Earlier this week, we sent you an article by Laurie Higgins regarding the controversial statement by Governor Mitch Daniel (R-IN) to the Weekly Standard that “‘the next president, whoever he is, would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while, until the economic issues are resolved.” Laurie did a fantastic job pointing out the naivete and ignorance of such a proposal, and that our “progressive” friends on the radical Left will not observe such a truce. (See Weekly Standard article HERE.)

Unfortunately, this is not the first time a conservative leader has made such a statement, and the sentiment that the social issues are not important is shared by too many of our fiscally conservative friends. While I don’t want to belabor the point, I think it is extremely important that we consider the fact that the social issues are inextricably woven into many of the economic issues. To ignore the social issues will only perpetuate the fiscal problems the states and nation face.

Yes, fiscal responsibility is very important now,but the social issues — and the morality and personal responsibility that are at the center of the debate on social issues — play a significant role in out-of-control government spending and intrusion in our lives. Here are some examples of how social issues are costing taxpayers and contributing to the fiscal problems we now face:

Abortion:

Taxpayers are directly subsidizing the abortion industry. Abortion- providers such as Planned Parenthood continue to receive millions of tax dollars every year under Title X, which subsidizes their overhead for promoting abortion, giving them the ability to divert more and more resources toward the killing of the unborn.

A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report reveals that over the past eight years, nearly $1 billion has been given to “family planning organizations” (read abortion providers). Planned Parenthood Federation of America received $657.1 million in taxpayer dollars from Fiscal Year 2002 to Fiscal Year 2009. The largest source of these funds ($342.1 million) was the Title X family planning program.

From the 105th through the 107th Congress, Planned Parenthood abortion services generated a net profit of $300 million. All the while, it cut back on non-abortion-related programs like adoption, breast cancer screening and infertility treatment.

Yet taxpayer funds doubled to so-called “family planning” programs, of which Planned Parenthood is a major beneficiary.

And here in Illinois, despite a ban on taxpayer- funded abortions, hundreds of Medicaid abortions are done every year. (Read more HERE.)

Then there is the issue of embryonic stem cell research that Illinois taxpayers fund — experimentation done on the tiniest of humans, resulting in their deaths. (Read more HERE.)

Homosexuality:

Just this past Sunday, Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (D) signed an executive order to extend family and medical leave benefits to domestic partners. That is in addition to the taxpayer-funded health care benefits that the state of Illinois already gives to homosexual state employees and their partners, which was enacted unilaterally by then Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) in 2006. These benefits include medical, pharmacy, dental and vision. Taxpayers are footing the bill for this.

And there’s the $10 million of state tax money for the construction of the “Center on Halsted” which opened in 2004. The Center, located in the heart of Chicago’s affluent homosexual, bisexual, and “transgender” community, is used to push for “gay marriage” in Illinois and other homosexual lobby goals. According to Americans for Truth, the Center on Halsted has been the host of incredibly perverse sadomasochistic events. There are other similar “gay” centers in San Diego and other cities.

Lest you think that was a one time expenditure, this year taxpayers are giving $475,000 to the Center on Halsted to provide programs for homosexual and transgender seniors.

Gambling:

The state of Illinois now has 9 casinos operating, with a 10th being built in Des Plaines. Add to this the fact that Illinois is poised to have mini-casinos in every neighborhood thanks to a new law signed last summer by Governor Patrick Quinn (D) which allows any establishment serving liquor to have up to five video slot machines. (Thankfully some counties and municipalities have opted out of this predatory mugging of its citizens.)

In his book, former senior economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan, Earl L. Grinols, points out that the social costs of gambling, such as increased crime, lost work time, bankruptcies and financial hardships faced by the families of gambling addicts, have reached epidemic proportions, costing the economy as much as $54 billion annually (See “Gambling in America: Costs and Benefits,” by Earl L. Grinols.)

Casino gambling causes up to $289 in social costs for every $46 of economic benefit, according to Grinols. “In 2003 dollars, the cost to society of an additional pathological gambler is $10,330, based on studies performed in the mid-1990s, whereas the cost to society of an additional problem gambler is $2,945,” he wrote. “Accounting for the cost of raising tax dollars to cover some of these costs raises the totals to $11,304 and $3,222, respectively.”

University of Illinois Professor John Kindt has studied this issue exhaustively, and says that “every video [slot] gambling machine takes $60,000 out of the consumer economy.” Kindt asserts that “for every dollar of revenue generated by gambling, taxpayers must pay at least $3 in increased criminal justice costs, social welfare expenses, high regulatory costs, and increased infrastructure expenditures “

Legalized gambling in Illinois and across this nation is contributing to our fiscal problems. Kindt argues that “gambling is a catalyst for economic downturn.”

Pornography: 

I do not need to tell you how pornography and obscenity has saturated the culture in recent decades. It is almost impossible to avoid being visually assaulted by pornography’s sinister message. Billboards, magazine covers, mall displays, television, the Internet and even the lyrics of popular music proclaim and glamorize elicit sex.

What is the link between pornography and our tax dollars? Pornography contributes greatly to the high number of sex crimes we see today. Dr. Mary Anne Layden specializes in the treatment of victims and perpetrators of sexual violence and sexual addiction. She has testified before the U.S. Congress on five occasions on the topic of sexual violence, the sexual exploitation industry and the media. A few years ago, she made this telling statement:

I began my work as a psychotherapist working with individuals who had been raped, who had experienced incest and sexual violence of all sorts, but I came to realize that after 10 years of working with these individuals, that there were certain things that were clear to me. One is that in the first 10 years I noted – now, I’m not a fast learner, but I noted that there was not one case of sexual violence that didn’t involve pornography. Now, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to say something is going on here, because there was no other common factor in all the cases that I was treating. This one stands out. [Emphasis added.]

Her expertise and experience seem to back up the AP’s analysis:

Experts say certain trends emerge among the cases of children charged with sex crimes against other children….42 percent have been exposed to hardcore pornography, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, an arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, said in a 2001 report.

There is a growing body of research which suggests that the habitual use of pornography — especially Internet pornography — can damage people of all ages and both sexes, negatively impacting their relationships, productivity, happiness and their ability to function in society. These are among the social costs of pornography, according to The Witherspoon Institute at Princeton, New Jersey.

There is a well-documented link between child pornography and child sexual abuse. A study done by psychologists at the Federal Bureau of Prisons found in confidential studies with convicted child pornographers — while only 26 percent were convicted of molesting children — 85 percent admitted abusing at least one child.

Millions upon millions of tax dollars are spent every year on law enforcement and in criminal justice fighting sex crimes surrounding pornography.

There are other intangible consequences of not dealing with social issues: fatherless children, the explosion of STDs, child abuse and abandonment, high school dropouts, drug and alcohol addictions, increase of crime, gang problems and many others. All of these consequences contribute to the breakdown of the family and will result in a growing demand for bigger government and the nanny state. And someone has to fund a bigger government: you, the taxpayer.

In tackling the severe financial issues that we currently face, we cannot afford to lose sight of what’s important. Social issues matter. Morality and personal responsibility matter. Faith and family matter.

John Adams said,

“We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration and member of Continental Congress:

“Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure, which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.”

Robert Winthorp, an early Speaker of the House of Representatives:

“Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or a power without them. Either by the Word of God or the strong arm of man, either by the Bible or the bayonet.”

In the absence of strong families and vibrant faith, the role of government must expand. If self-control and personal responsibility are not taught and fostered by the family and exhorted by the church — the government will necessarily become coercive. This is why we need to stand for good public policy — for both fiscal and social issues.

The breakdown of the family — no-fault divorce, the redefinition of marriage, the utter disregard of human life in abortion and euthanasia, the legalization of gambling to increase state revenue, the widespread approval of pornography and obscenity — all contribute to the breakdown of the family, the marginalization of faith and the growth of government.

If fiscal conservatives really want to see a return to limited government, they simply cannot afford to set aside the social issues.

In recent weeks, I have had several conversations with friends regarding the relative importance of the social issues when making voting decisions. These conversations intensified following some statements made by Indiana governor and rumored presidential aspirant, Republican Mitch Daniels, who has called for a “truce” on the social issues.

Lest anyone think Daniels regrets his words or has reconsidered his position, Washington Examiner writer Mark Hemingway assures us that Daniels stands behind them:

I got a call this morning from Indiana Governor and rumored presidential candidate Mitch Daniels. In my column yesterday on his remarks about a “truce” on social issues, I left the door open to the possibility that the Governor’s remarks may not have been a “rhetorical misstep.”

…Daniels called me to say that he’s dead serious about the need for the next president to declare a truce. “It wasn’t something I just blurted out,” he told me. “It’s something I’ve been thinking about for a while.”

He’s emphasized the need to focus like a laser beam on the existential threats facing the country — the two big issues he’s previously identified being the war on terror and the country’s precarious fiscal position.

