Why Liberals Hate Men Who Won’t Give Up Their Guns

guns SC Why Liberals Hate Men Who Won’t Give Up Their Guns

I don’t know why many Americans on the political left are embracing a system that has persistently failed throughout history. They love to cradle this system in words that sound warm and fuzzy and very appealing: cooperation, collective effort, common ownership, and mutualism. It reminds one of a quote often attributed to Albert Einstein: “Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.” Why are they convinced that they (modern progressives) can finally make this failed system work? They are in a collective stupor because they have overdosed on a drug called arrogance.

Their movement is full of contradictions. They vehemently oppose the western tradition of supporting “rugged individualism” and wish for all to join the herd and allow the government to shepherd us toward ‘greener’ pastures. The independent ones who choose to paddle upstream rather than go with the flow are ostracized and hated. However, they will compromise their own collective principles if an individual or minority group can bring political benefit to the progressives.

Thomas Jefferson defended the rights of the individual in the Declaration of Independence. He diligently studied the great British political philosopher John Locke. He practically quoted Locke word for word in his original version of the Declaration when he wrote that all individuals have a right to “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.” This comes from John Locke’s writings on natural law. Perhaps Jefferson was wishing to paint with a broader stroke when he chose to edit Locke’s statement when he penned the words “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

The primary property John Locke was referring to was a man’s right to his own person. “Though the Earth…be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself.” (First Treatise on Government) Some of Locke’s contemporary philosophers (Hume, Hobbes, and Rousseau) believed that property was created by the state and that therefore the state has sovereignty over the individual.  Modern progressives embrace the idea of sovereign government over the natural rights of the individual.

The modern anti-individualism movement is clearly on display in the left’s hatred for guns. An individual in possession of a gun expresses an independence that drives leftists nearly insane. The gun owner is expressing his individual right to protect himself, not only from other individuals of ill intent but also from a power-mongering government. The liberal senses an attitude in the “bitter clinger” that declares himself to be owner and defender of his own self. The gun control freaks are frosted when an individual refuses to call on and trust a collective government to protect him.

Social progressives detest women who find fulfillment in being wives and mothers. Liberal woman expect all female sheep to join the cause and collectively and competitively wage war on male society. Feminists celebrate enthusiastically when a woman chooses death through abortion. They have a seething hatred for those who would choose individual families over collective femininism. Women devoted to families are considered weak and disgusting. The “right to life” is selective and to be determined collectively rather than individually. While shouting that all women have a right to their own bodies, the feminist movement actually promotes the entire opposite. Sheepish females who have chosen to submit to the alpha females of the feminist movement must sacrifice their individual rights for the sake of the common ‘good,’ and their unborn babies must sacrifice their lives for the collective goal of feminism.

Progressive hate Christians and Jews because Judeo-Christian beliefs run contrary to socialist beliefs. They try to transform the Savior Jesus into some sort of social justice hero. But Jesus was no hater of children; he love the little ones and warned those who would kill them or corrupt them that “it would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck” (Luke 17:2) than to face the punishment stored up for those who destroy their own children.

Stay-at-home mothers or families that home-school their children are hated by progressives. This kind of independent behavior runs contrary to their teaching that “it takes a village” to rear children.

John Locke’s understanding of property rights helps us understand the bitter hatred of the left for those on the right who promote families, life, gun ownership, and homeschooling. Those who are reared in families that believe in the right to protect individual property, especially the right to protect one’s own body, represent the future failure of socialism in America.

Jesus taught a balance between individualism and collectivism. Eliminating one in an attempt to promote the other will lead to chaotic failure. Jesus asked his disciples as individuals to “take up their cross and follow him.” Then he taught them “not to forsake coming together in community.” I believe we can be a part of a community without sacrificing our individual rights.

