How To Know How To Vote

The following is an excerpt from a longer post from 2012, "The Christian and Politics."

Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people (Proverbs 14:34, NKJV). Righteousness as opposed to sinfulness on the part of candidates and issues must be considered. The questions to ask ourselves are "What is right?" and "Who will do right?" Of course, it would be most helpful to have more Bible-believing, born again, Godly candidates. Failing that, we need to select the candidates and issues that most reflect Biblical principles. There are certain issues, such as the murder of the unborn, that we must reject and work to eradicate, because it is as true today as it was when it was written, that "sin is a reproach to any people."

Some issues are not merely political. Issues that involve normalizing sin are not political issues. Rather, they are moral and Biblical issues, and ignoring them by saying that Christians and the church should stay out of politics is at best cowardly and at worst a denial of our convictions and a great detriment to our nation.

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when a wicked man rules, the people groan… Scoffers set a city aflame, but wise men turn away wrath (Proverbs 29:2, 8, NKJV). We ought to rejoice greatly that we still live in a free country where we are allowed to vote. Such is a great privilege and responsibility, and we owe it to God, ourselves, and our children not to take such a responsibility lightly. When evil individuals are in office, we ought to vote wisely so as to remove them, and when foolish, unbiblical laws are enacted, we ought to make every effort to see them repealed.

Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord… (Psalm 33:12, NKJV). We hear a great deal of foolishness today about our country not having been founded on Biblical principles and Christian ideals. Such nonsense will continue to be stated, but repeated statements of falsehood never make a lie into the truth. We need only look at some of the statements of the founders of our country to put that foolishness to rest. I offer only a few of the huge number that are readily available.

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" (George Washington, The Writings of Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor, Vol. XI, pp. 342-343, General Orders of May 2, 1778).

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here" (The Trumpet Voice of Freedom, Patrick Henry of Virginia, p. 3.)

"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ" (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385).

There is no way to know how many of our founding fathers truly trusted Christ as Savior, but there can be no doubt that the vast majority had tremendous respect for God, the Bible, and Christianity, and that is sorely lacking today. Can we still say we are "a nation whose God is the Lord?"

The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spoke to me: "He who rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God" (2 Samuel 23:3, NKJV). God most certainly holds us all responsible. Citizens are responsible for obeying the laws put into place by their leaders. That is not to say that all laws are right and just, and it is also not to say that there is never a time to resist authority. The apostles certainly experienced that situation firsthand when they were ordered not to continue preaching the gospel, and they responded appropriately. But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29, NKJV). This really sums up where we ought to be. It is our responsibility to obey all laws that do not violate Biblical principles. If men's laws are in violation of God's laws, we must obey God first, always remembering that there may be consequences to such an action.

Not only are citizens responsible to obey the just and righteous laws their leaders enact, but also those leaders must be prepared to answer to God for the manner in which they lead. They "must be just, ruling in the fear of God." That is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly. Politicians who accept high office only to enrich themselves or feed their own egos are setting themselves up for the judgment of God. We need humble, godly leaders who will obey the Scriptures.

Take away the wicked from before the king, and his throne will be established in righteousness (Proverbs 25:5, NKJV). Not only must rulers lead in a righteous, Godly manner, but those who advise them must not be evil individuals. When a potentially good leader listens to ungodly advice, the results can be disastrous. I think of King Rehoboam, who unwisely listened to the wrong counselors, and the result was that he, and ultimately the nation, did evil in the sight of the Lord. Such always leads to God's judgment. You can read about King Rehoboam here.

Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who deal truthfully are His delight.  (Proverbs 12:22, NKJV). During this political season as the presidential election approaches, it is certainly accurate to say that we have been told numerous lies. Some of them are so blatant that even the media is starting to challenge them on both sides, probably for fear that they themselves will be exposed for their lack of honesty as they fail to point out obvious lies. God honors truth. "...those who deal truthfully are his delight." We ought to seek to elect honest politicians (Is that an oxymoron? I hope not totally.) and support honest rather than deceitful laws. Those who would seek to gain office by dishonest means are inviting judgment, because "lying lips are an abomination to the Lord," and He is not asleep.

Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens (Exodus 18:21,NKJV).

This Scripture makes it clear that good leaders are those who are capable of doing the job, who fear God, who are truthful and hate falsehood, and who are not greedy and cannot be bribed.

I encourage every Christian to fulfill the responsibility to vote based on Biblical convictions. We do not always get everything we want in a candidate, but if we stay home because we don't like one issue, or if we vote for a third party candidate who clearly has no chance, we may be unwittingly helping into office those who may stand for the opposite of what we believe. Some have said they cannot vote for "the lesser of two evils" because the lesser of two evils is still evil. However, "the lesser of two evils" is less evil, and we want the least amount of evil possible in our country. Failure to vote for the lesser of two evils is to help the greater of two evils to take control. That is surely not what we want.

Second Amendment Follies

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states the following:  “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, which consists of the first ten amendments. These amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights and place clear limitations on the government's power.

