Take Your Big Tent And Stuff It

There are a lot of people in the media, as well as people who call themselves Conservatives, who are trying to tell us that the Republican Party needs to be more inclusive. They say that we need to have a big tent. What they really mean by this is that we must abandon all of our principles, accept all people, regardless of their ideas, and everything will be OK, as long as all the Conservatives in the big tent sit down and shut up. Their interest really lies in grabbing and maintaining their own power while furthering the Democratic agenda.

They tell us that we cannot win if we continue to hold fast to our core Conservative Principles, claiming that those principles are the reason why we have lost as much recently has we have, ignoring the fact that those who have lost the most have been those who have held our positions the least. But for the sake of this argument, let's go ahead and give them the (false) premise that we cannot win on our principles, what then? I say, fine, so be it. It's not a game, it's not about winning no matter what. It's all about which principles and positions will win out in the end. If we take a stand on our principles and lose, then fine, at least it's an honest defeat, but if we abandon our principles, and move left, and just go along with all of the Democrat agenda points, then we have lost already, even if we win.

Besides this, contrary to what some are trying to claim, Conservatives fully understand that we don't all have to be in agreement on every issue, but we are saying is that we must hold to those core principles that the Country was founded on. We can have the debate, we can argue our positions, in fact we welcome it, we love having the chance to explain what we believe and why, it's just that many people aren't listening. Many times this comes down to the fact that often the Statist position is easy to grasp, it's nearly always dishonest and virtually never does the good they claim it would do, but oh how it sounds good. Conservative positions usually take a little more work to explain and understand, but they actually work as advertised, and that's the difference.

I understand that the media keeps trying to tell Conservatives to sit down and shut up because they are committed to the leftist agenda, and want to further it at all cost, including the suppression of free speech. For those who call themselves Conservatives in one breath, while proving in the next that they are not, I can only assume that they are either narcissistic, hungering for the approval of the media and elitists, or power hungry, or just too dang lazy or stupid to articulate Conservative positions and principles.

So, back to my topic for this post, I mean it, take your big tent and stuff it!

100 Days And Other Stuff

I know that top on the list for many people today is the fact today marks 100 days that Barack Obama has been the President of the United States, and people want to talk about his accomplishments since becoming President. Of course, as Mark Levin points out, it's really not about him, it's about the American people, and frankly, we're all still struggling and trying to work our way through all that is going on, but if the Government will get their hands off of us a little bit, we'll make it. But really, what is it that the President has Accomplished? Trillions of Dollars in new debt that even our descendants may not be able to repay. The dismantling of our National Security apparatus that has kept us safe since 9/11. The release of top secret documents and the selling out of our intelligence community. Threatening lawyers with federal prosecution for giving legal opinions that differ from the policies of his Administration. Which of these things are laudable? I don't find any of them even remotely praiseworthy.

There are other things going on today. Right now we have an hyped up panic about Swine Flu, which the democrats are trying to manage and use to push us toward their disastrous plans for our health care system. Basically, people are getting the flu. The very young and the elderly, or those who are already unhealthy for some other reason are in real danger, just as they are from the "regular" flu, but all current indications are that nobody is in any more danger from this flu than they are from the "regular" flu. But of course, no matter what, we can know that we are in good shape because we have two idiotic failed Governors looking out for us.

And of course, people are still talking about the loser Senator from Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter bailing on the Republican party in favor of the Democrats. Of course, he went out there and claimed that the GOP has gone too far to the right. I've talked about this before, the truth is that the Republican Party has moved to the left, and the Democrats have moved hard left, and fast. Is the gap wider now than ever before? Yes, but certainly not because the GOP has moved right, but because they have not moved left as fast as the Democrats.

With a President that doesn't even like the American people, or the nation as a whole and spends most of his time talking down the USA every chance he gets in every Country he can, and denigrating any American Citizen that disagrees with him. With one party rule in the House of Representatives, and danger of the same happening in the Senate. With a majority of Federal Judges being leftist activists. If our fellow citizens don't start waking up, we are in big trouble.

One other thing, I just saw President Obama making a statement, again deriding those citizens that attended the TEA parties earlier this month, basically dismissing them out of hand, but what really stuck me was at the end of the video clip, when he said that some people want to blame all of his reckless spending (my paraphrase there) for our problems, but that the Stimulus and such are only a small part of the problem. He actually admitted that his actions are, in fact, part of the problem. Kind of stunning thing for him to admit don't you think? Must've been talking without his teleprompter.

