To Mitt Romney, Box 96861, Washington, DC 20090-6861, From Everette Hatcher of www.thedailyhatch.org 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002
Did we forgive George Bush in 1988 for being pro-choice originally in 1980? We sure did. In fact, my former pastor, Adrian Rogers, had a chance to visit with Bush several times. He told him that the Religious Right did not have enough votes to get him elected on their own, but if he ever went against the pro-life view then they could definately derail his election bid.
Today I am writing you to remind you of the same thing. We in the pro-life movement are firmly behind you but we want to know some of the reasons are passionately pro-life.
First published in 1981, Francis Schaeffer’s A Christian Manifestois increasingly relevant today in 2010. The book, penned as a Christian response to the Communist and Humanist Manifestos, describes how the United States is being systematically torn apart by secular humanism and its “material-energy, chance world view.” The second half of the book details what actions the Christian should take in defending one’s self and country.In explaining civil disobedience, Schaeffer uses Samuel Rutherford’smodel of “three appropriate levels of resistance.”“First, he must defend himself by protest (in contemporary society this would most often be by legal action); second, he must flee if at all possible; and, third, he may use force, if necessary, to defend himself (Schaeffer 103).”Schaeffer then goes on to provide an example that would be worthy of Rutherford’s first level of resistance.“In our day an illustration for the need of protest is tax money used for abortion. After all the normal constitutional means of protest had been exhausted, then what could be done? At some point protest could lead some Christians to refuse to pay some portion of their tax money. Of course, this would mean a trial. Such a move would have to be the individual’s choice under God. No one should decide for another. But somewhere along the way, such a decision might easily have to be faced. Happily, at the present time in the United States the Hyde Amendment has removed the use of national tax money for abortions, but that does not change the possibility that in some cases such a protest would be the only way to be heard (Schaeffer 108).”
What should be the Christian response? If the legal challenges fail and our government does indeed choose to use federal tax money to fund the killing of unborn babies, how will God’s people respond?
It is interesting just how prophetic Francis Schaeffer’s thoughts and concerns were. This is the first of his writings I have read and I look forward to reading more of his work. The abortion fight is no different than any other war in the sense that individual battles will decide victory. But the battles involved have so much more at stake than I often realize. There is certainly a “war of world views” going on in this country and the preservation or destruction of the U.S. Constitution will surely determine if liberty is for all or none.
Hitler’s last few moments of life were filled with anxiety as they should have been. He went on to face his maker and pay dearly for his many sins. When I look at the never before released pictures of Hitler’s bunker, it makes me wonder how anyone can claim that this life doesn’t count for all eternity and people like Hitler are home free like Woody Allen’s movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors” suggests.
I am not going to give all the blog posts but there were many. Here is another one.
No Everette, god does not establish moral codes. We do. We can attribute them to any deity of your choosing but make no mistake we, society, set moral codes. I suppose you were at prayer meeting on the occasions we discussed civil and moral codes and origins. They existed long before the Hebrewic god came along.
Warning to fundamentalists: Don’t let go of your imaginary place called “Hell.” It could cost you a job, family and friends. So, since security is our most important possession hang on to Hell.
Elwood, answer this one question. HOW COULD JUDAH HAVE REMOVED HIS TROUBLESOME MISTRESS FROM HIS LIFE WITHOUT KILLING HER? Woody Allen knew what he was doing in this film and he was showing that without God and an afterlife then there is no reason not to murder!!!!
Woody Allen’s 1989 movie, CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS , is concerning the need of God while making decisions in the area of personal morality. In this film, Allen attacks his own atheistic view of morality. Martin Landau plays a Jewish eye doctor named Judah Rosenthal raised by a religious father who always told him, “The eyes of God are always upon you.” However, Judah later concludes that God doesn’t exist. He has his mistress (played in the film by Anjelica Huston) murdered because she continually threatened to blow the whistle on his past questionable, probably illegal, business activities. She also attempted to break up Judah ‘s respectable marriage by going public with their two-year affair. Judah struggles with his conscience throughout the remainder of the movie. He continues to be haunted by his father’s words: “The eyes of God are always upon you.” This is a very scary phrase to a young boy, Judah observes. He often wondered how penetrating God’s eyes are.
Later in the film, Judah reflects on the conversation his religious father had with Judah ‘s unbelieving Aunt May at the dinner table many years ago:
“Come on Sol, open your eyes. Six million Jews burned to death by the Nazis, and they got away with it because might makes right,” says aunt May
Sol replies, “May, how did they get away with it?”
Judah asks, “If a man kills, then what?”
Sol responds to his son, “Then in one way or another he will be punished.”
Aunt May comments, “I say if he can do it and get away with it and he chooses not to be bothered by the ethics, then he is home free.”
Judah ‘s final conclusion was that might did make right. He observed that one day, because of this conclusion, he woke up and the cloud of guilt was gone. He was, as his aunt said, “home free.”
Woody Allen has exposed a weakness in his own humanistic view that God is not necessary as a basis for good ethics. There must be an enforcement factor in order to convince Judah not to resort to murder. Otherwise, it is fully to Judah ‘s advantage to remove this troublesome woman from his life.
…Elwood, are you missing in action? Earlier you asserted, “No everette, God does not establish moral codes. We do.” However, you will not elaborate on what the atheist Judah should have done to silence his mistress and save his marriage. Should he have confessed it all (including his past illegal activities) and faced the penalties or pay his hitman brother to have her done away with quietly like he did?
When it comes to morals you like to make big statements but you can not back it up by answering this simple question. I would love to hear from other atheists on this too. Maybe they will run and hide.
I don’t think eLwood is going to drop by, so I’ll take my shot at this.
You are correct that Woody Allen has pointed up a feature of the world as it exists, a feature that I don’t happen to like: People sometimes get away with murder.
What you don’t get, though, is what I just said: It is a feature of the world as it exists that justice is not inherent. Whether you or I like that or not, it’s how it is. In a world without any god, justice and meaning and all good and moral things have to be determined and imposed by people.