For some time I have held the view that supporting a candidate who abandons the social issues but supports a strong national defense and responsible spending was the lesser of all available evils. I held this position even as conservatives grew ever more silent on legislation pertaining to abortion and homosexuality. I hoped without evidence that those who claim the mantle of conservatism would eventually regain a moral sensibility and a spine. What a naïve dupe I’ve been.

I was also unduly influenced by rhetoric coming from the mainstream media; the woefully misnamed “progressives”; and the equally misnamed “moderates.” These groups characterize as “extreme,” “fringe,” and “far right” anyone who believes that the slaughter of the unborn, sexually complementary marriage, and the natural family are critical issues. Hearing these ad hominem epithets, I felt embarrassed and doubtful about my views.

Then the inestimable Richard Weaver slapped me upside the head through his transformative book Ideas Have Consequences.

Whoever argues for a restoration of values is sooner or later met with the objection that one cannot return, or as the phrase is likely to be, “you can’t turn the clock back.” By thus assuming that we are prisoners of the moment, the objection well reveals the philosophic position of modernism. The believer in truth, on the other hand, is bound to maintain that the things of highest value are not affected by time; otherwise the very concept of truth becomes impossible. In declaring that we wish to recover lost ideals and values, we are looking toward an ontological realm that is timeless.

The contemporary claim that opposition to abortion and affirmation of homosexuality are fringe positions reflects the moral relativism against which Weaver warns. Conservative views are only extreme to a society that has rejected the idea of objective, transcendent moral truth. Remember, fewer than fifty years ago, support for abortion and affirmation of volitional homosexual acts would have been viewed as radical, far-left, extreme, fringe positions; and a “truce” on the promotion of these views by politicians would have been unthinkable.

Governor Daniels reveals a troubling ignorance about what constitutes an “existential threat” to our country when he implies that legalized killing of the unborn and destruction of the natural family and traditional marriage do not pose a threat to the continued health, strength, and even existence of this country.

I wonder, if one of the “social issues” that divide the country were not the slaughter of the most defenseless but were instead the enslavement of African Americans, would these same immoderates, including Mitch Daniels, be chastising conservatives for refusing to subordinate social issues to fiscal issues?

Meanwhile, as too many purported conservatives turn their fear-filled, feckless gazes away from the unborn, marriage, parental rights, speech rights, religious liberty, and the rights of children, “progressive” activists, smirking gleefully at our naivete and cowardice, seize the legislative day.

While we abandon the social issues, “progressives” forge frenetically ahead, supporting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Hate Crimes legislation, the Student Non-Discrimination Act, the Safe Schools Improvement Act, the Freedom of Choice Act, federal funding for abortion through Obamacare, the defunding of abstinence education, increased funding for Planned Parenthood, the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Apparently, the financial crisis and the threat of radical Islamic terrorism have not similarly compelled “progressives” to abandon the social issues. No, siree. While some “conservative” leaders and their acolytes tremble and retreat from critical moral and political issues, “progressives,” as Rahm Emmanuel explains, “Never allow a crisis to go to waste. ” They view crises as “opportunities to do big things.”

Is the reasoning of these flee-from-the-social issues faux-conservatives sound? Do social conservatives actually believe that once our 13 trillion dollar debt problem is solved, our elected, rubbery-spined representatives will bravely and implacably turn their attention to abortion and homosexuality? If they do, I’ve got beachfront property in Louisiana to sell them.

If conservatives en masse would reject any candidate who waves the white flag on social issues, maybe, just maybe, we would be blessed with better candidates — ones for whom we could vote without holding our proverbial noses.

We must restore fundamental conservative principles to the public square and the political process, especially as they touch on the “social issues” that Governor Daniels seeks to abandon. We would far better serve the “existential” needs of our country by taking to heart the words of Ella Wheeler Cox: “To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.”

Most, if not all of us, would readily agree that there are objective truths in the world. For instance, almost everyone would agree that Newton’s Law of Gravity is an objective truth in that its truthfulness is not dependent upon our acceptance of it as being true. Its authority over our lives exists whether we believe in it or not. Unfortunately, the voices of those who would designate these “objective truths” to Natural Law only, are increasing at an alarming rate in our society. Like those unwavering truths that exist in the natural order of creation, there are moral objective truths that are equally unfaltering and steadfast whether we deem them to be so or not. These moral objective truths are not reliant upon our feelings, our experiences, or the passing of time. They are unwavering and resolute in character.

For years we have been bombarded with the messages of “Tolerance”, “Relativity”, “Political Correctness”, and a new one “Kindness” – it’s the new tolerance message. The constant pounding of these messages over the years have had a penetrating effect on the minds, vocabulary, and behavior of the Christian and non-Christian alike. I am not concerned with what was desired, but with the paralyzing effect that these messages have had on our society. They have effectively brought to a slow crawl the unfettered proclamation of the Gospel message in the public square. If you doubt the validity of this last statement, then walk out of your front door, walk up to your “un-churched” neighbor, and proclaim to them the full Gospel message of Jesus Christ. Even if we are lead to do so and have the resolve to carry it out, it is hard to fight back the constant parading of these messages from the forefront of our minds. Again, the messages of tolerance, relativity, political correctness, and kindness, just to name a few, have been successfully woven into the fabric of America. Not only have these messages had an impact on the Church but also in every walk of life including to the board room, to the court house, and to almost every individual home in America.

What do these messages really say? In and of themselves, they sound idyllic. Why would anyone protest them? In their infancy, most things are cute and cuddly. It’s not until we see them at maturity do we understand their full gravity. With that in mind, allow me to challenge each of us to think long term when confronted with any set of beliefs. Every choice we make and every ideology we espouse carries consequences that reach much farther into the future than today, touching countless generations to come. For instance, when we’re considering the message of “relativity.” We should view it from a lens that carries it out to maturity, at which point, we must decide if this is a message that we can live with, or better yet, “future generations” can live with.

Each of these messages implies that everyone has feelings and everyone’s feelings are equally valuable. Although this statement sounds fair and just, it cannot possibly be true in the ebb and flow of society. Perhaps in your individual home this is your mantra; however, it does not work in the functioning of a group of people. If one person has a strong urge to punch you in the nose, are his feelings valid? Are they just as legitimate as the one who would like to give you a rose? Of course the first person’s feelings are not valid. However, if we legitimize all feelings and opinions as valid, who could then stand in the seat of judgment to declare that feelings to punch someone are not valid? Are you not then making a judgment? Declaring something to be right or wrong? If we discredit objective truths, on what grounds would we base any judgment? Who would we elect to sit in the seat of judgment to proclaim what is an acceptable value to keep and what is not? If unwarranted violence is found to be contemptible, then violence against an unborn child(i) or an elderly person(ii) is equally contemptible? The nihilist Friedrich Nietzsche himself said, “When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet.”(iii) The problem the world must address when stating all truths are subjective, is how do you retain any system of values in the absence of a divine order?

By design, the example of punching someone in the nose is silly, because the statement that everyone’s feelings are equally valid, in the operation of society, is also silly. If everyone’s opinions are equally valid and everyone’s feelings are just as legitimate as the next, there would be complete chaos. Even more, there would be no room for judgment on any behavior. There would be no room for stating what’s right and what’s wrong since every value is elusive. In fact, no value or moral judgment would ever be concrete. Perhaps this is where some individuals intend for society to be. However, if we say there should be no judgment on anyone’s behavior, then we must take it to its ultimate conclusion. That is, all values, everything we consider right and wrong, are relative based on each person’s individual opinion. And, we know what they say about “opinions” – everyone has one and it changes all the time. Truth cannot be subjective. Either it is what it says or it isn’t. Like gravity, either truth exists or it doesn’t. But, if it does, we would be wise to order our lives accordingly or face peril.

C.S. Lewis, in his book “The Abolition of Man“, provides a historic collection of objective truths that he calls the “Tao”. His point in doing so is to show that whether Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic, Christian, or Oriental alike, each doctrine has set before them “moral objective truths or values” to live by. These values are beliefs that certain attitudes are really true and others are really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are.(iv) The Tao is not one among a number of value systems we can choose from; instead, “it is the sole source of all value judgments. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained. The effort to refute it and raise a new system of value in its place is self-contradictory.”(v) He goes on to say, “if my duty to my parents is a superstition, then so is my duty to posterity. If justice is a superstition, then so is my duty to my country or my race…. The rebellion of new ideologies against the Tao is a rebellion of the branches against the tree….The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of imagining a new primary color, or, indeed, of creating a new sun and a new sky for it to move in.”(vi) Yet, we find ourselves looking at Lewis as though he was a prophet — foretelling the times we would surely find ourselves if we hold loosely those things we should cling to (i.e., our values). Today, we find ourselves among those who are rewriting our value system even as you read this now.

