be very pleased with the adaption. What the filmmakers add only serves to draw out the points that Dr. Seuss attempting to make.

I've seen many people decrying this movie as a piece of liberal propaganda and I couldn't disagree more. This is a movie that Christians should support! By all means, enjoying and using God's creation responsibly is one of man's chief responsibilities. In the story, the Once-ler chops down the entire Truffula forest to provide materials for his products. This is clearly wasteful and wrong on his part! There is no liberal bias about it. The movie also demonstrates the complexity of ecosystems. When the Once-ler cuts down all the trees, the bears called barbaloots, the singing fish, and the birds all have to leave because they depended upon the trees for their livelihood. This is a simple example of how waste in one area can have a ripple effect in an ecosystem.

This is NOT a liberal message. This is a Christian message. God's creation was created for us to take dominion over and dominion does not mean wasting it. Remember how God said to take care of the Garden? The earth is the Lord's garden and we are it's caretakers. It's our job to be responsible with what God has given us. Protesting pouring toxic sludge into rivers is definitely not liberal.

I must note, there is one anti-business scene in the movie. There is a musical number where The Once-ler sings "How bad can I be?/I'm only doing what comes naturally" The scene depicts him as a corporate "fat cat" reveling in money and business. It shows the media deceiving the public. The Once-ler says the oft quoted business arguments like "I'm not doing anything illegal" and "You take care of yours, I'll take care of mine." At the very end, a portrait of the Once-ler is hung upon the wall and it says "Too big to fail" on it. Adults will get this and kids will not. It's subtle and well executed by the filmmakers. However, I am willing to overlook this scene (1) because it's very catchy and fun (2) and the movie as a whole is something that I can get behind. I don't need to agree with this part to agree with the rest of the movie.

One thing of interest during this sequence is that the Once-ler describes the concept of Survival of the Fittest, yet it's framed so as to be a bad thing. I don't understand how non-Christians can believe that all the variety in life could be produced through survival of the fittest yet it's not ok to run a business based on that principle? In theory, isn't that the greatest and most efficient principle to appeal to? It's simply inconsistent to say that survival of the fittest shouldn't apply to business but at the same time, appealing to it to explain away creationism.

Those are just the thoughts that have been swirling through my head after seeing the film. I would highly recommend going and seeing it! The message is certainly praiseworthy and both children and adults can enjoy this fun film.

God Bless,

Stanley

All of a Sudden It's Ok To Trash Other People's Religion?

I recently received this email from GOPUSA.

"Sharia Law Takes Root"

Dear Fellow American,

Last fall, a Muslim attacked a Pennsylvania man name Ernest Perce who had dressed up like Mohammed for a Halloween parade. The attack was caught on film, witnessed by dozens of parade watchers, and verified by a policeman.

The Muslim was charged. But when he was brought before Cumberland County Judge Mark Martin, the judge dismissed the assault charges against the Muslim and dressed down the Pennsylvania man for being insensitive to the Muslim religion. Not only did Martin rule in favor of the Muslim attacker, he lectured Ernest Perce for insulting Islam: "Islam is not just a religion, it's their culture. It's their very essence their very being... And what you've done is, you've complete trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I find it offensive."

Guess what—I'm offended too, but for an entirely different reason. This Sharia law sympathy is part of a pattern. We have identified similar cases in at least 20 states where a full-scale campaign has been launched by American Muslim organizations seeking to push Sharia law ahead of constitutional law."

Is this a joke? Since when is it ok to trash other people's religion? I have to agree with the comments that the judge made. They were spot on. People don't understand how religion affects people. Your religion is the foundation whereby you understand reality. It's your most core beliefs. That's not a joke! And for that man to dress up as Muhammed for Halloween is just flat out being a jerk. Admittedly, the muslim's response is definitely not legal, but we can also understand where he's coming from. I mean, I know I would not be happy if someone dressed up as Jesus for Halloween. Not to the point of assaulting them, but I would at least see it as rude and tasteless. The judge should have punished the muslim man, but I believe his sentence should probably have been reduced from a typical assault charge. In justice, circumstances should always be considered.

