Can Morality Exist Without God?
Posted by truthtalklive on 12 March, 2010
If God does not exist then morality is merely a fairy tale on the level of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. If God does not exist then there is nothing inherently wrong with abortion, homosexuality, racism, greed, theft, slavery, pedophilia, rape, murder or even genocide.
For too long we have been trying to suppress cultural symptoms without addressing the real cause–our culture’s view of God.
Today Stu welcomes Brad Bright, President and CEO of Bright Media , Director of Discover God Institute www.discovergod.com . Bright is also the son of Bill Bright, Founder of Campus Crusade for Christ and author of the book ”God is the Issue”.
TODAY’S PROGRAM IS PRE-RECORDED…NO CALLS PLEASE BUT FEEL FREE TO COMMENT ON-LINE.
Stay connected!
30 Comments on “Can Morality Exist Without God?”
No morality can’t exist without God. Joel McDurmon has written a good article on this as well:
The Rape of Morality
The best way to refute an atheist is to quote a more consistent atheist. Modern atheists get angry and some even feel justified in ridiculing Christian when we recall Dostoevsky’s refrain (paraphrased), “If God does not exist, all things are permissible.” The ridicule comes with pointing out that Dostoevsky didn’t actually write this exact line, although The Brothers Karamazov does get close to the sentiment. “You idiots are so ignorant: Dostoevsky never said that!” Of course, the protest only skirts the real point of the saying. Whether Dostoevsky said it not, who cares? The issue is the impossibility of justifying moral laws in a godless universe.
Flowing from a near idol-worship of Isaac Newton and his emphasis on the laws of Nature, Alexander Pope published his 1732 “Essay on Man” as an affirmation of faith, although more in Nature than God. “All things fall out according to Natural laws,” was his point, and that we should learn to live content with whatever happens in life. After all, as he repeated throughout the poem, “Whatever is, is right.”
Pope had no idea what he was really advocating. Living in a world that was still dominated Christian culture, law, morals, etc., for Pope “Nature” and “Right” seemed like good things. Little did he know just how depraved a society built solely on nature could actually be.
Pope died in 1744. A mere four years earlier was born another influential literary figure across the English channel-the Marquis de Sade. Pope would not live to see the French Revolution where they idolized “Nature” and enshrined “lady reason” in the cathedrals. Sade not only lived through it, he provided the most radical and consistent view of what a system of morals built only on natural impulses would look like. In his rigorous consistency with “Nature,” Sade shows how deluded a dream like Pope’s really is, though Sade embraced it wholeheartedly. He pulls back the curtains on a dark, sadistic (a word derived from his very name), heartless, murderous, pornographic, backstage of evil. His basis for this? The fact that godless Nature dictates a lawless society: “for what should we, who have no religion, do with law?”
He continued, “Nature, equally dictating virtues and vices in us in reason of the need Nature has of the one and the other, what she inspires in us becomes a very reliable gauge by which to adjust exactly what is good and bad.” While this sounds somewhat acceptable-he is still speaking of good and evil, right?-he had much more in mind. Unlike Pope, Sade would not be hindered by the moral values of good and evil already entrenched around him. He would rigorously seek out only that which Nature dictated in us.
For example, he would advocate abolishing the death penalty, but not because he thought it too harsh a penalty for the crime of murder, but because he did not think murder is a crime to be punished at all. And thus, he argued, we should also abolish all laws against murder. Murder, after all, is a perfectly natural impulse. Society must learn to accept it.
In fact, sometimes mass murder is profitable for society, for example, to keep the population down and thus prevent poverty. For this, Sade prescribed infanticide, “The human species must be purged from the cradle.”
Sade was just warming up. Once denuding society of punishment for the highest offense of murder, the way was clear for his favorite “natural” acts-those of sexual deviance. Sade advocated the forced submission of all women to all men unconditionally, incest, sodomy, pederasty, as well as the eating of feces as a matter of taste and sexual pleasure.
Of course, some atheists today are still brave enough to say as much as that is, in fact, “natural.” Sam Harris, for example, has admitted, “There is, after all, nothing more natural than rape.” Although he pleads that it is still not “good.” A few years back a book titled A Natural History of Rape stirred up controversy with the same admission, “We fervently believe that, just as the leopard’s spots and the giraffe’s elongated neck are the results of aeons of past Darwinian selection, so is rape.” Like Sam, the authors were quick to point out, “We’re not saying something is good even if it’s natural.” Nevertheless, the book gives scientific, Darwinian, and academic sanction to the belief, “Rape is natural.”
At such a juncture, it seems that an ethic like Pope’s offers humanity little help: “Whatever is, is right,” means, “Rape is; therefore, Rape is right.” Further, since the atheist/naturalist believes nothing exists except nature, a consistent doctrine of “good” versus “bad” will be impossible to find. What is good for one man may or may not be good for another. One man’s pleasure is simply another woman’s (or little girl’s) pain, and who is to judge between them except for might itself? This is why atheists like Sade are so important: they expose how today’s atheists are really arbitrary and soft in both their logic and their practice. Sade shows how cruel and heartless the naturalistic ethic truly is:
“What right do you have to assert that women ought to be exempted from the blind submission to men’s caprices Nature dictates?”
“We have received from Nature the right indiscriminately to express our wishes to all women we have the right to compel their submission Indeed! has Nature not proven that we have that right, by bestowing upon us the strength needed to bend women to our will. I have incontestable rights to the enjoyment of her; I have the right to force from her this enjoyment, if she refuses me it for whatever the cause may be.”
Don’t lie Sam! With the naturalistic ethic, what is natural is good; and (if God does not exist) there’s no one who has the right to say otherwise. Ergo, rape is not only natural, but Nature herself proves that rape is acceptable by equipping the rapist with greater strength than his victims.
Nor does the age or well-being of the female affect the scenario:
“Once you concede me the proprietary right of enjoyment, that right is independent of the effect [harm] it produces. The issue of her well-being is irrelevant. As soon as concern for this consideration threatens to detract from or enfeeble the enjoyment of him who desires her this consideration for age ceases to exist.”
“Once you concede me the proprietary right to enjoyment” Now that is a profound notion of which all naturalists should take note. Taking nature as a source of morals creates a paradox for the naturalist: while he would never forbid the individual the right to enjoyment, he must do so in order to stop the rapist from pursuing his enjoyment. The Sadean rapist, of course, only cares about his personal enjoyment, and cares nothing about temporarily forbidding as much for victim. In wishing to prevent him, however, the naturalistic ethicist must rely, in principle, on exactly the same standard: by saying that it is sometimes acceptable to prevent another person’s enjoyment, the naturalist has adopted Sade’s standard. He is, in principle, no better than Sade. Of course, which one prevails-in a naturalistic world, this is-will depend only on which one is more cunning, secretive, and/ or powerful enough to impose their will.