For example, on April 7, 2010, the White House announced President Obama’s latest initiative of achieving “Political Correctness” with his plans to remove language such as “militant Islamic radicalism” from all documents outlining his national security strategy.(vii) It appears that in the mind of our President, if we change the vocabulary we use to fight terrorism, start investing in Muslim businesses, support scientific research, and combat polio in Muslim countries, we will change the Muslim view of America. Somehow, in the mind of this administration, this strategy will cause the Muslim world to cooperate with America. This significant change in strategy is in light of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad stating Israel should be “wiped off the map” (October 2005).(viii) It is on the heels of Ahmadinejad saying Israel could not do a “damn thing” to stop the Islamic state’s nuclear program (December 2009); a program that we (the West) reportedly believes to be “aimed at developing an atomic bomb” (April 2010)(ix). This change is also in the face of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recent statement that “a radical Iranian regime armed with nuclear weapons could bring an end to the era of nuclear peace the world has enjoyed for the last 65 years” (March 2010)(x). Yet, in view of these statements which are reality, there are those who are rewriting reality and replacing it with their own set of beliefs.

I am not making a call to take arms, to be rude, to be disrespectful, or to be unnecessarily confrontational. Instead, it is a call to seriously consider the world around us and the direction in which we are headed. It is a call to do more than just politely nod our heads in consent of a moral objective truth. It is a call to take to the street of public opinion our firm belief that certain things are right and certain things are wrong. We must stop using the vocabulary of the left and openly reject certain doctrines that do not line up with our core beliefs. When all that says “this is good” is debunked, what says “I want” remains.

i Partial-Birth Abortion: According to the Library of Congress, the Senate introduced the “Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act” of 2007. Congress defined partial-birth abortion as “an abortion in which the abortion practitioner delivers an unborn child’s body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child’s skull with a sharp instrument, and sucks the child’s brains out before completing the delivery of the dead infant.”
ii Newsweek, September 21, 2009, “The Case For Killing Granny”, pg. 35-40 – Although the article does not blatantly tell us to go out and kill our elderly, the doctrine is being set, as the case is subtly made that our explosive health care budget is due to “UNNECESSARY and (according to them) unwanted care” given to seniors. And, in an effort to reduce our economy’s budget, “a significant portion of the savings will have to come from the money we spend on seniors at the end of life…”
iii trans. Walter Kaufmann and R.J. Hollingdale; Twilight of the Idols, Expeditions of an Untimely Man, sect. 5 – Although Nietzsche understood this dilemma he was not swayed from it; instead it propelled him to look for a lower foundation on which to base human values.
iv C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, ‘Men Without Chest’, pg. 18
v C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, ‘The Way’, pg. 43
vi C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, ‘The Way’, pg. 44
vii www.cnsnew.com/new/article/63838, ‘Islamic Radicalism’ Phrase to Be Removed from Obama’s National Security Documents, April 7, 2010
viii Reuters, March 29, 2010, Timeline: Israel and Iran statements
ix Reuters, April 7, 2010, Iran’s president attacks Obama on nuclear “threat”
x Reuters, March 29, 2010, Timeline: Israel and Iran statements

This is part II of a two-part paper on The Objectivity of Truth (see Part I). You may be asking yourself, “What is the point of this discussion?” “Why are ‘moral objective truths’ important?” “Why can’t we all just get along?” The answer is a simple one: “Moral objective truth” frames our view of the world, our view of humanity, it sets up boundaries for man’s imagination, and it orders our steps.

Truth frames our view of the world

America could not have been founded and shaped to be the greatest country in the world without the framework of “moral objective truths” – truths that do not change with the passing of time, experiences, and circumstances. Truths that distinguish us from most nations. “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, … they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” Thomas Jefferson goes on to tell the world why they must separate from England: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (The Declaration of Independence). Again, our very foundation as a nation is built upon objective truths. Our founding fathers were compelled to risk their lives for the pursuit of what they believed to be true – a truth that was objective and real.

Truth shapes our view of humanity

Not only does a “moral objective truth” shape our view of the world, it also frames our view and compassion towards humanity. It answers the question “Am I my brother’s keeper?” “Is all human life valuable?” Or, “Can I do-away with another’s life if it inconveniences me?” On April 18, 2010, a security camera captured Hugo Alfredo Tale-Yax’s fatal stabbing after thwarting a mugging. Within seconds Tale-Yax saves a woman who is being accosted, he is stabbed several times, he chases after the assailant, but then collapses from his injuries. What may be more shocking than his untimely death, are the responses of those would-be good Samaritans. A minute after his collapse, a potential good Samaritan walks right by. And so does the next person and the one after that. A procession of more than 20 people seems to notice and fail to help. One man pulls out his cell phone, but instead of dialing 911, he snaps a picture. Another man nudges Tale-Yax, rolls him over twice, seems to see blood, but then walks away. For nearly an hour and a half, Tale-Yax lay there until someone finally called for help.ⁱ Are we so desensitized to the needs of those around us that we could reason with ourselves to walk right past a person in dire need? Do we need a compassionate tele-a-thon parading Hollywood’s elite to stimulate us into helping the less fortunate? Have we laid aside those truths we should cling to that instructs us on how to respond to those who are vulnerable? A “moral objective truth” does not bend to satisfy my timetable. Instead, it places a high value on every life.

For instance, a pregnant 10-year old, allegedly raped by her stepfather, has become the latest lightning rod in Mexico’s heated abortion debate. The young girl’s home state allows abortion in cases of rape during the first 90 days of the pregnancy. But, the 10-year old girl is at 17½ weeks, nearly a month past that limit.ⁱⁱ How should we respond to the heinous situation an innocent 10-year-old child find herself in? Furthermore, what should our response be to the innocent life she now carries? To some, these are hard questions. Although filled with compassion, the answer is resolute and resounding: Life is life AND it deserves to be protected. This applies to both the 10-year-old child and to the person she carries in her womb. Truth is not reliant upon our choice. It is what it says. The protection of life, especially the life of the most vulnerable, is an age-old truth passed down from civilization to civilization. It is not based on circumstances, our personal timetables, or our personal opinions. The world may consider this predicament a sticky one to judge. But, for those who believe in “moral objective truths,” our choice is clear. Either truth is what it says or it isn’t. We can no longer afford to act as though truth is on a “sliding scale.” Truth is not variable, it is inexorable! It does not bend to the persuasion or pleading of others!

Truth establishes boundaries

“When all that says ‘this is good’ is debunked, what says ‘I want’ remains.”ⁱⁱⁱ If we decide as a nation to no longer be encumbered by religious sanctions, inherited traditions, and established values, then we choose to be lead by one of the most basic of human instincts – Self! Self seeks after that which answers the questions “What pleases me…today”, “What satisfies me…today”, “What makes me happy…today”. The only thing constant about the egocentric nature of “Self” is that it constantly changes. Its temperament is dependent upon its mood, its environment, and its fertile but depraved imagination, all of which changes with the passing of time. Picture a nation where the volatility of “Self” is the new template used to determine what we will consider “good”, and what we should value and esteem. Although this picture may be unsettling to some, the most disturbing unasked question is “Who will decide these new values for us?” Whose “Self” will set the new standard for us all? My grandmother Hattie would often say to a household of six women, “There can only be one Queen Bee in this house.” Another wise saying is “There can only be one cook in the kitchen.” Meaning, there must be ONE person (or entity) that sets the rules everyone else abides by. Remember the lesson learned from my silly example about being punched in the nose – everyone’s opinion cannot be equally valid in the operation of a society, there must be ONE standard (see Part I).

Only in what C.S. Lewis called the “Tao”, a historic collection of objective truths, do we find a common human law of action which can over-arch rulers and ruled alike. A dogmatic belief in objective value is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not tyranny or an obedience which is not slavery.^ivBut, if we choose to no longer be guided by the belief that certain attitudes are really true and others are really false, then we must come up with a new standard to govern ourselves. The question now becomes “who will set that standard?”

There will always be someone (or entity) poised and ready to define who we are and what we stand for as a people! In the face of this reality, however, one of the most beautiful things about America is that we have always been a nation of fighting immigrants who refused to be defined by an oppressive government. Unfortunately, what has made us beautiful and attractive to the world, is being put to the test.

For instance, while on the campaign trail in 2008, Mr. Obama stated: “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times…and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.”^v Since when did we (America) ask for the world’s permission to do anything? Although, we may consider his comment to be ridiculous, it is highly revealing of his mindset and the liberal mindset in general. It tells us that he considers the choices we make about the cars we drive, the food we eat, and the air temperature in our houses to no longer be choices private citizens make for themselves but choices that governments make for private citizens.

Although it may be considered outrageous, this statement should not be taken lightly as it appears that being “liked” and setting our nations polices accordingly are a preoccupation of this administration. For example, National Security Council staffer, Pradeep Ramamurthy, runs this administration’s Global Engagement Directorate with a vague mission to use diplomacy and outreach in pursuit of a host of national security objectives. Ramamurthy recently stated in regards to changing our country’s image in Muslim countries, “Do you want to think about the U.S. as the nation that fights terrorism or the nation you want to do business with?”^vi Has he forgotten about 9/11?