Christians must beware of devoting themselves too fully to a secular cause or idea. Oswald Chambers said that “A man that is devoted to God is not devoted to a cause or to any particular issue; he is devoted to God himself.” (My Utmost For His Highest, p.123)

Photo credit: Gregory Wild-Smith (Creative Commons)

Pretending To Love Jason Collins

Jason Collins SC1 Pretending to Love Jason Collins

I suppose Monday, April 29, 2013 will go down in history as a great day for America.  Jason Collins (right in above picture) came out of the closet to announce to the world that he is a homosexual. He has been depicted as a “hero,” a “trailblazer,” and as “our Jackie Robinson”.  Kobe Bryant was one of the first to congratulate Jason for his courage.  Michelle Obama was quick to announce her support for Jason:  ”So proud of you, Jason Collins! This is a huge step forward for our country. We’ve got your back!”

Bill Clinton couldn’t help but bloviate on the controversial topic, declaring that Collins’ announcement was “an important moment for professional sports and in the history of the LGBT community.”  In case you may have forgotten, this is the same president who signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 while he carried on a secret affair with Monica Lewinsky.  It was also Bill Clinton who signed the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, which stated that an openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual service member would of necessity be discharged from the military.

Chelsea Clinton, a former classmate of Collins at Stanford University, tweeted her support:  ”I am very proud of my friend Jason Collins for having the strength & courage to be the first openly gay player in the NBA”.  Chelsea claims credit for helping her father finally ‘evolve to the truth’ about homosexuality.

Unfortunately, Bill Clinton represents the culture of America.  What was once condemned as wrong is now not only tolerated; it is enthusiastically accepted.  It is now ‘cool’ to be gay.  Were we wrong then and now we are right, or were we right then and now we are wrong?  Human nature does not evolve toward the truth; rather, it leans toward sin.  The Apostle Paul described his natural struggle with sin in his letter to the Romans.  (Romans 7:23-25)

Not to be outdone by the Clintons, Barack Obama weighed in on the matter through White House Spokesman Jay Carney:  ” We view that (Collins announcement)  as another example of the progress that has been made and the evolution that has been taking place in this country and commend him for his courage and support him.”  I am reminded of another call Obama made to Sandra Fluke to support her as she clamored for free contraceptives.  I also remember a call to the Occupy group that camped out on Wall Street to encourage their rebellion.  I remember a “beer summit” in support of Harvard Professor Henry Gates, who made unfounded accusations of racism against a Cambridge police officer.

Please wait while I pause….still pausing….thinking….trying to remember.  I can’t remember any calls to injured American servicemen.  I do remember a vague empty promise to get to the bottom of the Benghazi incident.  It certainly seems that we have a president who is more than eager to lend his support to divisive issues but feels little motivation to create patriotism and loyalty to the country he serves.

I know I’m going to get slam-dunked for what I am about to write.  It always happens when I express my opinion on this issue.  I don’t know Jason Collins personally.  It seems I would like him if I did know him.  Are those supporters of Jason Collins really expressing love for a friend?  Among those of us in Christian circles, we like to refer to it as ‘tough love’.  It is the determination to defend truth, even in situations where it generates pain.  Someone needs to tell Jason Collins the truth about homosexuality, not because they hate him but because they love him.

While nearly everyone will commend Collins for his courage to declare himself a homosexual, few will commend ESPN’s Chris Broussard for having the courage to tell the truth.  Who is a real friend of Jason Collins?  Is it Bill or Chelsea Clinton?  Is it Barack or Michelle Obama?  They are jumping on the bandwagon for political exposure.  They are like parasites leaching off of every individual who has found their way into the national spotlight.  Jason, your real friend is Chris Broussard.

The sports analyst expressed his opinion of ESPN’s “Outside the Lines”: “I’m a Christian. I don’t agree with homosexuality,” Broussard said. “I think it’s a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is. If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin … that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ,” he added.

(Please wait while I applaud….clapping hands…feeling proud…stilling applauding the courage of Chris Broussard.)

Earl Fowlkes is the president and CEO of the Center for Black Equity, a group that supports black individuals who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered.  He made a ludicrous attempt to compare Jason Collins with Jackie Robinson:  ”…he will be a little, miniature Jackie Robinson.”  The attempt of the homosexuals to hijack the Civil Rights Movement is outrageous.  Martin Luther King fought for rights that were being denied to those of a specific skin color.  Our race is predetermined before birth.

