Let Freedom Ring

So today is July 3. The day that sirens really started needing things up on Independence Day.

What? You had more serious thoughts about today. Fine.

So as of tomorrow, America had been free from Britain and its heavy tax on breakfast beverage for 239 years. That is quite a lot!

And on that day, there was an underlying principle at place in what we thought about our actions- freedom, and more specifically representation.

As Abraham Lincoln would explain four score and seven years later, it was too create a government, "of the people, for the people, and by the people."

And that's pretty special. We have a republic, if we can keep it.

This week's devotional post will be seen on Monday. Thanks for your patience.

Also I apologize for Monday's delayed post. I guess it didn't post as I scheduled it to. #imnotgoodwithtechnology

It Ain't Discrimination

Easter is over. And just like Christ, the chances of me writing the next blog post on time have resurrected. In the meantime, here's a rather late blog post from the Husbandman that Laboureth. 

Indiana has created a "new" law for their state to protect religious freedom. LGBTQ advocates everywhere are claiming that this law is discriminating against them. But this is silly for two reasons. 

First, it only allows private businesses to be able to conduct business in a way that they see fit. Christian businesses have very famously refused to conduct business if that business was directly related to a homosexual wedding. 

There is nothing wrong with the Indiana government affirming the businesses' rights to not engage in sinful behavior that is the homosexual weddings. 

Second, this big new law that threatens so much discrimination is virtually identical to the federal law Religious Freedom Reformation Act (commonly called RFRA, pronouced rifra). 

There has not been a huge backlash against the RFRA law since it was established, and it has only served to protect religious businesses, like Hobby Lobby from funding contraceptives and the like. 

It's a champion for the liberty of businesses to be able to conduct themselves in ways that do not conflict with their religious convictions. It is not a discriminatory law. 

In fact, it doesn't even allow for discrimination from businesses themselves. If businesses were to refuse business to homosexuals completely, that wouldn't as far as I understand the law, fall into the scope of the law. Instead, it would be labelled as discrimination, and everyone's life would continue. 

Indeed, no matter the consequences of this law, everyone's life will continue. 

Intent-based Framework to Fulfill Original Intention

The court has been endowed with the role of interpreting the Constitution to determine the constitutionality of congressional (or executive) action. As such, it is important for the nation to have an adequate debate about how this interpretation should take place. 

With this in mind, Edwin Meese, Attorney General under Ronald Reagan, expressed his opinion that the court should interpret the Constitution based off of the founder’s intent. His views generated a debate as opponents of his view expressed their own. Such an individual was Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, Jr., who argued that the Constitution needs to be interpreted and adapted to the current trends of the day. 

Ultimately, there are grains of truth in Brennan’s arguments, but Meese’s interpretive criteria is preferable. We shall examine this by weighing Brennan and Meese’s arguments on the topics of the feasibility of the historical interpretative methodology, the purpose of the Constitution, and finally, the room for flexibility within the document.

Feasibility of Intent-Based Framework

Meese begins his analysis of the intent-based methodology by describing our ability to know the intent of the Constitutional authors. After all, the Convention is relatively recent (only 200 years), and as such, information is readily available not just on the document itself, but also on the ideas that inspired its creation. 

According to Meese, we have a number of works written by the founders, which reveal their thoughts and intentions about the Constitution and its principles. It is then clear to Meese that we can discover the meaning of the original text, and not have to rely upon our own understanding of the document.

Brennan on the other hand argues that it is arrogant to think that we could know exactly what the founders would think about contemporary issues. Indeed, the founders couldn’t have anticipated the questions of intellectual property in the world of the internet. Thus, it is simply infeasible to use an intent-based approach to Constitutional analysis.

Ultimately, the truth lies with Meese’s arguments. Since the Constitution is intended as a limit to the power of government to protect individual rights, our understanding of what the founders would do in certain political situations is not as important as our understanding of their view on individual rights. Indeed, there is plenty of opportunity for us to see where the founders sat on political autonomy.  

            

Purpose of the Constitution

That leads well into Meese’s next argument - the purpose of the Constitution is to provide a limit to the power of our federal government. It is not far for Meese to then say that if we start reading our own principles and perspectives into the Constitution rather than the intended principles, that we quickly eliminate any inherent limit or protection of individual rights within the document itself. 