Allow me to illustrate further the all-consuming intensity of some to redefine truth for every individual. The new health care reform bill, H.R. 3590 – Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, signed into law on March 23, 2010, does not include the earlier House-approved prohibition on abortion funding (the Stupak amendment that was passed in late 2009). The current bill authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) to mandate abortion coverage as a medical benefit IF the Secretary can certify that no federal funds will pay for abortion coverage. Thus, allowing each insurer in the Exchange to offer a plan that covers elective abortions. There is a provision in the bill that prohibits tax credits or cost sharing to pay for abortion coverage by requiring funds to be segregated.^vii However, money is fungible^viii and it is not possible to ensure that no federal funds will pay for abortion coverage unless the money for abortion coverage is collected in a separate account and the services covered by a separate plan, as is done under Medicaid. Because it includes no such provision, this bill would arguably allow for federal funds to pay for plans that cover abortions.^ix Here’s a little history for you: Under the Medicaid program, the Hyde amendment prevents the federal and state portion of Medicaid funding from paying for abortions leaving it up to the state to pay for abortions with non-federal funds under a completely separate program.^x The Stupak amendment was similar to Medicaid’s Hyde amendment, but it was excluded from the bill that was passed and signed into law by our President.

You may be asking “what does this have to do with moral objective truth or with our individual values being redefined?” Wherever you see the term “federal funds”, it is referring to your money. This bill is designed to offset its expenses by collecting approximately $256.5 billion^xi in additional taxes from you (and me)! So, every time you here the words “federal funds will be used to pay for this or that…,” replace it with “MY MONEY will be used to pay for this or that….” Regardless, of your personal convictions, your deeply held moral truths on the subject, or your heartfelt passion concerning the practice of abortions, our government has decided on our behalf to use our (your) money to fund what is one of the most divisive topics in America. Only in rhetoric did our government establish barriers to prevent our money from funding abortions. It had the opportunity to set-up real safeguards, but chose not to do so. They did this without a real attempt to reach across party lines. Why, you ask? Because they could! And, they consider an abortion EVERY woman’s right regardless of her reason.^xii Their opinion is all that matters and they get to choose for the rest of us what we will support, what we will consider a victory for our nation, what we will consider “good.”

When asked if she would hold a vote on the Stupak amendment, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected it. Declaring “no extra votes would be held to appease antiabortion Democrats …still hopeful for adding their favored causes. Not on abortion, not on public option, not on single payer, not on anything. The bill is the bill.”^xiii As the signage of H.R. 3590 into law shows, her opinion and those of like minds is the only opinion that matters.

Truth orders our steps. A call to action!

New systems of belief are constantly being peddled through our school system, corporations, government, and in our homes. Beliefs such as “I support you in that” although the endeavor may be a crazy one; “everyone has a RIGHT to be loved”; “it’s not okay for me, but it may be okay for someone else.” At face value, these statements seem harmless and idyllic. But, they are doctrines that are being adopted across every political, theological, and social issue we face today. Rarely can you turn on the T.V. without the constant barrage of these statements being used to sanitize some of the most offensive behaviors.

For centuries, one civilization arising from another civilization, has given credence to the fact that certain behaviors merit our approval or disapproval, our reverence or our contempt. Today, in our modern times, we see a quickening to abandon any religious sanctions, inherited traditions, and emotional appeals that would hinder one from doing whatsoever his or her heart desires. I shudder at the day when the last remaining moral value is removed, and the flood gates of man’s imagination are left unrestrained. Man fighting diligently against his own core would be comical if its effects were not so tragic.

The truths we’re discussing are not just for philosophical discourse. They are not topics discussed by those who have way too much time on their hands. They are not something to engage ourselves in just to pass the time away. Moral objective truth is under assault! And, if the objective standard by which we order our lives collapses, whose standards will we then live by? Today, we have a minority group of people imposing their opinions on the masses. For instance, what may have started out as philosophical discussions have quickly become the law of the land in some states and threatens the overwhelming will of the people – that is, “same-sex” marriage. For example, there is proposed legislation called the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (H.R. 2517),^xiv which if enacted would provide family benefits to lesbian and gay federal civilian employees. If this bill is enacted, how long would it be before our federal government decides to mandate “same-sex” marriage as the rule of the land? Remember our discussion in Part I of this article, nothing stays in its infancy – everything matures to the next level. H.R. 2517 is in light of 41 states having statues prohibiting same-sex marriages (as of 2008).^xv It is in light of California voters (some of the most liberal in the union) being forced back to the voting booth a second-time to overwhelmingly vote for the passage of the California Marriage Protection Act – an act that limits marriage between a man and a woman. But, here we have another poignant example of a minority group usurping its will upon the people (the majority). In 2000, Californians voted overwhelmingly to define and protect marriage. However, an elite, minority group of activist judges struck down the will of the people with its ruling to dismiss the voters’ voice and legalize same-sex marriage. Thousands of same-sex couples were married as a result. For now, this legislation has been overturned. But, if the federal government passes the Domestic Partnership Act, how long would it be before a federal mandate is issued that once again forces the will of the people to conform? We must never forget, America is a land where our government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed (The Declaration of Independence)! Our constitution makes no provision for the manipulation of power by a minority group of elitist judges and politicians.

The question most of us face when presented with these immovable truths is, “How do I respond?” Do I surrender my will to what I know to be true? Or, do I usurp truth with my will, my wants, my opinions, my Self? There are only two options: Surrender to Truth or Usurp! In describing Adam’s dilemma when presented with the “magic” apple in the Garden of Eden, C.S. Lewis said so aptly, “from the moment a creature becomes aware of God as God and of itself as self, the terrible alternative of choosing God or self for the center is opened to it.”^xvi Likewise, when we come face-to-face with an immovable TRUTH, we too must choose to surrender or usurp. These are our only two choices. Unfortunately, more and more, we are choosing to lay down TRUTH for the sake of being “Politically Correct”, showing “Tolerance”, or displaying “Brotherly Love”. Love outside of truth is not love at all.

As I stated in Part I, I am not making a call to take arms, to be rude, to be disrespectful, or to be unnecessarily confrontational. Instead, it is a call to seriously consider the world around us and the direction in which we are headed. If you are a believer in Christ and a believer in the inerrant authority of the Christian Bible, then you know that our world will increasing get worse and not better. NEVERTHELESS, we are called to be both light and salt to the world. So, until Christ’s return we are mandated and compelled to stand for TRUTH! I pray I have encouraged you and armed you to stand for the objectivity of truth.

**************************************************************
The following illustrations^xvii of the Natural Law make no pretense of completeness. Instead, it illustrates a timeless belief in the existence of right and wrong, in good and evil, in acceptable and unacceptable behaviors:

– ‘Do not murder’ (Exodus 20:13).

– ‘In Nastrond (= Hell) I saw….murderers.’ (Old Norse, Volospa 38, 39)

– ‘Who meditates oppression, his dwelling is overturned.’ (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. ERE v. 445)

– ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.’ (Exodus 20:16)

– ‘Utter not a word by which anyone could be wounded.’ (Hindu. Janet, p.7)

– ‘Never do to others what you would not like them to do to you.’ (Ancient Chinese. Analects of Confucius, trans. A. Waley. Xv. 23; cf. xxi.2)

– ‘Nature urges that a man should wish human society to exist and should wish to enter it.’ (Roman. Cicero, De Officiis, I. iv)

– ‘Do to men what you wish men to do to you.’ (Matthew 7:12)

– ‘Part of us is claimed by our country, part by our parents, part by our friends.’ (Roman. Ibid. I. vii)

– ‘I tended the old man, I gave him my staff.’ (Ancient Egyptian. ERE v. 481)

– ‘To marry and to beget children.’ (Greek. List of duties. Epictetus, III. Vii)

– ‘The killing of the women and more especially of the young boys and girls who are to go to make up the future strength of the people, is the saddest part… and we feel it very sorely.’ (Redskin. Account of the Battle of Wounded Knee. ERE v. 432)

– ‘With his mouth was he full of Yea, in his heart full of Nay?’ (Babylonian. ERE v. 446)

– Whoso makes intercession for the weak, well pleasing is this to Samas.’ (Babylonian. ERE v. 445)

– To take no notice of a violent attack is to strengthen the heart of the enemy. Vigour is valiant, but cowardice is vile.’ (Ancient Egyptian. The Pharaoh Senusert III, cit. H.R. Hall, Ancient History of the Near East, p. 161)

