Thoughts on the Election

Well, it’s over with now. Or maybe we have a runoff to deal with. I don’t know, because I’m writing this before the results are posted. (I try to blog at least a day in advance. The experts suggest weeks, but I’m not succeeding with that.)

What about it? What have we come to as a nation?

First, we should have elections that are about the best we have to offer. This one was none of that. Attack ads, distortions of the truth, misleading claims. Both of the major parties and their candidates are guilty of this.

Second, we should have elections that appeal to both wisdom and emotion. Watch a campaign ad. Is it about truth and logic? No. It’s about emotion. Barely anything is said—and even candidates’ own websites are more emotional than positional. I tried to do research on various candidates and the majority seem to be running on either “I’m not with President Obama” or “I’m really not with President Obama.”

Third, we should have elections that reflect the collective wisdom of the people, helping tone down the collective selfishness of the people. Instead, we seem to appeal to either “this guy gives me more stuff” or “stick to the man! vote for this guy!”

What about it? Regardless of who wins and loses office, the losers here are the American people.

The first losers are the ones who sacrificed for our freedom to vote. Tell me, with a straight face, that Valley Forge and Omaha Beach were so we could vote for the lesser of two evils or for the one who lines our pockets best. It is dishonoring to those who signed the Constitution not with ink but with blood that we behave this way.

The second losers are the generations to follow us. We are most likely electing two more years of gridlock that will kick the can down the road. The interest and instability will get worse, and there are no solutions. Our grandchildren will either live in poverty or autocracy (or both) because we failed to hold our representative government to a higher standard.

The third losers are us. We fail ourselves in this. Rather than looking even at “our guy” and demanding that he elevate the conversation, we just want him to get good licks in. We don’t want candidates that avoid the mud, and then we find ourselves living in the sty. Guess what? Voting for hogs gets us that.

What should we do?

Absolutely, we should repent before God for our nonsensical attitude as Americans. Those of you who don’t think that God has anything to do with American life haven’t been reading honest history books. We haven’t always done right by God Almighty, but God has certainly been more than gracious to us. And we stomp it. We have greater access to knowledge that should lead to wisdom than many have ever had. We treat it badly, and selfishly. That needs to change, starting with admitting we were wrong.

Break with the old habits. Vote with your dollars in support. Vote with your voice throughout the year. Break with the habit of letting someone go into office and ignoring what they do. Break with blindly assuming someone is going to be okay because she’s in your party. Break it. Now.

Commit to take action. Action changes behavior. Be an ever-present face and voice to your elected officials. Be a force in your local party, do not let the people behind the curtain ignore you. You cannot, legally, threaten an elected official with insurrection but you can sure threaten a party hack with getting him tossed out of hackdom.

Determine to require better. It may take you being on the ballot in a primary. Challenge, drive, push and stop accepting mediocre. We live in a republic and get the candidates we allow.

Educate yourself. Not just from your side’s propaganda, but from all sides. Get the Congressional Record information from the Internet where you can see what was voted for—and see what was bundled with it.

 

I write this before there are any Arkansas results because I want to be clear: I’m a bitter voter, but not bitter over today’s outcomes. I don’t know them yet. I’m bitter over what we have let the country come to. We the people have to do better.

Politics and Preaching Briefly Summarized

If we take these things:

1. Politics is the art and science of citizens handling their collective business; AND

2. Preaching is part of how God works to transform His people into the image and likeness of His Son, affecting their behavior in private and in public; THEREFORE

3. Any preaching which is not political is useless frippery because all preaching seeks to affect the behavior of listeners; affected listeners will behave in a certain manner in the collective business of the city; this is politics.

Love your neighbor as yourself is political preaching. So is render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

So also the Bible-driven ethics of marriage and family; equal value of all people regardless of race, gender, ethnicity; importance of life; value of education.

There is nothing worth preaching that does not, in some way, affect political behavior.

I preach politics, then, because if I preach Jesus is Lord, the behavior of citizens in community should be changed.

Speech?

A major concern rises from Houston, Texas, right now. As part of a fight that began with expanding civil rights laws to address gender/sexual identity issues, the Mayor of Houston, with the City Attorney, have subpoenaed not only the sermons of five area pastors but all of their communications about the Equal Rights Ordinance.

Now, first off, let me say that I’m not trying to dig into the yay/nay on that ordinance. Understanding what is happening around this law is what matters. First, the City Council passed a law. The City Charter allows petitioners to force any law (ordinance) passed by the Council on to the ballot to be decided by the voters. Because there were opinions that this law exceeded social norms that were acceptable, and seeing a threat in it, there was an area group that petitioned to drive that law onto the ballot. They submitted their petition.

The Mayor rejected it. If the activist group is right, the Mayor exceeded her authority in doing so. They therefore sued. In response, the Mayor has subpoenaed information not only from the people suing her, but from their pastors. This is where it gets interesting.

We must admit that when you sue someone, you open your life and actions to certain examinations that you are otherwise shielded from by a right to privacy. If I sue you for making me disabled, I have invited you to prove me wrong. There are limits to the fishing expedition, however, and it appears the case at hand crosses those.

Why?

Because some of those subpoenaed are not party to the case at hand. It would be akin to subpoenaing my sermons on genetically modified food crops when one of my church member farmers was part of the class-action against Bayer CropScience a few years back. It wasn’t my lawsuit, even if my preaching pushed him to join. (It didn’t, as I have never preached on GMOs.)

The Mayor defends her actions, though, by alleging that these pastors were involved in “political” speech, and that they cannot hide behind the 1st Amendment for that. There are a couple of problems with that.

First, what makes speech “political?” Assuming, for the moment, that there should be limits on political speech, what makes that content? Is gender identity political or moral? What about free association? Is it political to claim that marriage is defined by “Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” just because there are political attempts to force the law to either respect or ignore that definition?

The dividing line between “political,” “religious,” and “moral” speech is a great fuzzy nonsense. Any time there is a governance process in view, then speech that seeks to affect it is political. This is whether you are John Bunyan preaching without government permission, Elijah Craig preaching for some to overthrow the government, or Martin Luther King, Jr., preaching to change the government. Or Elijah Mohammed doing the same, or Louis Farrakhan, or Al Gore, Jr., preaching in a worship service about global warming!

All laws are made through politics and based on moral principles. All of them—the law that says you can’t kill me? That’s based on morality and came to be law through politics. Does this make preaching against murder political? Or can I base it on Scripture and call it religious?

Trying to divide speech into hard categories like “political” and “religious” just does not work. Religious speech by necessity affects the behavior of its adherents throughout their everyday lives. One expects that a sermon commending love and patience will be seen throughout the week—if a riot broke out in Houston next week, and pastors urged calm from their congregations, are they preaching politics? Is it sinful?

I do not doubt that the city would welcome their aid in stopping the riot without bloodshed.

All of this shows why it is that churches and other religious organizations (mosques, synagogues, temples, reading rooms, etc…) must zealously guard the concept of free speech on all fronts. It’s nonsensical to expect religious teaching that does not drive action. Action in society always has moral and political implications.

Second, though, is the faulty assumption that the government has a right to police speech.

