Religion And Politics – Let’s Get It Right

It has long been axiomatic that we should not discuss Religion and Politics. It is also widely believed that in America Politics and Religion should always remain separate. In fact many have gone so far as to say that religion should not influence the way one governs. I don’t happen to believe any of those things and apparently the President does not believe them either. However the way the Presidents mixes Religion and Politics is the reason we should be cautious.

This past spring the President made some interesting comments at a Prayer breakfast including quoting scripture to bolster his position that the government should raise taxes. Here are some of his comments, with my observations interspersed.

“I’d be remiss if I stopped there; if my values were limited to personal moments of prayer or private conversations with pastors or friends. So instead, I must try — imperfectly, but I must try — to make sure those values motivate me as one leader of this great nation.”

Interestingly, the personal religious beliefs of many politicians (primarily those with a ‘D’ after their name) have never induced them to try to make sure those values motivated them to protect unborn children!

“And so when I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren’t discriminating against those who are already sick, or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren’t taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody. But I also do it because I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years, and I believe in God’s command to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” I know the version of that Golden Rule is found in every major religion and every set of beliefs — from Hinduism to Islam to Judaism to the writings of Plato.”

When he says that he is applying the scripture that implores us to “love our neighbor as ourselves”, does it really require him to force people or corporations to do things that are not in their best interests? Is this how he would like to be treated? That thinking actually seems like a violation of the command to love our neighbor as ourself. When he talks about insurance companies discriminating against those who are already sick does he really have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of insurance and discrimination? Would he really want to be forced to pay for someone else’s surgery? It would be a benevolence to pay for that surgery, but is he really treating the insurance company in the same way that he would like to be treated?

“And when I talk about shared responsibility, it’s because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it’s hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone. …But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.” It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who’ve been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others.”

So, is the President here saying that it is ok for him to use his strongly held religious belief to raise our taxes, but not to ban abortion? That is really weird since it seems to me the scripture is much clearer about killing innocent’s than it is about the issue of taxes.

In addition, forgetting that this scripture is totally out of context, is he really saying that since Jesus is going to require much of those who have much, we must be taxed to pay for a student loan or someone else’s retirement? Is that what Jesus really meant by this scripture?

I suggest that President Obama familiarize himself with the scripture Luke 10:25 where Jesus says “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” and then to remember that “Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights” James 1:17. Does any of this really belong to Caesar? Doesn’t it all really belong to God?

There are some nice sentiments in the above passage from the Presidents speech, but what I think he is missing is that these passages are directed to individuals. He wants to use them to give authority to the government to enforce them. That is warped and twisted, not to mention very bad theology.

Beside this, we see the government inserting itself in religion in other ways as well, most egregiously in the recent rulings by Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, at President Obama’s bidding where it is now a requirement that health insurance providers include birth control and abortifacient services in the health care plans regardless of the religious doctrine of the organization.

The Health law is being used to put the people of this country in a vice grip and particularly people of faith into a vice grip. The government is mandating that everyone have health care coverage on the one hand and on the other hand is then demanding what that coverage will be and what coverage will be included. This is not so much a problem for those who look to the government as their provider, but for people of faith who understand that God is their provider, it puts them specifically at odds with the government. This is a violation of religious and personal freedom.

We need to be very wary of this president’s use of religion to govern on one hand, but on the other hand trampling on religious freedom that is specifically guaranteed in our constitution. The primary reason that settlers came to these shores 500 years ago was for religious freedom and it was to protect religious freedom that our founding documents were written over 200 years ago. If we do not recognize that religion is being used to stifle our freedom on the one hand and on the other the power of the state is being used to force religious institutions to bow to the whims of the state, we will soon find ourselves in the grip of real tyranny.

The above examples give us the reason that many say that Religion and Politics should not mix, but as I said above, I do not agree with that sentiment. There is a way that they can and must be mixed.

