Political Fallacy of Marx

Political philosopher Karl Marx advocated for a radical world change. This world change would help bring about the dissolution of all forms of governments, with the eventual goal of universal world peace and happiness. This revolution would start by a violent overthrow of the oppressive overseers; the revolt would grow to a global event. The deluge of outrage would bring justice and peace to the land, with all forms of government becoming extinct.

This concept is grossly mistaken. Violent revolutions will always occur this side of the Armageddon; however, they will not dissolve when everyone is content. If the elites should somehow be vanquished, then there will be a power vacuum that will be filled by the leader. This is similar to the story of the Soviet Revolution as characterized in Animal Farm. There will always be some sort of elite group that will replace the original oppressive group.

There will never be a date that the oppressed will live in peace. As portrayed in Animal Farm, the leaders (i.e. the pigs) will lead the masses into domination. There will never be a utopia that Marx envisions. There will never be a withering away of the state! We were made for society. Man is a social creature and we need each other tremendously. That is why society formed thousands of years ago, joining people together because of commonalities. We were meant to be together within the confines of the community.

Religious Litmus Tests

There has been a lot of talk in regards to faith and politics. Republican candidate Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and there are those who will not vote for him because of his religion. Personally, I would not mind voting for the man, since his views align with mine in many instances. However, if someone did not want to vote for him solely based upon their faith is alright in my opinion.

The U.S. Constitution has barred a religious litmus test for candidates, seeking to promote a diverse political realm. But doesn't that test apply to the Federal Govt? Since when does the Constitution apply to the people and not to the government. That document was created to restrain the government, not to restrain the people!

I propose a question to people like Hugh Hewitt and other conservative Romneyites: would you support a candidate who believes in sharia law and instituting it upon America? Why would you treat them differently? It's ridiculous to hear people call other bigots because of this reason. Anyone has the freedom to vote against someone because of the way they part their hair! We the People have the right to say no to a candidate and impose litmus tests. It is ridiculous to be scolded by commentators because a person thinks differently.

I like Romney, and I appreciate his views and charisma (despite disagreeing with him theologically). Other people cannot jump over the hurdle of his religion; however, I do not think that it is intelligently honest to say people need to remove their faith from politics. To have conservative commentators say that is both hypocritical and unconstitutional.

What is so unique about Christmas?

What is so unique about Christmas?

Mild He lays His glory by,
Born that man no more may die.
Born to raise the sons of earth,
Born to give them second birth.
(Hark! The Herald Angels Sing)

I have wondered why the Christmas season is so incredibly optimistic. Why is there peace? Why are there proclamations of joy? Why is it that people try to be nicer and fairer?

Long lay the world in sin and error pining,
Till He appeared and the soul felt its worth.
A thrill of hope, the weary soul rejoices,
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn.
(O Holy Night)

What is this underlying optimism in a world full of murder, hatred, vile and lies? It comes from an earth-shattering event. The birth of a young boy in Bethlehem. With the world in dire chains and affliction by evil, there was a glimmer of hope. The Word became flesh, and He dwelt among us. He came here to free the world from sorrow.

Silent night, holy night,
Son of God, love’s pure light;
Radiant beams from Thy holy face
With the dawn of redeeming grace,
Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth,
Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth.
(Silent Night)

With His birth, He broke into this world. Several decades would pass, and He would crush death. The sting of death is no longer, for Christ, our Lord, conquered. Upon His life, upon that Rock, millions have found strength. Sorrow has not been totally eradicated. Affliction shall one day cease. He shall cleanse the perverse world and shield His Beloved; He shall gather the saints together.

No more let sins and sorrows grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground;
He comes to make His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found,
Far as the curse is found,
Far as, far as, the curse is found.
(Joy to the World)

I pray with all of the saints throughout the ages. I pray with those in safety and those in terror, Lord come quickly. Loosen us from pain, and lead us unto true shelter.

O come, Thou Rod of Jesse, free
Thine own from Satan’s tyranny;
From depths of hell Thy people save,
And give them victory over the grave.

O come, Thou Key of David, come,
And open wide our heavenly home;
Make safe the way that leads on high,
And close the path to misery.
(O Come, O Come, Emmanuel)

Mark Steyn: No terrorism, just war?

MARK STEYN

Syndicated columnist

Oh, it's a long, long while from September to September. This year, the anniversary falls, for the first time, on a Tuesday morning, and perhaps some or other cable network will re-present the events in real time – the first vague breaking news in an otherwise routine morning show, the follow-up item on the second plane, and the realization that something bigger was under way. If you make it vivid enough, the JFK/Princess Di factor will kick in: you'll remember "where you were" when you "heard the news." But it's harder to recreate the peculiar mood at the end of the day, when the citizens of the superpower went to bed not knowing what they'd wake up to the following morning.