Take a quick look at the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  (from USConstitution.net)

Quick, what does it say about limits of speech? None. Now, logical people have noted reasonable limits such as the classic “Fire!” shout in a crowd. That’s right: there is no governmental right to repress speech that is not immediately dangerous to others. If we were dealing with preaching (be it Christian, Jewish, or Muslim) that was stirring up an immediate riot, then there would be grounds to shut it down.

We are looking at sermons and meetings done to organize a petition to the government…which also appears in the 1st Amendment. In fact, it looks like the only thing 1st Amendment not in view here is the press. But Houston seems to have a problem with religion and its exercise; with speech; with assembling people to talk about politics; and petitioning the government.

Governor Hutchinson would be proud.

PS: if you want my sermons, they’re online.

An open letter to Lt. Governor Mark Darr

Warning: Political content ahead.

Dear Lt. Governor Darr:

This is written, openly, because honestly I do not expect that you will read it either openly or privately. Really, it is more of a way to make a public statement than it is a letter. The open letter genre, which was big in 2012, took a year off it seems in 2013, but let us go ahead and bring it back.

I am writing first to praise many of the ideals you campaigned on, and many of the ones that you would have run for the United States Senate on. Personally, had you remained in the Senate race, I would have favored you over Congressman Cotton, because his rapid bailing on House District 4 sits poorly with me. I think his run for the Senate will result in a loss for people who think like you and I in both House 4 and the Arkansas Senate, but that should remain for a letter to him.

I want to praise the ideals that you have presented. You ran, partly, as an objector to the boondoggle of the Affordable Care Act. Since the logical result of a law that empowers private businesses to charge whatever they choose alongside requiring me to purchase their products is a massive price hike, my family and I will lose our medical coverage at the end of 2014 because of the ACA. Some would blame it on Blue Cross/Blue Shield, others on the law, but it’s really both. BC/BS is always looking to make more money, and the ACA enables them to charge ridiculous amounts. You were opposed to that, though there was, and is, no stopping it.

I want to praise your commitment to the right to keep and bear arms, and not be treated as a nut for doing so. Your willingness to help safeguard the privacy of firearms owners, rather have us treated like objects of public concern, was a good one.

I want to praise your commitment to our mutual alma mater of Ouachita Baptist University. You did not know me there, nor I you, because you were headed out as I came in, but we both love that place and the ideas of integrity, honesty, and truth that we learned to value there.

I want to praise your stated commitments to smaller government spending, to greater transparency, and more accountability. I want to praise your volunteer work, your public relations work, and other things you have done that are for the good of Arkansas.

It is, however, the honest truth that these shared values and virtues are the reason I want to call on you to step aside from your position as Lieutenant Governor of the State of Arkansas. This is not out of anger or malice, but out of concern for those things which matter the most to us.

I trust you, that you made the errors cited by the Ethics Commission out of ignorance and with no intent to defraud. I trust that you will repay anything left to repay. I know you are a small business owner, and that the difference in how you can use your business account in those cases and how you can use your campaign and office expense accounts may have been obscure.

But the fact is, that does not matter at this point. Right now, you may bow out gracefully and issue a resignation and apology to the people of Arkansas. Right now, you may state clearly that you own, personally, the failure to understand the rules, and that you accept the penalty for it.

Right now, you can pull back from the political limelight and return to work, allowing others to lift up the torch of the ideals and ideas that we value.

Right now, you can enable other small-government, freedom-loving individuals to win statewide office in Arkansas. Right now, you can help us remain a two-party state that tries to represent multiple viewpoints.

Or, you can force the hands of others to remove you from office. Or worse, you can attempt to run in a race that you cannot win, and drag others down with you. You can cause voters to doubt that anyone with an “R” beside their name can be trusted to even know the rules, much less follow them.

I know, it is not fair. The Attorney General can have an affair with opposing counsel, and the Governor supports him. It takes an actual criminal charge to drive the State Treasurer from office after questionable deeds should have done so long before—and who knows if the Governor would have ever allowed the investigation, if not for Legislative pressure on her.

But politics is not about fair. Neither is life.

And I do not want this to really be a political appeal, though you can see the political need to take the hit. You can see that, if we are going to claim to be the trustworthy people in this state, you have to do willingly what others would sue to avoid.

Instead, though, let me make the appeal to you about life. Life is not fair. You have long claimed, and long shown, that you are a big enough man to handle life’s unfairness. You have overcome worse than this, and you have no doubt seen other times where the price of mistakes was the end of hopes. Show us how it can be done with dignity and grace.

It is what you can do, and what you should do.

 

Doug Hibbard

A Few Thoughts on “Pulpit Freedom Sunday”

Notice: I did NOT say brief thoughts. I wanted to hit all of this in one sitting, so it’s long. Very, very long.

Some of you may have seen on the news leading up to this past Sunday, or in the news this week, about what is called Pulpit Freedom Sunday. I thought I would give you a little information about what that refers to and how it impacts us.

A little history is necessary to understand what is going on with all of this. First point is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Based on the First Amendment and stinging from the ways in which the British Monarchy of the time had used both force and taxation to control religious speech, the heritage in the United States became that churches and other religious bodies were exempt from taxation. After all, if one could be taxed for expressing specific opinions, that would allow control of the expression of those opinions. One must keep in mind that government restrictions are not based on preventing moderate situations. They are based on preventing the extreme situations. It is not a tax of a dollar per sermon that we fear—it is the tax of a million for a criticism of the government that must be prevented.

And you cannot allow the one in generation without the other in the next.

Now, going forward, the next stream that developed was that other groups received similar tax advantages and became the forerunners of modern non-profit organizations. These groups provided a function similar to religious groups but focused on an issue or social cause that needed addressed. Because the value to society was deemed worthwhile and the freedom need similar to religious groups, these also received the same tax advantages.

What, though, do people do if given the opportunity?

They find loopholes and exploit them. There are groups that exist strictly to address political victory, and that victory is beneficial. Remember the hullabaloo about the government’s use of Halliburton while Dick Cheney was Vice-President?How about the Solyndra loans during the present administration of President Obama? Victory is rewarding.

Since there was an opportunity to exploit the loophole for the sake of profit, people began to use it. The IRS, when formed, was given the authority to regulate who could be non-profit and thereby tax-exempt and who was not. Churches were classified non-profit, but political organizations were not.

Now, along comes the election of Lyndon Johnson to the US Senate in 1948. Searching for information online about it, suffice it to say that there are differences of opinion about whether or not everything came out of that election legitimate. Johnson was elected, though, and so had the assistance of being in the Senate when he ran in 1954.

Because of the questions regarding the previous election and the strong concerns regarding his liberal policies, many churches and pastors had been speaking against Johnson since 1948. In 1954 he offered an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that denied tax-exempt status to any organization that endorsed specific candidates for political office.

The actual intent of this might be good, but the apparent intent was to make sure that Texas preachers (rumor has it Baptists especially) would not preach against him specifically in the coming election. The long-term effect is that technically, a church that wants to retain its exemption from paying income tax cannot endorse, for example, Doug Hibbard for President. This becomes a bigger deal when you realize that many other tax exemptions are based on the IRS’s decision: state, local, property, etc…

So we come to the recent years. First of all, there are active attempts to have tax-exemptions removed from churches. Technically, many of these would claim to be attempts to remove those exemptions from all religious groups, but the groups call themselves things like Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. No mention of Separation of Mosque, Synagogue, Temple, Coven,  or anything else—so churches tend to take it personally. These groups tend to push very strongly against churches and have convinced quite a few that the ban on political speech includes anything that resembles politics: not just candidate endorsements but issue statements as well.