A constitutional republic can only survive if we are a moral people as our faith in God brings out the better angels of our nature. Our faith (even if it is a faith in a false God) causes us to live moral lives and restrains us from doing harm to our neighbors and motivates us to love our families and care for them. All of these behaviors help to build a peaceable society (that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. 1 Timothy 2:2), but we must not allow any one faith to become institutionalized at the expense of all others because those ascendant believers trample on everyone else’s religious beliefs.

The trampling of religious freedom is seen throughout history and is specifically why our founders brilliantly made provision for a government that did not favor or institutionalize any particular religion, but encouraged it’s citizens to be faithful and religious. The Obama administration has it exactly backwards, trampling the rights of religion and using religion as a weapon to advance the cause of the government. We must be very wary.


Capitalism and the Abrahamic Promise

In the twelfth Chapter of Genesis  God instructs Abram to leave his country and his family to go to a new land that God was going to show him and in that land God was going to bless him and make him a great nation, so that he could be a blessing, not just a blessing to some, but that all the families/nations of the earth were to be blessed in him.

There is an important principle shown in this passage, that I first heard expounded upon many years ago from Lincoln Murdoch in the context of American Christians with our great blessings taking or using those blessing to bless others. I was reminded of this again recently when Terry Schenzel was speaking about the unique characteristics and abilities that each of us have been given by God and developed through education and experience. Our abilities, blessings, gifts, talents, etc. are not really ultimately for us, they are for those around us.

While it is true that our gifts are ultimately for others, it is also true that each of us have desires and dreams that we want to pursue. We want to be successful, we want to provide for ourselves and our families, we want to create. We are made in the image and likeness of God and He is creator God and we want to emulate Him. We want to accomplish something and we want to be significant. Those are good drives and desires and they should be nurtured and encouraged, but they only remain pure when they are balanced with the realization that our gifts are ultimately for others and we will never truly find fulfillment in pursuing our dreams until we see them blessing others.

That brings me to the purpose of this article. I think that the capitalist model is somewhat under attack in the United States and in the church in particular. It is almost as if we are ashamed of the blessings that have accrued to us and I would like to push back against that tide a bit.

In this country, our society is set up so that individuals can pursue their own dreams, whether they be writing, farming, building or any number of varied pursuits, limited only by our imaginations. That is to say that we are capitalists in thought and in occupation and in recreation. Capitalism is typically restricted to defining an economic system and is “characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.” I would like a more inclusive and less obscure way of defining capitalism such as, individuals (or collections of freely associated individuals) using their skills, abilities and talents to pursue their dreams so as to provide for themselves and their families free from the control or confiscation of others.

Capitalism often has a negative connotation because our understanding is that if people are free to pursue their ambitions, they will do anything to succeed, they will let their ambition turn to greed which is certainly a temptation. We are humans and unless we understand the way we were created, we will think that any blessing that comes our way in any form, is ultimately for us. We will not understand that our highest achievement is to use our blessings to bless others. Without that understanding our blessings become a stagnant and smelly pool instead of a fresh rushing stream. 

I do not want to get into a long discussion of the pros and cons of government intervention in private activities since the point of this blog is to have a discussion of how we should use our skills, talents, blessings, etc to bless others. I will however say that there is no real good way for governments (that does not mean there is no way to increase the likelihood that people will do right) to check the downside of people being free to do what they want with their own possessions. Governments do have to be instituted among men in order to bring order and stability to societies but governments are composed of individuals with just as much propensity to do wrong as anyone else. It is therefore a bit naive to think those individuals in government will be any less likely to go bad than individuals pursuing their dreams could. Optimally when a government is formed it will truly represent the people who establish it and the power used to restrict or constrain individual action would be minimal.

Leaving that discussion for another time and place, my purpose in this piece is not to argue that American capitalism is God’s means of blessing the world or to somehow argue that America is in any way the equal in God’s eyes to Abram (Abraham), but to argue for a society that allows the free pursuit of our hopes, dreams, ideas and creative juices. We have an appetite for success, for achievement and we want a society that facilitates and encourages that, not for those who will selfishly accumulate for themselves, but for those who understand the promise to Abram, that we are blessed to be a blessing.