With god, one could, in theory, just shrug one’s shoulders at Hitler and say, “You’ll get yours, someday.” With the Christian god as accepted by many fundamentalists, Hitler could make a deathbed conversion and go straight to heaven, do not pass hell, do not collect eternal damnation.
Another great artist, Randy Newman, speaking as the Devil makes this point to an angel, “a good girl, cut down in your prime”, recently arrived in heaven:
“The man who shot you in the head In that ‘Burger King in Tucson Well, he never will be punished you know He will move to Big Pine, California Become the richest man in Inyo County While that may not be much, it’s enough When he dies Sixty-five years from today With his loved ones all around him He’ll be whisked right up to heaven He won’t pass go or have to wait He’ll just march right through the Goddamned gate And why, you may ask yourself why For thousands and thousands of years I have asked myself why”
To which James Taylor, playing God, answers:
“Faith. Contrition. Sincere contrition. Confession. Sincere confession Redemption. Absolution Those who seek Me shall find Me In the case of this man, Predestination
My ways are mysterious Sometimes even to myself My ways are mysterious”
Now, that’s not terribly satisfying from a moral point of view either. The “death and glory” version of Universalism, where all souls go to heaven as soon as they leave the body makes much more sense from an ethical point of view, especially if you accept the late Bill Hicks’ description of life:
“It’s just a ride and we can change it any time we want. It’s only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings and money, a choice right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your door, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one.”
Of course, Hicks, like myself, was somewhere between an agnostic and an atheist. Like Hicks, I don’t expect any life after death or eternal reward. Justice has to be provided here on earth.
So when a Hitler or a Nixon dies, not unpunished–both those men suffered, though not in proportion to their evil–or scot free, but still without having truly experienced justice for their sins, it’s the fault of those women and men who didn’t work hard enough to impose justice upon them.
That’s the ethical duty we face in the absence of god: Justice here and now, determined by human reason and imposed by human action.
Martin King’s riff on Theodore Parker’s claim, that the arc of the universe is long but that it bends toward justice, is true in a world populated by humans, who aren’t bad and who take that arc in their hands and bend it for all they’re worth. Atheists and thoughtful theists alike don’t depend on god to git-r-done (for values of ‘r’ which include ‘justice’).
__________
Let me start responding by first quoting two points that you make:
You are correct that Woody Allen has pointed up a feature of the world as it exists, a feature that I don’t happen to like: People sometimes get away with murder.
What you don’t get, though, is what I just said: It is a feature of the world as it exists that justice is not inherent. Whether you or I like that or not, it’s how it is. In a world without any god, justice and meaning and all good and moral things have to be determined and imposed by people.
_____________
Let us take a close look at how you are going to come up with morality as an atheist. When you think about it there is no way around the final conclusion that it is just your opinion against mine concerning morality. There is no final answers. However, if God does exist and he has imparted final answers to us then everything changes.
What doesn’t make sense is to look at the existence of evil and question the existence of God. The reason is that atheism turns out being a self-defeating philosophic solution to this problem of evil. Think of what evil is for a minute when we make this kind of objection. Evil is a value judgment that must be measured against a morally perfect standard in order to be meaningful. In other words, something is evil in that it departs from a perfect standard of good. C.S. Lewis made the point, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call something crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.”[ 1 ] He also goes on to point out that a portrait is a good or a bad likeness depending on how it compares with the “perfect” original. So to talk about evil, which is a departure from good, actually presumes something that exists that is absolutely good. If there is no God there’s no perfect standard, no absolute right or wrong, and therefore no departure from that standard. So if there is no God, there can’t be any evil, only personal likes and dislikes–what I prefer morally and what I don’t prefer morally.
This is the big problem with moral relativism as a moral point of view when talking about the problem of evil. If morality is ultimately a matter of personal taste–that’s what most people hold nowadays–then it’s just your opinion what’s good or bad, but it might not be my opinion. Everybody has their own view of morality and if it’s just a matter of personal taste–like preferring steak over broccoli or Brussels sprouts–the objection against the existence of God based on evil actually vanishes because the objection depends on the fact that some things are intrinsically evil–that evil isn’t just a matter of my personal taste, my personal definition. But that evil has absolute existence and the problem for most people today is that there is no thing that is absolutely wrong. Premarital sex? If it’s right for you. Abortion? It’s an individual choice. Killing? It depends on the circumstances. Stealing? Not if it’s from a corporation.
The fact is that most people are drowning in a sea of moral relativism. If everything is allowed then nothing is disallowed. Then nothing is wrong. Then nothing is ultimately evil. What I’m saying is that if moral relativism is true, which it seems like most people seem to believe–even those that object against evil in the world, then the talk of objective evil as a philosophical problem is nonsense. To put it another way, if there is no God, then morals are all relative. And if moral relativism is true, then something like true moral evil can’t exist because evil becomes a relative thing.
An excellent illustration of this point comes from the movie The Quarrel . In this movie, a rabbi and a Jewish secularist meet again after the Second World War after they had been separated. They had gotten into a quarrel as young men, separated on bad terms, and then had their village and their family and everything destroyed through the Second World War, both thinking the other was dead. They meet serendipitously in Toronto, Canada in a park and renew their friendship and renew their old quarrel.
To paraphrase the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer, the person who argues against the existence of God based on the existence of evil in the world has both feet firmly planted in mid-air.
Rabbi Hersch says to the secularist Jew Chiam, “If a person does not have the Almighty to turn to, if there’s nothing in the universe that’s higher than human beings, then what’s morality? Well, it’s a matter of opinion. I like milk; you like meat. Hitler likes to kill people; I like to save them. Who’s to say which is better? Do you begin to see the horror of this? If there is no Master of the universe then who’s to say that Hitler did anything wrong? If there is no God then the people that murdered your wife and kids did nothing wrong.”
That is a very, very compelling point coming from the rabbi. In other words, to argue against the existence of God based on the existence of evil forces us into saying something like this: Evil exists, therefore there is no God. If there is no God then good and evil are relative and not absolute, so true evil doesn’t exist, contradicting the first point. Simply put, there cannot be a world in which it makes any sense to say that evil is real and at the same time say that God doesn’t exist. If there is no God then nothing is ultimately bad, deplorable, tragic or worthy of blame. The converse, by the way, is also true. This is the other hard part about this, it cuts both ways. Nothing is ultimately good, honorable, noble or worthy of praise. Everything is ultimately lost in a twilight zone of moral nothingness. To paraphrase the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer, the person who argues against the existence of God based on the existence of evil in the world has both feet firmly planted in mid-air.