Second, there is a growing rift in churches about politics. Some are more readily endorsing issues that are embraced by the liberal side of American politics, and those issues are hard to see as anything other than endorsing the candidates that support those issues. There have been notable examples, Al Gore in 2000 comes to mind as does Mike Huckabee in 2008, of candidates speaking in churches but claiming they are not there for “political” purposes.

In the long-run, what this has led to is a lot of smaller churches that are not sure where they stand and a few bigger ones as well. What exactly is ok from a legal standpoint? There has been, that I have heard of, one church that has been punished by the IRS over violating the Johnson Amendment. They lost their exempt-status for one year.

Into this mix comes this question: Should this limit be the law? Why should I, as a pastor, not stand up this coming Sunday and point out that anyone who wants to slow-down the demise of the United States should vote a certain way? (If you know me, you know what I think, but I don’t want this about the specific candidate.)

Does this not violate the First Amendment? Does this not violate, more importantly, the responsibility before God to preach the truth even about politics in the place where you live?

In my opinion, it does. I do not think that the IRS has any business telling me what I can or cannot preach. That should be limited only by my understanding of my God.

Why, then, did I not join in Pulpit Freedom Sunday?

For a couple of reasons:

1. Civil disobedience is important. One should never obey laws that harm people. NEVER. Such laws should be resisted by all possible and moral means until they are overturned either by legislation, adjudication, or change of government. For example, the Fugitive Slave Act should have been resisted utterly by all Christian people in America.

However, such an action should only be taken if it is the only possible course of action. In this case, I do not think there has been a concerted effort to have Congress adjust the law. Instead the goal is to shortcut that process: get someone fined/punished so that an appeal to the Supreme Court is possible, and hope for an overturning of the law. Before we go there, we need to consider why we cannot prevail in the legislative process. Is it for lack of trying? Or because Congress is obstinately against us?

They ought to be against us—because the vast majority on both sides of the aisle have become corrupt and our pulpits ought to thunder against corruption. Not just against Democrats, but against all corruption. Even corruption that’s beneficial to us.

So, I think the effort ought to be there to change the law first. No one is truly being harmed by this law as it stands, so there is no sense in going to jail or paying the IRS and a bunch of lawyers for breaking it. When they lock you up just for stating that you think President Obama (or President Romney) is lying and harming the nation, then you have a free speech issue. That’s worth looking at the next amendment over.

2. More importantly: If I endorse Mike Huckabee for President (hah! Use the last election!) what becomes of my ministry if he loses? Or to those who vote for his opponent?

You see, I want to retain a portion of moral authority to call out whomever the President is when he violates the promises he has made. Especially about working under the Constitution. The pulpits of colonial churches helped stir the people into action against King George III, and the pulpits of America should be calling the people, including the President to repentance and righteous action.

We lose some of that if it seems like we’re just having “sour grapes” over the outcome. Now, the Johnson Amendment was birthed out of just that right action: corruption led (probably) to his election, and that corruption was being decried. That’s why it is bad law and needs to go.

Even if it goes, though, you will not likely finding me calling for a specific name during the worship service. I want to retain the ability to say that the church is for right, not for The Right.

3. Most importantly: Ministry Axiom #3 is that the mind can only absorb as much as the other end can endure. If you have limited time in a sermon, what is most important? Preaching the truth of God’s Word. That includes addressing issues that last: abortion is one of those—it remains, no matter who the candidates are. Taxation. Freedom. War. Police state tactics. Nanny state tactics. Poverty. Economics. These issues remain.

If I am going to preach on a text that addresses a political theme, is it not that I should address what God has said about the issues? These remain, even if BO/MR both sail off to Tahiti this weekend and we have to pick from two others. Discipleship teaches people to think through the Biblical issues. It does not make out a checklist to follow blindly.

4. Utmost importance: the church service is about worshiping Jesus. Proclaiming, singing, following, growing, praying, remembering.

If I make it about why you should vote for Bob, then it draws away from why you should surrender to the Lordship of King Jesus.

Which is more important? Besides, look back at point 3: a thinking disciple will vote based on the Lordship of Christ, not based on who funds Sesame Workshop. (Most of their funding comes from merchandise, by the way. You could defund PBS and Big Bird would not go broke. He just might have to go to a different network.)

Now, what should we do about the law? Is it not bad?

It is. It should be challenged in court if someone has standing, in general, to challenge it. It sounds like it is an example exercising prior restraint on speech: telling someone they can’t say something even before they say it. Perhaps someone would like to defend my sermon manuscript that I cannot preach? The one where I edited out my endorsement?

We should also request our Congressional representatives to change this law. Got that, Arkansas Delegation? Representatives Ross, Griffin, Womack, and Crawford? (Especially you, Rep. Crawford?) Senators Boozman and Pryor? Change it. It’s foolish.

Then, we as church people need to handle our own affairs on this. If the church’s money is used too much for politics you disagree with, then change your church. This is one part I have never understood, because I am in a strong free church tradition: if you feel your church is politicking or anything else in violation of God’s Word, use that door just one more time, and be gone from them.

If Christ is all, then do so, because you are not called to a Political Action Committee. You are called to obedience to Him.

No government should try to stop that, and in our hearts no government can. We cannot sit idly by and hope things remain this way, but we need to fight those battles wisely.

So, I did not endorse a political candidate Sunday. Nor did I specify that you should explicitly not vote for one, either. However, that is not because of the restraints to the First Amendment in the Johnson Amendment to the Internal Revenue Code.

It’s because the church must be about Christ more than politics.

Political Thoughts for May 25

So, I should be doing an entry in the completely through the Bible series, but I'm not. Instead, I'd like to make a few random observations about life, especially politics, for now.

#1: Except for those of you in runoff elections, get your signs and put them away. You can put them back up in October. September if you're going to be nice.

#2: All of this discussion of allowing "gay marriage" and I haven't told you directly what I think. I think that Biblical morality would call living that lifestyle sin. In the same way that about a zillion other things that we already allow in America are also a sin. What should we do about it?

My opinion is this: we should get the government completely out of the marriage business. Completely. Marriage has been around for a long, long time—there do not seem to be historical records of a time when there was not a family/social institution called "marriage." It has been defined by religion, by culture, and by government. We are reaching a point where the government definition and the religious definition of practically every major religion are at odds with one another.

So, here is the solution I would propose: do away with laws governing marriage. Create a legal category using the term "domestic partnership" or whatever you like, and make it a legally-binding, legally-defined contract between two people on whatever grounds and basis the state determines it should be done on. Leave the definition of "marriage" to individual religions or not-religions. Take me as a minister out of the business of signing off on a legal agreement and leave me only addressing the spiritual/religious nature.

Leave in place laws regarding having to be an adult to enter in to either agreement. We don't need any nonsense of spiritually marrying minors and then forcing them into that life as adults. But require that any of the legal benefits, including joint tax filing, come from the civil contract and not the religious one. Grandfather in all of us old married people but make that change. As such, every one has equal rights under the law and every religion remains free to hold its own teachings.