Six years on, most Americans are now pretty certain what they'll wake up to in the morning: There'll be a thwarted terrorist plot somewhere or other – last week, it was Germany. Occasionally, one will succeed somewhere or other, on the far horizon – in Bali, Istanbul, Madrid, London. But not many folks expect to switch on the TV this Tuesday morning, as they did that Tuesday morning, and see smoke billowing from Atlanta or Phoenix or Seattle. During the IRA's 30-year campaign, the British grew accustomed (perhaps too easily accustomed) to waking up to the news either of some prominent person's assassination or that a couple of grandmas and some schoolkids had been blown apart in a shopping center. It was a terrorist war in which terrorism was almost routine. But, in the six years since President Bush declared that America was in a "war on terror," there has been in America no terrorism.

In theory, the administration ought to derive a political benefit from this: The president has "kept America safe." But, in practice, the placidity of the domestic front diminishes the chosen rationale of the conflict: if a "war on terror" has no terror, who says there's a war at all? That's the argument of the left – that it's all a racket cooked up by the Bushitlerburton fascists to impose on America a permanent national-security state in which, for dark sinister reasons of his own, Dick Cheney is free to monitor your out-of-state phone calls all day long.

Judging from the blithe expressions of commuters doing the shoeless shuffle through the security line at LAX and O'Hare, most Americans seem relatively content with a permanent national-security state. It's a curious paradox: airports on permanent Orange Alert, and a citizenry on permanent … well, I'm not sure there's a Homeland Security color code for "Gaily Insouciant," but, if there is, it's probably a bland limpid pastel of some kind. Of course, if tomorrow there's a big smoking hole where the Empire State Building used to be, we'll be back to: "The president should have known! This proves the failure of his policies over the last six years! We need another all-star commission filled with retired grandees!"

And that would be the relatively sane reaction. Have you seen that bumper sticker "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB"? If you haven't, go to a college town and cruise Main Street for a couple of minutes. It seems odd that a fascist regime that thinks nothing of killing thousands of people in a big landmark building in the center of the city hasn't quietly offed some of these dissident professors – or at least the guy with the sticker-printing contract. Fearlessly, Robert Fisk of Britain's Independent, the alleged dean of Middle East correspondents, has now crossed over to the truther side and written a piece headlined, "Even I Question The 'Truth' About 9/11." According to a poll in May, 35 percent of Democrats believe that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance. Did Rumsfeld also know? Almost certainly. That's why he went to his office as normal that today, because he knew in advance that the plane would slice through the Pentagon but come to a halt on the far side of the photocopier. That's how well-planned it was, unlike Iraq.

Apparently, 39 percent of Democrats still believe Bush didn'tknow in advance – or, at any rate, so they said in May. But I'm confident half of them will have joined Rosie O'Donnell on the melted steely knoll before the Iowa caucuses. If Iraq is another Vietnam, 9/11 is another Kennedy assassination. Were Bali, Madrid and London also inside jobs by the Bush Gang? It's no wonder federal spending's out of control.

And what of those for whom the events of six years ago were more than just conspiracy fodder? Last week the New York Times carried a story about the current state of the 9/11 lawsuits. Relatives of 42 of the dead are suing various parties for compensation, on the grounds that what happened that Tuesday morning should have been anticipated. The law firm Motley Rice, diversifying from its traditional lucrative class-action hunting grounds of tobacco, asbestos and lead paint, is promising to put on the witness stand everybody who "allowed the events of 9/11 to happen." And they mean everybody – American Airlines, United, Boeing, the airport authorities, the security firms – everybody, that is, except the guys who did it.

According to the Times, many of the bereaved are angry and determined that their loved one's death should have meaning. Yet the meaning they're after surely strikes our enemies not just as extremely odd but as one more reason why they'll win. You launch an act of war, and the victims respond with a lawsuit against their own countrymen.

But that's the American way: Almost every news story boils down to somebody standing in front of a microphone and announcing that he's retained counsel. Last week, it was Larry Craig. Next week, it'll be the survivors of Ahmadinejad's nuclear test in Westchester County. As Andrew McCarthy pointed out, a legalistic culture invariably misses the forest for the trees. Sen. Craig should know that what matters is not whether an artful lawyer can get him off on a technicality but whether the public thinks he trawls for anonymous sex in public bathrooms. Likewise, those 9/11 families should know that, if you want your child's death that morning to have meaning, what matters is not whether you hound Boeing into admitting liability but whether you insist that the movement that murdered your daughter is hunted down and the sustaining ideological virus that led thousands of others to dance up and down in the streets cheering her death is expunged from the earth.

In his pugnacious new book, Norman Podhoretz calls for redesignating this conflict as World War IV. Certainly, it would have been easier politically to frame the Iraq campaign as being a front in a fourth world war than as a necessary measure in an anti-terrorist campaign. Yet who knows? Perhaps we would still have mired ourselves in legalists and conspiracies and the dismal curdled relativism of the Flight 93 memorial's "crescent of embrace." In the end, as Podhoretz says, if the war is to be fought at all, it will "have to be fought by the kind of people Americans now are." On this sixth anniversary, as 9/11 retreats into history, many Americans see no war at all.