While almost all citizens appreciate most of the rights granted in the Bill of Rights, a disturbing number do not like the Second Amendment and would get rid of it if they could. In the processes, they twist reality into a convoluted mess of arguments against it. Some of their nonsensical arguments are listed below:

• “Since the amendment contains the word ‘militia,’ it applies only to members of the military.” This argument is patently absurd on its face, as are almost all of the anti-Second Amendment arguments. The reality is that our founding fathers preferred militias to a standing army. We cannot use 21^st century definitions to define what things were in colonial America. When the Constitution was written, a militia was made up of volunteers who came to fight, bringing their own arms and ammunition. Our founders knew better than to try and disarm the populace. Otherwise, there could be no militia
• “The ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms’ is a collective right rather than an individual right.” This argument falls flat when it is pointed out that it is a right of “the people,” not just of the government. In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." It should also be pointed out that if part of the Bill of Rights does not grant individual rights, then consistent interpretation would mean such is true of the entire Bill of Rights. There would be howls of protest and who knows what else should such an idea be embraced by politicians.
• “Since our rights are granted to us by our government, that same government has the right to take those rights away.” This argument fails miserably, and our founders recognized the fact that rights are not granted by government but by our Creator and are then to be secured by government. The Declaration states, “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 — That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,,,” Our rights come from God, not from government. One of those rights is life, and we have the right to protect our lives and those of our loved ones, without interference from government.
• “The Second Amendment only applies to muzzle-loading muskets and rifles, not to ‘assault rifles.’” The absurdity of this argument is almost too obvious to need pointing out. Muzzle-loading muskets and rifles were the “assault weapons” of that day. Today, any weapon the anti-gun people want to ban gets referred to as an “assault weapon.” They need to at least know what they are talking about, but that may be asking too much. By the logic of this argument, the freedom of the press would only include primitive printing presses or quill pens and parchment. It certainly would not include computers with word processing programs, and it would in no way include television, radio, email, social media, or the Internet as a whole. Looking at the entire Bill of Rights through this lens certainly makes this argument about the Second Amendment look like the foolish drivel it is.
• “Semi-automatic rifles are not needed by civilians, because they have nothing to do with hunting.” The answer to that is that the Second Amendment likewise has nothing to do with hunting. Without the Second Amendment, none of the other parts of the Bill of Rights could exist. Experience told our founders that we would never have had a chance to gain our independence from Britain without an armed populace.
• “The Second Amendment is obsolete and no longer needed.” This implies that somehow people have changed for the better with time. It denies that there is a need to be alert and ready for attacks from those who would destroy life and limb and make slaves of others. The reality is that things are not getting better and “more civilized.” Instead, things continue to get worse, just as predicted in the Bible. “But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13, NASB). This Scripture is talking specifically about those who would pervert God’s truth and deceive others into believing falsehood, but it also certainly describes the state of the world today.
• “Since Jesus was a pacifist, we should disarm ourselves and follow His example.” This statement is totally wrong, because Jesus was not and is not a pacifist. He came the first time to provide salvation by His grace because of the great love of God toward guilty sinners. This does not negate the fact that He will come back in power and great glory to bring judgment to unbelievers. He said, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34, NASB). It is interesting that He said to His disciples, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one” (Luke 22:36, NASB). He also spoke of home defense. “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed” (Luke 11:21, NASB). “Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house” (Matthew 12:29, NASB).
• “‘Common sense’ and ‘reasonable’ gun-control laws will prevent shootings.” The big problem here is that “common sense” and “reasonable” are, in many cases, buzz words for finding a way around the Second Amendment by infringing on the right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms. Disarming potential victims does not create fewer victims, but more of them. If a bully is menacing children on a playground, it would certainly do no good to tie the hands of all the potential victims behind their backs and then hope that would deter the bully. Such thinking is totally absurd, but it is common among those who believe in “gun-control.” They will put up signs that say, “gun-free zone” and expect those signs to deter criminals. If that kind of thing worked, it would be beneficial to put up signs that say “crime-free zone” all over the country and signs along the border that say “no trespassing.” Such would be naiveté of the highest order.

 Much more could be said, but the fact of the matter is that guns are not the problem in our society today. The problem is sin in the heart of mankind, and the only real answer to the problem is the Gospel of Jesus Christ and its power to redeem sinners. The Gospel is “... that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4, NASB). Sinners need a Savior, and the Lord Jesus Christ is the only one who can redeem us. Those who ignore that fact will continue to experience the meaninglessness and frustration of living, without answers, in this world full of evil. “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forevermore” (Galatians 1:3-5, NASB).

Other articles on this topic are found here.   

Politics and Other Things

This is a Christian blog. In the early days, almost all of the articles were in some way related to Christian school education, since I was involved in Christian schools variously as a principal, teacher, and basketball coach for thirty-four years. Since retiring in 2012, I have broadened my scope somewhat.

For a long time, I have tried to minimize addressing politics. Christians are so often told that we should avoid political issues based on the alleged “separation of church and state” that some believe is found in the U.S. Constitution, which it is not. Sometimes it is even said that Christians have no business bringing their convictions into the voting booth. I have never bought into such foolishness. The reality is that some of the things that are called political issues are more than Republican vs. Democrat or right vs. left. They are, in fact, matters of common sense vs. foolishness, right vs. wrong, Christian vs. non-Christian, Biblical vs. non-biblical, and good vs. evil. Christians do have a role in politics. Some issues are not merely political. Issues that involve normalizing sin are not political issues. Rather, they are moral and Biblical issues, and ignoring them by saying that Christians and the church should stay out of politics is at best cowardly and at worst a denial of our convictions and a great detriment to our nation. For my article on this topic, click here. 

Following are a number of thoughts on such issues. Some of these things are absolute facts. Others are merely my opinions, based on my experience and knowledge. There are many other things I could mention, but these are a random collection of ideas.

• The legitimate function of government is outlined in the Scriptures.  “First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity” (1 Timothy 2:1-2), NASB). This makes it clear that God’s requirement for government, which He established, is to defend its citizens so that they are free to live godly lives. This would include law enforcement, national defense, border security, and anything else necessary to provide for national security. That’s it. Anything else government chooses to do must not interfere with this primary function. Sadly, government so often spends so much time and resources doing things it has no business being involved with that it has nothing left for its primary purpose. “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor” (Romans 13:1-7, NASB).
• The Tenth Amendment must be honored and obeyed literally. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The government spends far too much time, effort, and money on things it is not authorized to do, and often it uses resources from those things it is supposed to do (such as national defense) in order to pay for activities that are reserved for the States and/or the people. The federal government has usurped authority it is not authorized to have. A good place to start would be to note that the government has no business overseeing education, medical care, and energy. All of these things can be done far more efficiently by private organizations that do not have the luxury of operating at a deficit. There are many other things that could and should be added to this short list, but these would be a good place to start.
• Defense of our country is a primary responsibility of the government. While funds for this purpose must be spent in a wise and prudent manner, funds must not be diverted from national defense and defense of our national interests abroad in order to pay for social welfare programs.
• Requiring voter ID is not racist. It is the best way to insure the integrity of the election process. Voting is a fundamental right of all age-eligible U.S. citizens, and eligibility to vote must be determined by a valid birth certificate and resulting picture I.D. in order to determine eligibility. Opposition to voter ID laws is a very thinly-veiled effort to allow people to vote who are not eligible to do so and therefore to cheat in elections. In reality, those who are against voter ID are acting in a racist manner by implying those they pretend to speak for are too stupid or otherwise incapable of getting an ID. People should be insulted by such an attitude. If people come to this country and want to vote, they should go through the legal process to become citizens. For my article on voter ID, click here. 
• Voting against a minority candidate is not racist. Those who voted for Mitt Romney instead of President Obama in 2012 were not racist unless their votes were based strictly on skin color. Voting either for or against a candidate based on skin color is racist, but no vote is racist if it is based on the positions of the candidate. Voting against a woman is not sexist. Those who voted for President Trump instead of Hillary Clinton were not sexist unless their votes were based on sexism. Voting either for or against a candidate based on gender is sexist, but no vote is sexist if it is based on the positions of the candidate.
• The Electoral College is our method of electing a president. The popular vote is irrelevant. I addressed the electoral college in a previous article. For that article, click here. 
• Socialism has never, does not now, will never, and cannot possibly work. Those who call themselves “progressives” and then want to go back to the failed policies and procedures of socialism should actually be called “regressives.” Such people are either ignorant of or willingly ignore reality.
• The government is not Santa Claus. It cannot provide everything for everyone. Those calling for Medicare for all, free college tuition, free medical care, etc., etc., have lost touch with reality and can never answer the question of who is going to pay for all this with any other response than “the rich” or “the government.”  It is important to remember that the government has nothing to give away other than that which it has taken from someone. Government produces no wealth, and money is not created by a printing press. Under a situation of “everything for everyone,” there would not be any rich people to pay the taxes, because there would be no motivation to work and produce anything.
• A few years ago a congressman said that business does not exist to make a profit but to provide revenue for the government. This is an illustration of the fact that there is much foolish thinking among our alleged “leaders.” This demonstrates very clearly the need for term limits on Congress.
• Higher taxes cause an economy to stagnate and result in more poverty and less revenue for the government. Lower taxes stimulate an economy, create wealth for more people, benefit everyone, and result in more revenue for the government. This has been illustrated many times. A previous U.S. President said he understood this truth, but he operated against it in order to be “fair to everyone” and “level the playing field.”
• When someone says, “The rich don’t pay their fair share,” the speaker is generally someone who pays little or nothing. So who isn’t paying their fair share?
• The largest tax cuts will inevitably go to those who pay the most. Anyone who understands third grade math should understand this. “Tax breaks for the wealthy” are so often talked about as a terrible thing, but the truth is that “the wealthy” are those who put more money back into the economy if they don’t have to give it to the government. More money in the economy creates jobs and produces more goods and services for everyone.
• We often hear about “immoral profits.” It is really unclear why the word “immoral” needs to be put before the word “profits.” Profits are earned, and that money, in one way or another, goes back into the economy. As an example of “immoral profits,” consider the oil industry. “Big oil” (a term used as a pejorative by many) companies do research and development, exploration, drilling, etc. These companies take all the risk, and often their efforts lead to dry wells. On the other hand, the government puts taxes on everything corporations do, including on each gallon of gasoline. It takes no risks but just stands there with its hand out. The government actually makes more off of each gallon of gasoline or diesel than the oil company does. If anyone is making immoral profits, it is the government.
• Calling people “racist” because of differing political views is neither accurate nor appropriate. When people have no legitimate argument for their positions on issues, they tend to fall back on name-calling, usually calling their opponents “racists” or one of several other “…ists” or “…phobes.” Mocking, ridicule, and name-calling are usually a sign of unwillingness to debate because of having a very weak position on the issues in question.
• If there is a speaker who holds an opposing point of view, the proper response is to either listen respectfully or to simply not attend the event. Burning buildings, breaking windows, vandalizing cars, and doing all sorts of other mischief in order to prevent that speaker from speaking will accomplish nothing but illustrate a fear of someone else’s position. Much of this seems to be done in the name of “free speech.” This is utter hypocrisy.
• People who preach tolerance should practice tolerance instead of being the most intolerant of people.
• It is not racist for a country to control its borders.
• Some say, “Not my president.” There is no such elected office as “My President.” There is the “President of the United States.” I did not vote for Barack Obama, but he was my president. Currently, Donald Trump is my president, and he is “our president,” including all of the “not my president” types.
• All rights ultimately come from God, not the government. This is made clear in our 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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” 
• None of the legal rights given by God and spelled out in the Bill of Rights can be legitimately taken away, but it must not be interpreted to guarantee imaginary rights, such as the "right" to an abortion, which it never mentions and which was never intended.
• Abortion is the murder of a human being. No amount of convoluted reasoning and foolish arguments can change this reality. This is our modern-day holocaust and will ultimately bring God’s judgment.  God knows us before he forms us in the womb. God said to the Prophet Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5, NASB). King David amplifies this truth:  “For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them” (Psalm 139:13-15, NASB). ",,,abortion is not a matter of a woman’s right to choose. It is a matter of the life or death of a human being made in God’s image." (Reference here.) 
• The First Amendment has two parts relative to religion:  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This means not only that the government is not to establish a religion, but it also means that the government is not to interfere in religion. It does not mean that the government can compel the removal of religious symbols, such as crosses, that have meaning to the people in a historical sense. Our country was established based on religious freedom and Christian beliefs. It also does not mean that the government must recognize violent political movements disguised as religions. This amendment limits what Congress can do. It says nothing about what the church can or cannot do.
• “Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it” (Edmond Burke). We do a great disservice to our younger generation by refusing to teach the history of the United States, including the reality of the Civil War. Tearing down statues of Robert E. Lee (who actually opposed slavery, although many today do not even realize it) and other Confederate figures is nothing more than pretending our history does not exist. Such is foolishness and does nothing to improve anyone’s life. Acknowledging the reality of the Civil War is not racism.
• The Second Amendment means exactly what it says, and it is as much a part of the Bill of Rights as freedom of speech, religion, etc. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Those who want it to mean something other than what it says must recognize that if they destroy the Second Amendment, the whole Bill of Rights becomes meaningless. This amendment guarantees every citizen the right to own and carry firearms for the purpose of defense, and it states that this right must not be “infringed.” To “infringe” is to “encroach or trespass.” This falls far short of the desire of many who would not just “infringe” on this right but would totally take it away. Quite literally, this amendment makes almost all, of not all, gun control laws unconstitutional. To “bear arms” means to carry a loaded firearm. An unloaded gun is a club. So many who seem to love freedom of speech, at least for those with whom they agree, also seem to hate the right to keep and bear arms. This is inconsistent and hypocritical. A “gun-free zone” is actually a shooting gallery for those who have no respect for the law.
• All laws passed by Congress must apply to the all government employees, including the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches.
• It seems as if most foreign aid is a waste, especially when it goes to countries that hate us. Following are two examples of legitimate foreign aid:  (1) In cases of natural disaster, humanitarian aid should be carried out as long as there are safeguards to insure the aid ends up in the hands of those for whom it is intended and not in the hands of dictators, and (2) Economic and military aid must continue to the nation of Israel, since friendship with Israel is our greatest guarantee of national security. God said to Abraham, “…I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; And I will bless those who bless you,
  And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed” (Genesis 12:2-3). This promise has never been rescinded, and it will not be, because God is truth and cannot lie.
• Judges, elected officials, and other government employees who ignore and violate the Constitution and other laws must be held accountable and removed from office. Members of the Executive Branch must not hide behind "executive privilege" in order to defy the courts and the law. On the other hand, federal judges should not be allowed to overrule the executive branch based on a political philosophy rather than on the law.
• It does not matter if a judge or Supreme Court Justice is a Democrat or a Republican, nor does it matter how that judge would vote on a hypothetical future case. What matters is that the judge or justice believes the Constitution means what it says and says what it means. Legal decisions must be made based on the rule of law instead of the political philosophy of the court.