ⁱABC News, Good Samaritan Left for Dead on City Sidewalk, April 25, 2010
ⁱⁱCNN World, 10-year-old’s pregnancy fuels Mexican abortion debate, April 19, 2010
ⁱⁱⁱⁱC.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, pg. 65
^ivC.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, pg. 73
^vNational Review Online, The Campaign Spot, May 19, 2008
^viCNSNews.com, “Islamic Radicalism” Phrase to Be Removed from Obama’s National Security Documents, April 7, 2010.
^viiH.R. 3590 – (B) Segregation of Funds – In the case of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies, the issuer of the plan shall, out of amounts not described in subparagraph (A), segregate an amount equal to the actuarial amounts determined…for all enrollees…
^viiiFungible – describes commodities that can be traded or substituted for an equal amount of a like commodity.
^ix http://rpc.senate.gov/public/_files/L28HR3590HealthCare120209ac.pdf
^xhttp://downloads.frcaction.org/EF/EF10c07.pdf, March 18, 2010
^xiU.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, H.R. 3590: The Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans Act (summary), December 2, 2009, pg. 17. Included on page 17 is a table outlining the then projected taxes that will be collected to pay for the new bill. The $256.5 billion number is my attempt to ascertain our liability. I may be off a billion or two. You can check the table yourself. But, no worries, our government is said to be off by several hundred billions. As former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin stated, the CBO crunches the numbers it gets. It does not vouch for their plausibility: “The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So, fantasy in, fantasy out.”(The Washington Post Economy Watch, Tracking the true cost of the health-care legislation, March 29, 2010.
^xiiAt the 2007 Democratic Primary debate in South Carolina, Senator Obama stated that he “trust women to make their own decisions on partial-birth abortion.”
^xiiiThe Washington Post, Pelosi rejects Stupak abortion solution, March 20, 2010
^xivThomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:2:./temp/~c111jUtwsN:e9869:
^xvStateline.org, State Policy & Politics, Calif. Gay marriage ruling sparks new debate, June 12, 2008
^xviC.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, Chapter 5, pg. ?
^xviiC.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, Appendix, pg. 83-99

By Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson –The Center for Vision & Values

Many Christians over many years have been beguiled by the Religious Left’s use of the term “social justice.” This is because Christians rightly love justice and hate injustice. But “social justice”-or, at least, how it’s often used by liberal Christians-isn’t necessarily biblical justice.

The standard of biblical justice is equal treatment by law: “Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty” (Leviticus 19:15). Justice not only means that nobody is to be picked on because he is poor or favored because he is rich, but that (contrary to the doctrine of “social justice”) nobody is to be picked on because he is rich or favored because he is poor. Everyone’s rights deserve the same protection. Thus, nobody should be taxed at a higher rate than his neighbors, nor should anyone receive special government handouts.

The modern left’s “social justice” strives for economic equality. It endeavors to reduce, if not erase, the gap between rich and poor by redistributing wealth. This is “justice” more akin to Marx and Lenin, not according to Moses and Jesus. It is a counterfeit of real justice, biblical justice. Modern notions of “social justice” are often wolves in sheep’s clothing.

The fundamental error of today’s “social justice” practitioners is their hostility to economic inequality, per se. “Social justice” theory fails to distinguish between economic disparities that result from unjust deeds and those that are part of the natural order of things. All Christians oppose unjust deeds, and I’ll list some economic injustices momentarily. First, though, let us understand why it isn’t necessarily unjust for some people to be richer than others:

God made us different from each other. We are unequal in aptitude, talent, skill, work ethic, priorities, etc. Inevitably, these differences result in some individuals producing and earning far more wealth than others. To the extent that those in the “social justice” crowd obsess about eliminating economic inequality, they are at war with the nature of the Creator’s creation.

The Bible doesn’t condemn economic inequality. You can’t read Proverbs without seeing that some people are poor due to their own vices. There is nothing unjust about people reaping what they sow, whether wealth or poverty.

Jesus himself didn’t condemn economic inequality. Yes, he repeatedly warned about the snares of material wealth; he exploded the comfortable conventionality of the Pharisaical tendency to regard prosperity as a badge of honor and superiority; he commanded compassion toward the poor and suffering. But he also told his disciples, “ye have the poor always with you” (Matthew 26:11), and in the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:24-30) he condemned the failure to productively use one’s God-given talents-whether many or few, exceptional or ordinary-by having a lord take money from the one who had the least and give it to him who had the most, thereby increasing economic inequality.

The Lord’s mission was to redeem us from sin, not to redistribute our property or impose an economic equality on us. In fact, the Almighty explicitly declined to undermine property rights or preach economic equality when he told the man who wanted Jesus to tell his brother to share an inheritance with him, “Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?” (Luke 12:14).

All that having been said, there is much injustice in our world, much needed reform that all Christians can unite in accomplishing. Around the world, many people are poor and will never realize their God-given potential due to lack of freedom and opportunity. Let us never be on the side of those who reject man’s God-given rights and biblical justice, and who oppress and impoverish in the name of a spurious economic equality.

In relatively free societies such as our own, we must continue to combat the economic injustices of theft, fraud, deceit, trickery, etc. We should strive to undo the injustices perpetrated by unethical public policies, such as the subtle theft of citizens’ purchasing power via central bank inflation; the corrupt government practice of doling out earmarks, subsidies, and myriad special favors, often to big businesses and wealthy individuals; destructive tax policies that decapitalize society, thereby retarding growth in labor productivity, wage increases, and higher standards of living; runaway government spending that imposes an incalculable and unconscionable debt burden on the next generations, etc. We should be charitable.

By all means, let us tackle these persistent injustices. But let us be careful to abide by the biblical standard of impartiality and equal treatment by law, lest we create additional injustices.

On January 4, 2010 the Illinois Family Institute posted an exclusive report titled: Obama Administration’s “Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan” Actually Putting Homeowners In Default or Foreclosure. The story detailed how a central Illinois family was told they were eligible for a program which was designed to give financial relief to homeowners in the state, many of whom were either in default or going through the process of foreclosure. However, the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) report revealed some families–who were informed by their mortgage lenders that they were eligible for the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan even though they were not in arrears on their monthly payments to their lenders– were instructed months later they did not qualify for this program.

An estimated one in five mortgage holders in America have lost their homes to foreclosure. The mortgage relief plan was originally created to head off more foreclosures in Illinois and across the nation. The IFI exclusive report revealed that possibly hundreds, if not thousands, of Illinois homeowners–whose mortgages were not in default or foreclosure–were later to learn the program actually put them in danger of losing their homes.

The IFI story brought this issue to national attention. IFI has since learned the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan has expanded the program to possibly include some of those who were deemed ineligible–after months of paying agreed-to lower mortgage payments, due to a decrease in their interest rates.

“It’s unbelievably sad how many people are losing their homes,” said a licensed Illinois real estate appraiser who spoke to IFI on the condition he remain anonymous. “Many banks are actually taking ownership of properties obtained because of foreclosures. This is a departure from the past. When banks take ownership of homes due to foreclosures this shows up as a liability on their ledger sheets, instead of an asset. This is inconsistent with how lending institutions used to operate, and many experts in the field are confounded by these latest developments.”

On Friday, February 26th, 2010 the U.S. Senate failed to extend unemployment benefits for an estimated 1.1 million Americans whose benefit period will soon expire. But Congress is expected to complete negotiations regarding another extension of benefits for the over 1 million who will soon fall off the unemployment roles. However, this extension would only be for a short period of time.

There are over 750,000 homeowners nationwide now participating in the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan, many whose only income derives from unemployment benefits. Some recipients have been on the unemployment roles for nearly two years. In the past, recipients were eligible to receive unemployment checks for six months–with a three month extension when unemployment rates were over 6%. In recent years, the federal government has subsidized added weeks of unemployment eligibility beyond 39 weeks.

Currently, the national unemployment rate is at nearly 10%. This figure does not include those who have exhausted their unemployment benefits, those who have taken part-time jobs and others who have stopped looking for work entirely. Unemployment benefits were never meant to be paid out on a permanent basis, as is the case with Social Security retirees and the handicapped.

When unemployment benefits eventually run out, many of those currently enrolled in the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan will be unable to meet their adjusted mortgage payments and the rate of foreclosures will go up dramatically. Most agree, despite a possible recovery of the economy, a significant number of jobs lost will never return, due to the fact that companies have moved out of the country in search of cheaper labor.

There have been plans floated by the Obama administration and some members of Congress to put a moratorium in place on mortgage foreclosures. However, such legislation is not yet pending. Some financial experts see an even larger problem on the horizon regarding foreclosures on commercial properties which would have a devastating impact on the economy.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia‘s son Paul Scalia is an ordained Roman Catholic priest. Here is an excerpt from a blog post by Hadley Arkes, Ney Professor of Jurisprudence at Amherst College, writing about one of Father Scalia’s homilies:

The Rev. Paul Scalia focused…his homily, on the moment when Pontius Pilate confronted Jesus:

Did he affect really to be the King of the Jews? Jesus would not affirm that account rendered by another. He answered obliquely that his kingdom was not “of this world,” that he had come to “bear witness to the truth.” To which Pilate responded, “What is truth?”

Fr. Scalia took Pilate to reflect the…relativism in our own day: the eroding conviction that reason [can] grasp moral truths, because we increasingly doubt our faculty for knowing truths of any kind.