I don't like the email's attitude. I feel that it's rather widespread in the conservative community. Possibly I'm wrong, but I encounter it frequently. We abuse other people's beliefs and then get defensive when they get offended (heaven forbid!). Just because someone is wrong doesn't give you the right to be mean to them. I know I personally struggle with this. I am the kind of person who has strong opinions. Many times, I have a hard time respecting those who disagree with me. However, as someone who struggles with this sin, I feel I am in a better condition to pinpoint it when I see it. It takes one to know one, I guess. Anyways, to antagonize those of other religions is definitely not loving. As Christians, we are called to love our neighbors. How do you think our pagan friends view us when we treat their beliefs with contempt? The point is, this man should not have been dressing up as the spiritual leader of a religion. Especially considering how clear the muslims have made it that this is a big deal for them. The stories of journalists being threatened for joking about Muhammed are numerous. Why then would someone go and impersonate him? Does he have a deathwish?

Bottomline:

Don't make fun of people's religions. It's called being a jerk. Plus, they get offended.

Sharia Law is NOT taking root in America anytime soon.

Dressing up as Muhammed will likely end badly for you.

God Bless,

Stanley

Inherent Rights (and wrongs.)

On Facebook, someone posted a venn diagram that determines how conservative you are. It contained concentric circles that define what you think the government's role is. The circles got progressively smaller. I realized, that I was in the smallest circle. Apparently, I'm a minarchist. I hadn't heard that term before so I looked it up on Wikipedia. What I found was that a minarchist is basicly a libertarian. Yeah. That sounds about right. The circle said that the government's job is police force, courts, law, and order. That's the bare minimum. Admittedly, this ought to also include dealing with other countries, but that wasn't on any of the lists. So, we'll assume it's implied. I was tempted to go to the next circle up because it contained fire departments, but I don't even think that's the government's job. That could easily be a private company. Why not simply pay a monthly flat rate that guarantees protection by the fire department? No need for the government to get involved.

As a minarchist, my basis for judging law is whether it comes down to a matter of faith, or a matter of life and property. I personally believe that the government's job is not to define morality for its citizens, but to protect its citizens. This means, giving them the right to do as they please as long as they are not infringing on another's rights. Such as if one wanted to smoke weed. My assessment would be this; I personally don't think they should be doing it. It's wrong. (UPDATE: This does not include medicinal marijuana. I see no problem with a doctor prescribing it for medicinal purposes.) However, in a free society they should be allowed to do it and suffer the consequences of their actions. Ultimately, every man will answer to God for his actions. Now, if he were to go out and drive high, that I would have a problem with. At that point, he is a danger to others and is violating their rights to life and property.

This is not to say that there isn't an all encompassing morality that every man is bound by. My point is that it should be binding upon a man not because the government says so, but because of his own conscience. Laws do not change men's hearts. The Lord does. For there to be true morality, God's law has to penetrate to the core of a man. This is the role of the church and the Gospel - to change men's hearts. If the government's goal in outlawing weed, tobacco, alcohol, pornography, video games, etc, is to change men's hearts, then it is usurping the role of the church. The State's job is not to spread the Gospel but to provide a stage whereby God can bring about His plan of redemption. In short, if the State is stepping in to legislate morality, then the church is falling down on the job. I want to reiterate that by morality here, I mean, things that are personal lifestyle choices, moral or immoral, that do not infringe on other's rights to life and property. Things such as homosexuality. In no way am I saying these things are good and wholesome. Quite the contrary. It is the condition of man that sin has pervaded every part of his being and a pragmatic approach to politics needs to understand that. How can we expect the non-Christians in our land to act like Christians if God has not changed them? In a country with such diverse people groups, it's simply not feasible to enforce a single morality on a widely varied population. Why are we causing them resentment by legislating their lives? Instead, we should be reaching out and praying for them. Preach the Gospel and pray for God's healing on their hearts. THAT is what truly transforms someone's morals. No law in the world can what God does.