#3: For my fellow Christians who think that this will make it impossible to teach our children to follow a Bible-centered course of morality: Really? Seeing same-sex couples will make it harder than our kids seeing celebrities that are only married for 72 days? Or the serial divorces and remarriages that we have been allowing in our churches for decades? We are either going to teach our children that following God will make them be/look/act different than the society around them or we won't.

And that can be done without teaching them to disdain the people around them. Of all the things the Romans persecuted Christians for, nowhere have I seen anything that says the Romans felt like the Christians "hated" them. The Christians were kind, gracious, loving, but just lived differently. It appears more likely that this led to the people wondering why the government hated the Christians.

#4: Still on the marriage issue, a shocking statement I hear in the debate is that married couples get something like 1500 more benefits from the government than single people.

Folks, a government that can give 1500 benefits to one class of people is a government that gives way, way too many benefits. Seriously. That's not just bad, that's truly hideous. Why? Because that means the married people are plundering the single people pretty ferociously. It also means that the government has 1500 ways to manipulate the behavior of people, at least, because those benefits can be taken or removed.

The benefits of marriage, from a government perspective, should be limited to allowing two people to share the resources of a household and reduce paperwork. For example, joint tax filing is a legitimate benefit, especially in a home with one primary wage-earner.

#5: Sports trivia of the week: we waste too much time and money on sports. Oh, wait, that's not trivia, is it?

A few quick questions

1. Did the Occupy Little Rock protest pick this weekend because it's a bye week for the Razorbacks?

2. If we're supposed to acknowledge that the "Occupy" groups are not defined by the radical fruitcakes among them, like the guy in Los Angeles calling for a revolution like the French Revolution, can we apply that to the Tea Party type folks as well? You know, the other batch of ordinary Americans that would like to be left alone by the government and voice their anger? Or does that only apply to this group?

3. Does Michele Bachmann really think people will vote for her when she suggests silly things like flipping over the "9-9-9" of Herman Cain's tax plan to see that it becomes "6-6-6"? There's a decent question or two about the merits of Cain's plan, but really, flip over the numbers?

4. When classifying religious beliefs, you're either a "religion" or a "cult." A "religion" claims to stand on its own two feet. A "cult" claims to be part of a "religion" that doesn't want it. The line is blurry, and the word "cult" gets pretty loaded because of groups like Jim Jones and David Koresh, but that's the use of it. So, a group that claims to be "Christian" or "Muslim" but is not considered to be so by the mainstream of those religions would be labeled a "cult" by the mainstream. So, is Mormonism a cult? If they claim to be a branch of mainstream Christianity, than yes. If they claim to be a different religion altogether, one that has similarities to Christianity but stands on its own, then no. So, ask a Mormon if a Baptist is a Christian that would be acceptable to their religion to balance the rhetoric about Jeffress' statement about Romney. 

Meanwhile, I'd vote against Romney because he's about as liberal as you can be and get past the guard dogs with tinfoil hats at party headquarters. If he gets to the general election, I'll vote for him then---but for now, I'd lean between Cain and…..not sure. Perry annoys me, Bachmann's not much better, and Ron Paul's world doesn't meet reality enough. Who else is left? Especially with me not running…

5. Would it be possible to shorten the campaign season rather than lengthen it? Primaries in the summer, election in the fall, perhaps? It's not like we're really vetting these candidates anyway.

6. Irony: that Occupy Wherever people are using free, corporate paid-for social media to organize and operate their actions. Additional irony: that Tea Party folks use tax-funded streets and police for protection. Although, admittedly, most of us Tea Party types would gladly handle our own protection if the police would let us.

7. Meanwhile, fellow preachers: do we really want to tie our credibility regarding the Gospel, the Word of God, and righteousness to any of these candidates? Or any party? Honestly? A committed Christian who truly lived, voted, and guided the country based on Scripture would have to form a third-party to have a platform. So, can we spend our effort better? From time to time, sure, say something---but put the best of your resources behind spreading the Gospel. After all, we're not about a President anyway. We're all about a King.

Presidential Campaign Announcement

While no one has asked for this information:

Due to the Hibbard for President 2012 Exploratory Committee receiving precisely $0 in donations, I feel that the time is not right for me to enter the Presidential Campaign. At the present time, I make no endorsement of a specific current candidate. I remain available for any position in the upcoming administration, including Vice President and Cabinet positions.

So, I join Chris Christie, Sarah Palin, and Mike Huckabee as a person who would have lost either the nomination or the general election choosing not to run. I do look forward to my interview coming up on Fox, MSNBC, CNN, or, at the very least, The Cooking Channel.

Thank you to all who helped me make this decision by not giving me a dime. Your clarity of purpose for the upcoming election is something you can always be proud of: you made my non-election happen.

And really, folks, that's a good thing. For all of us.

(If you can't at least chuckle at this, please just go on about your business. There's some good blogs elsewhere to read. My brain is toast).

Friday Digest

It's Friday morning, and last night two things happened.

Thing 1 (with apologies to Theodore Giesel and his magical, annoying cat): President Obama made a speech to a joint session of Congress about jobs.

Thing 2: The 2011 NFL season started with the Saints playing the Packers.

Now, I'm writing this Thursday night after the speech and during the game, so I don't have ratings data, but I think it's a safe guess that more people are watching the game than watched the speech.

I watched the speech, and I'm watching the game right now. First, let's have a little fun. Figure out whether each statement applies to the Speech or NFL game.

1. Somewhere, there's a former participant that thinks he could do it better, but won't get the chance. There's also one or two that have done much worse.

2. There's been plenty of applause, but you're not sure which side the clapping is for in the end.

3. Finger-pointing and aggression are on obvious display.

4. Every moment, there's a commentator praising and one criticizing the same thing done by the same person.

5. Wide-angle camera shots show people who aren't really paying attention.

Guess what?

They could all apply to either one. Whether it's a former candidate that thinks he'd be a better President or Brett Favre, #1 applies either way.

When I become President, I intend to circulate a "no-clapping" rule to all sides for my speeches before Congress. You could tell the R—side clapped to things he didn't want clapped for, and the D—side clapped for all of his things. It's all meaningless. Meanwhile, folks are 3 beers in in Green Bay. Were they clapping because Kid Rock sang or because he quit singing? Who knows?

In all, I set up those five statements. They can be parsed, reparsed, and deparsed into whatever meaning you want them to have. That's the stuff of politics and sports-casting: say what people want to hear, do what they expect. You get the cheers, the votes, the ticket sales and the corporate sponsorships. There it is again---that statement applies both to sports and politics—both parties.

Now, obviously there's a hint of criticism here for the political universe of the United States. That is actually not my main point, at least not today.

I want to remind those of you readers that are Christian believers of this fact:

We are not to speak like politicians, we are not to play the crowd like sports teams. Letting our "yes be yes and our no, no" (Matthew 5:37) should be understood as applying to more than just those two statements. This is a command from the Lord Jesus that our words be filled with integrity.

Not with hidden motives or with double-speak. Not with words that can be backed out of or redefined or adjusted with the flow.

We should speak plainly, clearly, and directly in all matters possible.