Marriage as the Kingdom

Life is incredibly risky. Loves takes a chance.

As I get closer and closer to my wedding date, I cannot help but ponder the implications of marriage. Marriage takes an incredible chance. I will open up myself completely to one person in the greatest capacity this side of the grave.

Our relationship will be an opportunity to model Christ in a very different way. I spoke with a colleague of mine about marriage. She was having a tremendous time agreeing with the passage in Ephesians that spoke about marriage. She doesn't agree with the passage about wives submitting to their husbands. Submitting can be an incredibly frightening event; however, it is only proper when it is done with the explicit knowledge that he or she is looking after your interests above all. That he (or she) would die for you.

There is a mutual submiting action that should take place within the confines of a marriage. Both sides are loving each other, using the same interactions that Christ and the Church ideally has.

Marriage is a representation of the Kingdom upon this earth. I wonder if God chose marriage to be a glimpse of the Kingdom, a foreshadowing of sort. God, in His endless majesty, chose to use this reality in a beautiful way. It is a glimpse into eternity, how the Body of Christ deals with their King.

There should not be a 1950's "Leave it to Beaver" relationship. There ought to be a co-dependence where flesh and bone is mutually reinforcing. Or as Rob Bell says in Sex God, that our weakness (flesh) is paired up with their strength (bone).

I think that my relationship with my future wife is a lot like that in many ways. That my failings and triumphs are matched with hers. A marriage should be a functioning team, a Dynamic Duo if you will.

A glimpse of eternity is revealed in a marriage. I pray that it will be so in mine.

History as Our Guide

I utterly cringe whenever I hear the statement that history does not matter. "What's the use of that useless knowledge?" Besides quoting random facts and sayings, it holds a particular key advantage.

The lives of past men and women has a tremendous impact on who we are today. Anything that we do or say hinged upon the lives of people that have gone before us. Let me further explain. Why do teens act counterculture at times? Why do they where shirts that mock mainstream society? Well, we can trace that back to the 1960's rebellion of the Baby Boomer generations, who can trace that back to Rock and Roll of the 50's, who can trace that back to women working, etc.

Our philosophy on life is shaped by the past. The fact that people can question an authority can be linked to (as I would firmly argue) Martin Luther's Reformation. People were able to question what the hierarchies told them, which gave birth to Modern Science and then the Enlightenment. If we can understand the rudimentary nature of all these events we can then understand ourselves better. We as Americans have a distinct heritage of freedom and of liberty. We are inherently equal (as Jefferson would state); however, that equality came about through the writings of John Locke. Locke argued the equality part and against the divine right of kings for a reason.

We can be inspired by those who have gone before us. We can take hope in the story of Luther's courageous stand at Worms. We can thirst for knowledge like Socrates. We can spread joy and creativity if we learn from Shakespeare. Our Western Heritage is based upon the lives of millions of influential people, both those who are famous and the common man who worked hard for a living. The "proletariat" (as Marx would say) gave everyone a chance to become great. We learn from history, and hopefully glean successes and take heed in failures.

The Greatness of Independence, Undermined

As I sit here on a hot, lazy afternoon, I must admit that my mind is not so lazy. I cannot begin to fathom the sheer magnitude of what happened over 200 years ago. The Founding Fathers created a document so revolutionary that it forever altered the history of the world. Thomas Jefferson and his committee penned the phrase "All men are created equal."

As Americans, our rights are not derived from the government or some monarch, as in England. Instead they are derived from God Himself. God gave us these rights, and in turn we created a government that embodies our rights. People who suffer injustice within American society can point back to the Declaration and recount how the rights come from God, not by man. These are inalienable rights! Among these, would be life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or property, as John Locke formerly said).

Now these rights that has been given to us by God are slowly being drained away by entitlement mindsets. We need a large government to take care of us now. Healthcare, social security, job programs are all now guaranteed by the document that used to describe personal initiative. What would the Founders do? What would the great thinkers say about the course of our country now? What would they think of Europe, which is now moving away from Socialism towards the Free Market system that made the West grand.

As we celebrate the Exceptional revolution, and the most earth shattering event in the history of the modern world, read over the Declaration. Recount the inalienable rights, and see for yourself that the government is ordained by men to secure our rights and to defend them.

Happy Independence Day!

Putin's Masterful Move

A recent Washington Post article portrayed the tensing Russo-American relations. Oddly enough to most Americans, it appeared as if Putin was striking up another Cold War. As a historian, one has to place their own perspectives on hold and view the situation from the other side. He is reacting to what appears to be typical Western hostility towards the Russian people. Tracing back into Russian history (from the czarist days through the Soviets and the fledgling democracy) people can see that there is a second side to this story.