Francis Schaeffer pictured above.
_______
By your own admission man imposes his own morality and that is why I want to challenge atheist like “John Arkansawyer” to show what basis he has for saying Hitler was wrong!!!
Early in his career Hitler was popular and many of the German people bought into his anti-semetic views. Does the atheist have an intellectual basis to condemn Hitler’s actions?
____________________________________
I personally met someone who was part of the Hitler youth movement in Germany in the 1930’s and until his dying day he believed that Hitler was right. I had a basis for knowing that Hitler was wrong and here it is below.
It is my view that according the Bible all men are created by God and are valuable. However, the atheist has no basis for coming to this same conclusion. Francis Schaeffer put it this way:
We cannot deal with people like human beings, we cannot deal with them on the high level of true humanity, unless we really know their origin—who they are. God tells man who he is. God tells us that He created man in His image. So man is some- thing wonderful.
Francis Schaeffer died in 1984, but there is a website dedicated to his works. In 1972 he wrote the book “He is There and He is Not Silent.” Here is the statement that sums up that book:
One of philosophy’s biggest problems is that anything exists at all and has the form that it does. Another is that man exists as a personal being and makes true choices and has moral responsibility. The Bible gives sufficient answers to these problems. In fact, the only sufficient answer is that the infinite-personal triune God is there and He is not silent. He has spoken to man in the Bible.
The basic question Woody Allen is presenting to his own agnostic humanistic worldview is: If you really believe there is no God there to punish you in an afterlife, then why not murder if you can get away with it? The secular humanist worldview that modern man has adopted does not work in the real world that God has created. God “has planted eternity in the human heart…” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). This is a direct result of our God-given conscience. The apostle Paul said it best in Romans 1:19, “For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God has shown it to them” (Amplified Version).
It’s no wonder, then, that one of Allen’s fellow humanists would comment, “Certain moral truths — such as do not kill, do not steal, and do not lie — do have a special status of being not just ‘mere opinion’ but bulwarks of humanitarian action. I have no intention of saying, ‘I think Hitler was wrong.’ Hitler WAS wrong.” (Gloria Leitner, “A Perspective on Belief,” The Humanist, May/June 1997, pp.38-39). Here Leitner is reasoning from her God-given conscience and not from humanist philosophy. It wasn’t long before she received criticism.
Humanist Abigail Ann Martin responded, “Neither am I an advocate of Hitler; however, by whose criteria is he evil?” (The Humanist, September/October 1997, p. 2.). Humanists don’t really have an intellectual basis for saying that Hitler was wrong, but their God-given conscience tells them that they are wrong on this issue.
Crimes and Misdemeanors (Woody Allen – 1989) – Final scenes
You have said in the past that we are not a Christian nation. I am not going to get into that discussion right now but I wanted to make some points about our origin.
There were 55 gentlemen who put together the constitution and their church affliation is of public record. Greg Koukl notes:
Members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were almost all Christians, 51 of 55–a full 93%. Indeed, 70% were Calvinists (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and the Dutch Reformed), considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic form of Christianity.
The Faith of Our FathersWas the faith of the Founding Fathers deism or Christianity? What does the answer mean for us today? Both the secularists and the Christians have missed the mark.By: Gregory Koukl
There’s been a lot of rustle in the press lately–and in many Christian publications–about the faith of the Founding Fathers and the status of the United States as a “Christian nation.” Home schooling texts abound with references to our religious heritage, and entire organizations are dedicated to returning America to its spiritual roots. On the other side, secularists cry “foul” and parade their own list of notables among our country’s patriarchs. They rally around the cry of “separation of church and state.” Which side is right? Oddly both, after a fashion.
Who Were the Founding Fathers?
Historical proof-texts can be raised on both sides. Certainly there were godless men among the early leadership of our nation, though some of those cited as examples of Founding Fathers turn out to be insignificant players. For example, Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen may have been hostile to evangelical Christianity, but they were firebrands of the Revolution, not intellectual architects of the Constitution. Paine didn’t arrive in this country until 1774 and only stayed a short time.As for others–George Washington, Samuel Adams, James Madison, John Witherspoon, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams, Patrick Henry, and even Thomas Jefferson–their personal correspondence, biographies, and public statements are replete with quotations showing that these thinkers had political philosophies deeply influenced by Christianity.The Constitutional ConventionIt’s not necessary to dig through the diaries, however, to determine which faith was the Founder’s guiding light. There’s an easier way to settle the issue.The phrase “Founding Fathers” is a proper noun. It refers to a specific group of men, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were other important players not in attendance, like Jefferson, whose thinking deeply influenced the shaping of our nation. These 55 Founding Fathers, though, made up the core.The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists–Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin–this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith.[1]This is a revealing tally. It shows that the members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were almost all Christians, 51 of 55–a full 93%. Indeed, 70% were Calvinists (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and the Dutch Reformed), considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic form of Christianity.Benjamin Franklin
Even Franklin the deist is equivocal. He was raised in a Puritan family and later adopted then abandoned deism. Though not an orthodox Christian, it was 81-year-old Franklin’s emotional call to humble prayer on June 28, 1787, that was the turning point for a hopelessly stalled Convention. James Madison recorded the event in his collection of notes and debates from the Federal Convention. Franklin’s appeal contained no less than four direct references to Scripture.
And have we forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that ‘except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.[2]
Three of the four cornerstones of the Constitution–Franklin, Washington, and Madison–were firmly rooted in Christianity. But what about Thomas Jefferson? His signature cannot be found at the end of the Constitution, but his voice permeates the entire document.
Thomas Jefferson
Though deeply committed to a belief in natural rights, including the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, Jefferson was individualistic when it came to religion; he sifted through the New Testament to find the facts that pleased him.