Showing His True Colors

Many of us have been trying to get the point across for some time now that just because some politicians call themselves Republicans does not meant that they actually ascribe to classic Republican values, or that they are in any way Conservatives. Finally, one of the worst of these GOP fakers has decided to leave the Republican Party and join in with the Democrats, where he's more comfortable anyway.

This is no small change, as it once would have been. Today, the Republican Party is the last line of defense for the American spirit, and the principles that our Nation was founded on. Unfortunately, the Republican party has been doing a lousy job of this in recent years, but there is hope among many of us that we may be able to awake this sense of purpose once again, and fight to get our Country back on the right track.

What we need in the GOP are people with real backbone, who are willing to stand up in the face of the Democrat Majority, and the Media who push all things leftist and despise all things Conservative. We can do without cowards and turncoats like Arlen Specter, who sides with the Democrats on the really important issues anyway. Someone who wants to be loved by the media, and knows that he was likely to lose his seat in a Republican Primary in any event, has now decided to see if he can hold onto his power by switching parties, but I truly hope that the GOP resurgence will see this worthless old jerk finally out of the Senate.

Return Of The Book Review

The new book, "Liberty And Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto" by Mark R. Levin is in it's third week as the number one book on the New York Times Best Sellers list, and with good reason.

This book is not just some rant, but rather a very thoughtful look at the founding of our nation and the clear and critical differences between liberalism (which Mark calls Statism) and Conservatism.

As I said, this book is very thoughtful, and also very thought provoking. If you are someone who is a Conservative, but you're never quite sure how to answer people who offer challenges, this book will help you navigate the turbulent ocean of statist claptrap. If you are someone who is not quite sure where you stand Politically, but is interested in understanding where we have come from, and where we are going, this book is for you. If you are a committed, hard core statist, you probably don't stand to get much benefit from reading Levin, but who knows, maybe the light will come on.

This is just a well written and very informative book. I highly recommend it, and greatly enjoyed reading it. I hope that many of you will pick up a copy and give it a read with and open mind, and ready to do some serious thinking.

Taking The Blame? Didn't Think So.

While in Mexico, our President said, among other things, that the problems that Mexico is having with the drug cartels are because of demand for the drugs in America. In other words, he was blaming the US for the failure of the Mexican Government to maintain order in their own country. More to the point though, he was blaming drug users in the US for this problem. He couldn't have been blaming me though, because I've never used illegal drugs of any kind, nor had any dealings with them, aside from whatever my patients might have been using back in my EMT days. However, President Obama has admitted in his own books that he has used illegal drugs in the past, so is he taking personal responsibility for Mexico's problems? Yeah right. He's happy to blame the vast majority of us who don't use drugs, but taking personal blame just isn't in his nature.

One more thing I would like to explain is this. Obama also (mis)quoted an oft (mis)quoted statistic with regards to the guns used in the Mexican drug wars, stating that 90% of the guns recovered there came from the US. This also is a flat out lie. This comes from testimony given before Congress last year (or was it '07?) that 90% of the guns that the Mexican Government turned over to the ATF for tracking had come from the US. That is to say, of the guns they gave to the ATF because they already thought that they came from the US, 90% actually did. There is no statistic available, so far as I know, that tells us what percentage of recovered guns in Mexico have been turned over to the US, but we do know that it is not all of them, but only the ones that they suspect of coming from the US in the first place. Kinda changes things when you know the truth, doesn't it?

Didn't We Deal With This Once?

In 1776 anger with the British Crown in the American Colonies came to a head. The anger was over several issues, however, one of the biggest was Taxation Without Representation.

What this means is that the people who are being taxed have no say in how the money is spent, or, in the case of a democratically elected Congress (Or Parliament in Britain's case) have no vote in electing the people who decide how the money will be spent, and do not have the opportunity to advocate for more responsibility or lower tax rates.

This was not a side issue in the American Revolution, it was central to it. Apparently power mad elitists don't learn lessons well.

What the US Congress, and the President, are doing now is euphemistically referred to as deficit spending. In plain English, that means racking up debt. Loads and loads of debt as a matter of fact. In fact, they are racking up so much debt that we will not be able to pay it off in our lifetimes (and I'm fairly young).

Aside from the Two Trillion Dollar deficit this year, set to grow to Ten Trillion Dollars over the course of the next Eight to Ten years, there are also the Tens of Trillions of Dollars in the form of unfunded obligations for Social Security and Medicaid and Medicare. This is crushing debt, and we will soon find ourselves paying nearly a Trillion Dollars a year in interest alone, besides spending on the budget, and new deficit spending. It is completely impossible for current tax payers to ever pay this debt off, no matter what. What this means is that future tax payers are going to get stuck with the bill. That is to say, they are going to be taxed to pay for spending that is going on today.