To support this point, Meese cites as an example the Dred Scott decision, where Chief Justice Taney read African-Americans out of the Constitution entirely – a position which is not found within the founder’s original writings, or within the current political climate of the time. Meese argues that just like in this instance, our individual rights become threatened if the court can interpret the Constitution according to any other standard than the founder’s intent.

Brennan’s arguments all really lend support to Meese’s argument on this point. Brennan makes the case even that the Constitutional principles should change based off of the generation, but that the fundamental principles should not be changed. Unfortunately for Brennan, he does not clarify what he means as fundamental principles. 

Without such a standard, it seems only logical to assume that each individual justice would determine which principles were “fundamental.” It doesn’t take much to see that this could lead to reinterpretation of the Constitution at the will of the justices alone. But a fluid document can never serve as a limit to the federal government.  

Adaptability/Flexibility within Document

We now reach the main point of Brennan’s counter-argument, namely, the ability of the country to adapt to changing circumstances. It is Brennan’s primary contention that limiting ourselves purely within the context of the original intent of the founders will result in anachronistic decision-making. After all, the values of 1789 are quite different than they are today. 

According to Brennan, this means that an intent-based methodology would eschew social progress because we would be inevitably biased against the claims of constitutional rights. Related, Brennan believes that the court should not be deferential to the other bodies of the legislature. 

Brennan believes that the Constitution includes a discussion of substantive value choices. Thus, he believes that the court has a duty to ensure that the rights of the people are protected from the majoritarian process.

Meese believes that the Constitution’s universal language when discussing human rights is enough to limit the power of congress. Meanwhile the power given to congress allows the flexibility to regulate new industries to protect the rights of the individual. Indeed, the Constitution was written so broadly and universally that it would never become outdated by social (or technological progress). 

Ultimately, then Brennan is correct in saying that the court should not simply defer to the legislative bodies when it comes to substantive value choices and should be able to strike down laws contrary to the Constitutional views of human rights. Nonetheless, the court should still base its decisions on such issues off of Meese’s intent-based methodology.  

Intent-based Framework to Fulfill Original Intention

When it comes down to it, the Constitution is about limiting the power of the federal government. To provide a meaningful limit, we must use the founder’s original intent as an interpretative framework. Any other framework opens the door for constant fluidity within the document, which kills its ability to limit the power of government. Thus, Meese’s intent-based framework is the only one that fulfills the original goal and intent of the Constitution – to limit government.

Ukraine, Moral Agents, and the Justification of United States Intervention

About 5 months ago, I wrote a post about how speculation about where the situation in Ukraine is going might be a bit premature. That is very quickly changing at the moment. As more and more developments occur, and more blood is shed, a serious discussion of what the United States should do is in order.

I think we should make one thing clear. Despite how the President misspoke last Thursday, a tragedy has occurred and is occurring in Ukraine. Forget geopolitics - there is not anything that could be said that could write off the loss of human life that has been experienced in Ukraine.

Still a tragedy is not the only necessary ingredient to justify United States involvement in an international conflict. Sure, if we were talking about people, a tragedy would instill an obligation for anyone with the capacity to help to assist in every way they can.

But government is not a person. Further, government is not accountable as a moral agent, the same way that we as human beings are. So we cannot necessarily use the same logic and moral rationale that we would for people when we are discussing government decisionmaking.

Government instead is an entity created by people of a nation for a specific purpose. Generally considered the social contract theory, the people of a nation come together to form an entity designed to protect them from natural disasters (not to help clean up the damage from a natural disaster though), external threats to national security, and internal threats to the rights of the citizens (i.e. criminals). Any action taken outside this purpose is a violation of a contract.

Consider this analogy, quoted here from my prior post "Not Yours to Give: Unconstitutionality and Injustice of Redistribution," 

"When we hire a business to put in a home security system, we would be much annoyed to say the least if we heard the company had decided instead to use our money to redecorate our house, as they considered that a wiser use of our money."