Sometimes he sounded like a staunch churchman. The Declaration of Independence contains at least four references to God. In his Second Inaugural Address he asked for prayers to Israel’s God on his behalf. Other times Jefferson seemed to go out of his way to be irreverent and disrespectful of organized Christianity, especially Calvinism.
It’s clear that Thomas Jefferson was no evangelical, but neither was he an Enlightenment deist. He was more Unitarian than either deist or Christian.[3]
This analysis, though, misses the point. The most important factor regarding the faith of Thomas Jefferson–or any of our Founding Fathers–isn’t whether or not he had a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. The debate over the religious heritage of this country is not about who is ultimately going to heaven, but rather about what the dominant convictions were that dictated the structure of this nation.
Even today there are legions of born-again Christians who have absolutely no skill at integrating their beliefs about Christ with the details of their daily life, especially their views of government. They may be “saved,” but they are completely ineffectual as salt and light.
By contrast, some of the Fathers may not have been believers in the narrowest sense of the term, yet in the broader sense–the sense that influences culture–their thinking was thoroughly Christian. Unlike many evangelicals who live lives of practical atheism, these men had political ideals that were deeply informed by a robust Christian world view. They didn’t always believe biblically, having a faith leading to salvation, but almost all thoughtbiblically, resulting in a particular type of government.
Thomas Jefferson was this kind of man. In Defending the Declaration, legal historian Gary Amos observes, “Jefferson is a notable example of how a man can be influenced by biblical ideas and Christian principles even though he never confessed Jesus Christ as Lord in the evangelical sense.”[4]
What Did the Founding Fathers Believe and Value?
When you study the documents of the Revolutionary period, a precise picture comes into focus. Here it is:
Virtually all those involved in the founding enterprise were God-fearing men in the Christian sense; most were Calvinistic Protestants.
The Founders were deeply influenced by a biblical view of man and government. With a sober understanding of the fallenness of man, they devised a system of limited authority and checks and balances.
The Founders understood that fear of God, moral leadership, and a righteous citizenry were necessary for their great experiment to succeed.
Therefore, they structured a political climate that was encouraging to Christianity and accommodating to religion, rather than hostile to it.
Protestant Christianity was the prevailing religious view for the first 150 years of our history.
However…
The Fathers sought to set up a just society, not a Christian theocracy.
They specifically prohibited the establishment of Christianity–or any other faith–as the religion of our nation.
A Two-Sided Coin
We can safely draw two conclusions from these facts, which serve to inform our understanding of the relationship between religion and government in the United States.
First, Christianity was the prevailing moral and intellectual influence shaping the nation from its outset. The Christian influence pervaded all aspects of life, from education to politics. Therefore, the present concept of a rigid wall of separation hardly seems historically justified.
Virtually every one of the Founders saw a vital link between civil religion and civil government. George Washington’s admonitions in his Farewell Speech, September 19, 1796, were characteristic of the general sentiment:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports….And let us indulge with caution the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.[5]
Second, the Founders stopped short of giving their Christian religion a position of legal privilege. In the tradition of the early church, believers were to be salt and light. The First Amendment insured the liberty needed for Christianity to be a preserving influence and a moral beacon, but it also insured Christianity would never be the law of the land.
This ought to call into serious question a common tactic of the so-called Religious Right. “We were here first,” their apologists proclaim. “Our country was stolen from us, and we demand it back.” Author John Seel calls this “priority as entitlement.”
The sad fact of the matter is that cultural authority was not stolen from us; we surrendered it through neglect. Os Guinness pointed out that Christians have not been out-thought. Rather, they have not been around when the thinking was being done.
Choosing cultural monasticism rather than hard-thinking advocacy, Christians abandoned the public square to the secularists. When the disciples of Jesus Christ retreated, the disciples of Dewey, Marx, Darwin, Freud, Nietzsche, Skinner, and a host of others replaced them.
Seel warns of the liability of an “appeal to history as a basis of Christian grounds to authority.”[6]Playing the victim will not restore our influence, nor will political strong-arm tactics. Shouldn’t our appeal rather be on the basis of truth rather than on the patterns of the past?
The faith of our Founding Fathers was Christianity, not deism. In this regard, many secularists–and even some Christians–have been wrong in their assessment of our history. On the other hand, many Christians have also been mistaken in their application of the past to the present.
Christians have no special privileges simply because Christianity was America’s first faith. “If America ever was or ever will be a ‘Christian nation,'” Seel observes, “it is not by conscious design or written law, but by free conviction.”[7]
Success for the Christian cannot be measured in numbers or political muscle, but only in faithfulness. Our most important weapon is not our voting power, but the power of the truth freely spoken and freely heard.
Recommended Reading:
Let Freedom Ring–A Basic Outline of American History, available through the Family Research Council, 700 Thirteenth St., N.W., Suite 500, Washington D.C. 20005, 1-800-225-4008
The Light and the Glory, Peter Marshall and David Manuel (Grand Rapids: Revell, 1977)
Christianity and the Constitution–The Faith of Our Founding Fathers, John Eidsmoe (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987)
Defending the Declaration–How the Bible and Christianity Influenced the Writing of the Declaration of Independence, Gary T. Amos (Brentwood, TN: Wogelmuth & Hyatt, 1989)
Positive Neutrality: Letting Religious Freedom Ring, Stephen T. Monsma, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993)
[1] John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), p. 43.[2] Benjamin Franklin, quoted by James Madison in Notes on Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787(Athens: Ohio University Press, 1966, 1985), p. 209.[3]Eidsmoe has a very thorough and even-handed section on Jefferson.[4] Gary T. Amos, Defending the Declaration, (Brentwood, TN: Wogelmuth & Hyatt, 1989), p. 9.[5] The Annals of America, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1976), vol. 3, p. 612.[6] John Seel, No God But God–Breaking with the Idols of Our Age, Os Guinness and John Seel, eds., (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), p. 64.[7] John Seel, No God But God–Breaking with the Idols of Our Age, Os Guinness and John Seel, eds., (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), p. 69.