Russian President Vladimir Putin came out against the missile defense shield in Europe. He viewed that the West was enclosing Russia. When President Bush pushed for this ambitious defense shield, Putin balked and then offered a masterful political critique. He offered that Russia should be a part of the shield. He outflanked the United States by portraying the Kremlin as willing to cooperate in defending the West against Iranian missiles. I laughed at his posturing, because it was one of the greatest political moves I have seen in some time! Putin is rather frightening to me, eliminating his political opponents and reducing democracy. However, you have to give him credit, it seems like he was strong in his response- first in condemnation and then secondly in cooperation.

Amidst the Garden

I think that man has a natural inclination towards a garden.

I recently was dumbfounded at the sheer beauty of a bird chirping. I was recently struck by the majesty of trees, how they sit there in stoic poses, waving about their branches amidst the delicate breeze. I thought how amazing is our God!

I saw a documentary on the sun last night. The History Channel had these experts on the show, and they were discussing about the science behind this star. Well, they were talking about the sheer magnitude and the extensive heat that it puts out on a daily basis. And then they began to discuss how it was made, and how it was this cataclysmic event. Gravitational pull just suddenly arose and fused the sun together... I thought how incredibly bold that assertion was! I thought that perhaps the sun was billions of years old. Yet I would throw in the caveat that there needs to be some sort of Divine maker.

Yahweh made some amazing things! I once wrote a paper on how I felt that heaven would be a combination of a Garden and a City. It would be like the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. I love gardens, and I love to make them. I think flowers are astounding and waterfalls are mighty. Basically put, I think that all that our heart's desire will be in this place. As St Augustine would say, "Our heart's are restless until they rest in You!"

Failed Worldviews

I have held onto a spirit of biopartisanship for sometime now. I think that it is incredibly important to have two strong parties, yet now I am rather frightened. One party hates this war at the expense of the country and the other is not doing enough to win. Below is my scathing remarks of three candidates.

John Edwards believes that "The War on Terror" is not serious, but merely a bumper-sticker slogan. Well Mr. Edwards, do you mean that Islamists are not real? That they don't want to kill us? I am so sorry, but there is historical hatred by the Islamofascists. WWIII is here. You sir, would not make a good Commander-in-Chief. Al-Qaeda wants to kill you!!! Islamofascists would love to do anything destructive to you, as seen in this newly found file (warning, it is pretty graphic).

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, you both are disgraces. You are for the troops and against the war? I would wager a guess that you are against the troops and against the war. You two voted against funding the war because you hate the war. I do not mind that you are against the war (even though I then think that you have no historical perspective), but the fact that you would withhold material from our brave men and women is utterly insane! You two care more about the Moveon.org than the survival of this country. I cannot believe that you also promised to give money to the troops. Timetables are one thing, but withholding funding flatout? It looks like you broke your promise.

People in France voted for a conservative because they wanted change. President Sarkozy is actually funding those disgruntled immigrants to leave. I cannot emphasis this enough, but we are in a war of survival!! People want to kill you! They would want nothing less but to destroy everything you hold dear- liberal or conservative. Even Moderate Muslims who speak out are routinely called sell-outs and "Islamophobes." It seems like the French are getting the picture. The Dutch and Germans are also moving towards realistic policies. Maybe the West is waking up... Sadly, many Christian Serbs are facing the wrath of Islamists, this historical emnity is nothing new!

Imperfects vs Ideals

As I embarked on a political career, I often find myself thinking about the end goals. I cannot help but think about morality and how my Christian worldview impacts my voting habits. I wrote in my political philosophy paper (to borrow from the amazing book The Gospel in a Pluralist Setting) that my faith needs to be a pair of "spectacles" that help me view the world. Something that has been given impressed in my mind is the fact that there is a tension between two schools of thought, the "black and white" and they "gray."



As a Christian, I can see the difference between good and evil. I have the capability (which is reaffirmed by my strong Protestant belief in the depravity of man) to distinguish between ideals and immoral acts. I do not want to get into the great political issues of "what is the good?" and other Classical Greek philosophies- if you want to get into that, I advise you to read Kevin Walker's blog, a political philsopher at VUSC. What I really want to get into is the gray areas of life.

I wish that there were clear black and white answers within international and domestic politics. Why couldn't there be clear- cut solutions? For example, let me take the immigration issue. I have this tension within the depths of my political soul, this tension between compassion and the rule of law. My "humanity" does not want to tear away parents from their children and deport them to their old countries. However, my "politik" side believes that the rule of law should not be bent to the breaking point. I can make the concession that it is not fair for those poor immigrants who are abiding by the rule of law, those who wait for years on end for an immigrant visa. It is not fair for those poor people who abide by the laws to be overlooked, simply because they kept the law!

How can something like this ever be solved? How can we find true justice and true compassion in this world? Do we allow the imperfect, realizing that the ideal can never be obtained? I assume that these questions can never be fully answered. As a young historian and political scientist, I realize that there are issues that can never be fully resolved- that hindsight is not always 20/20. Within Christianity, I live with the knowledge of good and evil. This constant tension is sometimes too much to bear! God, I am ever in need of your aid.