There is no scientific evidence that people are born gay.  Sexual orientation is not written in our DNA; it is more about how we define ourselves.  Ironically, Jason Collins has a twin brother who revealed that he was shocked when he learned his brother was gay.  With no evidence to support a genetic cause, we have descended to the level of granting rights for certain behaviors.  As you can only imagine, opening this Pandora’s Box will only lead to more confusion and controversy.

Chris Broussard is the lone voice crying in the wilderness.  Homosexual behavior is a sin that distresses the heart of a holy God.  If a holy God is to remain holy, he must one day administer justice for the sin of homosexuality.  Broussard added more truth to the issue.  He declared that all sex outside of marriage is sinful in the eyes of God.  As Christians, we love Jason Collins. We love him enough to tell him the truth.   We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)  Christians, to whom forgiveness has been granted through the Savior Jesus Christ, want to share this good news with whoever is willing to believe.

 

Photo credit: joshuak8 (Creative Commons)

Emancipation Proclamation: Was Lincoln Motivated By Political Expediency Or Religious Conviction?

Abraham Lincoln 3 SC1 Emancipation Proclamation: Was Lincoln Motivated By Political Expediency or Religious Conviction?

“And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.”  –January 1, 1863 Emancipation Proclamation

The question for consideration is this:  In what way was Abraham Lincoln driven by his own religious convictions when developing policy regarding the Civil War and the institution of slavery?

The Religious Views of Abraham Lincoln are chronicled in a book by Reverend O. H. Pennell, who indicates that there was a strong attempt by various religious groups like Universalists, agnostics, and deists to hijack Lincoln for their own cause.

Lincoln seemed to measure religion by the inevitability of the progress of ideas and society. I don’t know if Lincoln could have been too familiar with Darwin’s Origin of the Species because it wasn’t published until 1859, but he certainly seemed to entertain a belief in the idea of the evolutionary progress of society, and this idea most certainly was shattered by a country divided by war. He may have embraced the idea that as society matured, slavery would eventually fade away, but the war brought that hope of peaceful resolution to an end.

Lincoln was a bit of a religious skeptic in his younger years.  He did not attend church, and he was very secretive about his religious convictions. He was much influenced by the deism of the enlightenment. But he seemed to become a deeply religious man after several political failures, the death of his father, and, especially, the death of his son Willie.  After church attendance became a priority to him, he began to attend the Old School Presbyterian Church in the 1850’s.

His friend Frank Carpenter recorded that Lincoln shared his conversion experience with an acquaintance and told her that he began to understand the tenants of Christianity when his son Willie died. “I think I can say with sincerity that I hope that I am a Christian. I had lived until my boy, Willie, had died without fully realizing these things.”  (The Religious Views Of Abraham Lincoln, p. 27)

The words of Lincoln’s widow also lend credibility to his claim to Christianity, “…from the time of the death of our little Edward, I believe my husband’s heart was directed towards religion and as time passed on – when Mr. Lincoln became elevated to Office…then indeed to my knowledge – did his great heart go up daily, hourly, in prayer to God – for his sustaining power. When too – the overwhelming sorrow came upon us, our beautiful bright angelic boy, Willie was called away from us, to his Heavenly Home, with God’s chastising hand upon us – he turned his heart to Christ.”  – Mary Todd Lincoln to Rev. James Smith, June 8, 1870.

Lincoln became very sensitive to the will of a sovereign God. He was haunted by the idea that Christians from the north and Christians from the south were praying to the same God for favor. In his commentary The Will of God Prevails, he wrote, “God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time.”  (Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, “The End of Slavery in America”, by Allen Guelzo)

Two preachers and two layman from Chicago met with him carrying a petition for emancipation.  He declared to them his right and intention to declare an Emancipation Proclamation. But he seemed wearied by such men who often declared their knowledge of God’s will, and he testily declared to them that if God had revealed his will to them, then surely he would reveal his will to him upon whose shoulders this burden did lay.

Was Lincoln’s motivation for declaring the Emancipation Proclamation a move to satisfy political expediency, or was it a personal conviction of his that slavery was immoral?