The people getting stuck with this bill are our children and grandchildren, both those that are already here, and those who have not as yet been born. Including those to be born many years hence, that is the magnitude of this crushing debt that we are racking up today.

What I'm saying here is that those future Americans are not represented in the current Congress, and yet they are being taxed by it. They do not get a vote, they don't get to select our leaders, and yet their money is being spent by those leaders. This is Taxation Without Representation in it's worst form.

Of course it is currently at the highest levels that we've ever seen, but it's nothing new. Thankfully people are starting to wake up to the reality of what is going on, but I really wish it had happened sooner, then maybe it never would have gotten this bad. I really wish that people had gotten this fired up last September when President Bush blew Seven Hundred Billion Dollars on the first "TARP" program, or earlier in the year when the Bush Administration put out the worthless 2008 so called stimulus program.

Of course, none of it would have been as bad as it is if we had not made a practice of using debt to run the national budget, making deficit spending seem a normal activity, or like it was nothing to worry about. In my opinion, nations, especially ours, should not incur debt except in the most extreme of circumstances, and then as little as possible and over the radically short term. Other than that the budget should always be balanced, or, better yet, carrying some amount of reserve funds so that debt is not required to deal with every unexpected issue that might arise.

In order so that I might not be misunderstood, let me say, in referring back to the American Revolution, I am not suggesting a new revolution, I am trying to remind people of the reasons why the United States of America was founded, and why we are not still British Colonies at this time. I want people to remember and return to the principles and ideals our Founding, and to understand some reasons why we need to stop going down this road.

Remember that just because something might be a good thing to do, that does not mean that we should, or even can do it.

Obama's Pirate Failure

We were all very happy to see the Navy SEALS successful rescue of the American Merchant Captain from the Somali Pirates last week, but I was somewhat disturbed by the White House's attempt to credit President Obama with the rescue. They said things along the lines of that Obama had "ordered" the SEALS to take out the pirates, and talked of his "handling" of the situation. The facts, however, do not bear this out.

The fact is that the US Navy has the standing Authority to take any action deemed appropriate by Navy command personnel to quell or suppress piracy wherever and whenever they come across it. While some of the Presidents lawyers drafted a couple of legal documents for the President to sign because they were apparently not familiar with the rules under which the Navy operates, the situation was handled by the Commanding officer of the US Navy ship on the scene and the leader of the SEAL team that took the terrorists/Pirates out.

While some, especially those on the left, want to praise Obama, and lend the distinct impression that he personally went over there and dispatched them, others keep saying that we should give credit where it's due, and imply that there is credit to be given to Obama here. OK, maybe they're right. I'll give the President credit for not screwing up the rescue mission, since he did have the power to do that. There was no need for him to give authority to the Navy personnel, because they already had it, but he could have interfered and didn't, so kudos to him on that account.

That's not his big failure though. The true test for the President did not come until after the rescue mission was completed. This is a test he failed, big time.

You have to understand that the US Navy was originally founded for the express purpose of hunting down and killing pirates, and making them unable to engage in piracy on any level, because Piracy is bad for everybody. It hurts all nations and peoples of the world that in any way rely on Sea Faring commerce, which now, even more than 210 years ago, is pretty much everyone.

What the President should have done is to order the US Navy to put an end to the Somali Pirates once and for all, and make it clear to the world that the US Navy is committed to the safe passage of all peaceful travelers and merchants on all of the worlds oceans. I'm not one to push for the US to be world police, but this is clearly in our best interest, and hey, the rest of the world gets to share in the benefits, that sounds like a really good deal to me.

Of course, it's not too late. Obama could still come out and give the Navy this mission, and claim that they were just giving it some careful thought, or something like that, but really, he should have done it immediately, that would have been some real leadership, and something worthy of a hearty, "Good Job." The Presidents actions to this point have been a dismal failure, we can only hope that he will wake up and do better tomorrow.

Hate Crimes Are Not About Hate

Hate Crimes Are Not About Hate

Gregory Koukl

The result of criminalizing hate under certain circumstances is that only certain types of people get protected. In a state with hate crime legislation, penalties levied for an assault on me would be milder by statutory requirement than for the very same assault on a homosexual. Why? Because as a straight, white male I do not belong to a class protected by this law.

Hate crime legislation, then, turns out to be not really about hate, but politics. It's not hatred for the victim that is punished. That's covered under existing statutes. Rather, it's hatred for a protected class--African-Americans, Jews, homosexuals, etc.--that's punished under hate crime laws.