I think these are ideas that the church can and really should embrace. We do not need, indeed, we should not be embarrassed by the blessings that we have received individually and as a country. That would be false humility. Our task is to recognize blessing from God and then use that blessing to bless others. In other words, since we have learned to fish, let’s teach others. The best blessing is teaching people to do for themselves, not creating a class of people who are dependent on others.

Now it is true that the church can grow under any circumstances, see China or North Korea. God is not handcuffed waiting for free market capitalist republics to emerge, He can use any system to accomplish His purposes. That does not give us the excuse however to be passive or fatalistic. We can and should work for systems that best provide blessings to all. We are charged to bring the Kingdom of God into every area of life, so God can and will use people who understand the promise to Abram. God will use those who do not eschew the blessings of freedom and capitalism. God will use them to bring the Kingdom of God to a poor and needy world in unusual and unexpected ways.

You Say You Want A Revolution?

John Lennon and Paul McCarthy had an interesting lyrical answer to the push for revolution in the 60’s which I have excerpted below. The full lyrics can be seen by clicking the link.

You say you want a revolution
….We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don’t you know that you can count me out
….You say you got a real solution
….You ask me for a contribution
….But when you want money
For people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
….You say you’ll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it’s the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow….

You could maybe say that their objection was more practical than ideological, but that is not the point. The advice given in the song was and is good advice, especially in the “Occupy Wall Street” times we are living in. I wonder sometimes, are the sixties revolutions coming back? Or worse? Keep reading and you tell me.

At this point I should issue my “paranoid conspiracy theory” alert. Since the 2008 elections I have said more than once to my wife (half jokingly) that I feared that the 2008 elections could be our last Presidential election (for reasons I won’t explain for fear of loosing all of you). She never wanted to hear my pessimism, and frankly, I was and am hoping and praying that we will not come to that, although my concerns and fears have only heightened in the three and one-half years that have passed since those elections, by watching world events unfold.

I know those thoughts border on tin foil hat thinking, so imagine my surprise and chagrin when I a friend of mine, Tom Hughes, recently posted a piece from the Canada Free Press. According to this article, my fears may not be all that unfounded. The article quotes a source inside the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as saying,

“The Obama administration and many of the un-elected ‘czars,’ either directly or indirectly, are engaged in covert activities with the occupy movement, various labor protests, and other subversive activities inside the U.S. Using untracked campaign funds, they are paying people to infiltrate the various movements to cause physical destruction of property and disrupt commerce. That began last year, but has increased ten-fold already this year,”

“Obama is using some high-profile people as pawns to foment the revolution. I heard several times through very credible sources that [Louis] Farrakhan is on the CIA payroll. Other have been named as well, but I’m not prepared to identify them yet. Farrakhan is to coordinate the Blacks and the Muslims to prepare for riots this summer, using any means necessary.”

“Mentioned at the meeting Saturday were methods to use pawns to simulate the rioting in the Arab Spring countries, but to the benefit of this administration. A controlled chaos thing.” They envision rioting starting in the urban areas first, such as New York and other major cities, followed by a disruption of business and commerce. This will allow the DHS to mobilize their various teams into the streets of America without objection of the people.” 

“They want to restrict travel, if not through high energy prices, then by checkpoints and curfews mandated by rioting and unrest. They understand we are the most well-armed nation in the world, yet they are aware of our vulnerabilities and intend to fully exploit them.” The whole purpose is to keep Obama in office for another term, no matter how unpopular he is, as he is not finished changing our country from a Constitutional Republic. This is the run-up to the 2012 elections, or perhaps causing enough chaos to delay them – indefinitely.”

