Sunday, June 30, 2013
Friday, June 28, 2013
Thursday, June 27, 2013
With its primary mission being “a house of prayer for ALL people”, the bells of the National Cathedral shouldn’t ring in celebration for ANY Supreme Court ruling. The Court could outlaw Roe v. Wade and it would still be inappropriate. The building should simply sit there with its iconography testifying to the truths of the Christian faith while ceremonies commemorating things like assorted national tragedies take place within the structure's walls.
A girl was cut from a pee wee school football team because the lads competing against her might have "impure thoughts". Do they next plan to remove all of the girls from school? And even if the boys did have impure thoughts about her, why is this the schools business so long as they don't do anything to her physically?
Quote Needs Protection From Fringe Movement
"Biblically speaking, freedom does not mean being able to do whatever you want. Freedom is the ability to function the way God designed you to function."
However, there is a question that needs to be asked.
To what extent will authorities external to the indivdual play a role in enforcing this ideal?
To the average Christian, the above quote means marriage being between one man and one woman, taking care of one's children, and property protections against bandits both criminal and governmental.
However, certain limitations must be put in place to protect against those on the fringes of the Christian Reconstructionist movement thinking that functioning the way God designed you includes putting to death those that do not go to church on Sunday and denying certain civic opportunities such as running for elected office, voting, and even the owning of property to those not holding membership in acceptable establishment churches.
The same ones concerned that gay marriage will be the law of the land in five years because Christians are hiding in the closet often rank among the same voices that deny the validity of the profession of Christian faith made by certain public figures either holding or aspiring to elected office for holding to anything other than an pacificistically isolationist foreign policy, a differing understanding on the propriety of female magistrates, or even matters of soteriology and eschatology. Perhaps they ought to in part blame themselves since no one is deemed sufficiently Christian enough for such critics to support or even vote for.
The only ones that need to repent for the ascendancy of gay marriage are those gays agitating for it and the heteros that went along. I fail to see how it is the fault of the average pew filling Christian that can't do anything about it and, even if they tried, church leaders would chew them out for whatever it was those moved to action would decide to do.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Why Must Traditionalist Christians Remain Silent?
It seems her remarks went considerably afield.
In her comments, she quipped that those opposing an expansive understanding of human rights as characterized by the issues of the ordination of women and even the acceptance of gay marriage within the Church of England represent the viewpoint of a disgruntled minority that ought not to be allowed to drive the agenda of the Church.
But who is to say that those positions now that seem to be on the avant-garde of enlightenment and progressivism are not the perspectives that are really in the minority?
Such a categorization could have especially been made when these positions first began to be agitated for.
So why aren’t those holding to these perspectives that have been at variance with the Christian teaching that prevailed for centuries and even millennia the ones obligated to hold their peace if they otherwise want to remain members in good standing?
by Frederick Meekins
A Calvinist remarked, “ When you take your last breath, it ultimately comes down to whether God chose you; not that you chose Him.” That is certainly a comforting soteriology. In essence, you have no assurance of going to Heaven until you get to Heaven. The same ones arguing for such an existentialist eschatological fatalism would then turn around and heap the condemnation they are addicted to like a narcotic upon the medically terminal gripped by stark raving terror of the pending hellfire damnation.
Ocean City is considering an ordinance that would criminalize saggy pants. But unless there is a provision specifically stipulating "say no to crack", how is seeing a portion of underwear worse than some of these swimsuits both men and women gallivant around in? Most comfortable underpants are less revealing and cover over more.
A little bit of insight into just how things would operate under a Calvinistic, Christian Reconstructionist regime. Initially, those running the show might assure that there will be a degree of religious liberty. However, as things unfolded and the government solidified its power, those speaking out against what they perceived as the inconsistencies of Calvinism and the shortcomings of Christian Reconstructionism would be accused of lying. Since that transgression would violate the Biblical Commandments against bearing false witness or even those regarding what is to be done with false prophets elevated to the status of statutory law, the penalties regarding such would be invoked to silence critics.
Insisting that one cannot say that Christian Reconstructionism won’t result in a dictatorship because one has not produced a quote advocating such from the writings of its first generation theoreticians is akin to saying Marx can’t be held responsible for the bloodshed on the part of Communist regimes and assorted revolutionary movements. Some things are just a violation of human nature and historical laws that don’t end well when implemented. One of them is an atheistic government run by a singular godless dictatorship. Another is a society run essentially at the other extreme along the lines of a religious dictatorship.
Pentagon Defunds Young Marines Chapter Swearing Loyalty To God Rather Than Obama
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
That's quite a racket some of them have got going. Certain ultraconservative Evangelical ministers can condemn any emotion experienced other than docile compliance on the part of their congregation while sanctifying their own spirited agitation as righteous indignation against the sin of those not quite as advanced along the ecclesiastical hierarchy.
Will Pediatricians Gather Intelligence On Your Sexual Ethics On Behalf Of Obama?
Monday, June 24, 2013
So if Nick Walenda plummetted to his death in the Grand Canyon, would that have been because Joel Osteen lacked enough faith in his prayers? It's a wonder Jesus didn't go ahead and knock the idiot daredevil off the highwire just to stop hearing so many pointless innvocations of His Holy Name. If Walenda truly loved his family, wouldn't he find a job where he put his life on the line for a less utterly pointless reason?
Sunday, June 23, 2013
Setting Boundaries That Can’t Be Crossed
Surprisingly, some of the pundits apparently have little problem with federal agencies collecting vast quantities of data on American citizens.