I'd also like to briefly address the topic of abortion. Many libertarians are pro-choice (pro-murder, in more accurate terms) because they feel it is a matter of personal liberty. If you consider it however, abortion violates a child's right to life. That is a human being who has inherent worth and has a right to life. It is not in the same category as fornication. It's murder. And murder must always be against the law because it is the most fundamental evil that the State is in place to combat. I just wanted to diffuse that potentially volatile situation.

In short, the government needs to stay in it's place. That is, it must guard and serve it's people's inherent rights, but no more. The Church's job is to change hearts. That's the mission of the Church because it is the visible manifestation of Christ's kingdom. Christ came to redeem a people and conform them to his image. He doesn't accomplish this by a government, but by his work on the cross. The Church, permeated by the Holy Spirit, is how Christ applies this work and it's benefits to mankind.

God Bless,

Stanley

Ayn Rand's "Anthem"

My Amazon Kindle is a wonderful device. While browsing the books on the Kindle Store, I ran across a free copy of Ayn Rand's "Anthem". I've always wanted to read Ayn Rand, so I decided to give it a shot. Boy am I glad I read that book! Ayn Rand is a bit of a hero of mine when it comes to her political views. Her rugged individuality is a refreshing break from the relentless socialist messages that permeate society. How does the government work? It doesn't. According Ron Swanson, "I couldn't have said it better myself." That is Ayn's philosophy in a nutshell. As little government as possible and let individuals be individuals. She was a huge proponent of the free market. She touted aggressive self interest as the basic driving force behind all business and politics. This woman knew how people tick!

The philosophy of extreme individuality really shines forth in her novella "Anthem." It's a short read. I read it in a day. However, I'm so glad I did. The novel is a journal of a man named Equality 7-2521. He lives in a dystopian society on earth that forbids individual thought. He must not have any thought that other men do not have. He must not love any brother more than another. In his journal, he refers to himself as "we." Even if he is speaking solely of himself. At a young age, Equality 7-2521 was given the career of a street sweeper. Yet, he had always been the most curious and freethinking of the young children in the orphanage. He experiences a turning point in life when he discovers an ancient tunnel. There, he writes in his journal and works on science experiments. One day, he discovers electricity. He brings his incredible discovery before the science council but they are horrified by it. Before they can arrest him, he escapes into the forest. There was a woman whom he had fallen in love with over the course of the story and she ended up following him into the forest. There, they discover an old cabin filled with books. In that cabin, they discover the word "I" and resolve to form a settlement to repopulate the world with freethinking individuals. Equality 7-2521, who changed his name to Prometheus, resolves to teach his children the powers of I and the beauty of the individual. The story is quick paced and original. The concept is very well executed. The passages about individuality are powerful.

Now, it must all be taken with a grain of salt. Ayn Rand was an atheist. She believed that you alone are the master of your destiny and you alone must pursue your own ends. Men often place their hopes in the collective as a substitute for God, but Ayn Rand is the opposite extreme. The story of philosophy and the arts is movements reacting to each other. The romantics give birth to the realists. The Catholics give birth to the Protestants. The deists give birth to the existentialists. Every movement is a reaction against the other's extremes. However, I'm inclined to buy into this reaction IN THE POLITICAL SPHERE. I buy into this reaction because it is a more accurate reflection of who man is. As a Christian, I can look at Ayn Rand's philosophy of individualism and praise it. I can see that God made man in His image. That means will, emotions, and moral judgements. However, I also know that man is fallen and will invariably choose selfishness. Ayn Rand's philosophy reflects this very real aspect of man. God allowed Ayn the ability to see man's state, but not to understand the source of that state. In the Bible, God explains to me why man is in that state. That's why I can get behind Ayn Rand's philosophy of government and, generally, her views on man. This just goes to show that God, in His grace, gives unbelievers the ability to see things that are true and to produce good art. Just remember that as Christians, we have a foundation and source of all these things that unbelievers have merely stumbled into.

God Bless,

Stanley