I daresay it wouldn't matter to us nary a bit if we still got our home security system if they took more money from our bank accounts to buy us new furniture or generally use for purposes other than that which we have contracted them. With that in mind, we ought to consider whether the situation in Ukraine is actually considered a part of  our contract.

I think it is not too much of a stretch to say that the situation in Ukraine is not likely to affect our national security. If the situation proves that it will escalate from a simple border conflict and actually harm United States situation, then obviously we must act.

That is actually what I believe President Obama was trying to say when he said that a "tragedy may have occurred." And I must give him credit that he understands that not every geopolitical conflict requires his involvement (I obviously don't have to give him credit for his skills in communication).

But that might raise a question in your minds. Why should it matter that the security of our nation isn't at stake? Why can't our government act in charity to assist other nations in their struggles? Is not Ukrainian life worth as much as American life?

The answer to the latter question is obviously yes. But we must once again realize that governments are not moral agents, and should never participate in charity, especially on an international level. Let me remind you of the words of Horatio Bunce summarized by Davy Crockett in his speech "Not Yours To Give," Note that while this specifically pertains to money, the same principle would refer to any type of military involvement.

"The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted [sic] to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be... So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity."

So yes, a tragedy has happened, but no, the United States government, since it is not a moral agent is under no obligation to act. Indeed, it is under a strict obligation to remain neutral in this particular affair.

Extra-Morality 7: Day of Reflection

What better way to end a series than to show specific steps that all Christians should take about that which we have been discussing? Indeed, that is what we will examine today as we conclude this series. What I want to review is simply what we should do about it. So below we have three applications to our everyday lives.

1. Choose by Faith

What I mean by extra-morality is what many others before me have called Christian liberty. All I'm saying is that there are certain things that the Lord does not specifically forbid in the Bible, and that each Christian must make a decision on these issues based upon Biblical standards. 

The argument I took from Romans 14 (and especially verse 14), was that in these areas, there may not necessarily be a direct right or wrong. What is indicated by the Scriptures here is that each man is responsible with creating his own standards. 

"5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.... 14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.... 17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.... 20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.... 23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

With this in mind, our responsibility is simple, we must pray about things like what media we should intake, whether dancing is appropriate, and what clothes we should wear. We must make decisions about these areas, not by convenience, but by faith. As Dr. David Jeremiah writes,

"Every believer should make sure their conscience does not condemn them and then act on what they believe, being responsible to make judgments about things that not specifically covered in Scripture. The center of the Christian life is faithfulness and love toward God - whether in obeying Scripture or seeking to apply scriptural principles to."

Now perhaps you would like to argue with the interpretation of Romans 14 that I here advocate.  I admit that I myself have difficulty accepting it, but the more I read this chapter, the more I am convinced that this interpretation is correct.

Regardless, let's just take time to examine whether it matters whether you agree with me on the main issue. You see, all I'm asking for you to do is to specifically pray about areas where the Bible is silent and make a decision based on what would be the best for your relationship with the Lord and others.

I make this case because the standards that are made can vary from person to person and all still be correct. You take offense with that. Great. So let's just say that there is just one correct standard for these extra-moral concerns. How would you best determine that standard?

You would pray about it and make a decision of faith based on how certain things affect your relationships with the Lord and other Christians! Indeed, if you pay close attention to all the action steps I give you today, you will find that they all apply equally as much whether there is one proper extra-moral standard or whether there are multiple ones. So disagree with me if you want, but please consider taking these steps anyway.

2. Attitude towards Other Believers

All Christians are obligated to make decisions on these areas where the Bible is silent by faith and prayer. Now let's just assume that everyone has done that in their lives. This assumption is not just for the sake of this post. No, I think it would be wise in our everyday lives to give all Christians that benefit of the doubt. It is simply not Christ-like to assume that people have erred without having any basis and in this scenario, we will never have basis unless someone directly tells you that they don't have any basis for where they stand.  

But where does that put us? There are bound to be disagreements. And when those disagreements come, the natural reaction is to think that your decisions are far superior to those of your fellow Christians. "Look at him! He really thinks it's necessary to live with those standards! Ha! Where did he get Scripture to support that view?" While your compatriot is over there thinking, "He watches that show! Does he not know that it is soooo worldly?" 