I think it could be safely argued that in the beginning of the war, Lincoln interpreted the conflict as a contest to preserve the union. In his letter to James Conklin, Lincoln wrote, “You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but, no matter. Fight you, then exclusively to save the Union. I issued the proclamation on purpose to aid you in saving the Union. Whenever you shall have conquered all resistance to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time, then, for you to declare you will not fight to free negroes.”

“If they (slaves) stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive–even the promise of freedom. And the promise being made, must be kept.” – (Letter written to James Conklin.) Was Lincoln using freedom as a ‘carrot at the end of the stick’ to lure slaves into fighting to preserve a union that had thus far failed to free them, or did he genuinely believe slavery was immoral in the eyes of God?

By the end of the war, it is reasonable to believe that Lincoln saw himself being used as an instrument of God to emancipate the slaves. Lincoln’s statement to Salmon Chase, Republican Governor of Ohio from 1856-1860, indicates his reinterpretation of the war: “I made a solemn vow before God, that if General Lee was driven back from Maryland I would crown the result by the declaration of freedom to the slaves.” (Six Months At The White House, p. 90, Frank Carpenter)

However, Lincoln was conflicted about the fact that good Christians were warring against each other while calling on the same God for favor and grace. His final conclusion to this dilemma is found in his Second Inaugural Address:

“Both (North and South) read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.”

 

Kevin Probst teaches History, Government, and Apologetics at the high school level in Columbus, Georgia.

Related posts:

  1. Obama Hails ‘New Iraq,’ But Ignores Persecution Of Christians And Other Religious Minorities (CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama, with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri…
  2. Religious Liberty Threatened At Vanderbilt University The conflict between Vanderbilt University and several Christian organizations has…

Election 2012: Change Tracks Or Wreck The Train?

Economy On Right Track SC 300x225 Election 2012: Change Tracks Or Wreck The Train?

If you are a taxpayer, you owe the federal government $1 million.  Our government has squandered the wealth of our nation as the national debt approaches $16 trillion.  It feels like we are bobbing our way down the river toward socialism and perhaps even dictatorship.  Our first president, George Washington, demonstrated his humility by refusing the title of ‘king’.  Barack Obama may not have the title, but he certainly acts as if he were a king ruling over his subjects rather than a president answering to his people.

The economic survival of our nation is at risk.  Unemployment and foreclosure of homes has sent many families into a state of economic desperation.  Hope is like a ship drifting out to sea, and the change we’ve experienced is nothing like what those American voters envisioned when they cast their votes for Obama in 2008.

Absurdities abound!  The American government has been spending like a middle school teen armed with mom’s credit card in the world’s largest mall. Our juvenile-acting congressmen have failed to balance the budget for three consecutive years.  All the talk of cutting spending goes in one American ear and out the other because sensible Americans realize that spending cannot be cut without a budget.

The U.S. economy looks like a train wreck.  Americans are worried, they are very worried.  Friday’s check is buying less and less.  Our government must borrow money to pay interest on the money they’ve already borrowed.  Surely, Americans will go to the polls in November screaming for the insanity to stop.  The message of ‘hope and change’ is the right message, but Americans are weary of hearing cheap talk from egotistical politicians.  Americas want the real deal.

How often have you heard, “I voted for Obama last time but…”?  This year’s election will differ from the election of 2008 in that Democrats won’t be able to play the race card in November: “You are a racist if you don’t vote for our guy”.  If whites couldn’t find reason to vote against Obama in 2008, there is plenty of reason to vote against him in 2012, and race has nothing to do with it. Of course, the election will swing on the economy.  Predictably, Obama will continue to blame any other living soul for this nation’s poor economic performance while denying that he and his administration now must claim ownership of this economy. Unfortunately, the Republicans seem to be running on a simple platform slogan of ‘Beat Obama’ and their economic plan to save the economy provides little substance revealing a dangerous attitude that says, “We’ll cross that bridge when we get there, let’s just win the election first.”