This Land Is [Not] Your Land

I am soooo sick and tired of hearing from (Illegal) Immigration activists that this place that we call home is Mexican land. Quite simply put, it's not.

Short History Lesson

• American Indians held the North American continent- after they stole it from the Wooly Mammoths.
• Spanish came along and swiped the land from the American Indians, taking a good deal of modern day Latin America (minus Brazil) and the American South West.
• The Mexicans fought for independence from Spain. The Mexican War of Independence lasted from 1810-1821.
• The Mexicans held the Southwest for 20 years until the "Imperialistic Americans" came along and stole it from the Mexicans. The Mexican-American War lasted from 1846–1848.
• The Americans have occupied the Southwest ever since, and have allowed immigrants to come (in accordance with the rule of law).

Now that history is established, can I make another bold assertion. Mexico held the land for 20 years. And the people who are protesting in the streets did not live here in the 19th Century! They came over within the past century or so. Let us be real! Sorry, but you guys who hold up the signs that say This is our land, not your land! are wrong. Of course, they then make the caveat that I am a racist "cracker."

You and your descendants were not here before the Whites. We beat you in a war and took the land. Just like you beat the Spanish, who beat the Indians, who beat the Mammoths.

¡Ay, caramba! Learn some history.

Schools Gone Mad

I was listening to the radio and there came a story about hate crimes. Of course, hate crimes are bad, however, this one was rather interesting. There was a school somewhere in the US that is prosecuting a student for a hate crime. The student placed a ham sandwich on a table next to a Muslim kid.
Now, Muslims are not allowed to touch any sort of pig product, and this is incredibly rude of the student to do that! Yet, I find it very contradictory that the school administration is trying to stop a hateful ham sandwich while simultaneously spouting off that Christ is not the Son of God.

Moral to the story: Do not offend Muslims with eating a ham sandwich in their midst!! Do offend Christians by calling them weakminded and intolerant for believing that Christ is the Son of God.

Maybe there is a reason why US schools are lagging in the Western world...we need to focus on teaching them how to appreciate art, know their history and can count! Enough with this hypocritical bias.

Pacifists MUST Become Realists

"Invite Your Friends to Make Genocide History in 2007"

I saw this name on a group at Facebook. It made me laugh at first, because the meaning could go either way...end genocide, or be a part of the biggest genocide EVER.

Well, now that my funny commentary is out there, it made me truly think. Can we ever end genocide? Yes, we need to push to end it...but do the pacifists who claim to support the termination of genocide believe that force could end it? I will draw your attention to one of my previous posts
My friends, I believe that if social activists want to end genocide then they would have to become Imperialistic Hawks.

How can a Dove get anything accomplished when Islam is involved? Islam desires to destroy you! Islamists want to chop the heads off of each protestor, from Cindy Sheehan to the hippie in San Fran. The Hawk mentality, perhaps, needs to be exerted to end the suffering in Darfur. Becuase, Muslims in the Middle East/North Africa don't listen to songs peace poems. Likewise, they listen to the sword. Learn about Islam my banner carrying friends.

Discuss about Darfur, but then move into action.

Amazing Grace and Social Action

Once again, I saw Amazing Grace in the theater, this time with my grandparents in Arizona. Well, needless to say, I was equally amazed at the hard-hitting message it gave. I felt as if God was speaking to me through that tale.

William Wilberforce was a politician in 18th-19th Century England and he moves to end the slave trade. Well, through perserverance and the spirit of the Lord guiding him, Wilberforce was able to lead a movement.

I want to be like Wilberforce. I want to walk in the power of God and move mountains. I want to serve God's purpose here on this planet, and I feel this strongly. Moving for societal transformation was important in Wilberforce's life, and centering that around the gospel was key. I believe that Wilberforce is definitely in my Top 5 favorite people. What a life, a life lived solely for God's purpose! You can be a Christian politician!

Christ Demands Allegiance of Both Classes

Below is an article that me and a friend wrote for an assignment for school. We were asked to do something that challenged the "world's spirit." We wanted to challenge the anti-wealth mentality of many activists and to portray the fact that God demands that rich and poor alike walk humbly before His throne.

Christ came and walked among the masses. He met with the weak throughout his ministry, calling forth the beggars, prostitutes and refuse of society. However, we can also see that he called out and challenged the powerful and wealthy. He went to Matthew the tax collector, met with the Pharisee Nicodemus, aided Centurions, and ate with the tax collector Zacchaeus. But of course, after Jesus’ crucifixion, Joseph of Arimathea (a wealthy man and a disciple of the Messiah) came to bury the body of Christ (with Nicodemus).

Luke 16 tells of a tale of Lazarus and the rich man in the afterlife. The rich man was punished for he already received his reward. Christ would periodically challenge rich people to release their wealth and follow Him. Christ put forth this challenge to make the rich choose between their love of money and following Christ. In the parables of the “Talents” in Matthew 25, a powerful landowner gave his servants a set amount of talents and desired them to invest wisely. Whether they were given five or one talents, the owner wanted them to multiply that amount, and even punished the one who did not invest. He desires the powerful, wealthy, weak, and poor to use their talents and abilities for the Kingdom.

Then there is the person of Lydia. We meet Lydia in Acts 16: 11-15. It is here that we learn that she is a “dealer in purple cloth.” A short history lesson; purple is the color of royalty, hence why it was mocking for the soldiers in Mark 15: 17 to place a purple robe around his shoulders when he claimed to be the King of the Jews. If one was dealing in purple cloth you can assume that they were of no meager means. Lydia, in Acts 16: 15, accepts the gospel along with her whole household. She then asks Paul, Silas, and Timothy to stay at her house. If the lord favored the poor why did he call Lydia? And why didn’t he ask her to give up all her wealth to follow him like he did the rich young ruler? I think the answer may lie in the desires of Lydia’s heart, rather then the size of her bank account.

“People who want to get rich fall into temptation(s)… that plunge men into ruin and destruction.” (1 Timothy 6: 9) Here we see that it is the desire to “get rich” which causes many problems, not the money. In fact in 2 Corinthians 9: 11 it says “You will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us [the church] your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God.” This sounds to me that God would have us prosper so that we can give. We are essentially “Blessed to be a Blessing,” as my church would say. So let us be aware of whom God is. He is a God for sinners, rich or poor.

The anti-wealth mentality of many “do-gooders” is something to be applauded, however, perhaps these have (to borrow from Adventures in Missing the Point) missed the point. Christ met with the poor people and rich people alike throughout his earthly ministry. He met with the Roman centurions and with the beggars. He called both fishermen and tax collectors. Lesslie Newbigin would state that “his cross is not for some and against others,” it is for all people! He challenged people and classes where they were.

Yes, God is for justice, but perhaps the Lord seeks to have the oppressors and the oppressed to bow down before the cross in humility. Once they would do this, then perhaps true justice and peace can reign throughout the land. It is amazing that Christians, like William Wilberforce of the abolitionary forces in England, can be empowered through God’s grace to end injustice. Through someone who lays their life daily before the altar, amazing things can occur and mountains can be moved. Wilberforce and others used their status and power to further justice and societal transformation. God is interested in the souls of the rich and poor alike, and He wants both to willingly give their allegiance to Him.

Perhaps War is the Answer

Below is an excerpt from America Alone that I have been reading for a class. I could not help but think about the irony, and that the replacement of "Free Tibet" with "Save Darfur" makes it incredibly relevant.

...It must be great to be the guy with the printing contract for the "FREE TIBET" stickers. Not so good to be the guy back in Tibet wondering when the freeing thereof will actually get under way. Are you in favor of a Free Tibet? It's hard to find anyone who isn't. Every college in America is. ...

Everyone's for a free Tibet, but no one's for freeing Tibet. So Tibet will stay unfree now as it was when the first Free Tibet campaigner slapped the very first "FREE TIBET" sticker onto the back of his Edsel. Idealism as inertia is the hallmark of the movement. Well, not entirely inertia: it must be a pain in the neck when you trade in the Volvo for a Subaru and have to bend down and paste on a new "FREE TIBET" sticker. For a while, my otherwise not terribly political wife got extremely irritated by the Free Tibet shtick, demanding to know at a pancake breakfast at the local church what precisely some harmless hippy-dippy old neighbor of ours meant by the sticker he'd been proudly displaying decade in, decade out: "But what exactly are you doing to free Tibet?" she insisted. "You're not doing anything, are you?"

"Give the guy a break," I said when we got back home. He's advertising moral superiority, not calling for action. If Rumsfelf were to say, 'Free Tibet? Jiminy, what a swell idea! The Third Infantry Division goes in on Thursday,' the bumper-sticker crowd would be aghast. They'd bend down and peel off the 'FREE TIBET' stickers and replace them with 'WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.'"

I say this not to belittle the pacifist/social movement crowd, but to draw a larger point. That sometimes, out of compassion and love, war might be a necessity. What is more loving, allowing a people group to get slaughtered, and protest or actually fighting for them? Kosovo was a military incursion to stop genocide. Stopping genocide and murder is important, but let us remember that perhaps defense is necessary (following Paul's argument in Romans 13). Sometimes war is the answer.

Ends Can Justify the Means

Interestingly enough, there has been many thoughts and writings about democracies needing to be created peacefully from within. A form of peaceful revolution, where men and women revolt against their government through slipping a piece of paper into the ballot box. however, that is not always the case!

I was listening to the BBC on my XM Radio and they were discussing about the government of Mauritania. Now, there was a military coup that ousted the corrupt government and then began forcing democracy. On the Freedom House rankings, Mauritania is listed as partly free. Turkey is another example that an iron fisted ruler modernized the nation, effectively bringing secularism to the former Ottoman Empire.