For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org
__________________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
I don’t have anything good to say about the Hogs’ performance last Saturday but some other SEC teams did pretty well. I am looking forward to the Tennessee Florida game since both teams looked very good last week. QB TYLER BRAY (Tennessee) — Completed 18-of-20 passes for 310 yards and four touchdowns in Tennessee’s 51-13 win against Georgia State. DL COREY MILLER (Tennessee) — Had six tackles with 1.5 for losses, including a sack, in Tennessee’s 51-13 win against Georgia State.
SEC OFFENSIVE PLAYER OF THE WEEK
TYLER RUSSELL (Watch Mississippi State Highlights)
Quarterback
MISSISSIPPI STATE
6-4 • 220 • Jr. • Meridian, Miss.
• Russell led Mississippi State to a 28-10 victory over Auburn in the SEC opener for both teams, State’s first win in an SEC opener since 1999.
• He completed 20-of-29 passes for 222 yards and three touchdowns without an interception.
• Russell led the Bulldogs on three touchdown drives in its first four second half possessions as State scored 21 unanswered points to seal the game.
• He completed passes to nine different receivers.
SEC DEFENSIVE PLAYER OF THE WEEK
JARVIS JONES (Watch Georgia Highlights)
Outside Linebacker
GEORGIA
6-3 • 241 • Jr. • Columbus, Ga.
• Jones had the second-most tackles for the Bulldogs (9), two sacks/TFLs, an interception, two forced fumbles and five quarterback pressures during Georgia’s 41-20 victory over Missouri.
• Jones now has 16.5 sacks over his last 16 games and 24 tackles for loss in that span and is leading the SEC in TFLs this season.
• Jones’ first career INT came midway through the final quarter with the Bulldogs up 27-20 as he managed to grab the pick and return it 21 yards to the Tiger 1-yard line.
• On Missouri’s next possession, Jones sacked James Franklin for a loss of 11 yards and forced a fumble that the Bulldogs recovered deep in Tiger territory.
SEC SPECIAL TEAMS PLAYER OF THE WEEK
CALEB STURGIS (Watch Florida Highlights)
Placekicker
FLORIDA
5-9 • 185 • So. • DeSoto, Texas
• Sturgis connected on both of his field goal attempts and accounted for eight points in Florida’s 20-17 win at Texas A&M.
• He connected on a 51-yard field goal in the second quarter, which closed the Aggie lead to 17-10 going into halftime.
• Sturgis extended his school record of 50-plus yard kicks to seven, which is also tops among all active kickers nationally.
• He now has 100 career PATs made and his 76.9 career field goal percentage is currently 10th in SEC history.
SEC Co-OFFENSIVE LINEMAN PLAYER OF THE WEEK
LARRY WARFORD (Watch Kentucky Highlights)
Guard
KENTUCKY
6-3 • 343 • Sr. • Richmond, Ky.
• Warford graded out at 91.7 percent with eight knockdown blocks, no penalties and allowed no sacks in Kentucky’s 47-14 win againt Kent State. UK’s 47 points and 539 yards total offense were the most since 2010
• Hawkins helped the Ole Miss offense rack up 538 total yards, including 332 on the ground, in a 28-10 win over UTEP. He made his 18th career start and second at right guard after playing center and left guard his first three seasons.
SEC Co-DEFENSIVE LINEMAN OF THE WEEK
SAM MONTGOMERY (Watch LSU Highlights)
Defensive End
LSU
6-5 • 260 • Jr. • Greenwood, S.C.
• Montgomery registered 4 tackles, 1 sack (3-yard loss) and 1.5 TFL (4-yard loss) in LSU’s 41-3 win over Washington. He also added 3 QB hurries as the Tigers held Washington to only 12 first downs and 183 yards of total offense.
• Moore registered 10 total tackles, seven solos, and had three QB sacks (-21 yards) in Texas A&M’s 20-17 loss to Florida. Moore now leads the nation in sacks per game (3.00) and is fifth in tackles for loss per game (3.00).
SEC FRESHMAN OF THE WEEK
JALEN MILLS (Watch LSU Highlights)
Cornerback
LSU
6-0 • 185 • DeSoto, Texas
• Mills, a true freshman, made his second straight start at cornerback for the Tigers and was second on team with 7 tackles to go with first interception of career in 41-3 win over Washington.
• He added one pass breakup as the Tiger defense dominated the Huskies, holding Washington to just 183 yards of total offense (26 rushing, 157 passing).
• Washington’s longest drive was just 45 yards and outside of LSU fumbling the opening kickoff at its own 16-yardline, the Huskies never got inside the LSU 30-yard line the entire game.
OTHER OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCES FROM WEEK 2
LB C.J. MOSLEY (Alabama) — Recorded game-high 11 tackles with a sack and pass deflection in Alabama’s 35-0 win against Western Kentucky.
WR KEVIN NORWOOD (Alabama) — Caught three passes for a game-high 92 yards and two touchdowns in Alabama’s 35-0 win against Western Kentucky.
TE CHRIS GRAGG (Arkansas) — Caught team-high seven passes for 83 yards in Arkansas’ 34-31 loss to Louisiana-Monroe.
RB/RS ONTERIO McCALEBB (Auburn) — Returned kick 100 yards for a touchdown and accounted for 149 all-purpose yards in Auburn’s 28-10 loss at Mississippi State.
RB MIKE GILLISLEE (Florida) — Rushed for 83 yards and two touchdowns in Florida’s 20-17 win at Texas A&M.
SE MARLON BROWN (Georgia) — Hauled in a career-high eight catches for 106 yards and two touchdowns in Georgia’s 41-20 win at Missouri.
QB MAXWELL SMITH (Kentucky) — Completed 30-of-39 passes for 354 yards with four touchdowns and no interceptions in Kentucky’s 47-14 win against Kent State.
QB BO WALLACE (Ole Miss) — Completed 15-of-22 passes for 174 yards and three touchdowns and rushed for 53 yards and a TD in Ole Miss’ 28-10 win against UTEP.
DB JOHNTHAN BANKS (Mississippi State) — Registered six total tackles and two interceptions in the Bulldogs’ 28-10 win against Auburn.