The college kids were disillusioned by the thrill of making history when they voted for the first black president.  They bought into the idea that the wounds of racism in the U.S. would be healed by the young ‘messianic’ politician from Chicago.  Four years later, those young men and women have graduated from college, they have their degree, but they’ve gone home to live with mom and dad because they can’t get a job.

They now see anything but a messiah.  They see a president who shoved his healthcare plan down the throats of unwilling Americans.  They see a president who, unlike Reagan, sees big government as a solution rather than a problem.  Many previous supporters will choose to vote against a president who has overseen the theft of economic security from future generations.  This young generation now sees The Great American Dream setting like a sun about to dip below the horizon, leaving a dark emptiness Americans are unfamiliar with.

Former supporters are beginning to see a vote for Obama as a vote to continue our slippery slide toward socialism and irresponsible government.  If they were motivated by hope in 2008, they will surely be motivated by fear in 2012.  They are asking themselves “Can this country survive another four-year term of Obama’s smoke-filled backroom politics?”  In less than four years, the Obama generation has morphed into the debt generation and those who are awake and alert think it is unfair that they are being forced to carry that pile of rocks on their back.

America is in desperate need of a great president, but this country needs more than that.  Many would question if America is in serious decline.  Are we witnessing the demise of a nation blessed with wealth and power and influence as no other country has been blessed in all of history? Is the great American experiment in democracy about to end….in failure?

A serious student of world history will observe that countries and empires have come and gone throughout the ages.  No empire exists indefinitely.  Eternalness belongs to God alone.  The fall of this great country cannot be avoided, but it can be delayed.

Our problems are not just economical.  Our government is faltering in corruption and dishonesty.  Our society seems to be imploding right before our very eyes.  The influential cultural icons that have tremendous influence on our youth are unabashedly shaking their fist in the face of God and blasphemously denying his existence, and even promoting a spirit of anti-Christ.  It is as if we have discovered that Christ will carry a great load of patience and long-suffering, so we are now piling on to see just how much he can carry.

We can only label some of the things we are observing as nothing less than demonic.  The murder of 50 million unborn, the shocking incidents of cannibalism and a rural population losing their minds on meth are signs of societal implosion.  We have become a nation of zombies, hypnotized by our technological toys.  We are fleeing the doors of the church and avoiding the relationship we might have with God, a relationship purchased by the blood of his only begotten Son.

Is there a judgment coming?  Of course there is.  Many believe that the economic failure and social implosion is indeed God’s judgment on a nation that has turned its face from him.  A holy and just God ceases to be God if he allows a defiant people to push him into a canyon of disbelief.   What can we do?  Options are limited.  We must either humble ourselves, seek the face of God and repent of our sins, or God must be true to his nature and bring his judgment on a nation that no longer has a fearful respect for The Almighty.

2 Chronicles 7:14   “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

 

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Related posts:

  1. Obamacare Case A “Train Wreck” Before Supreme Court The second day of the Obama Administration’s argument before the…
  2. The Tea Party Train Wreck That Never Happened Three weeks ago, E.J. Dionne (or “Baghdad Bob,” as James…

Socialism: The Destructiveness Of Dependency

Socialism Inoculation SC Socialism:  The Destructiveness of Dependency

A friend of mine was about to take her small grandchildren for a walk.  As she opened her cabin door to a deck that overlooks the beauty of the Colorado wilderness, she was shocked to see a happy, small brown bear delighting itself with the sugar water from her hummingbird feeder.  She quickly retreated into the cabin, closed the door, grabbed her camera, and postponed her walk.

The bear had come looking for a free handout.  This bear had learned very young that it is much easier to raid someone’s garbage can than it is to forage through the woods laboring for its next meal.  If my friend would habitually feed the bear, the bear would soon be conditioned to daily climb the deck, consume its meal, retreat to its den for a post-meal nap, and come back later for its next handout.

In Pavlov’s conditioning experiment, he linked two stimuli with a reward.  He conditioned his dogs to behave in the manner he wished by first ringing a bell and then following its sound with a tasty morsel.  Soon, just the ringing of the bell would cause the dogs to salivate as they expected food to follow.