I will let you judge if the source is real or credible or if any of this is believable. I just think it is interesting that  this aligns fairly closely to the type of things that happen when freely elected nations morph into centrally controlled bureaucracies (Tyrannies).  We are conditioned in America to think that those types of things happen in places like Cuba or Venezuela or Germany (in the past) but can not happen here. I typically think that. We have a rich history of freedom and liberty and we are not easily subdued and so what happens there does not have to happen here – but could it?   

The easy answer is “of course it could”, but eternal vigilance is the guardian of freedom so it does not have to happen. Actually we should take some comfort in the fact that Occupy Wall Street (OWS) has largely fizzled in its May 1 resurrection from last falls protests. None-the-less I would like to issue a two-part challenge to everyone who knows God and His Son Jesus.

1. God rules the nations, He is alive, He does hear and is moved by the prayers of His children. I urge you to make your prayers known to Him and then humble yourself before Him and pray and seek His face and as He shows you, turn from sin, so that He will hear and forgive us and heal the land, and hold back the hand of the revolutionaries. 

2. We are the true revolutionaries, lets use the weapons of our warfare as we are reminded in Ephesians 6:10-17

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. 11  Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. 12 For our struggle is not against  flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. 14 Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

These are not times to remain on the sidelines.

Can We Pass a Law Saying the Oceans are Full of Fresh Water? Can We Pass a Law Saying Two Men Can be Married to Each Other?

I have previously written about the issue of homosexuality from my perspective as a Christian regarding that behavior, so instead of rehashing whether the behavior is right or wrong from a Biblical perspective, I thought I would look at it from a different, maybe logical point of view.

I suppose the title of this piece might give an indication of my thinking, but before I get to that, I thought a look at the history of marriage would be helpful. It is not surprising to note that in all societies in all times marriage has been recognized in one form or another, but the common denominator has been an almost exclusive recognition that marriage was between a man and a woman. Sometimes the marriages were arranged, sometimes there were exchange marriages where two clans would come together and exchange young people in arranged marriages,  sometimes group marriage, sometimes polygamy, sometimes marriage was restricted to within the family or clan, sometimes marriage was chosen by the partners themselves based on mutual attraction, but once again almost exclusively the union was of men and women in order to order society and to raise children. Marriages have only recently been redefined in some Western (Christian) countries as between members of the same sex. Kind of weird that.

Societies always regulate human relations in order to organize and perpetuate the culture. It is in the interest of society to regulate relations among themselves and they do so, not for the interests of the individuals but for the perpetuation and benefits of society as a whole. If that is the case then is there a reason that some relations are encouraged and others are not?

Well, my wife has written on her blog about the benefits to society of married families, so I refer you to her space. Suffice it to say, there is a very strong interest in society regulating interpersonal behaviour to preserve, perpetuate and prosper their culture.

That gets me to the part about  passing laws. It is laughable to me that we would think that we could pass a law to change the intrinsic nature of a thing. If we passed a law stating that the oceans were filled with fresh water, would it make it so, would we be able to drink it safely? Ridiculous question, of course, but for some reason we think we can pass a law to say that two men or two women can constitute a marriage. We can pass the law, but that does not make it so.

This reminds me of a passage in Psalms 2:

The kings of the earth rise up
    and the rulers band together
    against the Lord and against his anointed, saying,
“Let us break their chains
    and throw off their shackles.”

The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
    the Lord scoffs at them.”

So, I reckon God is still in His heaven and is looking at us trying to break His “chains”  and throw off His “shackles” and just laughing at our inept attempts to change the very nature of human relations by passing laws. From His point of view it is pathetically funny, unfortunately, we may have to live through the effects of misguided and ignorant law. It would be similar to passing a law that the  seas were filled with fresh water and then trying to use that water to drink and irrigate our gardens and crops. We would all surely die.


ImageFresh from a viewing of Kirk Cameron’s new documentary movie on the foundations of America, I come away inspired and hopeful.

It is a humbling thing to hear about the Puritans who left their homes and lives in England to make a dangerous voyage to an unsettled land solely so that they could practice their faith in God and form a civil society that facilitated the practice of that faith.