It is argued that, if the case can be made that these measures are necessary for the nation's survival, we as a people should endure these chains enthusiastically.
But where does this expectation end?
If it means significant percentages of the population should be forcibly relocated to camps in concentrations without proof or allegations of any criminal activity, does that mean anyone warning of the plot should be denounced as a traitor?
What if, for the good and survival of the nation, it was suggested programs such as their own that stir dissension and cast in a negative light those struggling on behalf of the COMMUNITY needed to be removed from the airwaves?
Things have not yet deteriorated to those levels described.
But with revelations confirming what the discerning have suspected all along, citizens of conscience had better decide now where these kinds of boundaries lie as freedom continues to slowly disappear before our very eyes.
by Frederick Meekins
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Christian Reconstructionism Not All That Libertarian
Instead, there would be decentralized COMMUNITIES and these COMMUNITIES that did not want to live by Christian Reconstructionist principles would have the option of opting out.
As in the case of despots seeking to rule from a centralized headquarters, those advocating on behalf of this ideology are saying as much by what they do not say explicitly as they do in formalized enunciated statements.
For example, what is to be done with and too individuals residing in a jurisdiction that do not want to live by the particulars of the Christian Reconstructionist worldview?
Will such individuals be allowed to sleep in Sunday mornings or attend a church that does not embrace the establishmentarian Calvinist orthodoxy and still retain basic civil rights such as property ownership, electoral suffrage, and legitimized offspring? Some Christian Reconstructionists hold that only marriages between those categorized as "Christian" in the eyes of the institutionalized church are considered legitimate.
Would the father of a noncompliant family be hauled off in the middle of the night with the mother given to whoever wants her in order of descent in terms of rank in the hierarchy correlated with her desirability? In turn, would the children of such noncompliant parents be conscripted into compulsory reeducation?
And what will happen to those communities refusing to go along with this hyperlegalistic religiosity surrounded on all sides by communities whipped up into a state of fanaticism?
Would such towns construed to be pursuing some form of aberrant theology be starved out and denied supplies until they repent of these alleged sins and see the error of their ways?
Though the program was not explicitly religious, the drama "Jericho" explored just how bitter animosities between neighboring towns can grow exacerbated to the point of violent conflict in times of societal collapse.
The skeptical might respond that there is little danger of such a scenario given secularism's increasingly oppressive nature.
Maybe not, but one of the underlying lessons taught by apocalyptic speculative narrative is that, given a cataclysm of significant magnitude, one could suddenly find oneself trapped in a milieu where the previously unlikely could just as easily become the new normal.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, June 21, 2013
Maybe if diehard Evangelicals and Fundamentalists hadn't been so rabidly opposed to movies in the past, the efforts now to directly correlate films with direct gospel parallels would not be so intense. A Christian would be simply able to enjoy a good story without a major guilt trip while feeling a sense of amusement as to the religious motif employed by the screenwriter or how the scene depicted might be a way of comprehending an otherwise obtuse eschatological reference.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
An Internet posting suggests that learning to live without recognition is a skill. Such a sentiment was likely promulgated by someone making considerably more than those below him that he is attempting to persuade and they are probably far more talented at the actual task needing to be accomplished but not so much at the rump smooching necessary to rise above the status of mere peon.
On no grounds can it be insinuated that I advocate a gospel of works or a "do it yourself" plan of salvation. I have always advocated that the only way of salvation is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved. That requires a deliberative conscientious ascent of belief on the part of the mentally sufficient. If you wait around with your thumb up your backside in a state of existential propositional indecision you are going to end up in Hellfire all of the same. I am not the one insisting that one must declare official membership in a formalized organization and I strive not elevate to the status of divine revelation that must be adhered under threat of damnation particular interpretative opinions derived from passages that do not necessarily apply to the circumstances under consideration.
In the 2013 #2 issue of PETA's Animal Times, there is an illustration depicting a mermaid. The caption reads, "Try To Relate To What's On Your Plate." However, a fundamental axiom of nature is that the big fish eats the little fish. So if human beings are nothing more than animals in the minds of those advocating this radical perspective on animal rights, there is nothing wrong whatsoever with humans eating other animals. However, it is only human beings as an order of existence going beyond the level of an animal that are even capable of empathizing with another creature that the brain would otherwise register as "prey".
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Reformed Sourpusses Stink At Humor
In it, Jesus says, "Follow me and I will make you fishers off men."
One of the prospective Apostles replies, "Bro, hasn't Jesus ever heard of prevenient grace?"
Arminian/Wesleyan theology understands preveniet grace to mean that, despite being called, the individual is ultimately able to refuse the gift of salvation to their own eternal consequences.
The other compatriot replies to Jesus, "I don't know. I will consider the offer and get back to you."
A number of things could be pointed out about this comic.
Most obviously, if we are to adhere this rigidly to the speculations of Reformed theology, isn't the artist guilty of creating a graven image?
After all, didn't thinkers in this school of thought at one time toss fits over Catholic artistic depictions of the Savior?
There hangs in one of my rooms a painting of Jesus that I have been told that my grandparents initially obtained from no less a thoroughly Fundamentalist ministry as Oliver Greene's The Gospel Hour which my grandparents donated to the Independent Baptist Church that they were members of.
In order to resolve the harangue that resulted not so much on the part of the pastor but rather on the part of rabblerousers in the congregation over this act of generosity, my grandparents GRACIOUSLY agreed to retake possession of the painting.