QB JAMES FRANKLIN (Missouri) — Completed 25-of-41 passes for 269 yards with two TDs and an interception in Missouri’s 41-20 loss to Georgia.
QB DYLAN THOMPSON (South Carolina) — In his first career start, completed 21-of-37 passes for 330 yards and three touchdowns in South Carolina’s 48-10 win over East Carolina.
CB JIMMY LEGREE (South Carolina) — Tied for team-high five total tackles and returned an interception for a touchdown in South Carolina’s 48-10 win over East Carolina.
QB TYLER BRAY (Tennessee) — Completed 18-of-20 passes for 310 yards and four touchdowns in Tennessee’s 51-13 win against Georgia State.
DL COREY MILLER (Tennessee) — Had six tackles with 1.5 for losses, including a sack, in Tennessee’s 51-13 win against Georgia State.
OLB KARL BUTLER (Vanderbilt) — Tallied five total tackles (four solos) with 2.5 for losses (-7 yards) in Vanderbilt’s 23-13 loss at Northwestern.
I have enjoyed reading this series of reviews by T. Kurt Jaros on Milton and Rose Friedman’s book “Free to Choose.” I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
T. Kurt Jaros is currently a Master’s student studying Systematic Theology at King’s College in London. He holds a B.A. in Philosophy and Political Science cum laude and an M.A. in Christian Apologetics high honors from Biola University, an evangelical Christian university outside of Los Angeles.
He enjoys learning and thinking about theology, specifically historical theology, philosophical theology and philosophy of religion, and issues pertaining to monergism and synergism. Additionally, he enjoys learning and thinking about political philosophy, economics, American political history, and campaigns.
This is part of a series on Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose.”
In the fifth chapter of his book “Free to Choose,” Milton Friedman discusses the three different ways that humans are considered to be equal. Yes, for those that have been faithfully following along, we are only in the fifth chapter.
Friedman has three categories for human equality: equality before God, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. He thinks the first is the Founders’ use, the second is compatible with liberty, and the third is socialism.
Equality before God was not something the Founders took literally. “They did not regard ‘men’—or as we would say today, ‘persons’—as equal in physical characteristics, emotional reactions, mechanical and intellectual abilities.” Jefferson himself was a remarkable man: He designed and built his own house, was an inventor, scholar, statesman, founder of the University of Virginia, governor of Virginia, and became the president of the U.S. Hardly equal in all senses to a white-collar, working class man.
So what did Jefferson mean when he wrote that, “all men are created equal?” The answer is found in the proceeding phrase, “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” This is how all persons are created equal, because God created us and gave us intrinsic value that we speak of in terms of ‘rights’ language.
Equality of opportunity more simply describes some of our rights and how we are all equal before the law. This type of equality is not inconsistent with liberty, but “an essential component of liberty.” Friedman notes that if someone is denied a job they are qualified for based on their ethnic background, color or religion, then they are being denied equal opportunity.
Equality of outcome is the problematic view. This is the idea that everybody should literally be equal. There are many problems with this idea.
First of all, ‘fairness’ is not an objective concept when dealing with wealth. One man’s garbage is another man’s treasure. Second, the passion behind this idea is that it isn’t fair for some kids to have advantages over others just because of the socioeconomic status of their parents. The focus against those who are advantaged is based on one’s property such as home or business values. However, property can also take the form of talents: musical ability, strength and intelligence. From an ethical standpoint, is there really any difference between the two? Many people resent the inheritance of property like houses and businesses, but don’t resent the inheritance of talents. I wish I could play basketball as well as Kobe Bryant. I’d be a multi-millionaire if I had that type of talent.
But let’s consider where this leads. If we were to really try and equal the outcomes, then less advantaged kids would be given the greatest amount of training and the advantaged kids would be given the least amount of training. That’s fair, right? Not for the advantaged kids. The fact is, life is not fair. It is important to realize how we benefit from things being unfair. I take great pleasure in watching the best of the best play against the best of the best. That’s why we pay money to go to sporting events or watch movies with the best actors. “What kind of world would it be if everyone were a duplicate of everyone else?”
To close, I want to take up a point with Friedman. It’s true today that religion is something that you cannot judge an applicant on. But why think this? Couldn’t someone’s religious beliefs disqualify them? Why can’t we judge someone based upon the values that they uphold and praise? For example, if religion X holds that laziness is a great virtue, why would an employer want to hire someone who strives to become lazy? But let’s take this a next step further. Suppose there is a Christian family who owns a small business. And suppose there is an applicant who is a Satanist, something that Christians believe is evil. In fact, Satanism distorts the true Christian message, and that is insulting to this family. The Christians have a right to call evil by its name and to have no part of it. Government policies must protect employers, too.
Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme but Blake who is a blogger said I was off base. Ark Times reader says Social Security is not Ponzi Scheme Social Security Disaster Walter E. Williams Columnist, Townhall.com Politicians who are principled enough to point out the fraud of Social Security, referring to it as a lie and […]
We got to do something soon about Social Security. The Case for Social Security Personal Accounts Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell There are two crises facing Social Security. First the program has a gigantic unfunded liability, largely caused by demographics. Second, the program is a very bad deal for younger workers, making them pay record […]
Senator Obama’s Social Security Tax Plan Uploaded by afq2007 on Jul 23, 2008 In addition to several other tax increases, Senator Barack Obama wants to increase the Social Security payroll tax burden by imposing the tax on income above $250,000. This would be a sharp departure from current law, which only requires that the tax […]
Saving Social Security with Personal Retirement Accounts Uploaded by afq2007 on Jan 10, 2011 There are two crises facing Social Security. First the program has a gigantic unfunded liability, largely thanks to demographics. Second, the program is a very bad deal for younger workers, making them pay record amounts of tax in exchange for comparatively meager benefits. This […]
“Saving the American Dream: The Heritage Plan to Fix the Debt, Cut Spending, and Restore Prosperity,” Heritage Foundation, May 10, 2011 by Stuart Butler, Ph.D. , Alison Acosta Fraser and William Beach is one of the finest papers I have ever read. Over the next few days I will post portions of this paper, but […]
Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme? I just started a series on this subject. In this article below you will see where the name “Ponzi scheme” came from and if it should be applied to the Social Security System. Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi! 9/14/2011 | Email John Stossel | Columnist’s Archive Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi! There, I […]
Uploaded by LibertyPen on Jan 8, 2009 Professor Williams explains what’s ahead for Social Security Dan Mitchell on Social Security I have said that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and sometimes you will hear someone in the public say the same thing. Yes, It Is a Ponzi Scheme by Michael D. Tanner Michael Tanner […]
I am very unhappy that the federal government is spending 24.8% of GDP. I think that is because you think the government best knows how to spend our money. That takes away our freedom. Many people don’t realize how rare and precious freedom is. Milton Friedman once said:
“Because we live in a largely free society, we tend to forget how limited is the span of time and the part of the globe for which there has ever been anything like political freedom: the typical state of mankind is tyranny, servitude, and misery. The nineteenth century and early twentieth century in the Western world stand out as striking exceptions to the general trend of historical development. Political freedom in this instance clearly came along with the free market and the development of capitalist institutions. So also did political freedom in the golden age of Greece and in the early days of the Roman era.”