This list of things could go on and on. Instead of doing so, I present a sampling of Scripture that addresses politics and government from a Biblical perspective, as well as a brief quote from Patrick Henry.

“Righteousness exalts a nation, But sin is a disgrace to any people” (Proverbs 14:34, NASB).

“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, But when a wicked man rules, people groan … Scorners set a city aflame, But wise men turn away anger”  (Proverbs 2:2&8, NASB).

“Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Psalm 33:12, NASB).

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here” (The Trumpet Voice of Freedom, Patrick Henry of Virginia, p. 3).

Mass Shootings: The Bible's Answer

Here we go again:  another mass shooting in a “gun-free zone,” this time at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida with a death toll of 17 and 15 more hospitalized. When something like this happens, whether at a school, a church, an entertainment venue, or any other public place, there are the immediate knee-jerk reactions and recriminations to further political agendas, often even before the families have had time be notified.

Democrats blame Republicans and say they “have blood on their hands.” Many Republicans likewise blame Democrats. “Gun-control” politicians blame the NRA, guns themselves, and the 99.99% of gun owners who never have and never will shoot anyone. Gun owners blame those who came up with such ideas as “gun-free zones.” And on and on it goes. The blame always gets put on those who had nothing to do with it, and the individual who did it usually gets sympathy as a “poor, misunderstood kid” who had such potential, but he was bullied and forced by others into what he did. We’ll see how this latest incident plays out.