Such legislation makes two crimes out of one. The assault is a crime against the victim. The hate is a crime against the victim's group. Yet how does one make sense of a crime against a group that is a different crime from the one against the victim? Groups have no rights according to the Constitution.

Hate crime laws create a whole new category of faceless, personless victims--the injured class. They identify crimes against no one in particular, but crimes nonetheless, offenses that are punishable. They don't prohibit all hate, only politically incorrect hate.

©1999 Gregory Koukl. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only.
For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www

Unstringing the Violinist

Unstringing the Violinist

Gregory Koukl

Judith Jarvis Thompson's "Violinist" argument is one of the most compelling ever offered in favor of abortion on demand, but it's deeply flawed. Here's where it goes wrong.

I remember exactly where I was the first time I heard Judith Jarvis Thompson's "Violinist" argument. I was driving south on the 405 freeway in Los Angeles listening to a radio talk-show. It shook me up so much I almost had to pull over. Not only was the argument compelling, but Thompson made a stunning concession when she acknowledged the full personhood of the unborn. Having conceded what pro-lifers were trying to prove, she short-circuited their argument from the outset. My first impulse was to throw in the towel. The argument couldn't be answered, I thought. This is often the case with carefully worded philosophical treatments. At first glance they appear compelling. On closer inspection, though, the flaws begin to show. In this instance, the problems with Thompson's argument are fatal. The Violinist Argument The details of Judith Jarvis Thompson's argument are important, so I will quote her illustration in full. Entitled "A Defense of Abortion," it first appeared in 1971 in the Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs.[1] I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed. It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you. Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous,[2] which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago. Judith Jarvis Thompson correctly shows that an additional step is needed to bridge the gap between the premise that the unborn is a person and the conclusion that killing the unborn child is always wrong. What's needed is the additional premise that taking the life of a person is always wrong. Killing, however, is sometimes permissible, most notably in self-defense. The reasoning in the violinist illustration is very tight. Thompson accurately represents the pro-life position, and then offers a scenario for us to consider. The analysis employs two powerful techniques of argumentation: an example that appeals to moral intuition followed by a logical slippery slope. The logical slippery slope works like this. When one thing is immoral, and a second is logically similar in a morally relevant way, the moral quality of the one "slips over" into the other. For example, murder is immoral, and some think capital punishment is similar enough to murder to make capital punishment immoral too. Thompson is counting on a certain moral intuition—our sense of justice—rising to the surface when we consider the plight of the kidnapped woman used as a host against her will to support the life of a stranger. She then asks us to consider if having an abortion is a meaningful parallel to unplugging the violinist. Both circumstances catch the woman by surprise. Both the violinist and the unborn child are attached to her body, which both need in order to survive. Both will release her in nine months. Thompson's view is that disconnecting the violinist is morally justified even though he'll die, and there seems to be merit to this appeal. To stay connected would be heroic—"a great kindness," in her words—but, like all acts of heroism, it is voluntary and not morally required.[3] If that's the case, then it's moral to abort a child, even if he or she is a fully human person, just like the violinist. If the first is morally acceptable (unplugging the violinist), and if the second (having an abortion) is similar to the first in a relevant way, then the second should be acceptable also. A recent book, Breaking the Abortion Deadlock: From Choice to Consent,[4] uses the same approach. Author Eileen McDonagh points out that if a woman's liberty is being threatened in some fashion—if she is being attacked, raped, or kidnapped—then the law gives her the latitude to use lethal force to repel her attacker. Pregnancy, McDonagh argues, is this kind of situation. "If a woman has the right to defend herself against a rapist, she also should be able to use deadly force to expel a fetus," she writes.[5] In pregnancy, a woman is being attacked by another human being—from the inside, not from the outside. Therefore, she has the moral liberty to repel her attacker by killing the intruder. It does seem obvious that a woman ought to be allowed to protect herself from an attacker and use lethal force to do so, if necessary. If this is true, then we must concede the legitimacy of abortion, which, McDonagh claims, is parallel in a relevant way. Parallels that Aren't Parallel The key question in any slippery slope appeal is whether the two situations are truly similar in a morally relevant way. If not, then the illustration is guilty of a logical slippery slope fallacy. The analogy fails and the argument falls apart. Are there important differences between pregnancy and kidnapping? Yes, many. First, the violinist is artificially attached to the woman. A mother's unborn baby, however, is not surgically connected, nor was it ever "attached" to her. Instead, the baby is being produced by the mother's own body by the natural process of reproduction. Both Thompson and McDonagh treat the child—the woman's own daughter or son--like an invading stranger intent on doing harm. They make the mother/child union into a host/predator relationship. A child is not an invader, though, a parasite living off his mother. A mother's womb is the baby's