___________
Milton Friedman did a great job of explaining things in a simple way.
To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them.He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served.
Introduction
The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather “What can I and my compatriots do through government” to help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom? And he will accompany this question with another: How can we keep the government we create from becoming a Frankenstein that will destroy the very freedom we establish it to protect? Freedom is a rare and delicate plant. Our minds tell us, and history confirms, that the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power. Government is necessary to preserve our freedom, it is an instrument through which we can exercise our freedom; yet by concentrating power in political hands, it is also a threat to freedom. Even though the men who wield this power initially be of good will and even though they be not corrupted by the power they exercise, the power will both attract and form men of a different stamp.
Introduction
There is enormous inertia—a tyranny of the status quo—in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis—actual or perceived—produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around.That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.
Preface (1982 edition), p. ix
Because we live in a largely free society, we tend to forget how limited is the span of time and the part of the globe for which there has ever been anything like political freedom: the typical state of mankind is tyranny, servitude, and misery. The nineteenth century and early twentieth century in the Western world stand out as striking exceptions to the general trend of historical development. Political freedom in this instance clearly came along with the free market and the development of capitalist institutions. So also did political freedom in the golden age of Greece and in the early days of the Roman era. History suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition.
Ch. 1 “The Relation Between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom”, 2002 edition, page 10
Political freedom means the absence of coercion of a man by his fellow men. The fundamental threat to freedom is power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority.The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest possible extent and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated — a system of checks and balances.
Ch. 1 “The Relation Between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom”
The existence of a free market does not of course eliminate the need for government. On the contrary, government is essential both as a forum for determining the “rule of the game” and as an umpire to interpret and enforce the rules decided on.
Ch. 1 “The Relation Between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom”, 2002 edition, page 15
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it … gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
Ch. 1 “The Relation Between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom”, 2002 edition, page 15
With respect to teachers’ salaries …. Poor teachers are grossly overpaid and good teachers grossly underpaid. Salary schedules tend to be uniform and determined far more by seniority.
Ch. 6 “The Role of Government in Education”
___________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
This is one of the most insightful episodes and here is a portion of it with links to complete episodes below:
E P I S O D E 6
How Should We Then Live 6#1
I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in Modern Science. A. Change in conviction from earlier modern scientists.B. From an open to a closed natural system: elimination of belief in a Creator.1. Closed system derives not from the findings of science but from philosophy.2. Now there is no place for the significance of Man, for morals, or for love.C. Darwin taught that all life evolved through the survival of the fittest.1. Serious problems inherent in Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism.
This is probably one of the most important episodes in the series.
T h e
SCIENTIFIC AGE
I. Church Attacks on Copernican Science Were Philosophical
Galileo’s and Copernicus’ works did not contradict the Bible but the elements of Aristotle’s teaching which had entered the Church.
II. Examples of Biblical Influence
A. Pascal’s work.
1. First successful barometer; great writing of French prose.
2. Understood Man’s uniqueness: Man could contemplate, and Man had value to God.
B. Newton
1. Speed of sound and gravity.
2. For Newton and the other early scientists, no problem concerning the why, because they began with the existence of a personal God who had created the universe.
C. Francis Bacon
1. Stressed careful observation and systematic collection of information.
2. Bacon and the other early scientists took the Bible seriously, including its teaching concerning history and the cosmos.
D. Faraday
1. Crowning discovery was the induction of the electric current.
2. As a Christian, believed God’s Creation is for all men to understand and enjoy, not just for a scientific elite.
III. Scientific Aspects of Biblical Influence
A. Oppenheimer and Whitehead: biblical foundations of scientific revolution.
B. Not all early scientists individually Christian, but all lived within Christian thought forms. This gave a base for science to continue and develop.
C. The contrast between Christian-based science and Chinese and Arab science.
D. Christian emphasis on an ordered Creation reflects nature of reality and is therefore acted upon in all cultures, regardless of what they say their world view is.
1. Einstein’s theory of relativity does not imply relative universe.
2. Man acts on assumption of order, whether he likes it or not.
3. Master idea of biblical science.
a) Uniformity of natural causes in an open system: cause and effect works, but God and Man not trapped in a process.
b) All that exists is not a total cosmic machine.
c) Human choices therefore have meaning and effect.
d) The cosmic machine and the machines people make therefore not a threat.
E P I S O D E 1 0 How Should We Then Live 10#1 FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be led by an elite: John Kenneth […]
E P I S O D E 9 How Should We Then Live 9#1 T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads to Pessimism Regarding a Meaning for Life and for Fixed […]
E P I S O D E 8 How Should We Then Live 8#1 I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, Degas) and Post-Impressionism (Cézanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin, […]
E P I S O D E 7 How Should We Then Live 7#1 I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act on his belief that we live […]
E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in Modern Science. A. Change in conviction from earlier modern scientists.B. From an open to a closed natural system: […]
E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live 5-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there was a unique improvement. A. […]
How Should We Then Live 4-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to how to be right with […]
How Should We Then Live 3-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so many problems today with this excellent episode. He noted, “Could have gone either way—with emphasis on real people living in […]
How Should We Then Live 2-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard to authority and the approach to God.” […]
How Should We Then Live 1-1 Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why it fell. It fell because of inward […]
Liberals like the idea of the welfare state while conservatives suggest charity through private organizations serve the poor better. I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT PRIVATE CHARITIES WORK MUCH BETTER THAN GOVERNMENT WELFARE PROGRAMS. I ran across this attitude on the Arkansas Times Blog. The person using the username “Elwood” noted:
Indeed the Bible teaches us a lot about where our concerns should be:
Proverbs 29:7) The righteous is concerned with the poor: but the wicked regardeth them not.