You see, Paul makes it very clear that both sections of beliefs are not without fault in their judgment of the others. Christians start turning against other Christians because they have differing standards. Because they view the Lord's requirements in their lives to be a little bit different. 

The Bible makes it clear that it is not the place or authority of Christians to judge other Christians. Only the Lord is truly able to evaluate the service of us as Christians. So who are we to take his place? As Romans 14 states, 

"4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.... 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.... 9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. 10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. 13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more."

R.C. Sproul further iterates the argument of Scriptures when he says,

"Frequently in his epistles, the Apostle Paul goes to great lengths to describe what we call Christian liberty. In these matters God allows us freedom; he doesn't set down laws prohibiting something or commanding something. The apostle warns us against being judgmental toward our brothers, giving as an example in the Corinthian community the question about eating meat offered to idols. Paul says this had nothing to do with the kingdom of God. He says, 'Those of you who have scruples about it, don't judge those who don't' and vice versa. This is a case in which we just have to respect one another. In those admonitions, Paul uses as his basis this statement: 'We are not to be judging people for whom Christ died.' He reminds us that 'your brother or your sister belongs to Christ. God has forgiven them. Who are you to withhold forgiveness from someone whom God has forgiven?'"

Now I should clarify here that I am not saying you should just jump into a little box and just ignore the different standards among Christians in the world. Certainly, it cannot be a point of contention, but perhaps it would be necessary to point out real problems in a position. 

You may remember that in the third post of the series, I highlighted the issue of condemnation in our day by linking this blog post. The article disrespectfully slanders fundamentalists based on the actions of a few (unsubstantiated as well, but that's not the point). Compare that tone and respectfulness to this blog post written by Doctor Jeff Ansbaugh, Pastor of Greater Rhode Island Baptist Temple. 

They are both highlighting what they view as problems in the fundamentalist community, but the latter does so with love. What these two articles show us is that we need not sing kumbaya in order to suffice these Scriptural requirements, but our actions need to be guided from love and a mutual respect, and not a holier than thou condemnation. 

As Pastor Jeff Ansbaugh tells us, 

"When I first graduated from Bible college, I did not hold a King James position, and the reason is because I had met too many preachers who were King James nasty. Several years after I was in the ministry, I came upon a very gracious man at an ordination who had a King James position but held it with the right spirit... I asked if I could talk with him about textual matters, and he agreed. He did not put his hands around my throat, but rather put his arm around my shoulders. I changed my position through my talks with him. And that is because he used his position to bring us together rather than wedge us apart. We must believe that compassion is not compromise."

3. Conduct Towards other Believers

Being compassionate in our attitude towards other believers will produce some natural results in our conduct with them. The two things that Romans 14 shares with us to behave appropriately are likely more indicators that we have the proper respect level than anything else. 

Regardless, we do see two main lessons from Romans 14 about how we are to treat other Christians when it comes to extra-moral standards. 

First, we learn to not flaunt our views. This flaunting can go in both directions. 

For instance, one with less strict extra-moral standards can easily flaunt and tempt his brother to err by his standard. This is what Paul would call a stumblingblock in your brother's way. Revisiting the example I used in the fourth post of this series, we find that you are a Doctor Who fan (a giant whovian!) and you are great friends with someone who believes that Christians shouldn't watch that show (or at least that he or she shouldn't). 

It takes great strength to refrain from constantly telling him that he is missing out on so much by upholding his standards so well. But that is the Christian thing to do. 

Then again, the converse can also happen. Your friend who also watches Doctor Who has a similar obligation not to flaunt himself as a better Christians simply because he believes that more is necessary to please the Lord when it comes to extra-moral concerns. 

Romans 14 explains once more, 

"3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.... 13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. 14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. 16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:... 21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. 22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

The second lesson that Romans 14 teaches us about the conduct towards other believers is to focus on those things that really matter. You see, as big of a deal as we would like to make these extra-moral concerns, they really aren't the most important issues in our Christian walk with the Lord.

No, what's really important are the issues of righteousness and peace. What we should focus on is the glory of God, instead of the peripheral views on issues of extra-moral concerns. Romans 14 says simply:

"6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.... 17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. 19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence."