Secondly, how do we not know that at particular chronometric instance along the unfolding of the temporal continuum depicted in the cartoon that those to whom Christ extended this particular offer could not have turned Him down?
If they were like robots or zombies without wills of their own, wouldn't it have been sufficient for Christ to have said "Follow me" or even more efficient to simply snap His fingers like Q from Star Trek for His will to be imposed and carried out?
If it had been impossible for those hearing not to obey the sound of His voice, there would have been no reason to verbally offer the incentive or promise of a considerably more satisfying vocational challenge.
by Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
U.S. Abuses Of Privacy Pale In Comparison To Third World Dictatorships
This magazine is published in Great Britain.
It is often claimed, per capita, that the island nation has one of the highest concentrations of security cameras on earth.
It is also interesting that Edward Snowden, the NSA contractor bringing the issue of government Internet surveillance into a broader public awareness, sought refuge in a jurisdiction ruled by Red China.
Aren’t these Communist and former Communist regimes the last ones that should feign shock and outrage at American abuses of privacy?
In the United States, the government might track where you go online and with whom you are communicating. However, unlike in Communist China, the government for the most part does not determine what public information resources you will be allowed to consult.
And, unlike in Putin’s Russia, in America there are very few instances of critics mysteriously disappearing, never to be seen again or their bodies uncovered having expired under questionable circumstances.
by Frederick Meekins
I Timothy 3:7 warns of those, “Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” If Calvinism is correct, instead of interpreting the verse as a warning of a behavior to avoid or as a condemnation of those pursuing that spiritual path, shouldn’t we instead applaud such souls for fulfilling the will of God selected for them by the deity Himself? After all, Calvinism holds that such individuals are unable to amend their ways unless God does so for them,
Why Shouldn't Christian Students Study Drone Warfare
Interesting how liberals right out of the box find this to be an outrage.
Yet they are often among the first to point out any other time that all other forms of knowledge and technology are morally neutral with good or evil instead determined how it is applied.
Sojourners would be foremost among the chorus wagging its finger at Liberty University if the school sheltered its students from developments in the theory of evolution that the conservative Baptist university did not believe in.
It may seem strange that an explicitly Christian institution would allow its student body to become proficient with the implements of destruction and mayhem.
However, it is probably not as shocking as the rogues gallery of assorted tyrants and revolutionary thugs supported over the years such as the Sandinistas, Fidel Castro, and Desmond Tutu by this magazine masquerading under a veneer of alleged Christianity.
by Frederick Meekins
At the National Catholic Reporter, Michael Sean Winters counsels in regards to contemporary conservatism, "...we should be wary of becoming close with people whose worldview is so mean and vicious, where concern for the poor is lacking." Perhaps individualist conservatives should cast similar eyes of suspicion not so much upon grassroots American Catholics but rather upon those advocating the centralized planning of the Vatican internationalist agenda not so much concerned with elevating the status of the downtrodden but rather more bent upon inflicting a similar degree of economic misery upon all mankind.
Episcopal Archbishop Categorizes The Property Imperative As Original Sin
Yet isn’t she head of one of the denominations particularly noted for its ornate property holdings and highly decorated vestments?
You don’t usually pick those garments off the rack at the thrift store.
In her speech, the Archbishop condemned particularly the tendency to protect our stuff.
So if a few greedy Baptists or jealous Catholics decide they just want to up and swipe things out of an Episcopal church, will the Archbishop simply turn the other cheek?
It can be argued that “Thou shalt not steal” codifies as fundamental divine law the right to protect mere “stuff” from those to whom it does not belong.
by Frederick Meekins
Senator Lindsey Graham insists that the GOP is in a “death spiral” unless the Republic Party panders to Hispanics. However, it is doubtful he will surrender his own posh lifestyle for a life where the only words that come out of his constantly running mouth are “Hello. Welcome to Walmart” and he is awakened in the middle of the night by blaring Mariachi music.
Those accusing the whistleblowing NSA contractor of being a traitor or criminal for violating oaths and what not need to answer the following questions. On what grounds do we then condemn defendants at the Nuremberg Trials for their claim of only following orders or express sympathy for Nazis punished for violating their oath to their Fuehrer?
Monday, June 17, 2013
US Government Considers American Property Stolen By Communist Dictators As Gifts
In all fairness, before snearing down his nose at a congregation for failure to show up at a pre-evening service prayer meeting, shouldn't a pastor tell the congregation that such a prayer meeting even exists when the impression some have had for a good five years or so is that the meeting was something for the church leadership sort of like dispensational free masons or something. And if this prayer meeting exists to pray for the evening service, if the service begins with prayer anyway, why isn't that prayer sufficient to get through that particular service?
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Abolished Planetarium Placed Under The Microscope
Educational administrators claim that, in this era of limited budgetary resources, it costs too much to make the technological enhancements necessary to ensure a similar wow factor among the students of today accustomed to the visual wonders capable with advanced electronics. While that may be true to an extent, there is also an orientation of pedagogical methodology here that will impact generations of school children to come and possibly play a role in determining what kind of country America will become.
Constance Skelton, Science Supervisor for Arlington, Virginia schools mused according to the Washington Post, “...that while the space race provided a captivating, teachable moment for yesterday’s budding scientist, newer issues such as climate change are likely to inspire tomorrows.”
So in other words, instead of encouraging young minds to marvel at the wonders of the universe, expanding the frontiers of knowledge, and increasing prosperity, students are to be conditioned into embracing the limitations decided upon for them by elites and shamed for enjoying a standard of technology beyond that utilized by the hominid apemen from the opening scenes of "2001: A Space Odyssey". This is what it means to emphasize the Ecology Age over the Space Age.