So, as we fuss a little about politics and keep one eye on the scoreboard, let's remember what we are supposed to be: people of integrity, because He was, is, and ever more will be the One whose words are always true and never questionable. And we're supposed to be like Him.

A quick, political note for Gov. Perry

Gov. Perry,

I thought the whole “call-to-prayer” thing last weekend was a good idea. It was nice to see a political figure admit his faith and take major public action on it.

But now, not even a week later, it looks like blatant political grandstanding. It appears that you have used evangelical Christians for political purposes. And most of us are really tired of that. True, since we’re mostly pro-life, pro-freedom, and pro-religion, if you’re the other major candidate, we’ll still likely vote for you in November. Except using us makes us lukewarm.

It makes us likely to vote for you but not talk a lot about you. It makes us unlikely to give money (well, I wouldn’t give any to any candidate), less likely to put signs in our yards, and not very likely to do much else.

You see, as a pastor, I’m very cautious how I blend politics with what I do. I do not mention candidate names from the pulpit. I don’t even mention party names from the pulpit. I clearly preach pro-life, pro-freedom as I see it in Scripture. I encourage people to examine the character and faith of candidates and vote based on those things.

And I nearly said something to my congregation about you by name in the past few weeks to praise what you were doing in Texas. I’m now glad I didn’t. I half-suspected you would announce for President, so I stayed back. If I hadn’t, your actions would have caused me to violate my own code of ethics related to political activism in church.

I name politician names on my blog or in personal conversation, but I don’t from the pulpit. Consider carefully what you’ve done this week. You might need to quickly mend fences, because it looks to me like you just called for revival for the purpose of getting yourself elected.

But you’re not the answer, Governor Perry. A commitment to live for Christ and an effort to turn our nation as a whole to love God and obey Him as we see in Scripture is. Don’t forget that.

Or I’ll find a third-party guy to vote for again.

Doug

Debt-limit revisited

Dear Congress and the President:

The deadline for that whole debt-limit thing? That’s this coming Tuesday. Are you going to get around to do anything? Or do you plan to sink the whole thing?

You might want to take some form of action. Because historically speaking, a lot of bad stuff happens when an entire country’s economy tanks irrecoverably. And when the bad stuff happens in the country to the people, the people tend to think towards visiting unhappiness upon the government.

The vast majority of us are not quite as stupid as you think, and we know that both parties are being equally troublesome. So your elephant pins or donkey t-shirts aren’t going to convince us that you are not at fault.

Most likely it will be in the polls that we will deal with you and replace you with other folks. But we’ve all been reading a lot of the Founding Fathers lately, and very few of them traveled to talk to Members of Parliament or waited for a new king. They became men of action. These days, there’s plenty of women of action as well.

So quit watching movie clips or berating news reporters. Deal with the immediate crisis and then take long-term, effective action. Close the loopholes that allow companies to ship jobs overseas and book profits overseas so they don’t pay taxes.

Quit spending money upon money for programs that do nothing or only benefit a few. Honor our promises: the debt, Social Security and Medicare. Defend our nation: strong, reasonable defense spending and border security. Promote the economy: in any area that can exist with regulation, cut it out. The states can regulate based on what people are more willing to pay for in that state.

Then, if you have to raise taxes on everyone, do it. You can start with my income bracket: those of us that pay next to nothing or even get refunds without paying. Try eliminating that. You could try the flat-tax ideas or even just simplified, graduated: first $50k, no tax; $50k-250k, 10%; everything above: 20%. Just a thought.

Doug

The NFL Lockout and the Debt Ceiling

Note: I’m trying to get back to a post a day, but to get there, I’m writing a little ahead. While I’m only 24 hours ahead on this post, it’s possible that both of these issues will be resolved by the time you read this post. I still think I’m right in what I say.

We’re now into the second half of the month of July. Here in Arkansas, it’s hot. Not “I need a glass of water” hot, more like “look, the asphalt is melting” hot. (Ever wonder why we still have so many dirt/gravel roads? Asphalt melts in Southern Heat!) Around here, the heat is made worse by the humidity. This isn’t the most pressure in the country right now, though.

That’s reserved for two separate sets of negotiating rooms. One belongs to the National Football League and the other belongs to the US Congress. Back in March, the NFL and the NFL Players Association parted ways and the team owners decided that without a deal they liked, no football work would be done.

Meanwhile, decades of increasing stupidity by the Trunks and Burros in Washington has caused our country’s debt to increase faster than mine at a combo gun and book sale. There’s a lot to this whole debt-limit thing, but essentially: the government actually does not take in enough money to cover all expenses. At this point, we’ve spent approximately $14 trillion more than we’ve taken in. Now, this has taken some time to get done…but it’s where we are. The last 10 years have been particularly hard on the debt. The interest payments alone are getting pretty hard to make. And there’s a law that prohibits the debt from rising any higher than it is now.

So, what’s going on with these two things?

Simple. Grown men (and a few women) are acting like spoiled children. The NFL owners want to keep more of the money that comes in, the NFL players want to get paid more of the money, the stadium workers are unpaid, and the fans will keep footing the bill. Congress has voted to spend money that doesn’t exist and keeps voting to do that. Of course, now each side wants to blame the other. And who is going to pay for it? Taxpayers---who else?

What do I have to say about both of these?

Grow up. Every last one of you.

To the NFL: how about using that $9 billion dollars to repay every municipality you’ve ripped off to pay for new stadiums then find a way to cut the cost for normal people to attend. How about paying more than minimum wage to the parking lot attendants? There’s a source for these billions you all are throwing around and those people are living with a minimal unemployment rate of 9%. You are part of the entertainment/diversion function of society that helps people cope with some of their tragedies. Get over yourselves and get back to work. And you owners? Can’t you live with a slightly slimmer profit margin? Really? You can’t?

To the Congress: you approved the budgets that have created the debt mess. In essence, you’ve approved raising the debt limit because you voted to spend it. This is ridiculous behavior by you and by the current and past Presidents that have kept this up. The alternative that you must take is to cut where you can and raise revenue to cover the rest. If you don’t like that, then find more cuts. Get it done. You are living in the perks, but it’s time to live in the responsibility. The next budget should be balanced and all of them afterwards should be. Do it. When the people throw a fit about the cuts, tell them the option is higher taxes, and not just on the rich but on everyone. Like the 50% of Americans that pay no taxes to the Federal Government.

To the corporate sponsors of both the NFL and the Politicians (yes, we know you’re bought and paid for by special interests): Spend your money elsewhere. Really. I’d shop at Home Depot if they’d run ads that stated “Instead of spending millions to be the Official Home Improvement Store of the NFL, we decided to fund a real kindergarten.” Those billions could solve some real problems.

Likewise for all those political donations. Word has it that millions are already in the bank for the upcoming Presidential election. How about schools or groups that provide job training for the people who have lost theirs? Instead of dumping thousands on a Senator or a President, put it into feeding the homeless or starting a business. It might do amazing things.

To taxpayers and fans (us): Can we stop falling for this? Please? As soon as the lockout is over, we’ll be lining up to buy merchandise, tickets, NFL Sunday Ticket on DirecTV or whatever. We’ll vote for the same politicians that put us in this bind because they fought for our region’s kickbacks or because they spout the rhetoric we like. Hold them accountable: in a reasonable, civil manner—bury them under real letters and then under votes for someone else! Oppose them in primaries, elections, and speak up.