I dare say that meat is not the only thing that doesn't destroy the work of God! Regardless, I'm sure we can all agree that our ability as Christians to reach the purpose of God's glory and witnessing to the lost are far more important than extra-moral concerns.

In conclusion, let me leave you with some words from Dr. David Jeremiah's commentary on Romans 14,

"God is pleased with the individual Christian because of Christ, not because of his or her views on peripheral matters. Christians are to have the same attitude, striving toward unity, not unnecessary dissension.... The believer's focus should be on the values of the kingdom of God, not worship styles or modes of dress. The Enemy does all he can to drive people toward division. The Spirit drives God's family toward unity."

Theme Beyond the Screen: Captain America: Winter Soldier

Movies. They are great entertainment and can give friends and strangers alike something to converse about. But movies are probably most intriguing for their subtle (and not so subtle) teachings about people, life, God, or politics.

Today, I would like to examine and really explain the themes of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. 

I will admit that comic book movies don't usually make a stand on anything at all. Thus, when this installment in the Marvel Universe established the theme of liberty's importance, it naturally made me pretty excited (even more so than I was just by the fact that it was, you know, Captain America).

In the movie, Captain America finds himself working for S.H.I.E.L.D., a bureaucracy which he believes has too much power and is veiled in too much secrecy. His main problem with this is not that it is inherently bad, but just that he refuses to trust a bureaucracy so large.

Director (of S.H.I.E.L.D.) Fury of course wants to calm his fears about S.H.I.E.L.D., but instead of trying to persuade him that S.H.I.E.L.D. does not endanger liberty, he argues that the slight infringement of liberty is necessary to protect security.

He even goes so far as to show Captain America three highly weaponized helicarriers to demonstrate how they can "Neutralize threats before they even happen."

Captain America responds (all of this is before the Winter Soldier is introduced in case you were wondering),

"I thought the punishment usually came after the crime...This isn't freedom; this is fear."  

Benjamin Franklin would approve of Captain America's sentiment. Remember this popular quotation,

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

For the movie, it will turn out that both of these men would be right. During circumstances in the movies that I would rather not spoil for my wonderful readers, the "Bad guys" get a hold of these deadly weapons. The rest of the movie is centered on how to prevent them from using them.

But the bad guys want to absolutely destroy freedom because they believe that freedom is inherently self-destructive. You see, man just can't be trusted with his own freedom, and thus, he needs to be told what to do.

It's a generic and cliche motivation for a villain, but there is a reason for that. It's an argument that has been around for a while and that many intelligent people have fallen prey into believing. Unfortunately, the argument fails for a simple reason. If we can't trust men with their own lives, how are we to trust the same men with the lives of others.

This is what the bad guys show us in their entire scheme. Their means to international security and peace are heinous at best. Trusting them with the power of S.H.I.E.L.D. is not wise at all.

But the Captain makes the case that trusting S.H.I.E.L.D. with its own power is also not very wise. He believes that S.H.I.E.L.D. is trying to govern the lives of others just as much as the bad guys do. Though they may still argue for freedom, they have forgotten what that actually looks like in their pursuit of security and interstellar peace.

Captain America sees no real difference between the tactics of S.H.I.E.L.D. and the tactics of the bad guys except whom is targeted. He does not believe that we should trust any bureaucracy with that power.

In fact, at a crucial point, S.H.I.E.L.D. wants to simply regain their own access to their deadly weapons, instead of destroying them. But Captain America refuses to stand for that!

He understands that we have to prepare for government at its worst, not at its best. Not just because that power can be commandeered by those with evil motivations, but because all men can make mistakes, or be corrupted by the seductiveness of power.

Captain America understands that liberty is important and must be protected by limiting the power of the government entirely. We must be careful not to surrender too much power and give away too much liberty to our government in hopes of security.

This may seem costly, but as the Captain says in a really cheesy, yet incredibly awesome monologue:

"The price of freedom is high, but it's a price I'm willing to pay." 

Military and the Right to Bear Arms

The military. It is a place of honor. It is a place where you risk your lives to protect your family and the country as a whole. It is a protector of freedom.