As usual, there will be statements about “thoughts and prayers,” and there will be those who say such things are pointless. There will be others who call for more gun laws, even though “common-sense gun laws” have, to date, failed to stop gun crime. Gun laws are not only unconstitutional. They are foolish and defy common sense.

In these debates, I come down on the side of those who say that those with intent to do evil are never stopped by laws. Bullies are not stopped by tying the hands of the potential victims and then hoping the bullies will leave them alone. This is little different than herding the potential victims of mass shooters into “gun-free zones,” which should actually be called “free-fire zones” or “target rich environments” and expecting a few signs to keep them safe. Those signs might as well say, “Attention Mass Shooters:  Come on in. No one will shoot back.” That is naiveté of the worst and most dangerous sort. I am fully aware that there was an armed guard on the campus of the school where the most recent shooting took place. However, one armed guard in a school of 3,000 students is worse than insufficient.

Some say we need “more education” in order to stop people from doing bad things. I have seen too many articles about how education is the answer. If a man beats his wife, he needs “more education” on why he shouldn't beat his wife. Right. No one realizes that spousal abuse is wrong unless he has taken the proper education courses to help him see that. The problem is not lack of knowledge. It is a heart problem. As long as politicians and the media insist on blaming inanimate objects and their political opponents for every mass shooting, there will be no real solutions. No amount of education or counseling is going to fix the problem.

The Bible says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. Who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9). All human beings are sinners, and sin comes out in different ways in different people. Not everyone will get a firearm and kill people, but we are all sinners, and we all commit sins against God. That is the problem with which we need to deal. It would be extremely difficult to deny this.

Individuals must be held accountable for their actions. Sadly, in our society, we seem to be looking for explanations and reasons instead of holding evildoers accountable. The Bible very clearly addresses this. “Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Ecclesiastes 8:11, NKJV). "Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death" (Numbers 35:31, NKJV).

The sin principle must be addressed. Evil actions are all the result of sin. Ultimately, death is the result of sin. We cannot fix this problem by making new laws, banning guns, making more mental health treatment available, or any other bandage we might put on the problem.

The only way to address this is God’s way. The Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is very clear:  “... that Christ died FOR OUR SINS according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day...” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4, NKJV).

Sinners, including potential mass shooters, need a Savior, and the Lord Jesus Christ is the only one who can redeem us. Those who ignore that fact will continue to experience the meaninglessness and frustration of living, without answers, in this world full of evil. “Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory forever and ever” (Galatians 1:3-5, NKJV).

For other posts I have written on this topic, click here and here.

The Election is Over

Ever since the election, we have been hearing about how unfair it is that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote. There are a few realities that must be faced before that argument goes very far.

The first is that there is NOT a national presidential election. What? How can I say that? I can say it because it is true. There are 50 separate state elections (plus D.C.), and the goal is to win as many states and electoral votes as possible. Extra votes in one state election do not transfer to another state election, just like winning a game by a large margin does not give an advantage to the winning team the next time the two teams play. When I coached basketball, we beat a team by 50 points. Three weeks later, that same team beat us by two points, giving each team a win over the other. It would have done no good for me to petition the league that my team should get two wins because of a 48-point differential in the two games. Such an action would have been ludicrous. A vote in a California election does not transfer to a ballot proposition in Colorado, nor does it transfer to any other state’s presidential electors. Each state has its own elections.

The 1960 World Series between the Pittsburgh Pirates and the New York Yankees should serve to illustrate this point. The object of the World Series is not to score the most runs but to win four games. The Pirates won the series four games to three. The Yankees won their three games 16-3, 10-0, and 12-0. The Pirates won their four games 6-4, 3-2, 5-2, and 10-9. The Yankees scored 55 runs on 91 hits, while the Pirates scored only 27 runs on 60 hits. Regardless of those statistics, the Pirates won the series fair and square. There were no marches and riots by Yankee fans demanding that Major League Baseball award the series to the Yankees because they scored twice as many runs as the Pirates. Such would have been considered an absurdity. Yankee fans simply had to accept that their team was outplayed in close games, and the result is forever in the record books.

The same is true of the 2016 election. Regardless of the popular vote, Donald Trump won fair and square according to the rules. No amount of protesting and lawless rioting can change the rules after the fact. The electoral college plays an important role in that it prevents New York, California, Illinois, etc. from controlling every election and totally marginalizing rural America and those who do not live in large cities.

The second reality that must be faced is that we will never really know who won the total popular vote, because states do not count absentee ballots once it is obvious that there are not enough of them remaining uncounted to change the winner of that state's electoral votes. In every election there are hundreds of thousands to even millions of uncounted absentee ballots. This makes no real difference, in that there are never enough of these uncounted votes in a given state to swing that state’s electoral votes. However, there are usually more than enough uncounted absentee ballots in all states combined to potentially swing the entire popular vote. For an article on this topic, click here. (Note:  If the Internet sources from which I got this turn out to be unreliable, then I will withdraw this second point. However, this point is of far less importance than the first, because in our Constitutional Republic, the popular vote is not what determines the presidential election, anyway.)

Another reality that must be considered is that in some places, there is a huge chance of many thousands of illegal votes. At present, there is no way to actually determine how many such votes get cast and counted, so there is no way to determine their impact on the outcome. This problem will never be solved until and unless all states go to a system of voter ID.

Based on historical trends, it is not at all unrealistic to believe that George Bush may well have won the popular vote over Al Gore in 2000, and that Donald Trump may well have won the 2016 popular vote. We will never know for sure who won those popular votes, but it doesn’t really matter, because our system is the electoral college. Love it or hate it, that is our system, and those who are demanding that the electoral college be done away with need to also demand that every vote be counted, including the many absentee ballots cast by our military members stationed overseas. 

Shortly after Barack Obama took office, he famously said, “Elections have consequences, and I won.” Another familiar statement from that time was, “Get over it.” It’s time to take some of their own advice and get over it. Trump won. Clinton lost. Eight years ago, and then four years ago, there were those who thought the world had come to an end because of the outcome of the election. Now, there are those on the other side of the political aisle who think the same thing. Here is the truth:  The world did not end then, and it has not ended now. All the whining, marching, demonstrating, signing petitions, and rioting in the world is not going to change the outcome of the election or our method, according to the U.S. Constitution, of electing a president.

Enough Politicizing of Shootings!

The recent shootings in Colorado Springs, Colorado and San Bernardino, California and the inevitable response by many politicians and members of the media make me want to shout, "Enough politicizing of shootings!" As a well-known politician once said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Too many politicians and others jump on terrible crimes in order to further their agendas. They may give lip-service to the suffering of the victims and their families, but that usually fades into the background as they seek to push their agendas by blaming Christians, the NRA, Republicans, gun stores, the Second Amendment, and anyone or anything else they can think of who very likely had nothing to do with it, before finding out the facts. Rarely do they concentrate on the actual perpetrators of the crime, because they have been "mistreated" and/or are "misunderstood." "Political correctness" continues to control the narrative until the ugly truth comes out.

They immediately propose more "gun-control" laws, usually ignoring the fact that shootings almost universally occur in places with very strict gun laws, and more specifically in "gun-free zones." They also seem to ignore the fact that those committing such crimes are in violation of many laws, and will very likely violate any future laws. Criminals, by definition, are not the people who choose to obey laws. In almost every case, those on whom they originally cast aspersions have nothing to do with it, and the actual perpetrators are other than those they attempted to blame. They end up looking foolish for jumping to conclusions, but that fact is usually ignored.

Real people die in these violent crimes of evil. Here in Colorado Springs, the police officer who was killed was a husband, father of two, an elder in his church, and even though I did not know him personally, one of my brothers in Christ. He willingly went into harm's way in an attempt to save lives. Every time such a shooting occurs, people with guns are called in to help, because they are the only ones who can help. Almost always, they arrive too late to stop the carnage. Victims who must run and hide or attempt to fight back with whatever improvised weapons they can find have little chance of survival and even less chance of stopping the shooting.

I will start respecting anti-gun politicians when they get rid of their armed bodyguards, including the Secret Service. They seem to believe they and their families should be protected by guns, while everyone else only needs signs that say "Gun-Free Zone." Of course, if they did attempt to live by their philosophy of "all guns are evil and should be taken away," I could respect them for not being hypocrites. However, I still could not respect their foolish and illogical position on the issue until someone makes a lucid and common-sense argument that explains how disarming potential victims somehow makes them safer. With notable exceptions, in most of these cases no one has the capability of shooting back until the police arrive. Many clichés are true, and one of the most cogent is this:  "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

The problem is not "gun-control" laws or lack of them, lack of self-esteem, lack of education, problems with the economy, racism,  "climate change," or any other external thing people want to blame. The problem is the sin nature running amok and the resulting evil behavior. Evil is real, and no amount of pretending otherwise by our politicians, the media, and others will change that. We don't need more laws. We need strict enforcement of the laws we already have. "Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil" (Ecclesiastes 8:11, NKJV).

The only real answer to the problem is the Gospel of Jesus Christ and its power to redeem sinners. The Gospel is "... that Christ died FOR OUR SINS according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day..." (1 Corinthians 15:3-4, NKJV). Sinners need a Savior, and the Lord Jesus Christ is the only one who can redeem us. Those who ignore that fact will continue to experience the meaninglessness and frustration of living, without answers, in this world full of evil. "Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory forever and ever" (Galatians 1:3-5, NKJV).

I touched on this topic in a post back in 2012, which can be seen here.

Changing the Meaning of Words

Much could be said, and much will be said and written about the Supreme Court's decision on the "same-sex marriage" issue. The following statement by Chief Justice Roberts sums up the legal situation quite well.

"This court is not a legislature … Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be … The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage … Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law…" (Chief Justice Roberts).

This statement is well-thought out and well-reasoned. However, it is interesting to note that the Chief Justice used almost the exact opposite reasoning in his opinion on Obama Care. We need justices who will consistently interpret what the Constitution says, not what they want it to say. “Words mean things."

The bottom line on the "same-sex marriage" decision is that no court, not even the Supreme Court, has the right or authority to change the definition of marriage. God originated marriage, and His definition is the only valid one. Our government has now given "hearty approval" (Romans 1:32) to something of which God does not approve, and more than that, He calls it sin.

Truth is not determined by what people like or what makes them feel comfortable. It doesn't really matter if people don't like the truth. Truth is truth. God's Word is truth (John 17:17), and it would be very wise for those in leadership of our nation to heed that reality before it is too late.

Absurd and Dishonest Political Advertising, Part 2

I recently received a piece of mail that is an insult to the intelligence and common sense of anyone who might read it. Some politicians must think all voters are stupid. The content of the document is an appeal to vote “no” on Amendment 67, which reads as follows:  “Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution protecting pregnant women and unborn children by defining ‘person’ and ‘child’ in the Colorado criminal code and the Colorado wrongful death act to include unborn human beings?"

 

Clearly, the amendment is a necessary first step in protecting unborn children from abortion by defining them as human beings, which of course, they are. It is a sad commentary on our culture that such a question is even open to debate. In reality, there is no legitimate abortion debate. It is not a political issue. Rather, it is a moral issue, and human beings cannot by a vote overrule God. Truth and morality are not determined by popular opinion or majority vote.

 

The tactics of those who oppose the amendment are extremely deceptive and absurd, but it seems that “truth in advertising” does not apply to politics.

 

The piece of propaganda I received makes several statements, as follows:

1.)  “Amendment 67 goes too far and would have dangerous consequences.”

 

2.)  “‘Unborn human being’ is a red flag for giving legal and constitutional rights to a woman’s fertilized egg, banning all abortions, including in the cases of rape, incest, or when something goes terribly wrong with a pregnancy.”

 

Notice that list of circumstances never does mention “elective abortion for the purpose of birth control,” which is most certainly the majority of abortions. I am old enough to remember when the big push to legalize abortion made the claim that it was necessary because of rape, incest, birth defects, or the health of the mother was at risk. It is interesting how those things put together make up only a very small percentage of all abortions. People were sold a bill of goods back in the 60’s. Anyone who said the "slippery slope" would lead to abortion becoming a popular form of birth control was labelled "an alarmist," but they were, in the end, proven right. The website gotquestions.org/ states the following:  “Over 95 percent of the abortions performed today involve women who simply do not want to have a baby. Less than 5 percent of abortions are for the reasons of rape, incest, or the mother's health at risk.”

(http://www.gotquestions.org/abortion-Bible.html#ixzz3Gj8aF7KP)

 

3.)  “Amendment 67 could cause doctors and midwives to be charged and jailed for crimes as extreme as manslaughter and even homicide … Amendment 67 turns women and doctors into criminals.” Beneath that statement are pictures of four women in a police line-up, each holding a sign.

 

The first woman’s sign says, “Had an abortion after I was raped.” Obviously, many people accept this as a justification for abortion. However, even though abortions performed because of rape are very few, it is difficult to understand how the killing of an unborn child is justifiable. Two wrongs never make a right. I am reminded of the statement by the main character in the movie “Rob Roy” after he found out his wife was pregnant as a result of rape:  “It's not the child that needs killing.” Even though this came from Hollywood, which is not exactly a center for the pro-life position, his point is well-taken. Punish the criminal, not the victim. Even if one accepts the validity of the first woman’s sign, which I don’t, the others defy all levels of common sense.

 

The second woman’s sign says, “Suffered a miscarriage.” Do they really expect us to believe that a woman who has a miscarriage will be put in jail if this amendment is passed? Does that make any sense? Of course not! Such an idea is absurd, at best. Yet we are subjected to such idiotic political propaganda, and those who put it out really expect us to accept their ridiculous reasoning.

 

The third woman, obviously a doctor, is holding a sign that says, “Treated my patient for a pregnancy that went terribly wrong.” This implies that the amendment will criminalize any doctor who loses a patient. The last time I checked, doctors are not God, regardless of what some of them may think. There is a big difference between a doctor who performs elective abortions and a doctor who treats a pregnant woman in an attempt to save her unborn child, even though the child ends up dying. This is another example of an absurd implication that no one should take seriously.

 

The final woman’s sign says, “Delivered a stillborn child.” (What? A stillborn “child?” They kind of tripped over their own words by calling it a “child.” I thought it was a “fetus” or a “tissue mass.”) This is just more of the same nonsense as the first three signs. It takes quite a case of dishonesty to put out such material, and it takes quite a case of foolishness to believe it.

 

Even if I believed other than the obvious fact that abortion is murder, I would laugh at this piece of nonsensical propaganda. Those who favor abortion need to make a well-thought-out argument for their position and state it clearly instead of relying on scare tactics and half-truths. I do not believe such a clear-cut argument can exist, since no matter what that argument would be, the end result is the killing of helpless, innocent human beings.

 

There is a great deal of talk today, especially as we approach the elections, about the alleged "war on women." The only real war on women is the war on unborn women. This war extends to unborn men, too.

 

An unborn human is a “pre-born human,” and the killing of another human being, with a few very real and biblical exceptions (accident, war, self-defense, and capital punishment) is murder, plain and simple. No amount of human reasoning or rationalization can change God’s standard relative to human life and abortion. I understand that abortion is legal, but it should not be. Abortion is a classic illustration of the truth that “just because something is legal doesn’t make it right.”

 

For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them (Psalm 139:13-16, NKJV).

 

Part one is found here.

Absurd and Dishonest Political Advertising

So why is it now supposedly true that not voting for government funding of something is equivalent to making it illegal? I am very weary of political ads that accuse opponents of wanting to make such things as birth control illegal, when the truth is simply that the opponent does not want the government to pay for it.