It is not reading too much into things to make such a point. It is the systematic goal of progressivist liberalism at all levels of government and culture to curtail American power and influence even if the other world powers have no intentions of abiding by such diminished expectations.
For example, the Obama administration announced in 2010 the cancellation of the Constellation program, essentially scrapping plans to return to the Moon that would have eventually established a permanent lunar base. Neither is there even much of a plan to replace America’s decommissioned space shuttle fleet.
Instead, the NASA of the 21st century will rely primarily on the Russian space service to ferry personnel and supplies back and forth to the International Space Station. No wonder that orbital port’s intended name of “Freedom” was dropped before the project even got off the ground.
Just because Obama is giddy about U.S. power and influence receding into the sunset, that doesn’t mean other nations are going to be as contented about curtailing their scope. Both China and India have aspirations about visiting the Earth’s only natural satellite.
Big deal, those with terrestrially bound imaginations might respond. Isn’t going to the Moon not much more than a photo op where astronauts do little more than plant the flag and knock a few golf balls around in microgravity?
The Moon represents much more to the planetary power willing to plant its flag there than a symbolic effort and gesture. It will be from the Moon that mankind will set sail out into the cosmos and the Moon could very well be a vital staging area for any planetary empire seeking to control or exert influence over the Earth itself.
Does anyone believe that the world will be better off with outer space under the control of the Red Chinese and Russia or rather the United States?
Whether or not school districts really have the financial resources to continue their planetarium programs is not the primary issue. What should concern every American is that such a reason would be invoked to justify dismantling imagination and thus the opportunities of future generations.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, June 14, 2013
Deluded Pregnant Woman Insists Subway Passengers Cater To Her
The only one that ought to be obligated to give up their seat for a pregnant woman is the one that got her pregnant.
All other instances need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
For example, why should you give up your seat to a pregnant woman that is an obvious Obama voter that swivels like a bobble head every time she opens her constantly running mouth and does not comport herself with a spirit of granted for the kindnesses extended to her but rather displays an attitude of disgruntled entitlement?
Another example would be these women that insist on wearing these skin-tight maternity tops doing little to conceal their protruding navels.
To them, pregnancy is not about bringing the next generation of children into the world.
Rather, it is yet another opportunity for these narcissists to draw attention to themselves.
In her comments, part of the reason this woman wants subway riders to give up their seat to her is because her feet hurt.
So?
Those of the other passengers probably do as well.
Does her state of fertility somehow bestow upon her a sense of clairvoyance able to ascertain the medical conditions of the other passengers around her?
Maternal podiatric discomfort in all likelihood won’t adversely impact the health of the baby.
It might come as a surprise to the self-absorbed contemporary expectant mother, but any privilege lavished upon her is not so much for her benefit just because she had the talent to get pregnant but rather for the sake of the growing life inside her.
In media coverage of her remarks, it was not revealed exactly to what kind of job she rode the subway each day.
Thus, if it is of an occupation once held by men in the era when special consideration was given to the so-called weaker sex, why should she be granted special benefits now when she insists upon being treated as an equal the rest of the time?
by Frederick Meekins
FoxNews.com is utilizing the story of an alleged 94 years old Nazi war criminal living in Minnesota to spread Communitarian propaganda. The headline link for the story read on the news organization's webpage, "Know Your Neighbor: Nazi Leader With Alleged Tie To Atrocities Lives In US." So just how deeply are we suppose to poke around in our neighbors' backgrounds? It's not like this is the kind of information one usually shares freely. Are we to turn them over to authorities at the slightest aversion to compulsory communalism?
Thursday, June 13, 2013
In attempting to appeal to assorted minorities, the Southern Baptist Convention is condemning what is perceived as the nation's high incarceration rate. Does this ecclesiastical association also intend to condemn the attitude pervasive among a number of minority communities that those of certain backgrounds are not obligated to adhere to "White man's law"? Do the "non-violent" offenders Southern Baptist elites coming down with the affliction of liberal guilt want paroled include those stealing from churches?
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Fox host Brian Kilmeade called into question the allegations of Edward Snowden in large part because the intelligence leaker is only 29 years old. Is he as dismissive if Fox reporter Peter Doocy who is also under 30 and likely has his professional position at Fox News in large part because he is the progeny of Fox & Friends cohost Steve Doocy.
A minister opposed to entertainment not so much from the standpoint of content but rather out of opposition to the concept as a whole denounced that particularly communicational methodology as inherently manipulative. Couldn’t the same be said of any ecclesiastical informational transference apart from a stentorian reading of the Scriptures?
Looking down one's nose at those wanting to see loved ones again someday in Heaven is akin to looking down one's nose for having to take a leak after a large glass of water or getting the runs after eating Taco Bell. One can't demand one beg God for forgiveness for those aspects of finite creaturehood that are not inherently sinful.
I will not apologize for one of the things keeping me going in this life is the hope that I will one day see my grandparents again in Heaven. If that makes me less of a Christian, I do not care to be affiliated with your brand of religion. The only thing I feel sorry for is the fact that an individual has been so deprived of human love and devotion that their version of an idealized eternity does not consist of an unending reunion with the dearly departed but rather the obliteration of the realization that they were in one's life at all.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Lack Of Global Warming Invoked To Justify Increased Environmental Dictatorship
Will Immigration Reform Prompt Employers To Discriminate Against REAL Americans?