Let’s quit being dumb. We are responsible for this because we’ve allowed it to go on. It’s time to stop it!

Lives, fortunes, and sacred honor

It's July 4th, 2011. 235 years ago, after arguing about the details for a few days, a group of wealthy criminals agreed to sign a piece of paper. They agreed to no longer obey in anyway the rightful king and government over their land. They went from refusing to pay a few of their taxes to armed rioting to outright revolt.

This group of wealthy criminals, though, aren't really remembered as that. They are remembered rather as a segment of the Founding Fathers of our nation. This was no ordinary document, either. It was the Declaration of Independence. The Second Continental Congress met, defying the order of King George III of England, and determined that it was not enough to argue over taxes. It was time to be free.

The Declaration of Independence lists many of the wrongs that the people of America felt that His Majesty had inflicted upon them. Nationally, we've also paid (and somewhat continue to pay for) the things that were taken out: that the King permitted and encouraged slavery is the most notable of those. The Congress stood by these words and shifted an insurrection into a Revolution.

Other, greater minds will gladly explain how the principles of "natural rights" in Enlightenment Philosophy developed from a Biblical concept of the image of God in mankind. They can explain how the Declaration of Independence is taken from a Christian viewpoint even though many of its signers and drafters were not explicitly Christian. I'll leave that to them.

I want to look at two lines from the Declaration of Independence. The first and the last lines, to be precise.

We tend to think that "When in the course of human events…." is the first line of the Declaration. It's really not.

The first line is: The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America," (at least according to my copy. That's probably just how it was printed, but still.)

Get that? Unanimous. United. Without division, with full agreement. These men came to agreement about the things they knew were wrong and had to be dealt with. When we face crises, how often do we do this? We agree there are problems, but so often put our effort into fighting over the parts we do not agree with. This nation was founded with the idea that we must fight together for what matters the most. They boiled that down to: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. (No guarantee you'll catch it, though.)

The other line that still draws my mind in the Declaration of Independence is this one:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Beneath that, the signatures came, starting with John Hancock and including 55 others, of those who made that commitment.

Think about this for a minute: the most precious thing a man had in those times was his honor. Men would die for honor, would kill for honor, and would count a fortune worthless if obtained without it. This was the greatest offer they could make. All of their character, all of their stuff, and the breath in their bodies was offered for liberty.

It has become far too fashionable to highlight the blind spots of these men, to denote their faults and failings. Yet even the freedom to do that was bought by their efforts---history shows us that tyrants are invariably opposed to criticism.

What we can, and should, see in our Founding Fathers is this: a grand start and a good example. If more of us would find the important things in life and pledge ourselves to each other that we would accomplish those tasks though it costs us all, what would look differently?

Let us find ourselves defending liberty at the cost of all those things, both now and forevermore. Without it, we will not be able to do greater things.

Doug

Not running

Well, this past month has seen a few official announcements regarding next year’s Presidential Election in the United States. News releases ranged from the ridiculously obvious: President Obama is running for re-election (gee, name the last President that didn’t run? none in my lifetime); to the curious: Mitch Daniels might have had a change; to the relieving: Donald Trump? Really? Are we that stupid?

One other announcement was that Mike Huckabee was not going to run. I think that’s a good decision by him, for a variety of reasons. I think Hillary Clinton has announced that she’s not running, but that’s not surprising: sitting President in her own party? President Obama would have to do something stupid in the eyes of Democrats for her to do that (it’s kind of a given that, as President Bush was consistently mocked by Democrats, President Obama is mocked by Republicans).

Well, back in 2008 I had stated that I would run for President in 2012. At the moment, I want to announce that I have changed my mind. I will not be running for President this time (or next time).

Why not?

1.) I don’t want to.

That’s it. I know with a numbered list, you expect more, but there’s no more. To run for President these days invites such an intrusion into your life, the life of your family and friends, that you shouldn’t do it if you don’t want to.

Now, why do I think you care?

There are several ways to make a decision. As Christians, we make decisions based on our faith and what we consider to be the leadership of God Almighty. How we discern that matters, and I want to use my decision not to run for President as an illustration:

1. Our decisions must not run directly opposite the Word of God. Murder, theft, adultery are never what Christians ought to be doing. There are more complex ethics related to wartime---I do not find it “unChristian” to shoot Osama bin Laden, for example, but that’s a longer post for another day.

2. Our decisions must run along things we are directly commanded to do. That’s right, even under the New Covenant of “grace” and “free-will” there are commands for followers of Christ.

3. Our decisions ought to include wisdom from the combined witness of Scripture. For example, Scripture does not explicitly forbid running down the middle of interstate, but the wisdom of Scripture, that life is precious, shows us that we ought not do so.

4. Our decisions ought to be driven by what we are created to do. That includes the big picture: created for God’s glory; and the little picture: what are your natural talents? For example, I can’t sing---so I can’t decide that God wants me to go on American Idol and win. I’m not made for that. I’ve thought about Last Comic Standing or Next Iron Chef, but so far, not yet…

So, how does not running for President fit?

1. Scripture does not forbid a Christian from seeking to influence or even direct the secular government. Again, there are complex ethics related to how, but a simple look does not demand avoiding the process.

2. Scripture does not explicitly command me to run. I am commanded to make disciples, to assemble with believers for encouragement, and to love my neighbor as myself. So, I don’t have to do it.

3. Scriptural wisdom speaks to being honorable, but being careful about being involved with kings. Also, about the king needing to be very wise and very patient. I’m not very patient and am often not wise---even though we’re not talking king.

4. Finally, what am I made for? In seeking God’s glory---how does a small-town pastor trying to run for President glorify God? My family and my church need me more than that. My skills and talents, beyond that, are not what the country needs right now. I am not made for running a country. I’m an academic-type, and academic-types sometimes have trouble with the real world.

So, how about you?

How are you making decisions? Do you just take what comes? Do you have any other suggestions about how to choose what you’re doing?

 

Doug

This is not what we want

Like most Americans, I am beyond angry at the actions in Arizona that took the lives of six people and wounded many others. One crucial portion of my beliefs, both political and religious, is that every life is important and valuable to God and to others.

That, apparently, this happened by someone that is claiming to be influenced by the conservative political movement is a disturbing situation.  Although someone that claims to have hated all religions and smoked marijuana, according to one of his acquaintances, hardly seems like a poster boy of the Tea Party. 

It leas to this question: when people talk about political targeting and a grassroots revolution, is this what we want?  Are we really wanting to see unarmed civilians gunned down? Congress people and judges killed?

If your answer is "this is what I want" then you are not what we, the American people, want.  One of the hallmarks of American democracy is peaceful transition of power. Peaceful.  As in, while we may fuss and whine, we do not take to shooting.

Seriously.  Even the American Revolution was fought as a war, even if the tactics varied from the normal warfare of the time.  This is not the resistance. This is not a war.

Now, part of the problem is this: all sides of American politics have taken to extreme rhetoric.  We've talked about "class warfare" and "revolution" and "taking a stand."  And the time may come for such terms to really matter, really apply.