natural environment. Eileen McDonagh wants us to believe that the child growing inside of a woman is trespassing. One trespasses when he's not in his rightful place, but a baby developing in the womb belongs there. Thompson ignores a second important distinction. In the violinist illustration, the woman might be justified withholding life-giving treatment from the musician under these circumstances. Abortion, though, is not merely withholding treatment. It is actively taking another human being's life through poisoning or dismemberment. A more accurate parallel with abortion would be to crush the violinist or cut him into pieces before unplugging him. Third, the violinist illustration is not parallel to pregnancy because it equates a stranger/stranger relationship with a mother/child relationship. This is a key point and brings into focus the most dangerous presumption of the violinist illustration, also echoed in McDonagh's thesis. Both presume it is unreasonable to expect a mother to have any obligations towards her own child. The violinist analogy suggests that a mother has no more responsibility for the welfare of her child than she has to a total stranger. McDonagh's view is even worse. She argues the child is not merely a stranger, but a violent assailant the mother needs to ward off in self-defense. This error becomes immediately evident if we amend Thompson's illustration. What if the mother woke up from an accident to find herself surgically connected to her own child? What kind of mother would willingly cut the life-support system to her two-year-old in a situation like that? And what would we think of her if she did? Blood relationships are never based on choice, yet they entail moral obligations, nonetheless. This is why the courts prosecute negligent parents. They have consistently ruled, for example, that fathers have an obligation to support their children even if they are unplanned and unwanted. If it is moral for a mother to deny her child the necessities of life (through abortion) before it is born, how can she be obligated to provide the same necessities after he's born? Remember, Thompson concedes that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. If her argument works to justify abortion, it works just as well to justify killing any dependent child. After all, a two-year-old makes a much greater demand on a woman than a developing unborn. Thompson is mistaken in presuming that pregnancy is the thing that expropriates a woman's liberty. Motherhood does that, and motherhood doesn't end with the birth of the child. Unlike the woman connected to the violinist, a mother is not released in nine months. Her burden has just begun. If Thompson's argument works, then no child is safe from a mother who wants her liberty. In the end, both Thompson's and McDonagh's arguments prove too much. They allow us to kill any human being who is dependent upon us, young or old, if that person restrains our personal liberty. The simple fact is, in a civilized society no one has the freedom to do whatever she wants with her own body. Liberty unfettered by morality is the operative rule of anarchy, not civilization. At any given moment, each of us is constrained by hundreds of laws reflecting our moral responsibilities to our community. The most primal of those rules is the obligation of a mother to her helpless child. This is one of the reasons the public outcry against Susan Smith was so intense. Susan Smith Morality Susan Smith shocked the nation with the murder of her children. She believed her two young boys were an obstacle to remarriage, so she placed them in her car, fastened their seat belts, and drove them into the lake. Smith's crime was especially obscene because she violated the most fundamental moral obligation of all: the responsibility a mother has for her own children. Yet wouldn't Susan Smith be exonerated by Thompson's and McDonagh's logic? These children were kidnappers and interlopers, trespassing on Smith's life, depriving her of liberty. Why not kill them? Those boys were attacking her. It was self-defense. Last year, a couple in New York was arrested when authorities learned they took a 10-day vacation to Florida and left their young children behind to fend for themselves. If McDonagh's and Thompson's arguments work, these parents should be released from jail because they bear no more obligation towards their own children than they do to strangers across town or burglars who break into their house. Those children were invading their privacy, trespassing in their home, stealing their food. This argument is frightening for two reasons. First, it must reject the notion of parental responsibility in order to succeed. Second, in spite of that weakness, people in high places think it's compelling. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing in the North Carolina Law Review, has admitted that Roe v. Wade was deeply flawed, and instead quoted the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in support of abortion. Women get pregnant, she argued, men don't. Abortion gives women a shot at equality. She then cited Thompson for support. The responsibility a mother has toward her child supersedes any claim she has to personal liberty. If it doesn't, if Thompson's and McDonagh's arguments succeed, then release Susan Smith. Release the deadbeat Florida tourists. If parenthood is an act of heroism, if mothers have no moral obligation to the children they bear, if child-rearing is a burden "above and beyond the call of duty," then no child is safe, in the womb or out. [1] Judith Jarvis Thompson, "A Defense of Abortion," Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1 (1971), p. 47. [2] Note the appeal to moral intuition here. [3] Philosophers call heroic efforts "supererogatory acts," behavior that is not obligatory, but is praiseworthy if done, like a soldier throwing himself on a grenade, sacrificing his life to protect his comrades. [4] Eileen McDonagh, Breaking the Abortion Deadlock: From Choice to Consent (New York, Oxford University Press, 1996). [5] Quoted in Nat Hentoff, "The Tiny, Voiceless Enemy Within," Los Angeles Times, 2/3/97, B-5.