Monday, June 10, 2013
No wonder articles seemed to hint next year's Revolution story line will center on Texas. In the final moments of the season finale, it looked like the US colony of Guatanimo Bay was successful in launching ICBM's at the Monroe and Georgia Republics. Now that the lights were turned on as a result of deactivating the nanites, will the resultant EMP from the nuclear bombs knock the lights back off for good in the series?
Is the perspective exhibited on the part of the Obama administration seeking to curtail the expression of assorted Tea Party organizations really all that much different than that exhibited by a number of these very same Tea Party organizations that refused to allow me to post my column on their own social networking sites or threatened to bar me for simply referring to God in a explicitly nonsectarian manner?
Frau Obama Cracks Under Minimal Pressure
However, Frau Obama's threat to leave if a heckler did not cease and desist at a fundraiser is instructive regarding the mindset and worldview embraced by this administration.
Instead of viewing the matter initially as that of an individual needing to be corrected, the reflexive response on the part of the Queen of Communalism was to punish the entire group.
So if this is the way that the Obama's treat their most enthusiastic supporters willing to dish out more money than many common laborers bring home in a single year just to sit at the feet of their gods, just think what this regime would inflict upon those they actually dislike in the name of spiteful retribution?
This entertaining exchange of tantrums is worthy of notice for another reason as well.
In the rush not to draw too much attention, it is either overlooked or hurried through in a number of accounts of the incident that the originator of the outburst was a lesbian at a lesbian function.
So shouldn't the media now commence with the obligatory banalities about how such verbal eruptions undermine civility, coarsen the public dialogue, and other related blather designed to intimidate the critical into silence?
by Frederick Meekins
Is Georgetown University So Reprobate That It Could Lose Its Catholic Backing?
Is The Department Of Homeland Security Predicting A War That Will Kill Millions?
Sunday, June 09, 2013
Does "Star Trek: Into Darkness" Give A Nod To Ancient Astronaut Theory?
Isn't that the planet of the Anunnaki, the spirit beings from Mesopotamian mythology that advocates of the ancient astronaut theory believe where actually extraterrestrials that interfered in the development of early human civilization?
This idea was referenced in the film in a reversal where the primitives of that world ended up worshipping an image of the Starship Enterprise after watching it ascended into the heavens after it arose from beneath the ocean.
A Conservative Environmental Statement
This is not some radical departure from the norm. After all, Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot, two individuals responsible for laying the framework of America's federal resource preservation programs, were Republicans.
While acknowledging that there are others in the country having different religions, American and Western civilization must reembrace its Judeo-Christian foundations in order to save the environment. Many environmentalists criticize Christianity for providing a philosophical justification for the degradation of the Earth. However, what these critics have failed to realize is that this is only one interpretation of this faith in regards to the environment.
Even though man is given the instruction to subdue the Earth, no where in Christian Scripture is he given permission to wantonly destroy what he has not created. In fact, it could be argued that the opposite is true. According to theologian Tony Campolo in "How To Rescue The Earth Without Worshipping Nature", it is in fact contradictory to man's Biblical role of stewardship over the Earth to callously destroy nature (194).
Furthermore, it could be reasoned that, since God created the universe, only He has the right to destroy it forever. Therefore, man's attempts to do so could be deemed a form of idolatry violating the First and Second Commandments.
By getting back to their religious, political and economic roots, Americans would also be helping the environment as well. In essence, modern conservatism can be good for the environment.
Often, environmental ideologues and activists promote the message that we must be saved from ourselves and that it must be accomplished through a totalitarian revolution on par with the one undertaken by the Bolsheviks. This is not the case.
The key to ecological preservation and to an extent restoration lies not in collectivism but in the very cornerstone of liberty. That is none other than private property.
No doubt to the dismay of many socialists masquerading as guardians of the biosphere, there can exist a body of thought derived from Christian and conservative conceptions of property ownership concerned with the notion of environmental preservation. Several of these works were reviewed in the 9/11/95 edition of the Washington Times Weekly Edition by Jonathan Adler, at the time director of Environmental Studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
One book reviewed, "Property Rights In The Defense Of Nature" by Elizabeth Brubaker argues that property ownership is the best form of environmental protection. When individuals own something, for instance land as property, they are more apt to care for it because their futures and prosperity are intertwined with it.
In a sense, this notion is related to Garret Hardin's tragedy of the commons. The commons did not ultimately suffer because of insufficient bureaucratic regulation. The commons were ravaged because the people saw them as a public resource and were not psychologically invested in the preservation of this resource in the same way if these plots were privately held.
Likewise, big government is not necessarily the savior of the environment it is often made out to be. If anything, the evidence points towards the opposite conclusion.
The largest, most pervasive governments in human history behind the Iron Curtain were guilty of the most atrocious environmental tragedies. The receding Ural Sea and the Chernobyl nuclear reactor both were within the borders of the Soviet Union, the very epitome of a planned economy.
Often in trendy environmental circles one hears that “small is beautiful”. The very same individuals mouthing this platitude then turn around and advocate for large global bureaucracies.
Historian Anna Branwell notes in “Ecology In The Twentieth Century” that it is contradictory to advocate grassroots participatory democracy as an environmental cure while at the same time laying the groundwork for a coercive globalist agenda which utterly ignores the expressed will of the people. Centralized government planning fails for the same reason that the commons ended up as such a tragedy.
A hierarchical bureaucracy takes away freedom of the individual, causing him to have no stake in the outcome. Thus, bureaucracy has the tendency to thwart many of the laudable goals it was allegedly intended to achieve.