In a Christian world, of course, we have an infinitely better system. Mankind-male and female-are created in God’s image. They are thus designed to express God’s will-the Ten Commandments-in society. An attack on another person bearing God’s image is an attack on God Himself. To debase an dishonor that image through scheming, kidnapping, bondage, sexual violence and theft-i.e., rape-is essentially to break the entire second table of the Law in one act. As such a consummate act of rejection of God and God’s prized image on earth, rape deserves the death penalty.
This morality is transcendent, it descends from above, and lifts man to a higher purpose, honor, and meaning. Naturalistic ethics debases man to the level of lawless, meaningless matter. In such a world, the issue is not whether rape is good or evil, it is who can ultimately get away with raping whom. Reject God, and you destroy law, and open the floodgates to destroy man as well. Naturalism is the rape of morality.
The next great “consistent atheist” after Sade came a generation later in Friedrich Nietzsche. He used the same rigorous logic as Sade: “When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet.”
When the naturalists actually believe that they know “intuitively” what is good and evil, when they therefore suppose that they no longer require Christianity as the guarantee of morality, we merely witness the effects of the dominion of the Christian value judgment and an expression of the strength and depth of this dominion.
This continues today as a perfect description of atheists. Logically, they have pulled the foundations of morality out from under their feet. Sade has show us where this logically should lead. But rape and pederasty make for bad PR. Atheists continue to steal Christian morality while denying the Christ who gave it.
As long as they continue to do this, we should continue to refute them by referencing the more consistent atheists. The point of course, is not drive to actually to become consistent atheists-at least not in practice-but rather drive them to admit where the logic of their position leads, and hopefully turn to the only God who can save them from it. And in the meantime, whether Dostoevsky said it or not, the truth remains, “If God does not exist, all things are permissible.”
Wow, I wish that I lived within such a simple,dogmatic, black or white, Us against Them universe.
No I don’t[smile]. I love having more choices.
Paul and Joel McDurmon severly underestimate and misrepresent those who are non-Christian or Atheistic and delpicts an over all mistrust and misunderstanding of mankind to assume that without revolving society around thier concept of[the Christian]God all fill fall into chaos and depravity. They seem to forget or disregard all of the wickedness that has occurred in the past when societies became theocracies. Tell us Paul, what would life be like for homosexuals and non-Christians living within the Theocracy that you would like for America to become? What would be their rights as citizens in society? What would be the laws and restrictions that they would have to follow in order to exist within your fantasy of what society should be?
Your thoughts?
John, while the US is not a theocracy it did approach that during the early part of its history. There were laws on the books regarding sexual behavior, even among married couples. The first state constitutions by and large limited government elected offices to Christians. Yet even with all these “semitheocratic” laws, the US was still considered the Freest most egalitarian nation on earth. Jews, who had been persecuted for centuries in Europe came to America seeking both economic and political freedom.
Now the question is, “Can morality exist without God?” The answer is yes, but that leads to the next question, “Who will determine the moral code?”
Our founders clearly stated in the declaration, “endowed by their creator…..” to state that a higher order than the state gives us our rights. These rights cannot be taken away by popular vote….they are to be guaranteed by government in a free society. I find a lot of comfort in knowing that my right to “life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness” is guaranteed by a higher order than man.
When man (we establish the state to provide the laws) is the arbiter of rights, those rights become fluid. They can be taken away at the whim of those in power. The extreme of this was seen in the bloodiest century man has ever known, the 20th Century. The Nazi war criminals that were put on trial set as their defense that they were merely following the orders of the state. In other words they were merely following the laws. They were convicted of crimes against humanity. At the core of their conviction is the notion that there is a higher order. The question comes to mind, “What higher order? Who determines this higher order? What is the moral basis of this ‘higher order’?”
So “Can morality exist without God?” Of course it can, but then man becomes God. I can think of no worse choice than man to decide what is right and wrong in society.
I was hoping to hear from …………………PAUUUUUUUUL………………….., but it’s good to hear from you again Mike. Our home computer has broken and shall not be fixed until Monday so I’m competing for space against all of the local teenagers within a public library today[toothy grin].
Yes, I knew that about early America, and it was a very different and much dimmer world for Native Americans, other “non-whites”, homosexuals, women, and even the Jews in some places. And then we went through that Victorian Era where people were all sexually repressed and kinky….[grin]. In my opinion things are much better now, I think. And when you mention the atrocities of the Nazis, one must not forget that one of their great motivating sources was Martin Luther, Christian antisemitic extraordinaire. Theology is a great and powerful tool that people will use for their own desires, be they noble or wicked, and it is used sooooooo very easily, you know. Anyone who is worth a darn as a human being would have been able to recognize that Genocide under any circumstances be they by the Nazis or another is not a good thing to do, and all manner of people in the world, be they Atheists or Pagan primitives or something else all agree on the basic “rights and wrongs” for a flourishing healthy society. Religion just seems to help some when it comes to controlling the ignorant and sociopaths of society who can’t decide for themselves what is proper in life and what is not. Your last sentence….the only trouble with that is that it is MAN himself who is deciding how to interpret what he thinks God wants out of us, and I’ve told you before how many different versions of the Christian Bible I have[smile]. Just try and do the best person in all that you do that you can within the lives of those who are closest to you, lead by good example and hope that it starts to become popular among those whom you love. If you believe that Satan is the God of this world and that this is a fallen world filled with sinners, then you can not help to do more in life anyway, at least until the Second Coming.
John: “And when you mention the atrocities of the Nazis, one must not forget that one of their great motivating sources was Martin Luther, Christian antisemitic extraordinaire. Theology is a great and powerful tool that people will use for their own desires,”
The key part of your statement is, “Theology is a great and powerful tool that people will use for their own desires…” No doubt that Christianity has been used or should I say abused, to justify all sorts of atrocities. Some used it as a justification for slavery and the extinction of Indigenous people that were in the way. Yet others used Christian principles to abolish slavery and save the Native American from the injustices and atrocities committed against them. Do we judge any world view, be it Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Hindu, etc. on the most henious acts committed in their name or do we judge on its principles.
The Christian worldview is such that man is inherently evil. We are all sinners and capable of unspeakable acts. That has been proven over and over again in sociological experiments. I recall one where average Americans were told to shock another human being every time the “subject” responded in a certain manner. The voltage (it was not real but the person administering it didn’t know it) was raised on every occassion until it reached leathal limits. Most were able to participate for part of the experiment, leaving after the “make believe screams” of the victim became unbearable, while others carried the experiment to the end. This was done in the 50s to find some reason why so many people participated in the holocaust. Men and women working at the extermination camps would go home to their families and lead what appeared to be normal lives even as millions of their fellow human beings were being slaughtered.