In the United States that is. In other places throughout the world, the military is not used for such noble purposes. As we have seen throughout history, outside of its proper sphere, the military can mean the very destruction of our liberties.

Just to point out an obvious example, Great Britain during the events that transpired before the Revolutionary War used their military to enforce their unjust policies on the colonies. Ultimately, these efforts were prevented when the colonists started to fight back.

It's as Noah Webster says,

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed."  

We as citizens must have the right to bear arms in order to protect ourselves from the abuse of our military. Now I know we would all like to believe that our government would never oppress us with the military, a driving idea of the Constitution and our early government is that we must prepare for the worst possible government.

By its nature, government is made up of fallible men. If men were perfect, we wouldn't need a government to ensure one man not harm another's rights to life, liberty, and property. Unfortunately, we cannot trust these same men to remain honorable in office.

Our system of government was created to provide set limits in order to check the power of these men. Indeed we are ordained to fight back, with force if need be,  should the government overstep its bounds.

This is why we have the right to bear arms in the second amendment. It is not strictly speaking to protect ourselves against criminals although guns are great for that too. No, it is to allow us to protect ourselves against the potential abuse of our government.

But in this regard, we must not only have access to guns, but actually need access to the same guns the military has. This may be a scary prospect, but think about it. How are we to protect ourselves against the military if their firepower is significantly greater than those of the citizens?

Alexander Hamilton explains this idea in greater detail,

“If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights.”  

New Year's Resolutions for Christian Advancement of Politics and Culture

With this last post of 2013, I would like to establish some resolutions that every Christian in America should adopt to improve our country's political and social structure. This is not an exhaustive list, of course, nor does it necessarily indicate the most important things for Christians to focus on.

1. Witness

It is no surprise that witnessing is sure to help out with any social decline. When we discuss social problems after all, we are usually referring to the increase of certain immorality. We all know that God transforms lives. Thus, a society based on Christianity would naturally have fewer social issues. Of course, that is all from a Christian perspective. Non-Christians would likely view these social issues as no concern at all. That is exactly the reason why witnessing can impact social structure so positively. 

So we see that as the Bible says, 

"Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord."

This is obviously not the most important reason to witness. The most important reason to witness is not any mere practical consequence in this earth, but rather for eternity. This though goes without saying. 

2. Stay Informed

Here's the thing about having Christians to influence politics and culture. It's absolutely fantastic, but it doesn't actually happen if Christians live like hermits in caves, completely unaware of what is going on in the world. We shouldn't obsess over any social, cultural, or political crisis. We are after all called as the cliche says to be in this world, but not of this world. But sometimes, I think Christians forget that we still need to be IN the world. 

You may think it doesn't matter what happens in the world, but we know that the politics of this nation could threaten the right of people in this country to worship the Lord freely. Right now, we are already seeing attacks on prayer in schools and other similar items. We need to be informed about threats to every one of our rights because every right protects the others. 

3. Engage

So we're informed. Christianity now allows our society and politics to advance, right? Not exactly. It does little good to be informed if we don't use that information for good. We must be willing to engage with the society, with the government, with the courts. We need to be prepared to act. There is a quotation attributed to Samuel Adams that goes, 

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

If we manage to witness effectively and strengthen a Christian majority in this country, a majority that is now informed about the troubles facing our country, we have accomplished nothing if we don't actively pursue change. Knowing the plagues and issues in our country only will serve to depress us if we don't do something about preventing them. That is the final step for Christians to positively influence America.

Duck Dynasty Drama: The Cornerstone of Freedom Under Attack

It was the story of the week. Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson was asked about his beliefs on gay marriage. He did the only possible thing, and freely spoke his mind. Since then, there has been much outrage. Phil Robertson's comments are said to be discriminatory. A&E has in turn, discriminated against Phil, banning him from the TV network.

Immediately, Christians and conservatives around the world have clamoured and claimed that A&E is violating Mr. Robertson's freedom of speech.

But that claim is dead wrong. I'd just like to let you all know at this point that I support Phil Robertson. I believe in all that he said, but I will not change my opinion of freedom based on the political agenda that is being propagated.