Despite this discrepancy between the small-is-beautiful crowd and their affinity towards heavy-handed government solutions, society would do well to remember this axiom of social organization.
Surprisingly, there is a consensus developing between a number of grassroots activists on both the left and the right that Washington is often ill prepared to handle local environmental problems. Too many environmental bureaucrats, institutions, and special interest groups have intertwined themselves with the entrenched political establishment. Certain varieties of both liberals and conservatives have lamented the tragedy wrought by government subsidies such as the case of the Forest Service selling the nation’s timber resources below their assessed market value.
The tone of this analysis should not be taken as that of a libertarian manifesto. As a fallen and sinful creature, man will always need some level of governmental regulation.
However, at the same time, it needs to be realized that government must have checks placed upon it because it is ultimately staffed by those having the same sin nature these agencies were instituted to guard against. Rather than harassing an innocent individual for removing a tree from his wetland property, governments should instead concentrate their efforts on rogue corporations harboring loyalties to no nation or overriding moral principles. Profit, in and of itself, is not evil; however the way it can be earned is.
The preservation of the environment does not require a radical transformation of human values and society. Rather, the effort requires Americans to reembrace those core values at the heart of their unique national identity --- thrift, nobility, and individual responsibility. Over the years, a number of Americans have lost touch with these values in part as a result of interferences on the part of a government thinking it knows best.
However, through the curtailment of government subsidies and through the punishment of known polluters, the beneficent invisible hand described by Scottish economist Adam Smith will guide the nation in the selection of policies felicitous to freedom, flora, and fauna. Dominion over nature does not always translate into its conquest or destruction, but rather the oversight of these treasures and resources in the name of their omnipotent Creator.
by Frederick Meekins
Friday, June 07, 2013
Is the perspective exhibited on the part of the Obama administration seeking to curtail the expression of assorted Tea Party organizations really all that much different than that exhibited by a number of these very same Tea Party organizations that refused to allow me to post my column on their own social networking sites or threatened to bar me for simply referring to God in a explicitly nonsectarian manner?
Thursday, June 06, 2013
Wednesday, June 05, 2013
Why Should What Turns You On Get You Special Medical Treatment?
The Secretary of Health & Human Services announced certain preferences will be extended to the members of the gay COMMUNITY in terms of directing resources to address the health struggles plaguing those insisting upon pursuing this lifestyle preference.
Data to guide the oversight of these programs will be collected through a variety of questionnaires and surveys. So apparently what one does in the privacy of one’s bedroom is indeed the government’s business after all.
Will these survey’s also include questions as to what positions those answering prefer to conduct carnal relations?
Such information could prove invaluable in determining which partner in a respective relationship might be eligible for knee replacement surgery.
Will there be questions determining if an individual is attracted to those of significant physical girth so that doctor’s can screen for injuries resulting from being squashed such as hernias and the like?
A part of Bono's claim to fame is his tendency to travel around the world lecturing we mere working slobs how we ought to direct our finances assisting the downtrodden rather than upon frivolous luxuries. So will he condemn the nearly $30,000 paid by the IRS to a performance artist to paint on stage a portrait of the global rock star?
Marco Rubio claims that the majority of Republicans and conservatives will support immigration reform if the proposal resolved the issue permanently. The piece of paper held aloft by Neville Chamberlain was also suppose to resolve once and for all the particular dispute he was negotiating regarding people pouring over a disputed border, wasn't it?
The same ones insisting that the minimal requirements to join a church should be increased to include not only a profession of faith but some kind of tangible evidence probably rank among the same ones that sneer down their noses at those that attend a particular congregation quite regularly (even faithfully) but are reluctant about joining formally.
Tuesday, June 04, 2013
Monday, June 03, 2013
In the attempt to garner Republican support, initially immigration reform proposals would have required illegals seeking amnesty to pay backtaxes for those years these deadbeats suckled freely off the teats of Lady Liberty. However, it's now suggested that such a task might be too difficult. One guesses so with the agency's resources dedicated into harassing conservatives regarding what books they are reading and if any family members intend to exercise their civic rights to run for public office.
In the attempt to appear more pious and religiously enthusiastic, it has been suggested that Christians seeking church membership should have to present evidence more rigorous than making a profession of faith and assenting to the foundational doctrines of the faith. One cannot help but notice that these legalists never provide up front a clearer idea of what exactly this would entail. Shouldn't one's word regarding one's relationship with Christ and what that means be sufficient grounds until the individual proves otherwise by a major transgression? And that lapse should consist of something more than someone going to a move theater, women wearing pants, or a tendency not to come to Wednesday prayer meeting. One shouldn't have to complete the labors of Hercules in order to be extended the hand of fellowship. But I suppose even making an allusion to classical mythology would be enough to get me kicked out of many of these churches.
Sunday, June 02, 2013
Dying for an Answer: An Attempted Theodicy to the Problem of Evil
In the hopes of gaining just a bit of perspective into such an overwhelming universal mystery, it is probably best to start out by formulating the problem in a summarized written form. Norman Geisler in “Introduction To Philosophy: A Christian Perspective” states the problem in the following manner: “(1) If God is all-powerful, He could destroy evil. (2) If God is all-good, He would destroy evil. (3) But evil exists. (4) Therefore, there is no such God (Geisler, 274).” To establish a credible defense to these charges, the Christian must show that evil does not necessarily upset the divinely appointed applecart and is allowed to exist because of the purpose it serves in subordination to higher, more important realities even if these do not always make sense to finite human sensibilities.