We know that perfectly rational people will participate in mobs that kill others and are stunned when they finally realize what they have done.
Basically people can use just about anything to justify an emotion, thought, or worldview. I don’t expect a perfect world in this life. The best I can hope for and work for is a world were power and wealth is not concentrated in the hands of a few. The wealth part does not mean I am a socialist for I do not want government redistribution of wealth. All I am saying is that we should all be able to reach our maximum potential if we WORK for it. Those that make poor choices should pay the consequences of those poor choices. Those that are truly unable to provide for themselves should be assisted, first by their families, then by the churches, and finally by government; but that group is a tiny minority.
“Do we judge any world view, be it Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Hindu, etc. on the most heinous acts committed in their name or do we judge on it’s principles.”
And were you thinking this sort of a thought when Paul via Joel McDurmon used the the actions of the Marquis de Sade to represent Atheism within the first post above? Or when similar comments are made concerning evolutionists?
Silence on an issue helps no one, and allows people to nurture their own assumptions.
John, I did not read through Paul’s message, and I do not agree with using the worst examples of any worldview to condemn that worldview. That said, one must look at the overall track record and some worldviews or systems have horrible histories. For example, Communism has NEVER worked and its history is one that includes much death and suffering. Taking that a bit further, any time the state has grown too large, and by that I would suggest anything larger than 10% of GDP, the results have almost always been disastrous in the long term for a nation. Generally speaking large governments are found in socialist / fascist nations.
As for atheist, I’ve known quite a few and all without exception (as far as I knew) were decent human beings. That said, Communist states, such as the Old Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cuba, etc. adopted atheism as “their religion.” These have also been the most repressive / brutal / murderous nations of modern history. Can Communist brutality be attributed to atheism? I think that is a stretch, and is representative of faulty thinking. Communist are brutal, Communist are atheist, therefore atheist are brutal makes as much sense as elephants have ears, I have ears, therefore I am an elephant. It is the law of the excluded middle.
Conclusion: Just because a regime or movement adopts a certain worldview to promote itself does not necessarily condemn that worldview. Unfortunately, more people condemn Christianity for the treatment of the Native Americans or the persecution of Jews in Europe than defend it for the good it has done, like providing the foundations for Western Civilization, bringing an end to the slave trade, laying the foundations of the Civil Rights Movement, and declaring basic human rights granted by God.
As for America’s persecution of the Jews, how do you explain Alfred Mordecai, or the whole Mordecai family which dates back to the American Revolution. Alfred was born in 1803 and attended West Point. He graduated first in his class and had the pick of his field, which was the Army Corp of Engineers. He soon attained the rank of Major. He traveled through Europe with Maj. Richard Delafield, Captain George B McClellan in 1855 to study the new developments in weaponry. It was rather ironic that his orders were issued by then Sec. of War Jefferson Davis.
At the outbreak of the Civil War he was offered high ranking commissions by both the North and the South. As a Southern Democrat he could not see himself fighting for the North and his disdain for slavery made it impossible to join the Southern forces. He resigned from his beloved Ordnance Dept. on May 2, 1861. He died in 1887 as Sec. Treasurer of the Penn. Railroad.
Mordecai is just one example of Jews who came to America and found freedom here like they had never experienced in any other country; and this at a time when America was more Christian than at any other time in its history.
Off topic but interesting. The following is from one of the most decorated men in Marine Corp history, Gen. Smedley Butler in his book, “War is a Racket.” It is an interesting way to end America’s envolvement in unnecessary wars. I would also sugget the same for stationing troops overseas.
““Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted – to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.
Let the workers in these plants get the same wages – all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers – yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders – everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!
Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.
Why shouldn’t they?
They aren’t running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren’t sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren’t hungry. The soldiers are!
Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket – that and nothing else.”
John: You said ” I love having more choices.” Explain? Does freedom mean anything you want or are there limit’s? If there are limit’s where do they come from, what’s your standard? Tell me John what is a Theocracy?
Paul, America was never a Christian nation from the stand point of being a theocracy; however, its roots are deeply set in Judao-Christian principles. It is these principles that have given us the freest most prosperous nation man has ever knows. It is the abandonment of these principles that is now leading the US towards its own destruction.
It will be interesting to read John’s response to your question regarding limits and standards. IMO, man sets the standards through the state so what is more important is the foundation by which those standards are set. The cornerstone of our foundation is the Bible, of that I am absolutely sure. From that cornerstone we took the best from previous civilizations and the best minds of the Enlightenment to create a nation that offered more freedom to its people than any other nation ever known to man. Where there abuses and injustices? Of course, man is imperfect and no utopia exists anywhere on earth.
For those that believe government will solve problems and lead us towards a better society I suggest they view this brief 10 minute video. When you combine this with what others have said or tried to do (Brooksley Born and David Walker come to mind) there is little of a resolution to our problems any time soon. The pain felt by the American people will only intensify.
There is a rule among thieves that if you steal, do it big enough so you can buy a dream team to get you off.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/35841681#35841681
kash, how is Keynesian economics treating the folks of Alabama, your home state. I just came across this little missive which I included in my latest email regarding what is happening to America.
(Note: This is but a start. Now the snowball meets gravity.
This is a creative way to cull the gene poll.)
Still no money for Prichard pensioners
City given two months to figure out payments
Updated: Thursday, 11 Mar 2010, 3:12 PM CST
Published : Tuesday, 09 Mar 2010, 9:38 PM CST
PRICHARD, Ala. (WALA) – A bankruptcy court judge has given the City of Prichard two more months to figure out how they will pay retired city workers. Prichard pensioners have gone six months without a pension check.
Prichard is operating under the protection of Title IX Bankruptcy, and for many people, that means no promised pension payments.
After six months with no pay, Prichard pensioners put their faith into the courts. They hoped a judge would force the city to pay some, if not all, of the pension money it owes. However, the bankruptcy court judge said the city is not obligated to pay the retired workers just yet. The judge gave the city two more months to restructure the budget and present it to the courts.
The city got more time, but unfortunately reality has already set in for Bobby Holifield and his family.