But in the moral domain, the erosion [is] devastating: Held back in doubt, people…recede from judgment–and from facing their responsibility to judge. And doubt soon…beget[s] cowardice, as it begot, in Pilate, the willingness to wash his hands and let the responsibility for judging fall to someone else.

But then…Fr. Scalia completed the story:

It falls now to the “body of the Church,” for those assembled here, and in the vast reach of this communion, to stand in place of Jesus in taking on the mission. The body of the Church must bear “witness to the truth.”

What truth? In our own day, most pressingly, the truth about marriage, set against the wave moving toward same-sex marriage, and the truth of “the human person,” set against the culture of death and the denigration of life, nascent and aged.

I share Fr. Scalia and Prof. Arkes’ concern about the critical importance of bearing witness to the truth. I am continually disappointed and frustrated with the cowardice displayed by those who hold conservative views on the nature and morality of homosexual acts. When talking to them about the efforts of educators to use public education to normalize homosexuality, Christians will tell me that when confronting administrators or faculty members about offensive texts, they will not address homosexuality. They may talk to friends, neighbors, teachers, administrators, or school board members about graphic sex or obscene language, but they refuse to address homosexuality.

If I meet with a concerned community member in a public place like a coffee shop or restaurant to discuss the problem of pro-homosexual advocacy in public schools, they will lower their voices and look anxiously around as if our conversation was something of which to feel ashamed.

Whenever opposition to resources that affirm homosexuality being used in public schools arises, the situation is always the same: a few courageous parents step forward to endure the hostility that inevitably results from taking a public stand. And if they’re successful, other parents will benefit from their lonely and difficult efforts.

I have had community members explain their silence with the following rationalizations:

• We homeschool our children, so we have no right to speak out.
• We homeschool our children and therefore try not to draw attention to ourselves.
• We’re too busy.
• I hate conflict.
• I don’t know what to say.
• I’m afraid I’ll be labeled a “hater.”
• My children are out of school.
• My children aren’t yet in school.
• I don’t have children.
• My children are in school, and I’m afraid that if I speak out, my children will experience repercussions.
• I work in the school, and I’m afraid I’ll experience personal or professional repercussions.

Well, that covers just about everybody, so who, pray tell, remains to fight for children, parental rights, freedom of conscience, religious liberty, intellectual diversity–and truth. I guess for the fortunate communities, it’s the one or two mothers or fathers (usually mothers) who are willing to suffer for truth.

Imagine that the issue were not the use of public education to legitimize homosexuality, but rather the use of public education to promote abortion, racism, adult consensual incest, or polyamory. Would we engage in similar cowardly, shamefaced behavior? Would we self-censor? Would we allow those who promote these evil ideas to children with our money to speak without challenge? Would we try to find indirect ways to end such pernicious efforts–ways that conceal from others the true nature of our beliefs?

Through our silence or obliquity, we communicate the false and dangerous impression that our beliefs are shameful. And by example, we teach our children to be cowardly conformists.

Those who claim the name of Christ must assume their obligation to bear witness to the truth, and in so doing resist the impulse toward a cowardly refusal to judge between moral and immoral acts.

There is no guarantee that courageous cultural engagement will be comfortable. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. I guarantee that it will be intensely uncomfortable, but that’s no excuse for cowardly acquiescence.

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matt. 5: 10-11)

It seems as though that the joyous “Merry Christmas” greeting is beating out the politically correct and generic “Happy Holidays” slogan this year. In recent years public pressure has been applied to stores that refused to acknowledge that the holiday season was about Christmas.

Like many of you, I decided to boycott stores that ignore or disparage Christmas, and boldly wished store clerks a very “Merry Christmas!” with a big smile. Taking a stand on this issue at this time of the year really isn’t that difficult.

As we focus in our hearts, homes and churches on Savior’s birth and the wonderful story of God’s amazing love this Christmas, let’s not forget to spread the Good News beyond our Christian circles to the public square. The campaign to keep Christmas in the public square is not merely a political statement; it is a valiant effort to protect our right to proclaim Christ and the story of the Gospel to a world that is quite literally dying to hear the Good News.

We cannot keep such a life-changing message to ourselves, nor are we supposed to. Remember when Peter and John were brought before the Jewish leadership and commanded to recant their faith in Jesus Christ and stop preaching in the name of Jesus? But Peter and John boldly responded, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” (Act 4:19, 20)

Those who hate the name of Christ are trying to suppress Christmas in the name of “tolerance.” But don’t be fooled by it. This has been happening since the beginning of Christianity. That’s why it is so important that we proclaim Christ and the Incarnation this Christmas, and not be cowed by those who would try to banish Christmas from the public square.

A recent national survey of religious affiliations of Americans should give both church and pro-family leaders much to ponder regarding the possible future moral and spiritual condition of our nation.

The new study, titled “American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population,” has found that the number of Americans who now claim no religious affiliation whatsoever has more than doubled since 1990, growing from 14 million to 34 million in 2008. Those “nones,” as they are often described, now make up 16 percent of the US population.

Statistically, the “nones” are most likely to be young males with 60 percent being male and 30 percent under the age of 30. They are also more likely to live in the West. Though not actual atheists, (7 percent) only 27 percent of “nones” profess some sort of belief in a personal God, compared to over 70 percent of the US population.

A significant number of the 35,000 Americans surveyed aged 18 or over, have left the faith in which they were raised with 28 percent having left the faith of their childhood. Though Catholics have seen the most loss from childhood adherents, all groups have seen a significant flow in and out of their faiths, with many Americans seeming to view religion as a marketplace or cafeteria wherein they shop.

Some other interesting findings of the survey include:

• Men are significantly more likely than women to claim no religious affiliation with one-in-five making such a claim. This is compared to roughly one-in-ten adult women who claim no religious affiliation.
• Among the married, nearly four-in-ten (37 percent) are married to a spouse with a different religious affiliation.
• Mormons and Muslims have the most children of any group.
• The South has the most Protestant churches and the heaviest numbers of evangelical Christians with the Midwest most closely resembling the overall makeup of the US. The Northeast has the greatest concentration of Catholics and the West has the greatest number of those without any religious affiliation.
• Over 70 percent of the religiously unaffiliated are under the age of 50.
• Race is a declining factor in differentiating Nones. Latinos have tripled their proportion among Nones from 1990-2008 from 4 percent to 12 percent.
• Nones are much more likely to believe in human evolution (61 percent) than the general American public (38 percent)

It would be hard not to look at this survey and not conclude that while America is still one of the most religious nations on the earth, that important distinction may be slipping away . . . and perhaps with it, the cultural, societal and moral benefits and liberty secured by vibrant faith in a free society.

Did anyone catch exactly when the rhetoric went from “saving Medicare” to overhauling the entire American healthcare industry?

Throughout most of our married lives we have had health insurance. We enjoyed excellent care (despite the rumors to the contrary) while my husband, Mike, was in the military. We had two children born in military hospitals, one was born overseas. When we left the military Mike went to work in a factory; he held a union job and had full healthcare benefits.

We have also been on the other side. We’ve seen life threatening illness while uninsured.

In 2003, my husband worked for a small police department; a move that took a cut in pay and health insurance, but had promise of quick promotion. It was a gamble. The hope was that if we buckled down and made some sacrifices, it would pay off in the long run. We didn’t win the bet. After two years we faced a major health crisis uninsured.

It started with a knee injury. We paid out of pocket as much as we could afford. The first doctor had him off work and off his feet for several weeks. At the time we had no idea how dangerous this was.

After being off for several weeks, Mike returned to work. Within days of returning to work, he felt a tightening in his chest and began having difficulty breathing. Because he had been off for so long and had just returned, he refused to call in sick. This was a man who worked as a full time police officer and held two part time positions in neighboring towns.

Mike had been working the night shift and got up around two-thirty in the afternoon. He called me in from the other room. What I saw concerned me deeply. He sat on the couch trying to catch his breath after walking ten feet, from one room to the next.

I knew it was time to go to the hospital. But he was still a stubborn man, determined not to run up anymore medical bills nor take off anymore time from work.

Fortunately for him, he married a bossy lady who insisted we were going to the hospital. I gave him only two options; go by our car or go by ambulance–but he was going.

It didn’t take long for the emergency staff to diagnose the problem. He had a pulmonary embolism-blood clots had broken off in his leg and traveled to his lungs; he was suffocating, and, by this time, deteriorating rapidly.

By the grace of God and excellent doctors and staff, my husband was one of the few who survive.

Although we couldn’t afford health insurance at the time, we were treated with respect and had the best of care– life saving care.

At that point, we faced either accepting financial assistance, which was offered to us by the hospital, or financial ruin. We also were facing months of lost income.

Until then, we took care of ourselves and paid out of pocket, working toward a goal of a better income. At that time, I guess we were what the administration considers the “broken” part of the system.

But I ask you, why should we have taken government help years before we needed it? Did it cost taxpayers more for us to have it only when we really needed it? I don’t think so.

Should we have been fined for taking a job (as a police officer in a small community) that paid a mere 1,600.00 a month and couldn’t afford health insurance?

If  this healthcare bill currently being considered passes, those who “fail” to pay (read can’t afford- but are demonized as failures) for insurance could be charged up to $25,000 by the Internal Revenue Service or face up to a year in jail. There is a mandate that would allow the IRS to take this kind of legal action.

Insurance companies would be required to adopt business decisions based on the government’s morality and social justice, not profit; Things like disregarding health history or premiums based on age would be put into effect–placing private insurance companies on track with Medicare, headed for bankruptcy.

If this passes, hard working Americans will be criminalized, while illegal immigrants will be socialized.

By Dr. Scott Lively –Defend the Family International

Scripture teaches in Genesis that when God created man in His image, He created us male and female. The implication is that God’s character spans the full spectrum of masculine and feminine qualities. This attribute is also revealed in the person of Jesus, born as a male, but manifesting both masculinity and femininity in His actions. When exhibiting feminine qualities, Jesus was more nurturing and relationship-oriented than any woman. When exhibiting masculinity, Jesus was more forceful and results-oriented than any man.

Unfortunately, the modern American church, along with the majority of its leaders, has rejected masculinity in favor of an effeminate Christianity. Too many (though by no means all) of today’s pastors, priests, deacons and elders shrink timidly from the challenge of the world, more interested in decorating the interior of their church buildings than in doing cultural and political battle with the enemies of God. Ravening lions rage unchecked throughout the land, while church leaders hold potlucks and retreats.

Where is the masculine Jesus of the Bible in the life of today’s church? The Jesus who threw down the tables of the moneychangers and drove them out of the temple with a whip? The Jesus who faced down and tamed the Gerasene demoniac? The Jesus who, to their faces, excoriated the cultural and political leaders of the day as a “brood of vipers,” and “whitewashed sepulchers full of dead men’s bones?” This masculine Jesus has been ejected from the American church. In His place is a false and emasculated Christ, as submissive and fearful of controversy as the men who now lead His flock.

Brethren, this is not an attack on femininity. If anything, the church should be commended for its appreciation for and fulfillment of the feminine aspects of its role. The vital compassion-based ministries — feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and soothing the broken-hearted — are prospering today. These ministries are very much a reflection of the feminine side of Christ’s complete personality.

Instead, this is vigorous rebuke to both women and men within the church who reject the masculine side of Christianity and have thus abandoned those outside our “church families,” leaving them to fend for themselves against the forces of evil in the world. This is a rebuke to male church leaders, who channel their masculine competitiveness into sports contests in church gymnasiums instead of contending for influence over the community outside the church walls. This is a rebuke to those pastors’ wives who keep their shepherd husbands safely close to the flock when they should be sometimes out hunting the bears and wolves.

Masculine Christianity fights to champion what is right and to defeat evil. It is the applied force for good against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. It is an embodiment of the spirit of conquest in which the Great Commission was given. It is the unyielding determination to prevail against all odds and at any cost to achieve a righteous goal — even unto death on a cross. Masculine Christianity is the engine of revival: prophetic, expansionist, uncompromising.

In biblical history, the greatest heroes of the faith exemplified masculine Christianity. Abraham did not sit idly by when his nephew Lot was captured by the four kings. He armed his servants and went out to rescue him by force. Moses faced down Pharaoh in a series of aggressive confrontations. David fearlessly challenged and defeated Goliath and then cut off his head as a trophy of battle. God blessed these righteous men and backed their righteous deeds with His power.

Josiah is honored in Scripture as one of the most righteous of all the kings for banishing the “perverted persons” from the land and destroying the foreign idols. Joshua and Caleb were the only men of their generation allowed to enter the promised land because, out of all the Israelite spies sent into Canaan, they alone called for immediate invasion of Canaan when the others backed away out of fear. John the Baptist, who boldly and publicly rebuked Herod for his sexual immorality, was praised by Jesus Himself. Jesus said that among men there was none greater than John.

Extra-biblical history is also replete with examples of masculine Christianity. The period of the American Revolution is one in which God-fearing men took up the sword to overthrow an unrighteous oppressor. The great missionary and reform movements are additional examples of masculine Christianity at work.

The defining characteristic of each of these examples is the conquest of evil by God’s people– mostly men. Masculinity is by no means the exclusive domain of men, but it naturally has greater appeal to men in the same way that feminine ministries of the church appeal more to women. Indeed, this explains why the majority of church members today are women or married couples in which the husband attends church at the request of the wife. Where are the men of this generation? Though some are in church, they are significantly outnumbered by women, and they tend to be the least active members of the congregation. Is it any wonder in the light of the de-emphasis of masculinity by the church?

The church and this nation cry out for a revival of masculine Christianity, which is to say that we church leaders need to stop being such, for lack of a better word, sissies when it comes to social and political issues. We need to spend as much time confronting perpetrators as we do comforting victims. We need to do less fretting and more fighting for righteousness. For every motherly, feminine ministry of the church such as a Crisis Pregnancy Center or ex-gay support group, we need a battle-hardened, take-it-to-the-enemy masculine ministry like Operation Rescue (questions of civil disobedience aside). For every God-hating radical in government, academia and media we need a bold, no-nonsense, truth-telling Christian counterpart: trained, equipped and endorsed by the local church.

These are not easy words to hear for those in authority in the church today, but I offer no apology for saying them, because this is the hard truth that all of us must confront. We are on the brink of utter defeat by our cultural adversaries and the church is only now beginning to wake up to the consequences of our erstwhile passivity. We are rapidly nearing a point in time when even a strong call to action, were it to be heard from every one of America’s pulpits, would be insufficient to resolve our nation’s moral crisis. There comes a point of no return in every declining culture.

I imagine us Christians as reclusive householders in an Old Testament walled city. A few of us have stepped out onto the street, confused and dazed, to find our city overrun by enemy soldiers with more coming over the walls. Buildings are burning, the watchmen are falling back under an incredible onslaught, and most of our warriors are still sleeping soundly. We have reached that split-second of decision in which we must choose whether to rush forward into battle on the chance that we can defeat the invaders, or to surrender and look on in resignation as our children are marched off into slavery in a foreign land.

When was the last time you heard someone say, “It’s a free country, isn’t it?” To many, freedom is now looked upon as a commodity, rather than a privilege, that may be exchanged for security or pleasure as lightly as one might trade in a Ford for a Chevy. Emma Lazarus’ words “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. . . .” have struck a chord in American’s hearts for over a century, but changes in our culture and recent election results give evidence that freedom is not valued as highly as it once was, and in fact, may be rather unpopular. Do we not recall the Founder who noted that anyone who would trade freedom for security would end up with neither? I am afraid that many Americans do not realize the rarity of true freedom. In maybe 10,000 years of human history no other nation has enjoyed the freedoms and opportunities that we have had for the 230 years of our existence.

One may find examples in ancient Greece or Rome of select citizens enjoying significant liberties, but their numbers were few and their freedoms could have been easily lost. Under our Constitution, every one of us has enjoyed freedoms historically available only to the privileged or royalty. But, such freedom is risky, costly, and labor intense. It requires that we be responsible for ourselves in ways that indeed are frightening. But, eliminating risks eliminates greatness. Avoiding failure requires that we forfeit freedom. Total freedom can only be entrusted to responsible adults! For that reason the Founders emphasized the need for character, discipline, moral integrity, and religious education. Those who declare that Washington, Jefferson, Adams and others created a purely secular state simply lie or are ignorant. No free state can exist without intense personal discipline on the part of the citizenry. How can anyone be free who lacks self-discipline? It is self-evident that they cannot! Does not the term “self-governed” say it all? Such an expression more than implies that external government can and should be limited.

No, freedom is not for the indolent. It can never be maintained by cowards or crooks. Freedom is for those who envision a life where personal integrity and diligence allow an individual to use his gifts and talents as he sees fit for his own pleasure and the good of others. If we can’t “trust” someone, how can we “entrust” him with freedom? Freedom can only be maintained by those willing to pay the price, whether in blood, sweat, or loss of wealth. And, have we forgotten that freedom cannot exist where the government does for us what we ought to do for ourselves? Every time a government agency provides something for us it robs us of the freedom to choose how and when or even if that thing will be done. If the government provides you with a house, it will dictate the size and location of your house. If it provides health care, it will decide what and when you will receive treatment, or whether you will receive it at all. The less you provide for yourself, the more someone else will run your life. Looking at America’s political landscape today, it is getting more than a little scary.

Historically, if I wished to run a company, I would have to own 51% of its stock. But, the government takes control of something with a mere 2% subsidy. Are you aware that the President recently fired the CEO of an auto company, and has set pay scale for others; and have you wondered why the Federal Government has refused to allow many banks to pay back their loans in recent months? Just wondering…

Freedom is not for the faint of heart or those who would prefer to live out their days satisfying their desires for pleasure. But, I for one do fervently pray that historians will not one day write that while America’s greatest contribution to human history, freedom, was being eviscerated by its elected officials, the rest of us merely yawned and rolled over in our hammocks.

‘Unintended consequences or collateral damage’ is fast becoming the legacy of the Obama administration.

After hearing about the unintended consequences of the cash for clunkers, a line out of the 2007 film Meet the Robinsons came to mind.

The Bowler Hat Guy says to the T-Rex, “Now, my slave, seize the boy!” When the T-Rex tries and fails, the Bowler Hat Guy asks, “What’s going on? Why aren’t you seizing the boy?”  To which the T-Rex sheepishly replies, “I have a big head and little arms. I’m just not sure how well this plan was thought through–Master?”

The underestimated cost of the Cash for Clunkers program that ran out of money in a week should be an obvious warning sign about the accuracy of the administration’s cost projections– a scary thought considering they have their eye fixed our health care system.

The impact of the unintended consequences will soon be felt as families who can’t buy new cars can’t find parts to keep their older cars running.

Should we believe that this plan was simply not thought through? Is it that these and many other issues are just the unintended consequences of good intentions? Or are the consequences the intention all along? It’s no secret that environmentalists want gas guzzlers off the road.

Under this administration, ideology trumps reality.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer co-authored an op-ed piece in USA Today pushing their Health Care agenda, while dismissing the concerns of worried Americans expressing their anger in town hall meetings.

These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.

Now protests are un-American? Dissent with the government is un-American? Boy, we sure did get change.

Democrats have set up a war room to combat the opposition. Opposition, they say, is nothing but Astroturf. You would think they would know Astroturf when they see it; they have become masters at producing it.

On Craigslist, one ad reads, “Were fighting for health care that will protect families financial health, lay out a clear path for all Americans to afford health care, and improve patient safety and quality care.

You can work for change this summer.

Join motivated staff around the country working to make change happen. You can make great friends and money along the way. Earn $4000-$6000 this summer.”

But sadly, they refuse to see the real grass roots movements growing, so they just keep spreading their manure, fertilizing what was once a dormant opposition.

When the Huffington Post asked Sen. Durbin if he believed the chaos was fabricated from the insurance and private health care industry, he replied, “Some of it is, yes.”

I don’t doubt that the insurance industry is fighting back. I hope they are. (They should be looking at the auto and banking industries and be shaking in their boots.) That shows that he understands the rest of the anger is real. Yet, the Democratic leadership continues to ram it through, while marginalizing, degrading, and demonizing all who voice opposition.

In Pelosi’s op-ed, she writes, “The first fact is that health insurance reform will mean more patient choice. It will allow every American who likes his or her current plan to keep it. And it will free doctors and patients to make the health decisions that make the most sense, not the most profits for insurance companies.”

Translation: As long as the insurance companies hold on, you can choose between them and us. But as the free carrot is held out in front of employers and the whip of costly penalties falls on those who fail to tow the line, we can starve out the profit hungry insurance companies– well-run on your tax dollars.

Ideology meets reality; health care for all Americans will be paid for by some Americans and run as efficiently as they run our school systems. What will be the unintended consequences of good intentions? Or are the consequences the intention all along?

Town hall meetings go back to Colonial days, keeping power in check. Protests, even rebellion, is quintessential American. That, and those willing to fight, is what has kept us free for over 200 years.

As congress returns home, they might do well to remember that another quaint American custom is tar and feathers.

Someone has defined insanity as continuing to use the same methods yet expecting different results. Whether this qualifies as a good definition of insanity or not, someone else will have to determine, but it is a good definition of foolishness. We are witnessing the wholesale collapse of corporations, financial institutions, and many foundational elements of our culture, and that collapse did not occur in a vacuum. It is the natural consequence of the decline in the acceptance of Christian principles and mores in America. After attacking the family, morality, Truth, integrity and character for 50 years, it is no surprise that liberalism has produced failing families, schools, businesses, and communities.

What is especially disconcerting, however, is that multitudes of churches have determined that success in ministry will only come by following the culture! If anyone should be able to see through the flim-flam of contemporary culture, it ought to be the churches of Jesus Christ! Yet, rather than maintaining a healthy distance from the hedonism and the glitz of our culture, many churches have embraced it. From the “Madison Avenue” advertising techniques to the music of rebellion, church methodology is often virtually indistinguishable from the world. Why would we want to use methods that are so clearly leading to the disintegration and collapse of culture in order to reach the world for Christ? Do we not understand that in our essence as the church we are different? Do we not see that it is our task to RESCUE the world from itself, not aid and abet its descent into self-destruction? Why should we think we will do any good service to the world if we, so-to-speak, give more drink to the drunkard? Is it not true that Christ is at war with the world? James, in his epistle, states in no uncertain terms that “friendship with the world is enmity with God. He who would be the friend of the world is the enemy of God.” Is it not essential that the church be different if it would have an impact on the world? It seems more than apparent to me that when an individual sincerely desires to be released from the destructive power of the world and sin that he will seek out a church that is itself different from the world. Those who are looking for a church that merely makes them comfortable are not at that moment likely candidates for the life-changing power of the true Gospel.

I see no other course for any church that would follow in the steps of Jesus Christ but to maintain a distinction from the world. Christ warned that conformity to Him would produce animosity with the world. How can we entertain for a moment the idea that things have somehow changed and that the world is now Christ’s friend, or that their methods are His? If the world really loved Christ, it would certainly not need us to evangelize it and the Gospel would be popular.

The churches who claim the challenge of evangelism as their own are long overdue to quit the self-deception and accept the mantle of outcast and opposition. No other course of action will bring the approval of our Lord and Master or produce the transformation of lives witnessed in the New Testament as men encountered Jesus Christ personally.

As we ponder whether we can make the Gospel palatable to the world, let us understand one thing. Do we really think we can do better than Christ Himself and His Apostles? Are we to believe that they were persecuted and killed because they proclaimed a “seeker friendly” message? We can either please Christ or we can please the world, but not both. I am afraid that much of the methodology of contemporary churches indicates what their choice has been.

It is not a good sign.

For two generations now, the historic Calvinistic theology which permeated the early American psyche has been denied. Calvinism, for those unfamiliar with the Reformer, teaches among other things, that the human race is “totally depraved,” or without an inherent inclination to good. John Calvin believed that sin was the controlling factor in mankind and that all we do is for our own selfish reasons rather than out of a desire to please God. If you are looking for a rainbow after the storm of the last six months’ economic catastrophe, these thoughts will not be it. However, if you wonder what really went wrong in 2008, read on.

I will attempt no apology for Calvin here, but merely point out that for the last 60 years his theology has been relegated to the same bin as the buggy whip. Rather, sociologists have operated from the view that mankind is essentially good and needs only to be adequately informed to make right choices. Thus the emphasis upon education and “rehabilitation.”

However, no honest evaluation of American culture today can credit it with such a general beneficence. While previous generations were restrained by a grocery list of “do’s and don’ts,” the present one has rejected all restraints as being themselves evil. The hallmark of the post “60s” generation has been rebellion against rules of any kind. Those who most “expand the boundaries” or think “outside the box” are the icons of this new age.

This moral relativism has been the foundation of much of Liberalism’s political and social agenda; and in reality, the meltdown of the mortgage markets is only a symptom of a systemic failure of the character of the American people produced by that relativism. Nearly every facet of our present culture, from welfare to methods of childrearing, has been powerfully influenced or determined by this theory. But, the present debacle of the banking industry contradicts the theory and has exposed us for what we really are. From top to bottom, bankers, government overseers, politicians, homeowners, contractors and others have operated from greed and self-interest rather than principle and prudence. Wealth and even great wealth honestly earned was not enough! The incessant clarion calls for “oversight” reveal that we now know the truth: we resist doing the right thing unless someone is looking over our shoulder. We are not inherently good neither do we naturally do the right thing. Sin exists after all! We are not only not as good as we thought we were, we are exactly what John Calvin (and the Bible) says we are: sinners in need of a Savior.

I love America and the American people. I am convinced that this country has done more good for the world than any other nation ever has. There is no place where people have been freer to follow their dreams. This is not to deny or ignore our significant failures. (Those failures only substantiate the arguments of Calvin.) But, once we threw away the restraints of Christianity, liberty became license, and corruption in many cases became the rule rather than the exception.

Some author asked a few years ago, “Whatever happened to Sin?” He was obviously not implying that we no longer sin, but that we no longer acknowledged the obvious reality of our sinfulness and that such denial would have dire consequences. He was more on target than he knew. America has been in a state of denial since the 60s and the price of that denial is substantial. The wealth lost over the last six months is a drop in the bucket compared to loss of lives and happiness that has followed the spiraling decline of Christian principles and morality in American life. The pain we witness daily in children destroyed by divorce, promiscuity, pornography, and banal lifestyles far outweighs the losses in our bank accounts.

But, we would probably care more about their losses, if we were not so selfish.