The behavior of millions of Americans has been conditioned and controlled by a manipulative government.   America was founded on the idea that anyone with a willingness to work hard could come to our country and build a successful life.  In more recent times, America has been the place immigrants are literally dying to come to because of all the free stuff they can get.  The land of hard work has devolved into the land of handouts.

Our politicians ring the bell, indicating there is more free stuff coming.  The mouths of the populace begin to water, and they experience a sense of satisfaction, not because they feel good about working hard for an honest day’s wages, but because they were successful in getting free stuff.

My father always told me that the idea that one can get something for free was an illusion.  Nothing is for free.  Free stuff is the carrot on the end of the politician’s stick.  After the appetites of the masses have been sufficiently whetted, the crafty politicians demand payment.  That payment comes in the form of votes that will keep them in office for at least another term.

Here is an amazing irony. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has distributed the greatest number of food stamps ever.  Meanwhile, the U.S. Park Service, which belongs to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, admonishes park visitors to refrain from feeding the bears because it will lead to dependence, and they will not learn to fend for themselves!  We understand the destructiveness of dependency in the lives of bears, but we choose to ignore its destructiveness in the lives of humans!

One might ask the question, “Where does the government get all of the free stuff it gives away?”  The answer is simple: the government plays Robin Hood; it takes from those ‘who have’ and giver to those ‘who have not’.  This sounds like a good thing on the surface, but things are not always as they seem to appear.  We would like to believe that most of these government policies were formed with good intentions in an attempt to help the poor and disadvantaged.  Unfortunately, many shysters have learned how to manipulate these policies and fatten themselves on ‘entitlements’ they don’t really deserve.

The scale of justice has been weighing only what people lack, not how hard they have worked.  Injustice clothes itself in deception as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac declare that everyone deserves a house, even if they are able-bodied couch potatoes who refuse to offer their services and contribute to society.  Hard-working Americans are enraged by the all-too-common practice of taking more and more of their hard- earned money and giving it to those who are undeserving.  Isaiah the prophet warned about the practice of twisting justice for personal benefit: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”  (Isa. 5:20)

It is very important to keep the dogs salivating, the bears returning to the deck for their next handout.   President Obama often uses scripture in his attempts to justify the policies of his failed administration.  At a prayer breakfast earlier this year, he claimed to have Jesus’ backing for his Healthcare Reform bill because Jesus said “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” (Matthew 19:19)   His healthcare reform also includes using our hard-earned tax money to fund abortions.  Can anybody say, “Thou shalt not kill?”  (Lev. 19:11)

Jesus had a plan for caring for the poor.  In the Old Testament, the farmers were instructed to leave some of the fruit for those who were poor: “Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.”  (Lev. 19:10)  Notice that this wasn’t a handout; the poor still had to get up off their duff and go pick grapes.

Jesus’ never, ever advocated taking from those who worked hard and giving the fruit of their labor to those who are undeserving.  “You shall not be partial to the poor nor honor the person of the mighty.”  (Lev. 19:15)  There are certain expectations that should be applied to both poor and wealthy.  Jesus’ plan for taking care of the poor was not a compulsory taxation; it was an impulse planted in the heart of those who were converted to his way.  Christ followers feel a voluntary compassion for the disadvantaged.

Caring for the poor is a volitional act of love.  When asked why she was so motivated to care for the dying, the poor, and the destitute, Mother Teresa said, “They are all Jesus in disguise.”  Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.  (Matthew 25:40)

Perhaps the church is not blameless for the condition we find ourselves in.  Has the church abdicated its responsibilities to the government?  Care for the poor has become something that is government-mandated rather than an act of compassion on behalf of those who live for the glory of God alone.  Our sin of unbelief is often revealed when we transfer belief in God to belief in an idol, an empty, impotent alternative to God himself.  Have we put our trust in government and relegated God to a back seat?

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Related posts:

  1. How I Survived Socialism/Communism, Part 1 Earlier this week, my local Tea Party group (The Daisy…
  2. How I Survived Socialism/Communism, Part 2 Earlier this week, my local Tea Party group (The Daisy…