But it's time to dial back from this and the other extreme rhetoric.  I've already begun to see it online: "Obama will use this to take our guns" "they'll be after all of us now" and other such. 

People, there are enough real issues with the policies and politics of the present administration without resorting to exaggerating their decisions.  And there are plenty of opportunities to deal with these actions at the ballot box.

There are things that are evil enough to take up arms to stop. However, while I even see abortion as a great evil, we have not exhausted all legal efforts to stop it, and so even that does not rate the violent actions people have taken against abortion clinics and abortionists.

All the more when people start shooting at Congresswomen over the healthcare vote or whatever this guy's issue was.  It's nonsense.

You do not launch a pre-emptive strike of a revolution.  That makes you a criminal. That makes you, perhaps, a terrorist.  It puts you squarely against the American ideal of the rule of law.  This puts you against the idea that all lives are precious.

And entitles you to forfeit yours.  Whatever your reasons, your purposes, or prior problems, here's to see justice work in the situation: you did it.  There is no doubt you did it.  May a jury of Americans convict you and sentence you, and may your time in prison be long enough to make your peace with God before you meet Him.

Pros, Cons, Progress and Congress

"If pro and con are opposites, what does that say about progress and Congress?"

Today, the new Congress gathers.  For the last 2 years, the ruling party of Democrats have claimed the Republicans have blocked them from doing what they wanted.  The Republicans have claimed the Democrats have done what they wanted, and that's why they're now in charge, to fix the mess.  To both of them, here's what I have to say:

1.  Shut up and get to work.  Both of you spend so much time attacking each other that you can't possibly be also listening to the people you're supposed to represent.  You know, the citizens? That whole "For the people" concept?

2.  Alongside that: cut out the "procedural vote" method of hiding what you voted for.  Seriously.  Bring the actual bills to the floor and vote on them, rather than killing them through votes that aren't actual votes.  Do something to produce an actual record.

3.  We have 10% unemployment, and something like an additional 15% under-employed.  Taking more money from the people that have jobs will not help the unemployed.

4.  Neither will allowing companies to book giant profits and tax breaks for moving more jobs overseas.

5.  Free trade is great, except when it allows companies to destroy people's lives and the environment by manufacturing in non-regulated environments.

6. Part of the marriage debate centers over the idea that there are some 1500 or more federal benefits to being 'married' over being in a 'civil union' or whatever.  If the government is capable of handing out 1500 benefits to married people, the government is doing too much. Seriously.  I don't know where those benefits are, but that's insane.  The ability to file 1 tax return that combines her deduction and mine is 1 that makes sense, and survivor benefits for Social Security makes sense, but what else are you doing?

7.  You can't keep spending more than you take in. You probably can't take in any more than you are now without paralyzing the economy. You think you can't spend less without paralyzing the economy. Something's got to give. 

8.  We know that you all ran for your jobs claiming certain ideals.  We also know that you probably won't keep half of your promises.  We are watching you.

9. Especially to my Republican friends: I've said this before "treat as you would be treated, not as you were treated."  You've complained about a lack of respect, a lack of compromise, a lack of work with.  Revenge is for later.  Play a football game or something for that revenge. Be what you wish the other side had been.

10.  You are all supposed to be there for the good of the country.  Guess what? The country expects it from you. Leave the regional battling, the my area first bickering, and what-not for college football. Congress does not exist to help 1 state or 1 of 435 districts.  The Fed exists to help 50 states, all 435 districts.

 

Now, get to work.

 

Doug

Revolution…

Timing is everything, and I haven't wanted this post to be perceived as targeted at one particular political escapade.  However, now that tonight (March 22) we're one day removed from Congress approving a trillion dollar health insurance change law, and there's no telling what will come next, I'm going to finish writing this post and then program it for later.  If something major happened yesterday, I'm not commenting on that directly.

I'm pondering the general direction of our country.  That direction is apart from itself and adrift from the intent of its founding.  It really is.  We have made great strides as a nation.  We've come to the understanding that "all men are created equal" is to be understood as "all humans are created equal" whether they look like us or not.  We've embraced, at least in idea, that race or gender has no place as a determinant in the future of a person.  We've acknowledged that those old enough to be drafted are old enough to vote, even if not old enough to purchase handguns or beers.

However, we've also made some mistakes along the way.  We've become a nation that makes more money than ever before but has no idea why it matters.  We're willing to trade lives for convenience, whether they are young or old, drafted or volunteer.  We're so concerned about offending others that we will trade our security for it, and then lose that too. 

Meanwhile, there's a growing agitation among Americans.  The people are getting fed up with the government, the governing bodies are getting fed up with the people, and the disconnects are getting stronger.  Don't think the government's tired of the people?  Go visit the US Capitol.  Can't get in? That's right, you can't.  They won't let you.  $600 million (or more) was spent to build a visitor's center you can go to, so you can stay away from the people that represent you.  More and more people are speaking up that we're losing our liberty as Americans.

It's been going on for years.  The federal government ran a surplus in 2000.  Then, rightfully, the effort was made to stop running a surplus.  Except that, if you have debt, you have no surplus.  You pay down debt.  And then we went and spent back into a deficit, and maxed out the nation's credit.  The government is now on track to meddle in healthcare enough that costs will exceed what people can afford.  There are also pending bills that will escalate the cost of anything considered possibly environmentally bad that will make energy costs untenable.  These laws are being pushed into being by people that also hold that people shouldn't own guns or eat cheeseburgers.  With the government taking responsibility for everyone's healthcare (they are), how long before I can't own a gun because it's a health risk or can't have a cheeseburger because grilling is causing global warming?

The difficulty is that many people who wish to protest these things have expressed in can happen "over their dead bodies" or that "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers."

Ladies and gentlemen, that's exactly what's going to happen.  We have allowed ourselves to become so divided, not by ideology or heart, but by time.  We don't take the time to gather together, we don't know our neighbors.    We are so busy chasing the dollars that we spend on stuff imported from our enemies that we are too exhausted to put any effort into what we ought to be as a nation.

And so, true patriots will be willing to die for their country and their liberty.  The enemies of liberty will be glad to help us with this.  We are quick to quote Jefferson or Franklin about liberty, even Patrick Henry, but we rarely remember the quote from Franklin at the signing of the Declaration of Independence: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

We must grasp that the difference between dying for the sake of liberty and dying to assure liberty to our posterity is organization.  We've seen easily in Iran the necessity of an armed populace to hold off tyranny, which is part of the purpose of the Second Amendment.  The First Amendment contains an important freedom we neglect to consider: the right of the people to "peaceably assemble."  The Founders were not thinking of protests.  They were remembering the drill of Minutemen in the commons and public areas, preparing for the potential need of revolution.  They were remembering the need for an organized effort to overthrow tyranny.

If we are going to secure for ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty, we've got to read the history and understand the roadmap our Founding Fathers left us: a free press to proclaim the wrongs of government; a free pulpit to proclaim the Word of God (and free any other religion you want, but they weren't thinking of Wiccans at the time); free assembly to discuss the problems; and free petition to express directly to the government what the wrongs and problems were.

When those are found inadequate, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary, lest the militia cease being well-regulated and the state cease being free.