Conservatives are often portrayed as selfish scrooges who only care about their own bottom lines. But when it comes to truly meeting people’s needs, they’re the leaders of the pack.
Star Parker knew poverty personally. As a young drug addict in southern California, she lacked money, employment and hope. At one point, she was arrested for helping to rob a liquor store, and over the span of a few years, she had four abortions—all paid for by the government. Parker survived on welfare checks and free medical-care stickers, which she would sell to purchase illegal drugs.
The scriptural call to care for people such as Parker is clear: Loving our neighbor entails helping those in dire straits and working for the common good of their community.
In the biblical sense, seeking welfare has to do with promoting circumstances that allow people to flourish. It means helping people thrive in their homes, workplaces, neighborhoods, economies and political communities. This goal characterizes a true conservative political framework.
Now the president of a social policy research center focused on poverty issues, Parker testifies that a biblical view of human flourishing is at home in a conservative agenda—one focused on basic human dignity, strong families, a vibrant civil society, prosperous free markets and limited government.
Who Cares?
Many conservatives—and especially those motivated by faith—are on the front lines of caring for the poor. They’re the “street saints” who work quietly but tirelessly in the trenches, providing critical services in education, health, drug rehabilitation, prisoner re-entry, job training and disaster relief.
In fact, research shows conservatives actually give more to the poor than liberals. Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks compiled this body of research in his 2006 book Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism. Brooks found that conservative-headed households tend to give about 30 percent more money to charity than liberal-headed households, even though liberal families earn an average of 6 percent more each year than conservative families. Conservatives also tend to volunteer more time and give more blood than do liberals.
Despite such data, conventional wisdom portrays liberals as being the ones intent on fighting poverty and conservatives as selfish scrooges. Sadly, the promotion of free markets and limited government is often mistakenly equated with a disregard for people in need. Meanwhile, support for government redistribution programs functions as a kind of litmus test for genuine care and compassion. (Never mind the paradoxical fact that, according to Brooks, Americans who favor income-redistribution policies are significantly less likely to behave charitably than those who do not.)
True compassion, though, isn’t measured by how much money the federal government spends. The real question is which approach actually helps people escape poverty and flourish over the long-run. Conservatives tend to answer that question differently than liberals, although they both share the goal of “seeking the welfare of the city.”
_____________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
When I was 16 I met a young man and fell in love. As I have said on many occasions, Tom was my high school sweetheart. Our relationship blossomed through high school and college.
Tom and I married soon after I graduated from college, just knowing that we would live happily ever after. Tom progressed in the Navy as a Top Gun fighter pilot flying F14’s and I advanced in my own career. We were blessed with two wonderful children and it just got better and better.
Tom and I were Bible study leaders. Our family had much joy, peace and contentment and it flowed into all parts of our lives. Everything was fine. I was a normal woman living a very happy life. I never pictured that our dream would suddenly become a nightmare. I never imagined that our peaceful life would be completely shattered.
On September 11th, Tom gave me a kiss goodbye and left for work. Little did I know that I would never see him again. He was to pilot American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston to Los Angeles that day.
As the horror of that day unfolded, I quickly realized that I needed God more than ever before. I was devastated – searching for answers that didn’t exist – terrified at the prospect that Tom would not be coming home.
As I have spoken with people around the country I have come to realize that while my tragedy was in many ways unique to me, many of the feelings – the hurt, the loss, the anger, concern for my family – are shared by so many others. In fact, I dare say that all of us will, unfortunately, at some time in our lives experience what I call time in the pit – that time when you feel absolutely lost, alone, afraid and devastated. It may result from the loss of a loved one, divorce, issues with children, career problems or any of the hundreds of other life issues that we all deal with.
What do we do with the pain that results from tragedies in our lives? How do we move beyond them? I have learned how to hope again. Drawing daily from the foundation of faith that Tom and I held together, I have found my footing; He has rebuilt my life.
We have all been impacted by September 11th. Security, peace, safety – things we all took for granted – become casualties of that infamous day. Every life endures saddness and loss. But my story is that no matter what you have experienced or what pain you have suffered, God can bring you through the ashes of destruction to the beauty of life.
On September 11, 2001 the junior trip for the Arkansas Baptist High School of Little Rock was at the White House on the front lawn ready to enter the White House at 9:37 am EST when the plane struck the Pentagon just a few miles away. Secret Service ran out of the White House […]
I heard the amazing testimony of Brian Birdwell on Friday this week and I thought I would share it with you. I am Second – Brian Birdwell Strength Forged from Fire and Faith Face the Fire, the ministry started by severely burned 9/11 Pentagon survivor Lt. Col. (Ret.) Brian Birdwell and wife Mel, gives hope […]
The Memphis Commercial Appeal reported on Sept 10: When Deena Burnett Bailey spoke of the last time she heard her late husband’s voice, the rattle of silverware against china, the whispers and the general noise of a luncheon ceased. Bailey is the widow of Tom E. Burnett, who led resistance efforts on United Flight […]
Tom and I married soon after I graduated from college, just knowing that we would live happily ever after. Tom progressed in the Navy as a Top Gun fighter pilot flying F14’s and I advanced in my own career. We were blessed with two wonderful children and it just got better and better.
What do we do with the pain that results from tragedies in our lives? How do we move beyond them? I have learned how to hope again. Drawing daily from the foundation of faith that Tom and I held together, I have found my footing; He has rebuilt my life.
The Daily Hatch 