The film reminded me once again of how much we take our freedom and liberty for granted, and how little we treasure the precious gift that it is. I am inspired anew to do all I can especially as a Christian, to fight for and defend our God given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are not political goals, they are spiritual and evangelistic goals.

As I watched this film I was saddened by the state of the modern church vis a vis the vibrancy and full bodied understanding of Christianity shown by the Puritans and our nations founding fathers, the physical and spiritual descendents of those Puritans.

Is our faith really only a personal spiritual journey or does it go deeper or broader? In Isaiah 59 it says,

14 So justice is driven back, and righteousness stands at a distance; truth has stumbled in the streets, honesty cannot enter. 15 Truth is nowhere to be found, and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey. The LORD looked and was displeased that there was no justice. 16 He saw that there was no one, he was appalled that there was no one to intervene…” 

Where is justice today, where is righteousness, does it stand at a distance? Is truth esteemed in the street or does it stumble? It seems that this verse goes well beyond our own personal relationship with God, but it extends to wherever injustice is seen. Those founders understood that the tyranny of governments was something to oppose, do we? It is stunning that in the above verse it says that not only was the Lord displeased that there was no justice, but that He was appalled that there was no one to intervene. Ouch, that indictment stings. That is not something I want said about me.

There is a lot of injustice in the world and we mostly recognize it, but too often our solution is to ask the government to do something about it. The Puritans and our founders understood that this is feeding the beast. The more we turn to the government to solve our problems the stronger and stronger it becomes until we no longer have liberty. If we want to fight for justice, we could do no better than to start to unravel the tangled web of deceit that grows in an unwieldy and unresponsive government.

I think our answer is in rediscovering the God of our Fathers and trust in Him as they did. He was their rescue and hope and He stands ready to be ours as well. I want to honor the legacy of those who went before, of those who gave their lives to lay the groundwork for the creation on the freest and most prosperous society in history. I know it begins with my repentance and turning from my selfish, satisfied and wicked ways, humbling myself before God and praying and seeking His face, asking Him to heal this land, after all it is His land that He has given us to steward. How do you want to return it to him?   

So along with Kirk Cameron and the makers of “Monumental” I encourage you to seek God, ask Him to heal our land, and then go out and give the Lord a reason to be pleased and have Him save His being appalled for another time and place.

Politics Can Be Fun With Hillsdale College

Last night was like a breath of fresh air as a group of friends gathered at our house, as been our habit about every other Wednesday for over a year, to begin an elementary course in government. A breath of fresh air about a course in government, you say? Absolutely, it was fresh air because it began to blow away the cobwebs of the small thinking that passes as political discussion today from our political leaders. I think what we learned and will be learning can give us a standard by which we can look at current events and see how they measure up to basic principals and help correct them if necessary. I will revisit that last sentence later.   

Our friends, Alex and Anna Wimmer, Blake and Sangeetha Youngman, Justin and Traci Reeves and Beth Larsen began the Introduction to the Constitution series from Hillsdale College. These are a series of five one-half hour lectures given last fall by Larry Arnn the President of Hillsdale College, to be followed by “Constitution 101” which has already begun. Based on the reviews of the group, I think I can highly recommend this series for your viewing or viewing by groups of friends.

I have always thought the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were brilliant documents, I might even call them miracles and last nights lecture only served to reinforce that opinion. One of the main points of last nights lecture was that the founders through the declaration established that as humans, we have all been created with the same nature and therefore we are equal (All men are created equal) and therefore we must be governed in a certain way. We have to be governed in a way that respects that we are all human beings with a distinct nature that is not mineral, plant or animal, but human and therefore equal with one another. No human is by nature better than any other human.

If we accept this self evident truth that we are all equal, then it follows that certain basic governmental structures must be in place for our nature to be respected and honored. Dr. Arnn argues that the declaration, and then more by construct in the constitution that the general method is through Representative Government; Separation of Powers and Limited Government.

If you are still with me, I will try to briefly make the connection between these three basic structures of government with our basic human nature and our equality in that nature.

If we are to be governed, and there must be governmental structures to bring order to societies of people – lest there be anarchy, and if we are all of the same equal human nature then we must be represented in that governance. That seems to me to be self evident, though we do not often think of that.  

If we are to have representative government, we would by necessity not want to give all power of governance to one person or to one body of people, because we would loose our voice. Power must be separated to ensure that one group could not abuse the people.

Finally, it is important that our power over society be ceded to representatives of us to exercise it more efficiently and then it is important to separate that power, but if we gave all power to even multiple groups of government entities, they could collude and abuse us, so it is important that the power that we give them be limited. This again is self evident, although we do not often think of it.

This may seem dry and very mundane political talk, but I found it fascinating because it took the structure of our government out of the realm of mere political text books and put it squarely in the theological realm. The argument for our representative government goes right to the core of who we are as human beings, to our nature given to us by our creator. This is a theological argument without being a religious or a sectarian argument and is brilliant in its conception and in its execution. Well done founding fathers!

There was a companion point to this that I also found remarkable, even though I intuitively have always thought along these lines, and that is that a representative government can not exist apart from a strong, independent society. This also seems self evident.

Government owes its existence at least we say our government does, by the consent of the governed. If the people are week and dependent what will they do when it comes to the formation of a government? They will give all authority to the government and let the government tell them what they can and can not do. That violates the third point mentioned above, the government is not limited. If the government is not limited, it ceases to be representative. In many ways that is where we are today.

Look around you and ask yourself, are we strong and independent or are we looking for the government to tell us what light bulb is acceptable, what foods are good for us, what fuel efficiency standards should be, what regulations child care providers must meet, what drugs should be provided for free in a health insurance policy, what can be taught children in our schools, whether we can smoke or not, whether we can say certain things or not, whether our children can work on our family farms and on and on. Maybe you think some or all of those things are ok, but there are hundreds of new regulations being issued by different agencies every month and no one can keep up with them. More and more we are being told by some government entity what we can and can not do.

If you look no further than the National Health Care bill you will know that we have ceded too much power to the government and if we ever want to get that power back we will have to elect a different President in November. Barack Hussein Obama is an enemy of limited government and therefore an enemy of a strong and independent society. If he is an enemy of a strong and independent society, he is an enemy of representative government. (Indeed if he had paid any attention to the people during the health care debate he had to know what he was trying to ram through was against the consent of the governed from which he derived his authority) If he is an enemy of that type of government, he is an enemy of humanity that has all been created equal. His brand of governance is not American.

This is not intended as an effort to bash the current resident of the White House, he is only the latest and most egregious iteration of a non-American governing philosophy. We have had a progression of leaders going back 100 years that have slowly and often sneakily, with our hardly paying attention, moved us away from the three pillars of our governing system. Those pillars come from understanding that our rights come from our creator and not from our government. Our current batch of leaders tends to think rights come from the government, but that can not and must not endure.

I believe that it is important that we start now to become stronger and more independent people and families, and communities, and businesses and communities of faith. An important part and probably the most important part of our strengthening is spiritual. We must realize who we are and who made us and we must live lives that will reflect our appreciation and devotion to our creator.

I think a spiritual awakening coincides with an awakening of who we are as a nation, a people who believe in our creator and who believe this government should be representative and limited. The awakening can’t begin soon enough for me, how about you?

Is Rush Right? – Are We Pimping?

We are witnessing an amazing time in history. Could we really ever imaging a time when a woman would be testifying before Congress that she is having so much sex that, although she can afford the expense of a Georgetown Law education, she is unable to afford the contraceptive and abortifacient costs necessary to support her nymphomaniacal habits? In fact it is so bad that she needs the government to mandate that these expenses be covered by a dictate to health care insurance providers. 

Rush doesn’t need me to come to his defense, nor does Miss Fluke need me to condemn her, indeed her comments before congress and before the country should be condemnation enough. Who remembers when women had enough self respect to not brag about the fact that they were “sleeping around”? President Obama thinks her parents should be proud of her. Would he really be proud of Sasha or Malia if they were sleeping with every other man on campus? Maybe he would, I doubt it, but pride is not the first word to describe the emotions I would feel about my daughter if I discovered she was acting the slattern. The terms Rush used to describe her may have been many things including impolite and a bit crude (he has since apologized for the “insulting word choices”), but they were certainly not inaccurate to describe Miss Fluke’s behavior.  

We should actually thank Rush for providing us the opportunity to clarify for ourselves that we are in fact becoming, as a nation, pimps. A pimp is someone who procures sexual partners for a prostitute. If we determine that under Obama’s health care system we must provide free contraception and abortifacients for women then are we not facilitating the procurement of sexual partners? Do we really want to do this, to be the pimp for American women?  Maybe this is too harsh of a way to phrase this, but it is about time we started to look at what we are becoming as a nation. For all of the shocking language Rush has used, the most shocking thing to me is not his language but the behavior he is accurately portraying.

Again, my point is not to condemn Fluke, she has do deal with her own choices (I would not even care but that she has forced her behavior into public where we have to deal with it), but the situation does scream out for some common sense to be applied. We are a nation awash in sex and we are in serious need of some shame for our public acceptance of and championing of such boorish and animalistic behavior. There is no place in the church for the acceptance of this behavior or for the condemnation of one who points out the obvious truth.

Jesus sat and drew in the sand while the woman caught in adultery was facing her accusers. Her sin was obvious, she was caught and she was facing a stoning for her behavior. She was scared and probably a bit ashamed. The men around her were ready to do the deed until Jesus caught them up short and asked that the one who had not sinned, or perhaps participated in the woman’s sin, start the “festivities”. It did not take long for each one of them to examine their conscience and realize that they were all culpable in this woman’s sin and in fact all were guilty of sin before the law. In the face of this truth they dropped their instruments of punishment and death and walked away.

If only Miss Fluke were this woman. She would have been sheepishly dragged before Congress and faced the shame of having her deeds broadcast to the world. She would be a woman looking for one kind man to step in and come to her rescue. She might even be thinking all of these men are hypocrites: they want a sexualized culture but try to trample on those that they exploit.

But, alas, she is not the woman caught in adultery. Instead she is the woman boasting in her adultery and rather than facing the condemnation of the world, she is being applauded for her courage and told that her parents should be proud of her. She is not even in the position of being a grateful woman thankful for a savior who stepped in and said if no one else condemns you than neither do I now go and from now on sin no more.

Faced with that contrast what are we to do? Should we stand idly by and act like her behavior is normal? Maybe I do not have to point out that what Miss Fluke did was wrong since everyone should know that what she did was wrong. Maybe it was not even necessary for Rush to point out that what she did was wrong, but I don’t think so, I am glad he did – even if his pointer was actually a blunt instrument.

While the nation (our children as well) was watching, it was necessary to stand against the tide and say, no, in fact what she is doing is reprehensible. It is a sad commentary on our culture that a radio host had to state the obvious, had to stand up for righteousness and purity. Instead of being pilloried, maybe he should be applauded for standing up for moral values by simply stating the obvious.

I am glad that he exposed this charade for what it was, and is, an attempt to make theU.S.government the pimp for American women. It is shameful what this administration is trying to do. It is unbecoming of people of faith to countenance it and it is high time we spoke out forcefully against it.

No I don’t condemn Miss Fluke, I see her as a dupe of the system of sexual exploitation that this nation is becoming and I would say to her go and sin no more. That may very well be lost on her and it may seem like condemnation to her, but I do not think that we want to become the facilitator of her sexual peccadillos.

%d bloggers like this: