In Martin Luther King's famous speech he said that he had a vision that someday a man would be judged by the content of his character and not by the color of his skin.
In all the hype about Obama's election to the highest office in our land. I noticed how this vision of Mr. Kings had failed; although everyone heralded it as the fulfillment of it. Why do I say this? Because all the hype is about the fact the he is an African American and their is no talk about his character. That to me is the opposite of what Mr. King envisioned.
I've also noticed this same failure in Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the US Supreme Court. Again, all the talk is about her ethnicity and not her character.
This is a disturbing trend that I have noticed. We as a people no longer think in categories of right and wrong but in categories of race, rich, poor, weak and strong. We think in terms of social justice, leveling the playing field, taking from the rich and giving it to the poor. We think it's OK to elevate an African American and put down the white male because he is the one with too much power and wealth. It is class warfare with a vengeance because it disguises it's self as tolerant and culturally sensitive while doing the very thing it condemns, discriminates. It sounds eerily similar to the Communist view of society and I think we have bought into it. So next time you listen to the news or read the paper notice the silence about right and wrong; And the things that really matter like character. And listen to the noise of the class warfare. Were it is all about the color of a man's skin and not the content of his character.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Friday, June 13, 2008
EAT CROW, IRAQ WAR SKEPTICS
By ARTHUR HERMAN
June 9, 2008 -- AMERICA has won, or is about to win, the Iraq war.
The latest proof came last month, as the Iraqi army - just a few months ago the target of scorn and abuse from Democratic politicians and journalists - forcefully reoccupied three cities that had served as key insurgency bases (Basra, Sadr City and Mosul).
Sunnis and Shias alike applauded as their nation's army compelled insurgent militias to lay down their arms. The country's leading opposition newspaper, Azzaman, led the applause for the move into Mosul - a sign that national reconciliation in Iraq is under way and probably irreversible. For complete article EAT CROW, IRAQ WAR SKEPTICS
June 9, 2008 -- AMERICA has won, or is about to win, the Iraq war.
The latest proof came last month, as the Iraqi army - just a few months ago the target of scorn and abuse from Democratic politicians and journalists - forcefully reoccupied three cities that had served as key insurgency bases (Basra, Sadr City and Mosul).
Sunnis and Shias alike applauded as their nation's army compelled insurgent militias to lay down their arms. The country's leading opposition newspaper, Azzaman, led the applause for the move into Mosul - a sign that national reconciliation in Iraq is under way and probably irreversible. For complete article EAT CROW, IRAQ WAR SKEPTICS
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Ariz. Leaders Mull Gay 'Marriage' Ban Anew
February 12, 2008
Associated Press
Republican lawmakers on Monday proposed asking voters in November to amend the Arizona Constitution to ban same-sex "marriage" in the state, which was the first to turn down such a measure.
The proposal was backed by 16 of 30 state senators, and an identical proposal was introduced in the House. Both chambers would have to approve the measure in a vote for it to be included on the ballot. continued
Associated Press
Republican lawmakers on Monday proposed asking voters in November to amend the Arizona Constitution to ban same-sex "marriage" in the state, which was the first to turn down such a measure.
The proposal was backed by 16 of 30 state senators, and an identical proposal was introduced in the House. Both chambers would have to approve the measure in a vote for it to be included on the ballot. continued
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
The war in Iraq
Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due,
When it is in the power of your hand to do so. Proverbs 2:27
Of all that is said about the war in Iraq, the majority of it is bad. I would however like to offer another perspective, one that is seldom considered. But let me say this first; All wars are evil but not everyones involvement in them is evil.
In America we cling to these words in the Declaration of Independence;
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
However it seems to me that we read the "all men" part as "all Americans" But I would argue that this statement, because it is grounded in creation, applies to all human beings. Even Iraqis.
Why do I raise this point? Because we as Americans tend to be isolationists, we are fat and happy, to bad about the rest of the world, good luck! seems to be our attitude. We don't want to get involved and pay the price to ensure that all men are free, when it is in our power to do good to our neighbor. I'm sure we all know the story of the good Samaritan. For those who don't, it may be found in Luke 10:25-37. Take the time to read that discourse because my argument rest on it and Proverbs 2:27. As a side note in the story of the good Samaritan. The Samaritans were despised by the Jews. In fact the Jews would go way out of their way to avoid walking through Samaria. So don't let the fact that this is a Jew being helped by a Samaritan, escape your attention. Verses 36-37 are my main point however, 36 "So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?” 37 And he said, “He who showed mercy on him.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”
Most people don't know that if the borders of Iraq could be sealed, all violence would cease. What we are dealing with here is a group of fellow human beings who are living under tyranny and oppression from forces outside. These are people like you and me, with the same wants and desire. Human beings with certain unalienable rights endowed to them by their creator. However, some people don't think so and wish to bring them into submission to their desires. It's like the schoolyard bully only on a national level.
So my question is this, do we have a moral obligation to help our neighbor, our fellow human beings liberate themselves from tyranny and oppression when it is within our power to do so?
When I see Iraqis holding up their purple thumbs because they can now vote, when I hear of schools and hospitals being built, girls being allowed to go to school for the first time, Iraqis coming out of hiding and joining the police force and military, small business owners opening up their shops again, Iraqis coming out of hiding and turning over insurgents, I see a people who love freedom and peace as much as we do. I see a people who are grateful that we came to help them.
I'm afraid that we as Americans are a very self-centered people, just consider all the self-help material that's available to us. We spend thousands to comfort and please ourselves, consider the Super-Bowl. We have no trouble spending on things that have a direct benefit for us. Yes, we are the most generous nation in the world as of right now, but that is fading fast. Convenience and comfort have become our gods and we sacrifice joyfully at their alters. When our creator, the Lord Jesus Christ, asks us to give to our neighbor with no expectation of return, we shrug off our responsibility and turn a blind eye to the suffering all around us.
So yes, the war has cost us and that cost has been heavy, but the cost didn't concern the Samaritan, he was willing to pay it on behalf of his neighbor with no expectation of return. I firmly believe that it is wiser to pay a small price now, than a much greater one later. If we save the lives of hundreds of thousands at the cost of several thousand, than it was worth it. This is the "bloody arithmetic" that won the civil war here and gained liberty for all men and women who call America their home.
So do we cower in the face of evil because it might cost us our very lives. Our do we put it down at great cost to ourselves because we understand the gravity of what is at stake. Are we the good Samaritan who does good to his neighbor when it is within our power to do so, regardless of cost?
"All it takes for evil to succeed, is for good men to do nothing." -Anonymous
In America we cling to these words in the Declaration of Independence;
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
However it seems to me that we read the "all men" part as "all Americans" But I would argue that this statement, because it is grounded in creation, applies to all human beings. Even Iraqis.
Why do I raise this point? Because we as Americans tend to be isolationists, we are fat and happy, to bad about the rest of the world, good luck! seems to be our attitude. We don't want to get involved and pay the price to ensure that all men are free, when it is in our power to do good to our neighbor. I'm sure we all know the story of the good Samaritan. For those who don't, it may be found in Luke 10:25-37. Take the time to read that discourse because my argument rest on it and Proverbs 2:27. As a side note in the story of the good Samaritan. The Samaritans were despised by the Jews. In fact the Jews would go way out of their way to avoid walking through Samaria. So don't let the fact that this is a Jew being helped by a Samaritan, escape your attention. Verses 36-37 are my main point however, 36 "So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?” 37 And he said, “He who showed mercy on him.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”
Most people don't know that if the borders of Iraq could be sealed, all violence would cease. What we are dealing with here is a group of fellow human beings who are living under tyranny and oppression from forces outside. These are people like you and me, with the same wants and desire. Human beings with certain unalienable rights endowed to them by their creator. However, some people don't think so and wish to bring them into submission to their desires. It's like the schoolyard bully only on a national level.
So my question is this, do we have a moral obligation to help our neighbor, our fellow human beings liberate themselves from tyranny and oppression when it is within our power to do so?
When I see Iraqis holding up their purple thumbs because they can now vote, when I hear of schools and hospitals being built, girls being allowed to go to school for the first time, Iraqis coming out of hiding and joining the police force and military, small business owners opening up their shops again, Iraqis coming out of hiding and turning over insurgents, I see a people who love freedom and peace as much as we do. I see a people who are grateful that we came to help them.
I'm afraid that we as Americans are a very self-centered people, just consider all the self-help material that's available to us. We spend thousands to comfort and please ourselves, consider the Super-Bowl. We have no trouble spending on things that have a direct benefit for us. Yes, we are the most generous nation in the world as of right now, but that is fading fast. Convenience and comfort have become our gods and we sacrifice joyfully at their alters. When our creator, the Lord Jesus Christ, asks us to give to our neighbor with no expectation of return, we shrug off our responsibility and turn a blind eye to the suffering all around us.
So yes, the war has cost us and that cost has been heavy, but the cost didn't concern the Samaritan, he was willing to pay it on behalf of his neighbor with no expectation of return. I firmly believe that it is wiser to pay a small price now, than a much greater one later. If we save the lives of hundreds of thousands at the cost of several thousand, than it was worth it. This is the "bloody arithmetic" that won the civil war here and gained liberty for all men and women who call America their home.
So do we cower in the face of evil because it might cost us our very lives. Our do we put it down at great cost to ourselves because we understand the gravity of what is at stake. Are we the good Samaritan who does good to his neighbor when it is within our power to do so, regardless of cost?
"All it takes for evil to succeed, is for good men to do nothing." -Anonymous
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Shoving Grandma and Politics
Greg Koukl, from Stand to Reason, raised some very interesting thoughts on his weekly radio program this past Sunday, November 11th. And honestly, I have changed my view on the upcoming election because of them. There has been quite a lot of discussion in evangelical circles regarding the upcoming presidential election. The discussion has focused on the hypothetical scenario of what should evangelicals do if both candidates are pro-abortion. How should we vote? Dr. Dobson has taken a lot of flack for his position and comments he made during a recent interview where he said he would not vote for a pro-abortion candidate, and he stands by that. The media has misrepresented him even to the point of claiming that Dr. Dobson wants to start a third party, which is not the case. At first, I applauded Dr. Dobson and others like him for their convictions and agreed with them, but on second thought I think their convictions aren't well thought out. Let me explain. Is it wise to make our decisions with no regard for the outcome? Christ would argue that we should "count the cost" Dr. Dobson could keep his word and actually cause more deaths and I don't think that is a viable option.
Is it ever right to vote for a pro-abortion candidate? And if I'm pro-life, how could I vote for someone who is pro-abortion? (which could be the dilemma pro-lifers face if Rudy Giuliani gets the Republican nomination.) Some would argue that it is a compromise to our position if we do, but is it? Well, that depends. Is it wrong to shove Grandma? Yes and no, it depends on the situation. If I shove Grandma because I'm mad at her, yes that is clearly wrong. But, if I shove her out of the way of a speeding car that's an entirely different thing. It is the motive, not the act, that determines the morality of an act. Our obligation is to cast our vote in a way that does the greatest good possible given the circumstances we are facing. Or to put it another way; we try to do the moral thing. So we see that it is not necessarily what we do, but why. Then we must also ask; what is the standard by which we judge.
Now some might claim this is Situational Ethics, but it is not, nor is it Relativism (moral subjectivism). Situational Ethics as a philosophy is actually objective in nature because it grounds itself outside itself in love, but I'm not grounding my position in love or myself. My position is moral objectivitism because it is dependent on the details of the objective situation. It's truthfulness is not based on me (the subject), but on those things outside myself (the object). Because all truth claims depend on the circumstances and circumstances are always relevant questions to whether an act is moral; this is the correspondence theory of truth. True truth is the way things really are.
So here is the way I see it. If we are placed in this situation between two pro-abortion candidates and our objective is to save as many lives as we can given the circumstances we face, then which candidate will do that best? Clearly the Republican.
Is it ever right to vote for a pro-abortion candidate? And if I'm pro-life, how could I vote for someone who is pro-abortion? (which could be the dilemma pro-lifers face if Rudy Giuliani gets the Republican nomination.) Some would argue that it is a compromise to our position if we do, but is it? Well, that depends. Is it wrong to shove Grandma? Yes and no, it depends on the situation. If I shove Grandma because I'm mad at her, yes that is clearly wrong. But, if I shove her out of the way of a speeding car that's an entirely different thing. It is the motive, not the act, that determines the morality of an act. Our obligation is to cast our vote in a way that does the greatest good possible given the circumstances we are facing. Or to put it another way; we try to do the moral thing. So we see that it is not necessarily what we do, but why. Then we must also ask; what is the standard by which we judge.
Now some might claim this is Situational Ethics, but it is not, nor is it Relativism (moral subjectivism). Situational Ethics as a philosophy is actually objective in nature because it grounds itself outside itself in love, but I'm not grounding my position in love or myself. My position is moral objectivitism because it is dependent on the details of the objective situation. It's truthfulness is not based on me (the subject), but on those things outside myself (the object). Because all truth claims depend on the circumstances and circumstances are always relevant questions to whether an act is moral; this is the correspondence theory of truth. True truth is the way things really are.
So here is the way I see it. If we are placed in this situation between two pro-abortion candidates and our objective is to save as many lives as we can given the circumstances we face, then which candidate will do that best? Clearly the Republican.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