“You can’t begin to know the stress of this. My daughter is in college right now, my son just graduated from high school, he wanted to go to college. My daughter had to miss last semester in college and she will have to miss this semester. I can’t afford to pay it. My son wants to go to technical school; I can’t afford to pay for it. It makes me feel like a failure more than anything, when I did my part. I worked 32 years to get my pension. They owe it to me, it’s not something I’m asking them to give me,” Holifield said.
http://www.fox10tv.com/dpp/news/still-no-money-for-prichard-pensioners
If you have a chance listen to the video on message #10. Go through all the links I have provided regarding the economic mess we are in. AT the very core of it all is government and its unholy alliance to big finance. Obama and the Democrats have been in charge now for over a year. Actually the Dems. took Congress in 2006 AND STILL NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
Did you happen to catch the 60 minutes segment last night where they talked about the subprime crisis and how government ENABLED the situation to take place. AND YET NOTHING HAS CHANGED…..NOTHING. The Banksters are still in control….Wall Street now runs Washington while Main Street pays the price.
The is what happens when the state gets too big. Anything over 10% of GDP is too big and right now our total government represents over 40% of GDP. The car has gone off the cliff and we, the American people were the ones to pick the drivers. It made no difference whether we had a Democrat at the wheel or a Republican…..the car has gone over the cliff.
Prichard AL first went bankrupt in 1999. I’m not really sure why that is Keynes fault, but I’m sure you will tell me.
Kash, as usually you take one thing I state make a comment then ignore everything else. I’ve provided tons of material, showing the fraud, and corruption and the unholy alliance between government and Wall Street and you ignore it. Did you see the 60 minutes program last night on the Subprime market. If you missed it you can do a Google search on it. One has to be blind, deaf, and dumb not to see what is taking place. As for Prichard, AL. its woes maybe more due to the Town’s adminstration but the current economy has pushed many on the edge over the brink.
As for Keynesian Economics being responsible, I would say it is more a function of the Fed, which makes Keynesianism possible. Remember is was John Maynard Keynes that called gold a barbaric relic of an ancient past.
The bill to fully audit the Fed has been under assault, mainly by Mel Watts. of NC. This bill merely requires the Fed to detail who it has been loaning money to. Thus far the Fed has refused to say.
The economic turmoil which has engulfed this nation and so many others, especially in the West, was caused by a system that called for more and more government intervention and more and more government control. You have advocated for the goodness of government in “helping” people is difficult situations. I call it killing people with kindness…..make that brutality. In case you haven’t noticed the transfer of wealth is going from the poor and the middle class to the rich. This has all been made possible through the function of the Fed which creates moral hazards by backstopping the “too big to fail.” Just go to a few of my most recent links. See if you can find the 60 Minutes program that was on last night.
See if you can fill you mind with something other than the propaganda fed to you by the Statists.
The very people that took down Lehman, Merrill, Bear Stearns, etc. are now taking down nations. Stay tuned kash, your big government buddies are going to eventually bankrupt the nation. That bankruptcy will be seen in the final collapse of the US dollar.
kash, here is the link to the 60 Minutes program that was on last night. See if you can wrap your mind around its implications.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6298154n&tag=contentMain;contentAux
The most important part of the 60 Minutes segment were:
1. Government’s inability to regulate and though not mentioned in the story, government enabled the financial institutions. Remember Brooksley Born? She was the one that wanted to regulated the OTC derivatives market. She is the first one to warn of a disaster. The Clinton people got rid of her with the aid of Republicans in Congress.
2. Without a fiat monetary system the bailouts would have been impossible. The gamblers would be risking their very companies and the shareholders would have been paying more attention. Remember it was the short sellers that got the Lehman story right long before anyone else did.
3. Deregulation added to the problem but the truth is all the new regulation from preventing the next Enron did do much good. What good are regulations if they are not enforced?
4. The one thing the players of the game understood was that if they failed they would get bailed out. How can the government bailout companies to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars? Simple, through the Mandrake mechanism you just create the money out of nothing.
Anyone out there notice declining prices as the economy goes into the tank? According to common thought, when the economy goes in the tank prices are suppose to drop as demand drops.
I just wonder if you have woken up in the slightest to what is taking place all around you….unless of course you remain faithful to your Statist religion.
Speaking of the immoral; be sure to scroll down to the “Unfunded Liabilities.” The numbers you are witnessing would not be possible in a gold / silver currency system.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
There are four events in US history that set the ship of state on the collision course with the debt iceberg that would sink it:
1. The creation of the Fed in 1913 along with the income tax.
2. FDR’s first step to separate gold from the US dollar and the launching of the National Recovery Act and establishing Social Security.
3. LBJ’s expansion of the Vietnam war, along with the “Great Society” to end poverty in America, and Medicare.
4. Richard Nixon closing the gold window in 1971.
The Real State of the Union:
U.S. Hyperinflation Possible By Year 2015
The U.S. government this week reported a record monthly budget deficit for February 2010 of $220.9 billion. Total tax receipts for the month were only $107.5 billion compared to outlays of $328.4 billion. The total U.S. deficit for the first five months of fiscal year 2010 was $651.6 billion, with tax receipts of $800.5 billion and outlays of $1.45 trillion. The deficit was up 10.5% for the first five months of fiscal year 2010 over the same period in fiscal year 2009.
We are now at a point where if the U.S. government taxed Americans 100% of their income, the tax receipts generated would not be enough to balance the budget. Likewise, if the U.S. government cut 100% of its spending including defense, but kept paying Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, we would still have a budget deficit. NIA believes it will be impossible for the U.S. to have a balanced budget ever again.
http://inflation.us/hyperinflation2015.html
Wrap your minds around this one statement, which I have made several times, “We are now at a point where if the U.S. government taxed Americans 100% of their income, the tax receipts generated would not be enough to balance the budget.” All interest rates have to do is rise to their historic norms and this nation is toast. Our money will be worth less until it becomes worthless. This is the way all fiat currencies have ended…..ALL OF THEM. Fiat currencies and money devaluation is what provides the means by which nations expand empires, build monuments to glorify themselves, and engage in wars of “national interest.” All of this at the expense of the nations hard working citizens who in the end becomes slaves of the state as the fruits of the their labor is stolen.
“Thou shalt not steal,” ranks as one of the big 10 and yet their are Christians that promote this government theft…….man made evil, called fiat money. Their god is the state, which will assist the “widows and orphans”……we call them unwed mothers or welfare queens, pay for abortions, bailout the very criminals that drain the system but send part of their ill gotten gains to the politicians, and engage in all sorts of military expeditions to benefit “the military industrial complex”.
Now our politicians are promising healthcare for all. Social Security is now in the RED, Medicare has been in the RED for several years, the whole nation is bleeding RED ink and this government wants to add to the burden.
Funny thing is that we read about the collapse of empires and never fully comprehend the impact on the lives of the average citizen living at the time. WE are about to go through the experience and just think of this, in the future when people read about the Rise and Fall of America, they too will never visualize the impact on the people living in that time period. But any survivors will know better, just like those that went through the Great Depression understand what happens when a financial system implodes. They felt it, thos few that are left remember it, and the World War that followed.
This Great Depression will be worse as hyperinflation is now a real possibility……and becoming a certainty. Hyperinflation and Depression are the worst of all worlds. This is what the Statists have brought to America. This is what our reliance on the goodness of government and its sweet sounding promises have delivered. We abandoned God and His laws for the promises of men and we are about to reap the whirlwind.
The immorality of a Godless nation:
(Note:
The epidemic of the Formula spreads. The first victims here are children’s health clinics and nursing homes.
The first victims should be those that got us into the problem.
OTC are not victim-less crimes.)
Montgomery, Prince George’s slash budgets
By Michael Laris and Jonathan Mummolo
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Maryland’s two largest counties outlined spending cuts Monday that would reach from children’s health clinics to nursing homes, slice tens of millions of dollars in education spending and furlough thousands of public employees.
Drop-offs in revenue and in expected state aid are forcing officials in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties, home to nearly a third of the state’s population, to confront some of the same unforgiving math that has caused governments across the Washington region to propose cuts to popular programs and safety-net services.
Counties across Northern Virginia, from Arlington west to Loudoun, face a patchwork of deep cuts and tax increases. Officials in Fairfax County are pushing layoffs, school cuts and a property tax increase. The District is facing an estimated $500 million budget gap in fiscal 2011 while continuing to grapple with $200 million in spending pressures for the current fiscal year.
On the state level, Virginia leaders agreed on a budget late Sunday that cuts millions out of core services, including education, health care and public safety. In Maryland, Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) has proposed near equal parts budget cuts and one-time transfers and other financial maneuvers to close an estimated $2 billion budget gap.
In Montgomery, one of the nation’s richest counties, officials who had become accustomed to managing rising budgets are overseeing a painful and unfamiliar reversal. County Executive Isiah Leggett (D) proposed a $4.3 billion spending plan that cuts the total government budget for the first time in more than 40 years. It calls for cuts across government operations, furloughs of many employees and a budget for schools that is $137 million less than they requested, which comes in below state requirements.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031503702.html?referrer=emailarticle
(The system is imploding under the weight of Godless Keynesian Economics and the establishment of the Federal Reserve which brought us the Nanny State. The Nanny State has now turned into a serial killer.
Do you think the present revelations about Lehman are plausible denial for having flushed it?
Do you really believe that Lehman was the only entity to play outside the rules?
Do you think Lehman was attending to all the details and ethics of finance when securitizing mortgages it bought?
Did your mortgage pass through Lehman’s hands?
Do you want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge?
The criminals stay on the payroll, the victims get thrown out.
OTC derivatives are not a victimless crime.)
Pink slips sent to thousands of Calif. teachers
By ROBIN HINDERY, Associated Press Writer
Monday, March 15, 2010
California’s budget crisis could cost nearly 22,000 teachers their jobs this year.
State school districts had issued 21,905 pink slips to teachers and other school employees by Monday, the legal deadline for districts to send preliminary layoff notices.
Not all the threatened layoffs will be carried out. The final tally depends on the state budget to be adopted for the coming fiscal year.
Last year, 60 percent of the 26,000 teachers who received pink slips ended up losing their jobs.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell expected this year’s actual job losses to be high, given the state’s persistent budget problems and the smaller pool of education stimulus money available from the federal government.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2010/03/15/state/n131126D27.DTL
A Jobless Recovery? This is the jobless side of the statistical recovery.
State tax collections drop; Gov. Bobby Jindal plans for more budget cuts
By Jan Moller, The Times-Picayune
March 15, 2010, 7:56PM
An unexpected drop in state tax collections has created a mid-year budget deficit that could be as high as $400 million, adding dark new clouds to the state’s bleak financial forecast as lawmakers prepare for the start of their annual session in two weeks.
The news, delivered to Gov. Bobby Jindal’s administration late last week by state economists, comes less than three months after the governor cut $248 million from the 2009-10 budget to adjust for shrinking state tax collections.
Those cuts have led to hundreds of layoffs in state government and fell particularly hard on health care and higher education programs.
Timmy Teepell, Jindal’s chief of staff, said it’s too soon to know how big the latest shortfall will turn out to be, but that the governor already has asked Commissioner of Administration Angele Davis to plan for a fresh round of budget cuts.
“It’s safe to say that we will see a further reduction in revenues this year, and most likely it will be significant,” Teepell said.
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/03/state_tax_collections_drop_gov.html
kash, maybe Prichard, Ala problems are a direct result of US government policy made possible by our Fiat currency system and the Social Welfare state you embrace. Here are some key statistics which I believe are revealing.
“As of the census[6] of 2000, there were 28,633 people, 9,841 households, and 7,272 families residing in the city. The population density was 1,127.6 people per square mile (435.4/km²). There were 11,336 housing units at an average density of 446.4/sq mi (172.4/km²). The racial makeup of the city was 84.53% Black or African American, 14.18% White, 0.30% Native American, 0.12% Asian, 0.02% Pacific Islander, 0.07% from other races, and 0.79% from two or more races. 0.57% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race.
There were 9,841 households out of which 36.3% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 32.8% were married couples living together, 36.0% had a female householder with no husband present, and 26.1% were non-families. 23.4% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.0% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.84 and the average family size was 3.35.”
Before the welfare state was established the percentage of unwed mothers in the Black community was about equal to the white and in the early part of the 20th century it was actually less. Whatever you tax you get less of (increase tobacco taxes and you get less smoking) and whatever you subsidize you get more of (pay unwed mothers to have babies and you get more babies without fathers). So this statement is revealing, “36.0% had a female householder with no husband present.”
“kash, maybe Prichard, Ala problems are a direct result of US government policy made possible by our Fiat currency system and the Social Welfare state you embrace.” Well gee, Mike, you think everything that goes wrong including socks that lose their elasticity is because of our fiat currency system so no surprise there. And since the town is currently bankrupt over trying to pay pensions to individuals who worked for the city, I guess you think there should be no pensions because that would be Social Welfare. Problem solved. Except for the part where old people live in poverty and poor houses and die in the street, which is what happened back before pensions, social security, and medicare. But then, you think that would be Biblical.
kash: “Well gee, Mike, you think everything that goes wrong including socks that lose their elasticity is because of our fiat currency system so no surprise there. And since the town is currently bankrupt over trying to pay pensions to individuals who worked for the city, I guess you think there should be no pensions because that would be Social Welfare.”
You know full well I never even implied any of the above. As I write the USDX is at 79.69 a solid break of support and a price point where there are alot of sell stops. I expect to see the dollar slide further as this little short term, antiEuro rally, is now over.
You know exactly what I mean by the Social Welfare state. I guess you have not bothered to link to any of the articles or videos I have provided that show where the real wealth transfer is taking place. The very people you so dearly love, the elderly and the poor are the very ones that are going to suffer as the system reaches its final destination, the bottom of the cliff.
But discussing the issue with you is useless, as you are a Statist Religious Zealot. You will continue to support the State even as your children, grandchildren, and neighbors suffer.
My apologies for not responding to you sooner Paul and Mike, but as mentioned within the beginning of post number four above the computer was broken. And now it’s not[toothy grin]. SO………..
Mike post 7,
[Imagine the words in voice of Tom Hanks]
Didn’t read through Paul’s post, eh? I had thought that you had when you responded to my post number two to Paul. “Unfortunately, more people condemn Christianity for the treatment of the Native Americans or the persecution of the Jews in Europe than defend it for the good it has done…”
Well Mike, it is an awful big bloody skeleton in the closet of Christian history, you know, along with the Crusades, The Dark Ages, The Grand Inquisition, the raising of various non-Christian religious sites, the burning of the Library of Alexandria in 391, not to mention various holy wars against OTHER Christian denominations, to list a few things….
Who else persecuted the Native Americans so effectively? Buddhists? From Catholic Conquistadors to many of our early presidents, to Missions and Missionaries who tried to “train the Native Americanism out of them” and help erase their diverse ethnic heritage/cultures and languages. As for the Jews, who else was persecuting them in Europe for so many centuries? Who started the Grand Inquisition? I am not saying that those who perpetrated such acts were good examples of Christians, but whether you want to agree that they were in fact Christians or not, THEY believed that they were Christians, and were often working their deeds under the support of Christian authority figures.
Now, you should know well enough by now to know that I am big enough not to judge all of Christianity by these episodes of madness, or books like the Malleus Maleficarum…or anything written by Joan Hake Robie or Bob Larson[grin]. Have I not in the past defended Christian doctrine and Christians when annoying Atheistic posters were criticizing said topics? Have I not offered words of support for various posters upon this website? Of course. It’s all part of trying to be an impartial student of humanity and world history. However, these incidents ARE still a large part of Christian history, and there’s nothing to be done but accept some form of responsibility by accepting/admitting that such things are a part of your theological belief system’s colorful history, and try and learn from the actions of others in the past and try not to repeat such behavior. If you can.
Paul post 9,
[Imagine the words in the voice of an old sage]
Well, well, finally decided to knock a hole in that barrier and communicate with me, even if you didn’t answer any of the questions I asked you within post number two. I would still like you to try.
When I said within my post that I love having more choices, it was because I exist within a much larger universe than you seem to, in every aspect.Your perception of the Divine does not even allow you to accept science and ancient history without the feeling that you are in danger of becoming a misled heretic. I have no such restrictions. I am also free to worship in any way that I feel is best for me to personally express myself to the Divine without worrying about complex Dogma. I am free to mingle with others of completely different faiths, or none at all, without fear of Divine reprimand. I need not concern myself with competition against the Faith of others, or their lack of. Because I do not exist within a Universe of only “Black and White”, but instead a Universe that contains various shades of “gray” within it as well, I have more choices available to me in regards to the Divine/Afterlife and the ways that I live my life. If you would like to get into this a little deeper then I suggest that we discuss this further within the “Understanding The World Of Wicca And More” in order to avoid getting too far off topic here, assuming that I did not misunderstand what you were trying to ask about my “standard”.
Absolute freedom to me is, I believe, the ability to do anything that I wish at anytime I wish it. This is of course limited by the realities of life….not even within my fondest bouts of lucid dreaming do I possess such freedom, but that’s o.k., for if I could do whatever I wished whenever I wished then I would probably become very soft and decrepit in time, and life is already pretty grand, allowing me more freedoms to do as I please than many other people I know[smile]. If you think that you’re freedoms are better than mine, then perhaps you will finally open yourself up to us all and share yourself with us so that we may more accurately decide these things for ourselves. What I have seen of late is a man who copies information of websites so often that he seems unable to easily express himself to others. I would like to hope that post nine is the beginning of the end of that illusion.
What is a Theocracy? Don’t you already know? Or are you wondering if my definition of a Theocracy is very different from yours[smile]? If not, then you could easily look it up on Wikipedia, you know.
Mike post 10,
Well I’m glad to see that you think I’m that interesting, although I imagine that you’re probably unsatisfied with my response to Paul. You see, For a question like that about “standards” I need more specific questions to help me understand the proper context of the inquiry. I’m anal and nit-picky that way[grin].
It is good to hear from you again, Kash.
Are you all settled from the move yet? Win that marathon?
Happy St Patrick’s Day, John. Drink a pint of green Guinness and sing a round of “Danny Boy.” We’re mostly settled into the new house, still a few things at the old one, like pictures hanging on the walls. I’m still trying to relocate all my barn cats, and a friend is feeding some of my dogs because the fence isn’t up at my new house yet. Its nice to be much closer to work, though. I can come home for lunch, always better for the pocketbook (and waistline) than eating out! The kids love the new house, it has a very “open” floor plan and they like to go running and sliding on the hardwood floors.
Christianity has been the single largest influence on western society. America’s Founding Fathers had the benefit of thousands of years of history to draw on when establishing their government. They could see what had failed in the past. There had been times when the state had absolute authority and persecuted the church. At other times the church had effective control of the state. The founders saw that neither of these extremes were ideal. They developed a system that stood the test of time. Observers everywhere generally agree that American’s Founding Fathers achieved a solid balance between church and state, one consistent with biblical concepts.
In a ten-year study undertaken at the Univesity of Houston, researchers examined 15,000 documents from America’s founders and determined that 34% of the quotations came from the Bible, the highest by far of any source.
But many people today reject the notion that the Bible should be used as a basis for law. “Narrow minded and outdated!” they say. Ideas have consequences. Let’s examine the implications if the Bible is or is not the standard for society and its legal system.
Without an objective standard of truth upon which to base society, the result is that whoever gains the most political power will dominate. Christians believe that the Bible offers ultimate, objective, and absolute truth—as opposed to relative “truth” (i.e., arbitrary “absolutes”). There was a general consensus on this point in America from the earliest settlers until only very recently.
Founding Father and educator Noah Webster (1758-1843) had this to say: “The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.”
So it was natural for the early Americans to turn to the Bible for guidance as to how to make civil law. This was the standard for law beginning with the Mayflower Compact all the way through the constitutions of all 50 states. By the way, what was the stated purpose of the Pilgrims as expressed in the Mayflower Compact? Contrary to revisionist history, their purpose was not to find reigious freedom—they already had found religious freedom in Holland. Their purpose is clearly stated as being for the “Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith.” The Pilgrims were missionaries.
The first state constitution was the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639). You may read this document at http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/orders.html. The framers of this document desired that every aspect of it be based on the Bible. This document was a model for other constitutions including the U.S. Consitution which followed. The above table outlines the wide spread influence of biblical thought on America’s legal system.
Biblical absolutes enshrined into law offered a consensus that meant freedom without chaos. One aspect of this is that, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, there exists “unalienable rights” of men. Rights were unalienable because they were given by God. This is very significant because in most societies up until that time (and indeed even today), rights are only conferred by whoever is in power at the time.
Because the American consensus was that the Bible was TRUTH, the tyranny of a few or even the tyranny of the majority could be overcome by one person standing up and appealing to the Bible. The freedom of expression in general in America is a result of our biblical system. Those people who feel free today to condemn the Bible are, ironically, among those who benefit most by the freedoms inherant in our biblical system!
An important aspect of our system of government is that it is based on the Rule of Law. This concept is a direct descendant of Hebrew law and the Ten Commandments. Together with the concept of unalienable rights from God, these concepts helped ensure a way of life that respected the dignity of every individual.
It is helpful to contrast the American Revolution of 1776 with the French Revolution of 1789. While the American revolution began with an appeal to the sovereinty of God, the French Revolution was founded on the sovereignty of man. The French movement was a product of Voltaire’s philosophy which specifically attempted to replace biblical Christianity with man’s reason as the ultimate standard.
But the French revolution was a disaster. Anarchy and tyranny reigned with 40,000 people being murdered, the favorite method being the guillotine. Their new constitution only lasted 2 years. Indeed, France has had 7 constitutions during the time that America has only had one.
Another important aspect to America’s constitution is that it has as its basis the distinctly Christian idea that man is basically sinful. Every one of our founding fathers understood this truth. It has been said that the 16th century Protestant reformer John Calvin, who is the theologian most associated with the biblical doctrine of man’s “depravity,” was the single most influential person to our Constitution. The result was that the founders built into the Constitution an elaborate system of checks and balances. This is evident in the horizontal plane of executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. It is also evident in the vertical plane of federalism—states’ powers versus federal powers.
Again, let’s look at the evidence by contrasting the American system with other systems. Other systems are based on the idea that man is basically good, or at least perfectable by law and education. This is the basis for communism as well as the religious states of Islam. But states based on these utopian ideas are always failures and particularly repressive to their citizens. These governments end up as a police state and take away rights of the citizens.
It has been said that America has never been a Christian nation, or that our founders were a bunch of atheists, agnostics, and deists. But consider the facts. At least 50 of the 55 framers of the U. S. Constitution were Christians (see M. E. Bradford’s book listed below). Every single American president has taken his oath on the Bible and has referenced God in his inaugural address. Every one of the 50 state constitutions call on God for support. The Supreme Court, in 1892 after a an exhaustive 10-year study of the matter, said: “This is a relgious people. This is a Christian nation.” See Holy Trinity Decision. Even today, the Supreme Court opens each session with the verbal declaration, “God save the United States of America.”
Perhaps the most famous statement in America’s Declaration of Independence is, “All men are created equal.” The concept of universal human rights and equality comes exclusively from the biblical ideas that all people are created in the image of God and from Jesus’ sacrificial death for all. This concept was unkown in history outside of biblically based cultures.
There are, however, two areas in which the American system failed— (1) racial slavery and (2) compassionateless wealth. But both of these flaws are failures to implement biblical Christianity, rather than being caused by it.
A few comments about slavery are important because so many people throw it in the face of Christians. Racial slavery is not a biblical ethic. Yes, a form of slavery—indentured servitude— is condoned in the Bible. But this was a method in which people could pay off debts and was not what we think of as racial slavery (Bible and Slavery). In fact, the Bible specifically condemns the slave trade (Exodus 21:16; 1 Timothy 1:10). The Bible offers a unique framework for people as being equals: We were all are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and we are all equal in God’s sight (1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:28). Race, interestingly, is never even mentioned in the Bible.
Historian Glenn Sunshine in his book Why You Think the Way You Do explains that, “Christians were the first people in history to oppose slavery systematically. Early Christians purchased slaves in the markets simply to set them free.”
Professing Christians who held slaves prostituted the Bible by letting culture influence their faith (just as some unfaithful Christians today have abortions). Yet, the abolition movement was primarily a Christian movement. Slavery was stopped in England largely as a result of the tireless efforts of an evangelical Christian by the name of William Wilburforce. Through his work in Parliament, England stopped the slave trade in 1807 and abolished slavery totally in 1833. Unfortunately, there was no such early dynamic abolitionist leader in America.
The other problem in western culture has been unredistributed wealth. Neither the Bible (Mark 14:7) nor the American system seeks to have all people have equal outcomes. We are all created equal and we all have an equal opportunity to pursue our dreams, but we are not expected to all achieve equally.
Yet, the industrialization of the West brought great wealth to a few, while some were victimized. It can be argued that the working class was victimized to a degree in the early days of the industrial revolution. Fortunately, laws are now in place that protect the worker. And we have child labor laws, for example.
The issue is unrestrained capitalism. Later in our history, America instituted anti-trust laws and environmental laws. These laws can be seen as consistent with biblical capitalism as opposed to darwinian capitalism. Instead of capitalism based solely on the survival of the fittest, modern American capitalism uses law to make the playing field more equal and provide equal protection under the law—while still enouraging entrepeneurism.
A free society must have an objective moral constraint upon its people. This moral constraint, as John Adams insisted (above quote) will destroy not only government but business as well. Politicians without such constraint will find ways to destroy the Constitution to suit their desire for power. It is such moral constraint that monitors business people as well to charge a fair price, pay a fair wage, not cheat customers or employees, to help the needy, etc. We once asked an applicant applying for a job whether he believed in moral absolutes. Reflecting the secular attitude of his business school background, he quickly repied, “No.” We then asked him, “Then how do we know you won’t cheat our customers?” He was stunned by the question and had no realistic answer.
As a general statement, it is an inherent truth of capitalism that in the long run people succeed in business if they provide services and goods that people want. Biblical capitalism—even more so—emphasizes service over strict selfish ambition.
It should be emphasized that capitalism has its roots in Christianity. Historian Glenn Sunshine in his book Why You Think the Way You Do points out that the work ethic in Christianity is rooted in the Bible. God himself works, so Christians have seen an inherent goodness in labor and productivity. Another key component of capitalism is property rights. The Old Testament focuses on rules for property ownership. Throughout history, societies influenced by Christianity have had a stronger emphasis on property rights than other cultures. The idea that people are entitled to the fruits of their labor, together with property rights and the rule of law, laid a firm foundation for capitalism.
So again, the flaws in American society are not in biblical Christianity, rather in the failure to implement it. If the voluntary individual compassion of Christ were to dominate society, poverty—while it would never disappear (Mark 14:7)—would be lessened. The solution is not forced redistribution of wealth, which is tantamount to stealing. The solution is public emphasis on biblical ethics.
In summary, let’s refer to our nation’s creed—The Pledge of Allegiance—which sums up our way of life. It is a based on a three-legged stool of God, liberty, and justice. All three must be there. If God is not there, ethics and rights are defined by whoever has the most power. And in order to have liberty, we must have justice. The first role of government is to prevent evil (Romans 13:1-5, 1 Peter 2:13-17) so that the rest of society can live in peace. Evil is only meaningful within a biblical context.
When our culture desparately needs what Christianity offers, the courts are foolishly removing the Bible. Liberty demands ethical obligation. We must have a common understanding of moral absolutes, or as John Adams said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
America is grounded in the idea of “self government.” What does this mean? To say that self-government is only the ability of citizens to vote and to elect their representatives is to have an incomplete notion of self-government. Government in biblical thought is not just civil government. In fact, civil government is the least important aspect of government. Government is first that of the individual to govern himself. This is why religion must be encouraged, as John Adams noted. The founding fathers of America clearly understood this. The second most important level of government is the family. The third is the church. Last is civil government.
And within civil government, our Founding Fathers understood that local and state government was more important than federal government. Our Constitution specifically limits the powers of the federal government, even though this precept hs been continually usurped.
The Founders referenced 2 Corinthians 3:17 in support of freedom above all else. This passage states, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” The Liberty Bell declares from Leviticus 25:10: “Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.”
Liberals and secularists have it backwards. They think that the federal government is the most important. This is consistent with totalitarianism, but not with the American concept of self-government. Big government socialism is not consistent with the Bible. Not only is the government inefficient in delivering most services, it more often than not hurts those it is intended to help. The welfare mess is classic case in point, now proven over decades of failure.
Libertarians are also wrong about government. There is no warrant for everyone being allowed to do whatever they want without restraint. Objective moral values exist. Nobody has the right to do wrong. Taken to its logical conclusion, libertarianism is anarchy. Even in a society that does not accept the Bible as the standard of truth, America’s founders believed, as codified in the Declaration of Independence, that objective moral values can be determined at least by reason. The Bible itself (first 3 chapters of Romans) affirms that by nature and conscience all men understand the existence of objective moral values. In government, this is sometimes referred to as “natural law.”
What is the purpose of civil government, according to the Bible? The purpose of civil government is very simply to be God’s servant to restrain evil and reward good (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14). Christians are (a) to pray for and obey governmental authority (1 Timothy 2:1-4), (b) unless it forbids what God requires or requires what God forbids, in which case Christians cannot submit, and some form of civil disobedience becomes inescapable (Acts 4:18-31, 5:17-29), (c) to influence government because all of life is under God’s authority (Psalm 24:1; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 42:8; Matthew 28:18-20; 2 Corinthians 10:5). In a participatory democracy, Christians are under obligation to participate in civil government (Matthew 22:21).
As put by Dinesh D’Souza in his book What’s So Great about Christianity, “Christianity enhanced the notion of political and social accountability by providing a new model: that of servant leadership. In ancient Greece and Rome no one would have dreamed of considering political leaders anyone’s servants. The job of the leader was to lead. But Christ invented the notion that the way to lead is by serving the needs of others, especially those who are the most needy. Mark 10:43 quotes Christ:’Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant…for even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve.’ And in Luke 22:27 we hear Jesus say, ‘Who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.’ In the new Christian framework, leaders are judged by how well they respond to the concerns and welfare of the people. Over time, people once known as ‘followers’ or ’subjects’ become ‘customers’ and ‘constituents’.”
Should Christians be involved in politics and government? We argue that Christians should care about politics because, ultimately, we care about people. Government has an increasingly large influence on the lives of people, thus we cannot ignore politics. Further, almost every law reflects someone’s idea of morality. Since God’s morality is ultimate and universal, society benefits by the Christian’s participation in the public square. That is, society benefits when biblical truth is reflected in law. Indeed, Christians should be involved in all aspects of society, including law, art, music, economics, science, etc.
Paul: “In a ten-year study undertaken at the Univesity of Houston, researchers examined 15,000 documents from America’s founders and determined that 34% of the quotations came from the Bible, the highest by far of any source.”
Ahh, yes, David Barton’s thoroughly misleading characterization of the Houston study. For a more accurate description, go here: http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg9.htm
Note the following: “First, Barton does not report the most relevant evidence from Lutz’s article: in addition to their general citation count from 1760 to 1805, Lutz and Hyneman compile a count specific to political debate on the Constitution between the years 1787 and 1788 (the years corresponding to the drafting and ratification of the Constitution). According to Lutz, this sample “comes close to exhausting” the literature written on the Constitution during this period (Relative Influence, p. 194). If the founders believed that the Bible was truly relevant to the Constitution, Biblical citations should appear in abundance in this sample, but, they don’t. On the contrary, Biblical citations are virtually nonexistent in this sample. According to Lutz, federalist (i.e., pro-Constitution) writers never quoted the Bible in their political writings between 1787 and 1788.”
And, of course, ” Additionally, Barton omits Lutz’s breakdown of sources for his 34% figure. Three fourths of the Biblical citations in Lutz’s 1760 to 1805 sample come, not from secular sources, but from reprinted sermons (one of the most popular types of political writing during these years). Conversely, the Bible accounts for only 9% of all citations in secular literature, about equal to the number of citations from classical authors (Origins, p. 140). Hence, were it not for the political activity of religious clergy, the Bible would be tied for fourth place among source citations during 1760 and 1805.”
The Truth shall set you free, and bending it to make you case only hurts your witness to the Truth, who is Christ.
Kash: Obviously you don’t even understand most of what your read. I’m done spending time explaining anything to you Kash, after all your nothing more than a statist and everyone knows that by now.
Wouldn’t it be more creative and informative to explain in detail how Kash is mistaken instead of just posting a short critisizm and running away from the debate, Paul?
Happy St. Patrick’s Day to you too, Kash, and everyone else as well. I’ll sing that song[when I'm alone so no one can hear me, because my singing voice stinks like three day road-kill], but as I don’t drink alcoholic drinks, you’ll have to tip one back in my stead[smile].
Well, lets agree to drink green lemonade, then
Sounds good Kash[smile].
As a joke, and as a fan of Dr.Seuss, I’m going to cook up and eat some green-dyed scrambled eggs and ham tonight for dinner too.