At the heart of this debate is a discussion as to both the nature of God and the nature of evil. As to the ethical nature of God, Matthew 5:48 instructs the reader, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father which is in heaven is perfect.” However, that goodness is not like unto that of a saintly grandmother, though kind and loving in all of her intentions, who is helpless to prevent the world from deteriorating all around her.
In the spirit of the Rooseveltian axiom of speaking softly and carrying a big stick, God has the power necessary to carry through implementing how He thinks things ought to be. Colossians 1:17 says, “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” This is further elaborated and extended in Acts 17:28 which reads, “For in him we live, and move, and have our being...”
Pretty much nothing happens without God knowing about it and at least allowing it to happen by not intervening to prevent it even if He himself does not endorse the action, behavior, or event in question. Evil, by its very nature on the other hand, is a thought or deed violating God's nature of absolute goodness as expressed in the form of His natural and special revelation to those who inhabit the universe He created.
Yet, if God really does have the whole world in His hands as the old spiritual suggests, there needs to be a bit of explanation on the part of the apologist or theologian. For if God really is in sovereign control, one must show how this fits together with passages such as I John 1:5 which says, "This then is the message we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."
The first step in eliminating the apparent contradiction arising between the existence of both God and evil is to show how evil might serve some purpose or be allowed to exist as the unfortunate byproduct of some more comprehensive good. Perhaps the best response Christian thinkers have provided thus far over the centuries is probably the so-called "Free Will Defense".
The underlying assumption of the Free Will Defense posits that the fault and consequences for evil in the world lies solely on the shoulders of those who commit moral transgressions and exhibit ethical shortcomings rather than upon a God imposing them upon the world from the outside. Scripture bears much of this idea out in passages such as Romans 5:12 which reads, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned..." Thus, it is pretty much our own fault as a species as a whole for the misery rampaging across the face of the earth and in individual lives.
While such a theory might help account for things such as crime, war, and even sickness since none of us have escaped the stain of sin, by itself it does not provide enough explanation to account for the tragedy arising from natural disasters (often referred to as so-called “acts of God”) or why God does not normally intervene to prevent ne’er-do-wells from inflicting pain and suffering upon their victims innocent in terms of instigating these particular acts of malice. Both of these quandaries find their answer in what Ronald Nash calls the “Natural Law Theodicy” or what John Frame refers to as the “Stable Environment Defense”.
Frame notes in “Apologetics To The Glory Of God” that a stable environment is fundamental to human existence (164). Ronald Nash writes in “Faith & Reason: Searching For A Rational Faith”, “Free rational action requires a world of natural objects governed by natural laws (200).”
C.S. Lewis adds to this perspective in “The Problem Of Pain” , “But if matter is to serve as a neutral field it must have a fixed nature of its own ... if you were introduced into a world which thus varied at my every whim, you would be quite unable to act in it and would lose the exercise of your free will (19).” Lewis continues in the following paragraph, “Again, if matter has a fixed nature and obeys constant laws, not all states of matter will be equally agreeable to a given soul, nor beneficial for that matter which he calls his body (20).”
Thus in essence, the same system of reasonably stable natural laws that allows man to survive and even thrive in an otherwise hostile universe can also end up allowing the very same components of nature that man requires for his very existence to be turned on him and to inflict harm upon him. Lewis points out how fire can either warm the flesh or burn it.
This is wrought with consequences as to why both nature and man seem capable of raining down misery with impunity. As to the issue of natural disasters, Romans 8:20-22 explains, "For the creation was subjected to frustration not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it... We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time (NIV)." Thus, the very physical setting of creation is under the curse not unlike that imposed upon humanity for the fall of the species into sin.
Though the providence of God no doubt often spares certain individuals from befalling the ferocity of a world out of control, the system of physical laws through which the natural world is governed is usually left in place for the overall benefit of finite kind. For we would be unable to adjust in our current condition to a constantly changing and fluctuating cosmos. This principle readily applies to those bent on using physical matter to inflict their own corrupt wills upon secondary by-standing parties.
For example, one can use a baseball bat to enjoy an afternoon of leisurely recreation or to work someone over during an armed robbery. While we would all like God to intervene to prevent physical matter and natural forces from wreaking havoc upon us, in all likelihood doing so would inflict even greater harm upon the human species and the world in their current condition than simply allowing these contingent entities to continue on until the so-called end of history and the beginning of eternity.
Much of this theodicy is focused upon the preeminence of freedom in the relationships established under the terms of the divine economy. But some might argue that it is at this point of imbuing the actors in the universal drama with their own sense of freedom that God erred in His drafting of the cosmic screenplay. However, it is because of His absolute goodness that God has seen fit to grant some degree of say-so to those He loves the most.
It is because of the overwhelming sense of importance placed upon love that freedom must take precedence over order and control though freedom and love take place within the boundaries established by this order and control. For as any lovesick high school student turned down for the prom eventually realizes, love must be given freely or it is not true love.
The Scripture says in Joshua 24:15, "....choose you this day whom ye will serve." The text does not say that the decision will be thrust upon you. The Lord will hear enough whining on the Day of Judgment. He does not need to make His task more difficult by assigning the responsibility for our eternal fates and destinies to any party other than ourselves.
For centuries, skeptics used the problem of evil to chip away at the foundations of theism. However, the fact that the objection can be raised at all points towards the affirmative in its conclusion to the God question.