Freedom of speech is a civil right. This means it is a right guaranteed us by the Constitution and Bill of Rights (and later the Civil Rights Act), all of which act to restrain government from interfering in our lives (the Civil Rights Act goes a little further; more on that later). As the great Richard Castle (yes, the fictional character) has said,

"Technically, I'd have to be the government to violate your civil rights." 

A&E as a private institution is incapable of violating the civil rights of others. (As far as I can tell, A&E did not stop Mr. Robertson's controversial comments; thus, he was allowed to exercise free speech.) Instead, they themselves have a civil right to running their businesses in a way they see fit. This may seem ridiculous to you, but all private organizations have the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason. We can argue that it is wrong of them to do so (and generally it is), but it is not within governmental jurisdiction to force businesses or any private individual to act in a manner that government sees fit.

The same conservatives speaking out against this "civil rights violation" done by A&E have made the same argument on numerous occasions. A month ago, a cake business refused service to homosexuals. There was outrage, there was want of a government intervention, but conservatives correctly pointed out it was not the government's business.

But now the stakes have changed, pushing down a more conservative agenda, and oh how much difference we see from the world around us. We have to let our principles stand no matter what supports our agenda.

This path that we have been taken on both sides of the political aisle could have massive negative repercussions to freedom in America. In Britain, this idea is completely ingrained in the law.  So when Mr. and Mrs. Bull elected not to allow any unwed couples to stay in the same room together, they were sued for discrimination, and ultimately were forced to sell their business. All because the state didn't agree with their decisions. You see, companies have their own civil rights, and if we're not careful, if we try to protect the individual's civil rights beyond how it applies to government, we will fall in a trap of violating their rights. Remember, that businesses are run by people, not machines. The CEOs are afforded the same right as individuals.

Robin Koerner of benswann.com explains this situation perfectly,

"Logically, Mr and Mrs Bull can only have committed a crime if the couple they turned away had an actual right to be served by them. Yet, the Bulls are not compelled to offer their service to anyone. So how can it be that party A’s (the Bulls) making a free choice to transact with party B (a married couple) creates a new right for party C (unmarried couple)? What kind of right would that be?"

This strikes to the very core of the issue. Everyone must have the right to their own private property, to handle it as they see fit and appropriate. Ludwig von Mises called it, "The cornerstone of every civilization." It is threatened by this ideology that has taken control of the British system.

But we in America are not much better. As you have seen, this mindset is already set in the minds of many Americans. But not only is it in the people, it is in the legislation. The Civil Rights Act for all its virtues has one major vice. It seeks to enforce its views of anti-discrimination onto private individuals and organizations.

As Senator Rand Paul explains,

"There are ten different titles to the Civil Rights Act and nine out of ten deal with public institutions and I am absolutely in favor of [them]. One deals with private institutions, and had I been around, I would have tried to modify that. But the other thing about legislation – and this is why it is a little hard to say where you are sometimes – is that when you support nine out of ten things in a good piece of legislation, do you vote for it or against it?”

The Duck Dynasty drama and debate is about a much more complicated and important phenomenon than whether A&E or Duck Dynasty are right about their views about homosexuality. Instead it sticks to the very heart of freedom. We should be afraid of the ramifications of how quick we are to apply civil rights to businesses. We should no longer push for such moves so religiously.

America's Biggest Problem

When we examine our government, we can outline several problems. We have a too strong central government. We have a nation whose people are content living off the government. We have a inconceivable tax burden. We have chosen economic winners and losers in our country. We have furthermore tried to determine on several occasions who wins and loses in conflicts on the opposite ends of the world.

Some wouldn't consider these problems. I do. Whether you do, or not is not the purpose of this post. No matter what you consider problems in America today, the biggest one is the lack of moral compass.

You may think this is no big deal, or that it is a problem with our culture, but certainly wouldn't affect our government, right? Our Founding Fathers would disagree.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams

"[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." -Benjamin Franklin

Our freedom according to these men is linked to our morality. Our morality, as we have discussed before, is linked with God and Christianity. Thus, our freedom is linked to Christianity and the Christian God.

What is the biggest problem our country faces? That we are not abiding by Psalm 33:12,

"Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord."