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wisely so as to remove them, and when foolish, unbiblical laws are enacted, we ought to make every effort to see them repealed.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.

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).

Proposal to Solve Gun Violence

Solving gun violence does not have to be complicated. Actually, it should be very easy. Following is my proposal to solve the problem.

We know that a large percentage of gun crimes are committed with stolen guns. All we have to do is make a new law (Isn't that always the answer? Make a new law.) that says all criminals must submit to a background check and purchase a "gun stealing license" before they are allowed to steal a gun and then wait fifteen days before stealing it. After they steal it, they must register it. That way, after they commit their gun crime, they will be easier to catch. This will work because we know that criminals always obey the laws. If they see a sign that says "gun-free zone," they simply slink away and find something else to do, so obviously if they know it is illegal to steal a gun without a background check and without a license, they simply will not do it.

Does that sound absurd? Obviously, it does, so I fully expect some elected official to pick up on it and propose it, because it is very much like all of the other foolish gun-control laws and proposals.

Mike Pence Values His Marriage - What a Scandal!

I have seen politicians criticized and vilified for some really Bozo reasons, but this latest about Vice President Mike Pence is really over-the-top. He has a standard that he will not go out to dinner alone with any women other than his wife. Some are equating that with Sharia Law, and others are saying it clearly means he would never hire a woman to any position of importance. Now that is STUPID. Of course, if he were to be out with a woman other than his wife, no matter what the reason, there would be pictures posted all over the place along with stories of an alleged affair.

The critics need to do better than that, or they need to just give up and go away. I don't know what else to say about it. It seems the reality is that he loves his wife and values his marriage. Is that wrong, just because so many in our culture have ignored and/or rejected such values? His standard in this matter is wise and Biblical. Criticism of such a standard reveals the heart of the critic.

"...do not let your good be spoken of as evil..." (Romans 14:16, NKJV).

"...having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed" (I Peter 3:16, NKJV).

"For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men..." (1 Peter 2:15, NKJV).

"...in all things showing yourself to be a pattern of good works; in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility, sound speech that cannot be condemned, that one who is an opponent may be ashamed, having nothing evil to say of you" (Titus 2:7-8, NKJV).

Does Belief in Creation Disqualify Mike Pence?

It is becoming more and more obvious that those who have no legitimate argument very quickly resort to name-calling, mockery, and ridicule. Vice President-Elect Mike Pence has become the target of such predictable nonsense. He is being accused of being “anti-science” because he has the wisdom and common sense to reject evolution and believe in the Creator. In reality, there is nothing scientific about believing that order came from chaos, design came from randomness, life came from non-life, etc. The whole idea of evolution is preposterous and totally anti-science.

In the minds of some, belief in creation disqualifies an individual from running for public office. Such an idea is absurd, since what it is really saying is that someone cannot possibly do a good job as a leader if he has the wisdom to believe in the obvious fact that all things had to have had an origin, and that origin ultimately goes back to God. If someone is gullible enough to believe the universe and all it contains, including life, came about by time, chance, and natural processes, that would seem to be a greater disqualifier than believing in the Creator, because one would hope that our public servants have some level of wisdom and common sense.

Does belief in Creation disqualify Mike Pence, or any other politician, from holding public office? Of course not!

I addressed this issue in another post back in 2015.

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.

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.

Political Qualification: Believe in Evolution?

We were recently treated to another of Howard Dean’s nonsensical rants in which he accused potential presidential candidate Scott Walker of being unqualified to run for the office for two reasons:  (1) He does not have a college degree, and (2) since he is uneducated and uninformed, he apparently rejects the theory of evolution. His concerns were summed up as follows:  "I worry about people being President of the United States not knowing much about the world and not knowing much about science. I worry about that … because evolution is a widely accepted scientific construct and people who don't believe in evolution either do it for hard-right religious reasons or because they don't know anything."

The absolute ludicrousness of the first reason is so laughable that I will not spend very much time on it. I spent the majority of my working life as an educator, but I never did drink the Kool-Aid that says education is the answer to everything. It is not essential for everyone to get a college education. There are many people who manage to get a college degree who then spend their lives working in occupations other than that for which they prepared in college. In some cases, four years of college are wasted on a major which has little or no potential to lead to employment. There is very little demand for people with degrees in Eighteenth Century French Poetry or a hundred other such majors.

On the other hand, there are many very successful people who either never attended college or only attended for a short time. College is necessary in certain cases, but I firmly believe that there are many people enrolled in college who would be better-served to attend technical school or to go right to work out of high school. A degree from even a high-powered, well-known university does not guarantee any measure of wisdom or common sense. Just look at some of our political leaders for proof of that fact.

Dean’s first reason is absurd, but his second reason is quite troubling. We have heard many times that those who accept Biblical creation and reject the evolutionary hypothesis either “don’t believe in science,” or as Dean said, “don’t know much about science.” That is not-so-subtle code for, "doesn't believe in evolution." He then identified evolution as “a widely accepted scientific construct” and further stated that “people who don't believe in evolution either do it for hard-right religious reasons or because they don't know anything." These statements are, at best, foolishness. It is also necessary to point out that truth and reality are not decided by majority vote or by consensus of opinion.

To say that creationists “don’t believe in science” or “don’t know much about science” is ridiculous and utterly absurd. Many of the world’s best scientists accept the account God gave us of the creation of the universe and life. A large number of evolutionists have seen the truth after they opened their minds and looked at the evidence objectively. One example is found here.

Many on the evolutionist side of the argument claim that evolution is the foundational principle of biology and all science, and that science cannot be properly understood without it. That is, dare I say it, STUPID. As I pointed out in another post, many times even very smart people can be deceived into believing stupid things. In reality, one does not have to study or accept evolution as a fact or even as a theory in order to understand science. As a matter of fact, evolution is a roadblock in the way of real science, because so many believe they have to interpret all the data in view of evolution being a fact rather than actually following the evidence where it leads. The reason for this is obvious. Evolution is man's way of trying to push God out of the picture in order to avoid accountability to Him. As one evolutionist said, "...we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door" (Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons" in the NY Review of Books, 1/7/1997).

It is very easy to reach a totally wrong conclusion based on good evidence, especially when there is a preconceived notion involved. I once had an scientist who was an evolutionist take great offense when I said that evolutionists operate on the basis of preconceived notions. However, I stood by my position, because evolutionists must operate on the basis of two foregone conclusions:  (1) everything must have a naturalistic explanation – the supernatural is not allowed, and (2) evolution is true. It is impossible to be objective when things are done this way, and this is exactly why evolution is not and cannot be science. It is merely an idea that has been advanced, without proof, as an explanation for the universe and for life.

The following story illustrates how even good observations can lead to faulty conclusions.

A scientist was interested in studying how far bullfrogs can jump. He brought a bullfrog into his laboratory, set it down, and commanded, “Jump, frog, jump!” The frog jumped.

The scientist measured the distance, then noted in his journal, “Frog with four legs jumped six feet.”

Then he cut the frog's front legs off and ordered, “Jump, frog, jump!” The frog struggled and jumped.

The scientist noted in his journal, “Frog with two legs jumped two feet.”

Next, the scientist cut off the frog's back legs. Once more, he shouted, “Jump, frog, jump!” The frog just lay there.

“Jump, frog, jump!” the scientist repeated. Nothing.

The scientist noted in his journal, “Frog with no legs is deaf.”  Source here.

Need I say more? Creationists and evolutionists all have the same evidence and the same data. Nevertheless, the interpretation of that data and the resulting conclusions are impacted greatly by the worldview and belief system of those dealing with the data. Since neither creation nor evolution can be observed or experimented with, the best approach is to determine which model (creation or evolution) best explains the data.

If one actually looks at the whole evolution system of belief, it is hard not to laugh hysterically at what they are asking us to believe. Everything we see in our universe, on our earth, in every form of life – all of these things are nothing but a collection of chemicals, totally organized, yet done so in a random manner. All of the organs in our bodies with their various purposes came about through natural processes without a Designer/Creator. What? That is utter nonsense, and this is only a small part of what evolutionists expect us to swallow. They teach this stuff to children and young people and expect them to lap it up without the freedom to even question it, and sadly, many do. It is a troublesome commentary on the state of our education system that such nonsense is taught as scientific dogma.

What Dean and others are really saying is that anyone who doesn’t believe in fairy tales has no business running for high office. That is exactly what evolution is – a fairy tale.

The truth is the very opposite of what the PC police are saying. In reality, we need leaders in this country who believe in the God of Creation, the one true and living God, who sent His Son to this earth to die for our sins and to rise again from the dead to secure salvation for all who believe in Him.

...I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you ... by which also you are saved ... For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, NKJV).

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.
 

"Climate Change" and God's Promise

Global cooling? Global warming? Climate change? Over the past forty years, we have been hearing about these obviously contradictory ideas.

Without getting into the political and economic agendas involved, it is quite simple to conclude that this whole “man-caused” global cooling/global warming/climate change idea is a monument to the arrogance of man. There are at least three ways in which this is true.

1)  Somehow man, in his arrogance, has decided that he knows what is the perfect temperature for the earth at all times.

2)  Man has also decided that these things are “man-caused.” The logical outcome of this thinking is that man can also prevent these changes and control the climate. Is this arrogant? Just a bit. Little puny man thinks to somehow control what he calls “nature” by changing the fuels we use and destroying the economy in the process. Man can no more control the climate than he can control earthquakes and volcanoes. If he cannot even control the weather, how does he think he can control the climate?

3)  Finally, in the greatest show of arrogance concerning these issues, man has ignored the Word of God. Not only did God promise to never again destroy the earth by a global flood, He also promised the following:

While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, and day and night shall not cease (Genesis 8:22, NKJV). His promises are sure. We who are Christians ought to put our confidence in the Word of God instead of the alleged wisdom of man.

"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.”