Human beings recoil in horror as they do to the pain and unfairness of the world since it is such a shocking affront to the way things were originally intended to be. Atheism uses this reaction deep within the soul to make its case for a totally naturalistic universe. But if evil, pain, and suffering are simply a part of the natural order, on what grounds are we justified in railing against it, and for that matter, how are we even capable of determining something has gone awry in the first place?
If evil is nothing more than part of the backdrop against which life plays itself out, man should barely notice it. For example, most normal people do not lie awake at night wondering why there is oxygen in the world or work themselves up into having an anxiety attack despairing as to why they will have to eat breakfast in the morning. The ability to complain about and speak out against evil points to the reality of some transcendent standard existing above the fray by which to justify this innate tendency towards making judgments.
One might counter that these standards simply exist within the individual as personal conscience. Yet both the daily news and the pages of history are replete with examples of how competing interpretations of these principles differ considerably and the conflicts that often arise without appeal to a yet higher arbitrating authority.
Thus, some external standard must exist in order to tell the difference between right and wrong. The only sufficient basis for this criteria is found in God. Alister McGrath provides the following proof in “Intellectuals Don’t Need God & Other Modern Myths“: “(A). Unless there is a God, there cannot be objectively binding moral obligations. (B). Objectively binding moral obligations exist. (C). Therefore, there is a God (40).”
At this point, the Christian thinker ought to take the problem of evil, invert it, and turn it against the critics of faith. John MacArthur writes in "Terrorism, Jihad & The Bible", his response to the September 2001 terrorist attack upon the United States, “The question we ought to ask is not why disasters happen sometimes. What we ought to ask is why don’t disasters happen all of the time (65).”
The problem really is not so much the problem of evil but rather the problem of pleasure. For human beings have done such a superb job messing up the world, that if God did not exist, how does any pleasure exist at all? And if God does exist, why does He continue to bless mankind despite the rebellion, animus, and contempt characteristically displayed on the part of the species to its benevolent Creator?
James 1:7 says, “Every good and perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” No matter how wretched life can get, somewhere along the way most people can recall at least a single moment of fleeting kindness in their lives and usually more.
Even if the Christian takes the time to carefully delineate the case that God is not responsible for the existence of evil in the world and how the existence of phenomena morally classified as such does not contradict His nature of absolute holiness, this is often still not enough to satisfy some of the more rigorous skeptics. These voices will counter that, even though the above theistic assertion might be true, God is still the bad guy in this story. In their eyes, He has not done enough to use His immense power to rectify the situation.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. God has been far from passive in solving this problem He did not create.
Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman write in "An Unchanging Faith In A Changing World: Understanding & Responding To Critical Issues Christians Face Today", "God has embraced this in the most intimate way possible through the abusive treatment His Son received when he was tortured and crucified (81)." These apologists continue, "Thus, the real problem of evil --- ...whether anything can be done to overcome it and bring good out of it --- has been answered (81)." In essence, the problem has already been solved. The thing is that we are so mired in the flow of time that we are not yet able to fully enjoy the effects of this resolution.
God did not run away from the problem, but instead tackled its resolution head on in the most enthusiastic manner imaginable by allowing pain and evil to be visited upon Himself and in the person of His Son Jesus Christ. Nor did God gloss over the reality of evil in the attempt to buttress His position by spinning the matter in His favor by downplaying our pain.
God comes at the issue in such a straightforward manner that His blunt forthrightness would make plain-spoken newsman Bill O'Reilly blush. Job 14:1 declares, "Man born of woman is of few days and full of trouble."
God could very well quote the following from that old country song when we grow weary of the troubles inherent to life in this world: "I beg your pardon. I never promised you a rose garden." He does, however, promise to do away with them in the next world where He will wipe away every tear according to Revelation 21:4. If God really was little more than a fairy tale, would the authors of Scripture include those texts that do little to sooth the troubled soul about the bleakness this side of Heaven and instead force the individual to confront some rather starting realities?
The problem of evil has plagued the mind of man at least since the day the first parents were expelled from the Garden of Eden for disobedience. However, the problem is not so much that God is a messed-up illogical being but rather that man is so limited in his capacity for reason that he is unable to ascend to the level of understanding necessary to comprehend the operational totality of the universe at the level of cosmic completeness.
God let's a whining Job have it in Job 38:3-4 and beyond when the Lord inquires, "Gird up now thy loins like a man [translated as "brace yourself' in the NIV]; for I will demand of then an answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare if you hast understanding."
And while man can theodicize until he is blue in the face, such answers provide only a modicum of comfort when one befalls ill health, when a family member passes away, or when religious fanatics fly airplanes into skyscrapers. During such trials, the best one can hope for are the reassurances found in Romans 8:28: "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to his purposes."
Bibliography:
Boa, Kenneth and Bowman Robert. "An Unchanging Faith in a Changing World: Understanding and Responding to Critical Issues That Face Christians Today." Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997.
Frame, John. "Apologetics To The Glory Of God: An Introduction." Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishers, 1994.
Geisler, Norman & Feinberg, Paul. "Introduction To Philosophy: An Introduction." Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1980.
Lewis, C.S. "The Problem Of Pain." New York, New York: MacMillian Publishing, Eighteenth Printing, 1973.
MacArthur, John. "Terrorism, Jihad & The Bible: A Response To The Terrorist Attacks.: Nashville: W Publishing Group, 2001.
McGrath, Allister. "Intellectuals Don't Need God & Other Modern Myths: Building Bridges To Faith Through Apologetics." Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.
by Frederick Meekins