We all remember such statements as "Bush will outlaw abortion" and "Hobby Lobby is denying birth control to its employees." Such statements were and continue to be patently absurd and extremely deceptive. It would be morally right if the murder of unborn human beings were outlawed, but no single individual, not even a president, has dictatorial authority to make it happen. Hobby Lobby's conviction that it could not and would not pay for certain types of birth control does not mean those things were being denied or made illegal. People need to understand that if they want something, there is really nothing wrong with paying for it themselves.

I am fully aware that the government is not going to pay for my food, my gasoline, my utilities, my ammunition, or a variety of other things that I either need or want. This does not mean these things are illegal. The government is not responsible to pay for my stuff, nor should it be.

Anyone who would fall for such absurd and dishonest political advertising ought to do a little bit of thinking before they throw their vote away based on an emotional appeal.

Part 2 is found here.
 

"Love" Does Not Mean "Compromise."

Someone posted an article on Facebook about the Christian Bed and Breakfast owners in England who lost in court after they stood up for their convictions. They ended up having to sell their business.

 

The Facebook post brought a number of comments, and there was a very interesting one that criticized the Christian couple by using the text of 1 Corinthians 13, basically implying  that if we operate by love, we will be accepting of others, no matter what. Below is a combination of two comments I made to the post.

 

1 Corinthians 13 is generally considered "The Love Chapter," and it makes some great statements about love in general, but if that is all we see there, we are isolating it, using it out of context, and are missing the point. Chapter 13 is in the middle of a longer passage (Chapters 12-14) dealing with spiritual gifts within the Body of Christ. Chapter 13 teaches us that the use of spiritual gifts is only profitable and beneficial to the body if they are used in a context of love.

 

It is not possible to find anything in this chapter, or anywhere else in Scripture, that justifies giving tacit approval to things that God says are wrong. “Love” does not mean compromising with the world’s philosophies, lifestyles, or standards. There is a great deal said today about "tolerance" in our culture, and it is usually Christians who are told they need to be tolerant. We rarely hear about any necessity for people to be tolerant of Christians. In reality, the majority of Christians are the most tolerant of people.

 

The meaning of the word “tolerance” has been changed by many to mean "approval." In reality, the actual meaning of the word implies that we only tolerate that with which we disagree. I can tolerate people with whom I disagree without giving my approval of their lifestyle, doctrine, etc.  I can be tolerant of a person but be utterly in disagreement with their lifestyle or beliefs. If I approve of everything someone does, I am no longer tolerating them, I am agreeing with them.

 

To truly tolerate someone with whom we disagree means we do not try to destroy their property or to hurt or kill them. Instead, we recognize their freedom to do what they are doing, but we do not have to agree with them. If someone says, “You have to be tolerant and accept what I do,” that individual has no comprehension of the meaning of “tolerance.” If a believer accepts someone’s sinful lifestyle, then that believer is not loving the other individual in any way. That is no more a way to show love than an overindulgent parent is showing love when he allows his children to do things that are harmful to themselves. Overindulgence is not love. Approving of sin is not love. Real love is tied to the truth.

 

There are things taking place that I can do nothing about other than stand faithfully for the truth of the Gospel. I can tolerate people, who were made in God's image, without agreeing with their behavior. When government gives “hearty approval” to evil, it has stepped over a line. “...they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them” (Romans 1:32, NASB). I cannot put a stop to behavior with which I disagree, but I do not have to give it my approval by allowing it in my house. Those who wish to do those things can go elsewhere.

 

From what I have read on the subject, the people involved in this situation did what they needed to do in order to be consistent with their convictions. That is a basic tenet of freedom. There used to be, and maybe there still are a few, signs displayed in places of business that say “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” In reality, that is consistent with biblical truth. In Matthew 20, Jesus told the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. The owner of the vineyard made equal payments to all who worked that day, from those who had worked all day to those who had only worked one hour. Some of those he hired were saying things very similar to what people would be saying today. “Not fair! Not fair! I’ll call the union,” etc. “But he answered and said to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is yours and go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?’” (Matthew 20, 13-15, NASB). From the narrative, it is clear the Jesus approved of this man doing what he wished with what was his own. Private property, and the use of private property, is a biblical principle. “Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own?” is a biblical way to express “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”

 

It is not the responsibility of every business to provide services to everyone. For example, I don't go into shops that sell incense, candles, and other New Age paraphernalia, but I also don't try to deny their right to have a store just because they don't meet my needs. I go to other stores. The lawsuits that are allowed these days border on insanity. It is up to the customers to find a store or business that suits them rather than trying to force every business to change to meet their individual needs. We need to allow the free market to take care of such things. If there is a demand, someone will supply it. If a business doesn't have enough customers, it will be out of business. Government needs to stay out of such things.

 

If I were ever to go into a store that had a sign posted that said, “We don’t sell to or serve Christians,” I would politely take my business elsewhere. If they don’t want my money, that would be fine with me. It’s their loss. I would not raise a ruckus or sue them. Instead, I would pity them and pray for them, because being anti-Christian means being anti-Jesus Christ, which means they need Him as Savior. Not only would they lose out on a sale, they would also be losing out on salvation because of their unbelief. As Christians, there needs to be a difference between how we handle such matters and how unbelievers handle them.

 

It was rightly pointed out by another commenter that 1 Corinthians 13:6 says, “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.”