The point I wish to make is the fact that nations sometimes need to be crushed in orde4r to have democracy reign. Post-WWII Germany was more susceptible to democracy because the Allies beat it into submission, similar to Japan. Sometimes, in the geopolitical world of Realpolitik, the ends justify the means.

Unifying Constitution

I never cease to be amazed at the brilliance of the Founding Fathers. I just completed a paper about James Madison and the creation of the Bill of Rights. Within that paper I wrote about Madison's desire to foster a unifying factor and superceding power for the people. He decided that the Constitution can help preserve that.

Sparing all the boring historical details, he made it so the people would be loyal to this document, and this document would bring majorities and minorites together. Unpopular religious, political and ethnic minorities will be protected from tyrannical majorities. It is a very beautiful thing that people can live with an independent authority that is unchanging and holds us to our ideals. Madison was a genius.

Even though Rosie O'Donnell says idiotic things and believes that Iran is right in the British Hostage Crisis, we must allow her to speak her mind. Though I think that she is wrong and insane, I cannot bar her from speech, for my loyalty to the Constitution says no.

Confront Culture

Changing culture is very important for a nation in order to progress. I am reading a book right now entitled The Central Liberal Truth and within the pages lies the belief that some cultures are more suited for prosperity than others. This is utterly blesphemous within some anthropology and social science circles. But I think that the case studies he gives help prove his point.

Lawrence Harrison believes that some nations need to reject certain aspects in order to succeed. Catholic cultures need to reject the authoritarianism, and once they do they succeed. As seen within Italy, Ireland and Quebec. Protestant cultures, on the other hand, teach people to think for themselves and become literate. A lot of the prosperous nations in the world, according to the World Bank and UN charts are in fact Protestant. Confucian/Far East nations also have an inclination towards progress, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea are well adapted for success. Some nations have a hard time adapting to democracy, and needless to say places like Iraq really do not have a hope!

Turkey is Islamic, yet through strong leadership it was made better and more free. Afghanistan now has a strong leader who is pushing for democracy, and according to Freedom House, it is listed as Partially Free in 2006. Leadership and politics can reform a society. Using education and confrontation of the weak things within the nation can propel a society into international prominence.

The Anti-Free Speech

General Pace, the commanding officer in Iraq, recently became a target when he said that homosexual acts are immoral. Now I do not want to discuss whether or not being gay or lesbian is wrong, but I find it incredibly disturbing that people are trying to silence him.

General Pace has devoted his life to the Armed Forces and people are trying to strong-arm him into shutting his mouth when his views are unpopular. These views are backed by many people within the USA, as seen in the plethora of states passing Marriage Definition Amendments. This man fought for the First Amendment, but we should keep him from stating his views! Absurdity!! Why can't he express his opinions? I swear, Orwell's Thought Police from 1984 is becoming ever more real...

I find it so hard to believe that those who allow pro-gay marriage shirts on school campuses in the tradition of free speech also outlaw pro-traditional marriage. Also liberals believe that anti-war protests should be held on the weekends, yet Jim Gilchrist should be harassed in a closed college auditorium. Conservatives also can have a strain of this, with the near-comical bumper stickers "Support our Troops! Support our President!"

Realization

Recently, there has been somewhat of a controversy over an innoculation against HPV, a virus that causes cervical cancer. Many activists are decrying this as nothing less than liberals trying to get innocent young girls sexually active. HPV is transmitted sexually, and this vaccination will create the resistance against the virus.

All I can say is that parents need to wake up to the fact that there children could be active sexually. And this cancer can even come about later in life, in a marriage relationship. If you had the power to stop a cancer through a vaccine, why wouldn't you give it?

So the answer is don't give it? Merely for a political statement. Tragically, at the cost of your daughter. Selfish politics.

Living Out One's Faith

In Lesslie Newbigin's Gospel in a Pluralist Society, there is a passage that deals with Christians living out their faith. He says,

How is it possible that the gospel should be credible, that people should come to believe that the power which has the last word in human affairs is represented by a man hanging on a cross? I am suggesting that the only answer, the only hermeneutic of the gospel, is a congregation of men and women who believe it and live by it.

This passage seems to suggest that people within the Christian faith needs to be prophetic in their challengings, in addition (and perhaps more importantly) lead people through their actions. For the act of prophecy will only carry weight when Christians back their words up with action.

Once again, I am drawn to the tale of William Wilberforce, who overcame the stiff opposition of parliament members to outlaw the slave trade. He pushed hard from a Christian conviction, being in the world, not of it. How beautiful that God is able to use people like Wilberforce to denounce evil and also champion morality through his life. We ought to do this. I know that I want to make my life matter, and it will only matter if I live out my faith. This is an excellent hermeneutic.

Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is something that is possible for any ideology or belief. There are always those who try to do something out of a "will to power" or in a momentum to gain notoriety. I wish that those who were most vocal about things would actually step up and be realistic in their own commitments. I will bring three examples to make this point.

Recently, Ikea has made a decision to take away free plastic bags to costumers. They cite evidence that Americans waste well over a thousand bags a year, per family. I see nothing wrong that they want to cut down on waste, I in fact try to reuse bags as trash can liners or as a sort of wrapping. But when Ikea, who gives away these bags for free, puts all the blame on the custumor is absolutely ridiculous. There is a portion of blame that belongs on the comany as well!

Environmental activists are blaming the global warming trend on people who drive SUVs and people who heat big homes. I personally believe that we are on a warming trend, but let us add in the factors that the sun is heating up. Imagine that, the sun might have more to do with our heating trends than fossil fuels. Also, the Arctic ice cap is melting away, yet Antaractica is actually increasing its ice shelf by 8%. And yet even though there is alternatives, Al Gore tells us to stop flying, no SUVs and live a "carbon neutral" life. Yet, it is confirmed that he has flown in private jets. Ariana Huffington also flies on private jets. For goodness sakes, a leader in Green Peace was seen in an SUV, going skiing in a remote Colorado resort. If you are going to espouse that we need to stop wasting fuel and adding greenhouse gases, then at least have the common courtesy to follow your own rules!!!

Sadly, Bono is also a person who is a fake. He preaches charity and the rich giving to the poor. Which is great! I am all for charity, yet it was revealed through Bloomberg that he and his band U2 hides a good deal of their income through tax shelters. They seek to remain partially tax exempt, yet wants us to give to the poor through the One campaign and to end African poverty.

If you are going to lecture me about something, please follow your own advice. This applies to Conservatives as well.

Bring the Troops Home

Get out now! Remove all of our troops from Iraq immediately!

So says a plethora of anti-War activists. It is interesting to see that people who oppose war and favor peace do not specify what sort of peace is acceptable. I would say that certain peaces are destructive to mankind. The paramount example would have to be the Versailles peace treaty post-WWI. Perhaps the "peace" after, granting that the choruses of Lefty voices are heard, the troops in Iraq leave will become far worse than Weimar Republic would ever create.

There is nothing worse than a civil war. Dating from Ancient Rome to current Third World power struggles, civil strife is always horrific! Yet, there is a brewing storm between the Muslim factions within Iraq that could spill over into the surrounding nations. I hope that I am wrong, but if things go according to Jane Fonda and the Hollywood Commie-Liberals crowd, bloodshed under the new form of anarchy that would increase.

You honestly think that George Bush is a brutal killer? Well, just wait until the troops leave and murder will ensue on a larger scale than Darfur ever was. Simply put, Darfur is a place that Muslims in Sudan are slaughtering Christians wholesale. Within Iraq, there will be Shiites and Sunnis battling for power, with other minorities coming under the crosshairs. With Iran growing as a regional hegemony, the Shiite nation would move to back their brethren in the area. Of course, we know from reports that Iran has been meddling within the Iraqi affairs. Do you think the Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians, who are Sunnis, would stand for that? Let alone, Israel would be a little hesitant to say the least!

By withdrawing from Iraq, slaughter would dramatically increase. However, by staying there the Iraqi government, which is more or less an experiment in the annals of democracy, would continue to flounder along the path. Some cultures are more fertile ground for democracy, while others would take more time- like within an authoritarian nation (Japan, for example). There is bloodshed either way, and I can honestly thank God that I am not a policymaker right now! Turbulent times are ahead, and how incredibly insane is it that the clash of worldviews, Jihad vs McWorld as Benjamin Barber would say, is taking place. American and other Western troops are within the crosshairs of Islamic extremists. Yes, I concur that Bush made a mistake by not planning for the worst- but we are in Iraq now. How do we get out of here, without promoting greater bloodshed? Left and Right, I invite you to debate!

What Life Should Mean

What use is it if one would pursue the grandest of political dreams and in the end die- as everyone else? Ecclesiastes paints a bleak picture of human accomplishment, laying down foundations for this thought. What does it matter if I or anyone else toils with our hands and constructs something immaculate and beautiful in terms of politics or ruling?

"For there is no more remembrance of the wise than of the fool forever, Since all that now is will be forgotten in the days to come. And how does a wise man die? As the fool!"

William Wallace in the movie Braveheart did say it best, "All men die. But not all men truly live." A brilliantly true and profound statement, but sadly in the end all men die. So what then truly matters for the person? Does legacy even count, if one would be forgotten eventually. (Sadly in this illiterate historical age, where people do not know greats in any tradition)

The ultimate act of political life is to live one's life untainted from the world. To live in harmonious accord with Christ and to be transformed by Him is what truly matters. We ought to be informed by that understanding and look at the very core of the world through the eyes of a Believer and devout follower of Christ. That is what life is all about.