People, it's time we stop individual bickering and bantering.  Are we serious about liberty or not?  Are we willing to stop being bought off or dissuaded by one party's promises over another's?  We're in this mess because we've allowed Republicans and Democrats to play us against each other to their own gain.

It is time that we begin to do something.  Give it another election, certainly, but we must begin to assemble and petition.  Not assemble and shout, not assemble and disrespect, but assemble and organize our views of what is wrong and why, and what to actually do about it.  Then, express what steps we will take to see those petitions met.  And what consequences if they are not.

Unless we want to bequeath to posterity the saying that "The fundamental difference between revolution and martyrdom is organization."

 

Doug

Healthcare Reform Part 2

Not that there's been any clamoring for me to follow up on yesterday's healthcare reform commentary, but here's the follow up anyway:

1.  I don't like the healthcare reform package.  It's a mandate to buy a product which will strengthen an industry without fixing the reason costs are spiraling as it is.  HOWEVER:

I.  This is not the end of American Liberty as we know it.  I think it's too far, but we already have: government run retirement called Social Security; government run schools; government run medical for seniors and the poor; government run food programs; government operated disability insurance.  All of these take from some, many, or all and redistribute.  All of these have already begun the shift to a socialized country.  Each of these creates two classes: those dependent on the government system and those wealthy enough to do whatever they please.  This is just another in a long slide towards a socialized economy.

II.  This is not the end of freedom of religion in America.  A few comments on this: your tax money already subsidizes abortion.  It's true.  Else how did a girl I knew in high school have an abortion at an Arkansas Health Department Clinic? (At least that's where she stated it was).  That there is an accounting trick to ease our consciences doesn't matter.  It's still being done.  Also, government is already involved in pushing back against any religion it dislikes.  That's why terrorists are just terrorists but recent ATF raids were on the "Christian Militia." 

And even if this does cause the government to finally lock down on freedom of religion, what of it?  Are Christians free in China, where the church is growing?  Are Christians free in Iran or Pakistan where, again, the church is growing?  Has anyone heard the Nigerian Baptists calling for a Great Commission Resurgence between being slaughtered by the Muslims there? Or is the church growing there anyway?

III.  This is not evidence that President Barrack Hussein Obama is the Anti-Christ.  An anti-Christ? Perhaps.  The Big One?  No.  When you get someone that both the Israelis and the Arabs like, then you'll be on to something.  He's a President leading America in the same direction as FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton did.  Let's not idolize FDR, folks.  He was effective as a wartime President, and his programs helped a lot of folks in the Depression, but did he protect free markets and small government?  Nope.  He's another big government tax and spend liberal.  Nothing great or greater about him.  Whether he's 1-term or 2 will show how Americans really feel.  If it's 2, then we're in trouble.

Now, I've expressed reluctance before at the "repeal it" response, but I'm going to waffle back on that.  Repeal it, fine, if you've got a better, more sensible plan.    Not just to put us back where we were going, but something.  And make sure it includes tort reform.

 

Doug

Healthcare Reform

For those of you just waiting for my opinion on the Healthcare Reform Law that passed last week, as well as the embedded Student Loan Reform Law that was in it, here it is:

I don't like it.  Not that I hate sick people.  Not that I hate Democrats.  I still don't like it.

Why?

First reason: is this making it illegal to not have health insurance?  If so, why does the IRS get the power to administratively charge you more taxes for breaking the law?  Don't we get trials for committing crimes?

If it's not illegal, then we're seeing a continuation of something that my conservative friends have long done: creating a set of behaviors that are legal but "taxable."  It's a way of manipulating behavior while technically claiming you're still free to do as you please.  Why do you think there are extra taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and firearms?  It's to discourage the use while still allowing it.  It is a method used by various interests to attempt to limit liberty.  We didn't like it when it was tea, and we shouldn't care for it now.

Second reason: Are we putting more power over the life and death over American lives to the same outfit that was responsible for: 1.) Safety enforcement of Toyota? 2.)Fixing General Motors? 3.) Supervising banks and lending so that bad loans don't destroy banks? 4.)Finding Jimmy Hoffa? 5.)Making the existing tax code comprehendible? 6.)Government education? The American school systems that consistently rank mediocre compared to the world? 7.)PBS and NPR and their balanced, quality programming?

Third reason: Congress didn't read it.  So they don't know what's in it.  And they blended it with making the Federal Government the only lender for Federal Student Loans, rather than independent banks.  Brilliant.  And has what to do with health? None.

Finally: we're putting too much trust, power, and provision in the hands of Washington D.C.  Do I trust them with it?  No.  I do not. Whether it's the current politicians or the next ones, I do not.  Those controls need to remain as close as possible to the people.

 

Doug

Being Contrary

It's not just a hobby, it's a way of life.  At least for some of us.  It doesn't matter whether we have better ideas or not, we know bad ideas when we see them.  Or we can punch holes in mediocre ideas, whether there's merit to those ideas or not.

And it's probably time to work on breaking the habit.  While giving something a rigorous examination and citing problems with any given plan, idea, or system is appropriate, there's no reason to do it just for fun.

It's a danger that I'm struggling with. Why?  Well, let's see…

In politics, it seems that there have been, for the last several years, many ideas worth simply skewering and going on.  It hasn't gotten any better lately.  You've got health-care reform, CPISA, baby sling warnings, financial stupidity, and corruption.  What's not to be contrary with?

In Baptist life, there's plenty to pick on.  There's the debate over the GCRTF report (or the lack of debate), the apparent coming elderly boxing match between Morris Chapman and Jerry Rankin (or not), our slow drift towards hierarchal elites running what's supposed to be a priesthood of all believers doctrine-holding group, and the ever-present Calvinism arguments.

What's the common thread?  One that I'm seeing, and trying to corral in my own behavior, is to sit back, poke a hole or two in someone else's argument, and then move on like I've accomplished something.  I wrote a blog post a few days ago about bad data and bad conclusions.  I used a Baptist life example for it.  I stand by it, because I think I was right, but it took several rewrites to tone it down where it is.  What I was after was to raise a question without attacking the people involved.

Down in, that's part of where we need to get to.  There needs to be the recognition that even our worst of opponents can bring forward good ideas.  Whether it's Speaker Pelosi actually backing good legislation or someone in the SBC with a good idea, even though I might not like him or her personally, we need to be willing to let those good ideas come forward.

When the bad ideas come out, we need to evaluate them and stop them based on the merits or lack thereof.  It shouldn't be something that we enjoy doing.  It's the necessity of evaluating ideas and keeping the good and tossing the bad, but to just tear down others should not be a source of pleasure.

And, for crying out loud, people, if something has to be done and you don't like the idea presented, FIND ANOTHER IDEA TO PRESENT!!!  This is why I'm frustrated with the Republican Party of which I've stopped being a registered member.  This is a constant frustration to me as a church leader in Baptist life.  We have too many people ready to say why one idea won't work but who will not offer one that they think will.  While being the party out of power in politics entitles a certain amount of negativity, in churches we don't have time for this.  In politics, really, we don't have time for this either.

Be contrary as much as you like, but remember two things:

1.  When it's your idea, you're fair game too.

2.  If you knock down this one, help find a replacement.

 

Doug