Caffeinated Thoughts

Christian Rhetoric and Engagement in “Culture Wars”
Obama’s Name Dropping
The FAMiLY LEADER Endorses Pro-Family Candidates for Iowa Republican Primary
Charlotte Lozier Institute Unveils New Website
Politicians Play “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose”

Christian Rhetoric and Engagement in “Culture Wars”

Posted: 15 May 2012 05:30 PM PDT

Personally I hate the term "culture wars," I'm not at war with those whom I disagree. I am not battling with those with opposing yard signs or who vote differently than I do. I can resonate to a point with younger evangelicals' tiredness of such rhetoric even if I don't agree with their response. I have said, numerous times, that culture won't be changed through politics. There is nothing that Washington, DC can do to reverse a moral decline. Revival won't start in Congress and it is unlikely that our President will lead us, as a nation, to collective repentance like what you saw in Ninevah after Jonah reluctantly shared the message God had burdened him with.

Not to say it can't happen because I don't want to put God in a box. He can do anything He desires to do. Legislation, however, won't change hearts and minds, just like the Old Testament law didn't transform hearts and minds. Old Testament law only condemned and it along with any legislation can only be preservative in nature. Hearts and minds will only be transformed through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. A marriage amendment won't do it. Striking down Roe v. Wade won't do it either.

I say this however with an understanding that we do have a responsibility as the Church to be a prophetic voice. Where we fail is that our voice often gets swallowed up in partisan rhetoric and party politics. Matt Anderson responding to a post written by Rachel Held Evans made an astute point regarding our rhetoric.

It may be, in fact, prudent to simply avoid celebrating much altogether. We ought to recognize, after all, that the overwhelming passage of traditional marriage amendments are not signs of our society's health, but its disease–and we are all implicated in it. Legislation ought to be the fruit of a long and careful discernment, what some have called "judgment" if we can get beyond the stereotypes for a moment. That process costs us all something, for it demands reflection upon both the moral norms we ought to strive for and the society in which we live. The attempt to close the gap, with legislation or some other effort, must be founded upon the recognition of failure. It will not do to foist the burden of responsibility on others before moving on. Not as Christians, anyway. "Weep with those who weep" is an exhortation given to the church, but it is for the world. For as George MacDonald wrote somewhere, were it not for our tears the world would not be worth saving anyway.

Paraphrasing Anderson instead of being boastful of a victory that happened in North Carolina and 30 other states we should instead mourn the fact such amendments are necessary to begin with. We should mourn that many in our society (and unfortunately in our churches as well) are calling what is wrong – right.

I know I have failed in numerous instances to speak on this issue from that perspective. I know I've been guilty of being boastful when marriage amendments have been passed. I've spoken uncharitably on numerous occasions that I wish I could have back. Even in the midst of my failure I don't believe I shouldn't write about or not be concerned by culture issues such as abortion and marriage, but I know I must take care in how I write and how I express that concern. (FYI – I want to point you to an excellent post by a J.D. Greear, a pastor in North Carolina, prior to the marriage amendment vote.) However I do believe that being salt and light compels me to engage this and many other topics. We must take care about how we speak, but we shouldn't be silent whether the issue is marriage or some yet unforeseen issue in the future.

Obama’s Name Dropping

Posted: 15 May 2012 02:15 PM PDT

Usually people when they name drop they drop another person's name into a conversation. Not so with our President. President Obama's staff has dropped his name into former Presidents' official biographies at Whitehouse.gov. The Obama administration has added bullet points to every President's biography since Calvin Coolidge with the exception of the late President ~~Jimmy Carter~~ Gerald Ford (brain lapse, my apologies to the Carter family).

Some examples via Commentary Magazine:

On Feb. 22, 1924 Calvin Coolidge became the first president to make a public radio address to the American people. President Coolidge later helped create the Federal Radio Commission, which has now evolved to become the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). President Obama became the first president to hold virtual gatherings and town halls using Twitter, Facebook, Google+,LinkedIn, etc.
In a 1946 letter to the National Urban League, President Truman wrote that the government has "an obligation to see that the civil rights of every citizen are fully and equally protected." He ended racial segregation in civil service and the armed forces in 1948. Today the Obama administration continues to strive toward upholding the civil rights of its citizens, repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, allowing people of all sexual orientations to serve openly in our armed forces.
President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare signed (sic) into law in 1965—providing millions of elderly healthcare stability. President Obama's historic health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, strengthens Medicare, offers eligible seniors a range of preventive services with no cost-sharing, and provides discounts on drugs when in the coverage gap known as the "donut hole."
On August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Today the Obama administration continues to protect seniors and ensure Social Security will be there for future generations.
In a June 28, 1985 speech Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multi-millionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule.