This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©2003 Gregory Koukl

For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org

Who's The Naked Guy and Why Does He Matter?

Desiring God Blog

Who's the Naked Guy and Why Does He Matter? Posted: 10 Apr 2009 11:13 PM PDT (Author: David Mathis) One puzzle in the passion story is, Who's the young man running through the garden without his clothes on? Mark 14:51—52 says, And a young man followed [Jesus], with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked. There are several options for who this is. But the best may be that it's the Gospel-writer Mark himself, who was in the city and an eyewitness to the Passion week proceedings. William Lane explains: Several Fathers of the Church conjectured that the young man was Mark himself, who is known to have been a resident in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12) and in whose house, it was held by tradition, Jesus celebrated the [Passover] meal. If this is correct, Mark was an eyewitness to the transactions in Gethsemane. His primary purpose for including this vignette, however, appears to have been to emphasize the fact that all fled, leaving Jesus alone in the custody of the police. No one remained with Jesus, not even a valiant young man who intended to follow him. (The Gospel According to Mark, 527-528) Jesus had no help at the cross from his followers. Only he could bring about our salvation, and so he had to work alone. Not even the young man Mark, with all the strength and vigor of youth, could help the Savior in his darkest hour.

A Conversation With Death on Good Friday

Desiring God Blog

A Conversation with Death on Good Friday Posted: 10 Apr 2009 05:47 AM PDT (Author: John Piper) CHRISTIAN: Hello, Death, my old enemy. My old slave-master. Have you come to talk to me again? To frighten me? I am not the person you think I am. I am not the one you used to talk to. Something has happened. Let me ask you a question, Death. Where is your sting? DEATH, sneeringly: My sting is your sin. CHRISTIAN: I know that, Death. But that's not what I asked you. I asked, where is your sting? I know what it is. But tell me where it is. Why are you fidgeting, Death? Why are you looking away? Why are you turning to go? Wait, Death, you have not answered my question. Where is your sting? Where is, my sin? What? You have no answer? But, Death, why do you have no answer? How will you terrify me, if you have no answer? O Death, I will tell you the answer. Where is your sting? Where is my sin? It is hanging on that tree. God made Christ to be sin—my sin. When he died, the penalty of my sin was paid. The power of it was broken. I bear it no more. Farewell, Death. You need not show up here again to frighten me. God will tell you when to come next time. And when you come, you will be his servant. For me, you will have no sting. O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting? The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 15:55-57)

They're Ba-a-a-ack!

With the tragic shootings that have been in the news lately, it was only a matter of time before all of those anti gun nuts came out swinging, and trying once again to convince everyone that the Second Amendment to the Constitution really doesn't matter, and that the Government should take more illegal steps to remove guns from the hands of US Citizens. However, for now, I'll put all of that aside, and let's just look at the basic question, will taking guns away result in less people being killed?

Genesis 4:8 says, "And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him." Did Cain use a gun? No. The fact is that you do not need a gun to kill someone. A person who is committed to the idea that they need to kill a person, or persons, can find many ways to do it that do not involve a gun. Is it easier with a gun? Sure, but so is self defense. Would it have been any harder for the man in Binghamton to kill all of those people with an axe? Or a chainsaw? Regardless of his weapon of choice, the fact is that an armed person, with knowledge of, and ability to use, his or her gun, could have put a very quick end to the carnage, with a much lower body count.

The fact is that for Millenia prior to the invention of firearms human beings were constantly engaging in murders and wars. They didn't have guns, and yet they managed to kill on a staggering scale.

Some of these nuts are just afraid of guns, some hate them because they see them as uncivilized, or some such nonsense, and some know that they are critical to the survival of liberty and the civil society, and it is this that they wish to destroy, but whatever the reason why people want to take the guns away, the end result is the same, you and your family will be less safe, and less free.

Back To Work

Timing wasn't so great, with the plant shutting down last week, and my wife and kids being on Spring Break this week, but, at least with the bizarre schedule that I'm on, I had Monday and Tuesday off to spend with them.

On Monday we went to see "Monsters Vs. Aliens" which was a fun movie, the kids really enjoyed it, and at least they didn't pick up on the subtle leftist jabs sprinkled throughout it.

After the movie we went to lunch at Chili's (had a gift card) and then to the park. The kids played on the playground, and had a great time doing it, then we decided to go for a bit of a drive, which at least we, as adults enjoyed, even if the kids did get a little bored.

Then home for a simple dinner and a quiet evening, which we don't get very often.

While we were trying to decide what to do on Tuesday, we, of course, were taking price into consideration, and my wife found that Gatorland in Orlando was having some special prices for Florida residents, so it wouldn't cost us all that much to go.

So Tuesday morning we set out for Orlando. Let me just say, if you've never had the chance to go to Gatorland, you should check it out, if you get the chance.

We watched a couple of neat shows, and saw a bunch really cool stuff, and lots and lots of gators... and some crocs too. Lunch consisted of frozen chocolate covered bananas, and everyone had a great time.

On the way home we went through Kissimmee and ate at Ponderosa Steakhouse, which we had not been to since leaving New York State nearly 9 years ago. I won't say it was the best dinner ever, but it was pretty good, and kinda fun to revisit old times, and the kids enjoyed it too, while we enjoyed that kids 5 and under are free, so we did have to pay for our youngest.

In all, we had a great couple of days. I have made it my policy not to post pictures of my kids on my blog, but if you know me personally, and we are, or can be, friends on Facebook, I've put quite a few more pictures there, including the family at Gatorland.

Desiring God Blog

My Annual Visit to a Mainline Protestant Church Posted: 05 Apr 2009 11:15 PM PDT (Author: John Piper) I made my annual visit to a Sunday morning service in a "mainline Protestant church" a couple weeks ago. It is an eerie experience. Heart-wrenchingly eerie. A magnificent building. A magnificent choir singing, "Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of he world, have mercy on us" (in Latin). A closing hymn, "Lord, I want to be a Christian." Three women pastors on the platform and two men. Pews filled with well-to-do looking folks. The reason I say it was eerie is that much of this religious language means something totally different in their minds from what I mean by it. There is a keeping of the language and a demythologizing of the original meaning. On one of our earlier visits Noël recalls the pastor saying that when he was a child he used to read stories like the one about Jesus walking on the water as if they were literally true. What made my visit heart-wrenching was that the children's choir sang these words—trust me, I am copying them from the bulletin—"Birds and trees, people and plants, dolphin and whale all lives are equal. . . . Sister Rain, Brother Stone bring us back to our true home." So when I stand at my study window that looks out over the downtown cityscape of Minneapolis, I pray: "O God, have mercy on us. Send a shocking revival to the churches—and a great awakening to this city. In Jesus' mighty name. Amen."

.

Always With The Why

After yesterday's tragic events in Binghamton, NY many people are asking why things like this keep happening. Well, I have the answer, but the problem is that most of the people who are asking the question, aren't interested in the answer.

The fact is that death, tragedy, pain, suffering, and all evil in this world exist because this world is fallen.

Most of you will know this already, but let me go ahead and explain it anyway. God created all that exists, and He created Human Beings in His own image. That is not to say that we are gods ourselves, but that we bear the image, or reflection, of God. The first man and the first woman, who we know as Adam and Eve, were created to live in Paradise, that is perfected creation.

There was only one rule that Adam and Eve were required to live by, and that was to not eat fruit from a certain tree in the Garden of Eden, where they lived. This tree was called "The Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good And Evil." Everything else was theirs for the taking, but this tree was off limits. One day a serpent came to Eve and convinced her that it would be OK to go ahead and eat a piece of fruit from that tree. She took some of the fruit to Adam, and he ate the fruit right along with her. At this point they became able to know the difference between good and evil. This was the very first sin.

Since that time everyone who has ever been born, with only one exception, have been born into sin. This sin affected all of creation, but most important is the fact that this sin caused all mankind to be sinners. This is what is meant by fallen, this sin caused us to fall from the perfection of God's creation to the chaotic world that we still live in today.

Maybe it would be good to address what sin is. Sin is anything that falls short of living up to the Law and Glory of God. God is perfect, and as such, must demand perfection, but we are not capable of perfection, we fall short, we sin, and this condemns us to eternity apart from God. This is what we know as Hell, eternal punishment. There is nothing that we can do to save ourselves from this judgment.

Now, remember that I said that there was one exception to the rule of everyone being born into sin? That one exception was Jesus Christ. Jesus was born to a Virgin woman, after the Spirit of God moved upon her and caused her to be with child. This is how it is that Jesus was born without the stain of sin. Not only was Jesus not born a sinner, but He never sinned even once in His entire life. You see, Jesus was Almighty God Himself in Human Flesh. This can get a little complicated, but God is three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, three persons, but one God. Jesus was God the Son, who took on human flesh to come to Earth. Being God, and yet a man, Jesus was able to live a perfect and sinless life, and live up to the perfection of God.

This is very important. You see, there is nothing that I can do for myself, or for you, to save any of us from eternal judgement as the penalty for our sins. However, Jesus lived an absolutely perfect life. Due to His perfect and sinless life, Jesus was able to choose to pay the penalty for our sins. This was not an easy thing to do. Jesus, who was perfect and sinless, took our sins upon himself, and was put to death, in one of the most horrific ways imaginable, to pay the penalty for our sins.

Jesus, God the Son, the only perfect person who ever lived, was brutally murdered, allowing Himself to be put to death, but that wasn't the end of the story. After three days of being in the tomb, Jesus conquered death by returning from the grave. By this Jesus gave us hope, because He showed us that He has power even over death.

What we must do is to understand that we are sinners, that we are totally incapable of doing anything to save ourselves. Without Jesus we are doomed to spend all of eternity in Hell as punishment for our sins.

It can be quite hard to admit that we cannot do anything to save ourselves, since we, as human beings, like to be independent and believe that we can do anything we set our minds to. But, as if that wasn't hard enough, we also must deny ourselves, give up our selfishness, and be willing to give up all that we have in this life, if that is what is asked of us, because following Jesus, and spending eternity in Heaven with Him, is worth whatever we have to give up in this life.

All of the tragedy and horrors in this world are a result of a rejection of God, and a rejection of the Salvation offered through Jesus Christ. In this world we are taught to be selfish, to focus on ourselves, and our needs, and fulfilling our own desires, but that is not what followers of Jesus are called to do.

Scary Stuff Back Home

It's very strange to sit here in Florida and watch a situation unfolding in an area that I know so well, a thousand miles away.

I don't know that I was ever in the American Civic Association in Binghamton, NY, but I know right where it is, and I've driven by it easily hundreds of times.

It's strange to see units from Superior Ambulance on the national news, being that I myself was once and EMT with Superior Ambulance Service there in Binghamton. I could sit in my living room, listening to the updates and watching the pictures and videos coming in to the Fox News Channel, and being able to identify the different Ambulance and law enforcement agencies, and seeing so much that is so familiar.

At the same time I was getting emails from my Mom, since she could go into the conference room at work and see the Emergency vehicles at the scene of this shooting, and the office told them all to stay put in the office until they were told what was going on.

My heart really goes out to the people in Binghamton, and the families involved specifically. While I'm thanking God that it's finally over, for the families of all those slain, and all those wounded and their families also, it will never be completely over.

At this point we still don't know why this man felt that he needed to do such a thing as this.

I'm sure that it will be tough for the Civic Center to get back to normal operations after such a horrific event, and yet, this was an organization that did such important work in trying to help people who have come to the US from around the world to make a better life, and help them to adapt to American Society, and have helped many people over the years to become citizens of our great Nation.

For all of those impacted by the horrific events of this day, you are in my prayers.

Racial Diversity in Hell

Desiring God Blog

Racial Diversity in Hell Posted: 31 Mar 2009 11:41 PM PDT (Author: John Piper) The difference between heaven and hell is not that heaven will be ethnically diverse and hell won't be. Both will be diverse. All races and all ethnicities and all cultures will be present in hell. The difference between heaven and hell is that in heaven—that is, in the new heaven and new earth—there will be perfect racial and ethnic harmony, but in hell, racial and ethnic animosities will reach their fullest fury and last forever. Paul spoke of the ethnic diversity of hell in Romans 2:9, There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek. "Jew and Greek" was shorthand for all ethnic groups. We know he is talking about hell here because the opposite is eternal life: To those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. (Romans 2:7) Therefore, everyone who loves racial diversity and racial harmony will call all ethnic groups everywhere to believe on Jesus Christ, the Son of God, because Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:36) Heaven will be all the sweeter because the ethnic diversity that God designed for the good of his creation and the glory of his grace will last forever in perfect harmony and joy.

	Email delivery powered by Google

Not Again

The Obama Administration is now looking at plans to make Volunteer work mandatory. Besides the obvious oxymoron at play here, um, we've been down this road before. It's called Slavery, and we fought a very bloody war to end it. Do we really want to go back? I don't.