Our President's narcissism never ceases to amaze me. I would assume his speeches would be drastically shorter if he'd drop the words "I" and "me" from them. This is shameless behavior those biographies should be left alone regardless of who is in the office of President. They definitely shouldn't be used to promote the current administration's policies.

HT: Elizabeth Scalia

The FAMiLY LEADER Endorses Pro-Family Candidates for Iowa Republican Primary

Posted: 15 May 2012 12:00 PM PDT

Pleasant Hill, Iowa. – The FAMiLY LEADER announces their endorsements of nine pro-family, pro-constitutional candidates for the June 5^th Iowa Republican primary.

The following new candidates have secured the endorsement of The FAMiLY LEADER because of their proven ability to lead and stand firm for constitutional, conservative pro-family principles.

Joan Acela: House District 25
Dennis Guth: Senate District 4
Jane Jech: Senate District 36
Jeff Mullen: Senate District 22

The following incumbent candidates have shown bold conservative leadership and have represented their districts well. They have championed pro-family legislation in the Iowa House these past two years, including strong support of all pro-life legislation. The FAMiLY LEADER believes they are clearly more qualified than their opponents and deserve this primary election endorsement and their party's nomination.

Rep. Cecil Dolecheck: House District 24
Rep. Joel Fry: House District 27
Rep. Kevin Koester: House District 38
Rep. Jarad Klein: House District 78
Rep. Tom Shaw: House District 10

The qualifications for an endorsement from The FAMiLY LEADER include the belief that society and government work best when citizens accept a high level of personal responsibility and that the only way our nation can reclaim a God-honoring culture is to defend strong families. Other key qualifications include the protection of life from conception to natural death and the belief that marriage is a permanent, lifelong commitment between one man and one woman. The FAMiLY LEADER also only supports candidates who believe it is the duty of parents to oversee the education of their children and that an ethical, free enterprise system is consistent with the biblical notion of stewardship. Endorsed candidates will be expected to support and defend both the Iowa and U.S. Constitutions.

Chuck Hurley, Vice-President of The FAMiLY LEADER, said, "The FAMiLY LEADER is happy to endorse these nine candidates whose worldview is consistent with the Judeo-Christian principles that will defend and honor issues relating to the family. We are confident these individuals will honor God with their attitude, behavior, and value system. We will be praying diligently between now and June 5^th for these bold, compassionate conservative candidates."

Charlotte Lozier Institute Unveils New Website

Posted: 15 May 2012 10:00 AM PDT

Washington, D.C. – Today the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the education and research arm of Susan B. Anthony List, unveiled its new web site at www.lozierinstitute.org. The web site will be a hub for research and public policy analysis on some of the most pressing issues facing the United States and nations around the world.

The site features commentaries, reviews and blog posts by an array of policy experts and scholars whose work covers statistics, medicine, bioethics, health care and law.

"We envision lozierinstitute.org as a crossroads for both new information and fresh analysis of policy questions that vex the modern world, centered on the value of human life and care for mothers, the children they carry, and the family," commented Charlotte Lozier Institute president Chuck Donovan. "We will address topics from abortion, to population policy, advances in fetal medicine, health policy, and even end-of-life care. We will supplement and encourage existing organizations, as well as provide a balance to existing research organizations embedded in the abortion industry, by focusing on mid- and long-term topics where reflection and deeper examination can make lasting contributions."

The web site includes articles on such topics as eugenics restitution legislation in North Carolina, the sudden and unexplained surge in abortion in the District of Columbia, the status of Chinese human rights activist Cheng Guangcheng, and the adoption of "whole women" legislation in a number of states to prioritize family planning funding to agencies offering primary care. Topics coming soon to the site include the quality of U.S. abortion reporting laws and the growth of perinatal hospice as a form of compassionate care for parents facing the birth of children with lethal anomalies.

Staff members of the Institute represent some of the most experienced writers and editors in the area of life issue studies. Chuck Donovan is a four-decade veteran in Washington policy circles and has written and spoken widely on public policy issues during work at the National Right to Life Committee, in the Reagan White House, at Family Research Council and, most recently, the Heritage Foundation. Gene Tarne, who edits lozierinstitute.org, is the founder and president of Tarne Communications. He has 30 years of experience in public affairs, journalism, media relations, and issue advocacy, representing a variety of non-profit, international, and public policy clients.

Launched late last year, the Charlotte Lozier Institute is named for a feminist physician known for her commitment to the sanctity of human life and equal career and educational opportunities for women. She was an associate of Susan B. Anthony and her capsule biography is also included at lozierinstitute.org.

Politicians Play “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose”

Posted: 15 May 2012 08:45 AM PDT

No one likes to lose, even at Tic-Tac-Toe or flipping a coin. The phrase, "Heads I win, tails you lose," describes those who attempt to use trickery to prevent losing to their opponents. It also illustrates the politicians' current attempts to frame issues to assure that their positions will win.

Presently, debate rages over wealth redistribution, taking from the wealthy to give to the poor. For many months, politicians have disputed the pros and cons of this issue. Primarily, the subject concentrates upon increased taxes upon the rich (without defining them). They think that increased taxation of the wealthy will improve the conditions of the poor. (Even Robin Hood took from the government, not private citizens, to give to the poor.)

In their attempts to support their plan, proponents of increased taxes have resorted to using the Bible to endorse it (see here). Ironically, those who refer to the Bible for confirmation of their proposals have simultaneously declared that America no longer qualifies as a Christian nation.

They have invoked the "Heads I win, tails you lose" strategy. They quote sections of the Bible that appear to support their cause, but conveniently disregard those parts of the Bible that refute their position. One cannot choose isolated phrases from the Bible to suit one's fancy. Biblical scholars describe this interpretation error as "proof texting."

Granted, the Bible does frequently urge people to care for the poor and disadvantaged. However, it never instructs government to take money from those who have it and give it to those who lack it. Since the advocates of wealth redistribution quote the Bible to support their ideas, an examination of disregarded sections from the Bible on these issues becomes necessary.

In the Parable of the Talents, Jesus Christ taught certain truths that apply to our immediate circumstances (Matthew 25.14-30). In the parable, a man called together his workers before a lengthy trip. He distributed to them various amounts of money based upon their different abilities.

Upon his return, he evaluated his workers. In the master's absence, one man turned his 5 talents into 10, another turned his 2 talents into 4, but the third unwisely buried his single talent. In the end, the master took that one buried talent and gave it to the one with 10 talents.

In this brief parable, Jesus taught that some have greater abilities and money than others. Those who do nothing with the share given to them lose it. In the end, the one who dispensed the goods to the workers in the first place did not take from the successful ones and give it to those who lacked. Instead, he recovered what he had given to the one who buried his gift and gave it to the one with the most talents and abilities.

These principles contradict the modern approach. "Helping the poor" consists of more than outright grants of money to the poor. The Bible describes how help can come from many other avenues.

Those with greater funds can loan to those appropriately qualified to bridge difficult times (Leviticus 25.35-37).
Those in need can receive grants of money in exchange for a share of future earnings, which can benefit both parties. In this case, the one who contributes funds to the enterprise looks only to potential earnings to recover the contribution (Exodus 14-15).
Those blessed with higher incomes can hire those in need to perform some of their duties. The Bible describes how farmers must not reap the corners of their properties nor collect the grains left on the ground from harvest. Those in need could then glean these residuals for their benefit (Leviticus 19.9-10).
Those in need, especially the elderly, must look first to family for assistance before seeking aid from those outside of family (Exodus 20.12; 1 Timothy 5.4).
If a person does not work, they should not receive any benefits (2 Thessalonians 3.10). Obviously, some cannot work because of physical impairments. They should receive assistance. Yet, no one who chooses not to work should receive free money. How did America, built on the industry and hard work of its citizens, decline into a nation where work has become demeaning while money for not working has become acceptable? Unfortunately, millions of people game the system, receiving money without performing any responsibilities in exchange.

These references provide only a few of Biblical instances that reject the notion of something for nothing. Instead, Americans must refuse this fallacious proposal, and take steps to reform the bottomless pit of social welfare in all of its forms. The impossible becomes possible only with a start to reform it, followed by the determination to complete it.

"Heads I win, tails you lose" describes a sucker's bet. America has played it many years to its precarious detriment. Sadly, the USA now reaps the consequences of its misplaced gamble. To entrench it further guarantees America's eventual demise.

Horoscop

miercuri, 16 mai 2012

Caffeinated Thoughts

Caffeinated Thoughts

Un comentariu: