The War on Religion

The War On Religion
By Ron Paul

As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.


December 30, 2003

Verses: Courtship vs. Dating

Courtship vs. Dating

One debate that is growing in today’s American society is that of courtship vs. dating. How do two young people of the opposite sex pair off and eventually become one flesh in the covenant of marriage? Is dating the way this happens? Or is courtship the more appropriate way? Or perhaps is there a mysterious third alternative that has yet to be named?

I personally believe that the debate between courtship and dating is overrated by both parties. Those who reject the idea of courtship as silly, outdated, or too romantic for today’s time are often ignorant of the many dangerous associated with the way many people date today. However advocates of courtship who call dating “ungodly” or “unbiblical” often replace wisdom with rules – rules that are often times not found in Scripture in the first place.

The Bible is not a handbook on how to get married. Although we can use creative logic and principles found in Scripture to give us certain ideas of what the “falling in love” process should look like, it is never appropriate to make such legalistic rules as if Scripture demands them. Many who advocate courtship complain that while one person is dating, they may be dating several people at one time. These same people complain when two people get committed to each other so quickly. These people are often unable to understand all of their rules. How are we going to expect hormonal teenagers to understand them?

I do believe the way many people date today causes problems. I am not advocating we keep the world’s standards of dating, and that any attempt to revise the system is foolish. Many of the ideas that courtship offers are good ideas and should be taken into account. But what some people would call courtship, others may only call a wise form of dating. And some radical people who push for courtship push for what is close to arranged marriages, which is not Biblical either.

What are the differences in dating and courting? Essentially the goal of dating is to get a girlfriend, whereas the goal of courting is to get a wife. Courting usually promotes more family involvement. But other than this, the general idea of courting is not that much different than the idea of dating. It is foolish dating and fundamentalist courting that has its differences, and both are dangerous.

So what are the problems in today’s world of paring off a man and a maiden? I believe we push dating too early and marriage too late. Think about it: boys and girls reach the age of sexual maturity (or you could say sexual immaturity) at about age twelve. Now days, it is not uncommon for two twelve or thirteen year-olds to start “going out.” And somehow we expect them to not get married until their late twenties. So we have about fifteen years for boys and girls to date each other, all while their hormones are most rampant. This is no safe way to expect abstinence. On top of this, we have more divorces. Some people push for late dating and late marriages. This too has its problems in that children fail to grow up the way they used to. Beyond this, keeping older children who want to date from dating may cause rebellion. Pushing for early dating and early marriages would work, except we must then take the responsibility of maturing much quicker than we are now in today’s society.

I do not believe one should date, court, or whatever else you may call it, until marriage is at least in sight. Some fundamentalists believe that no one should date until one is completely ready for marriage. I believe this is too tall of an order. But I do believe marriage should at least be in the seeable future. One should not date someone without at least considering the possibility of marrying them. Recreational, directionless dating only goes south.

I also believe that it is wise to not simply do things alone. I am not against being alone on a date if you are mature enough to, but going in groups is important for various reasons as well. I believe the families should know who their children as well. Family relations is one thing that destroys relationships. I have seen family relations tear down one relationship, and both parties wound up getting hurt.
The problem is not, I do not believe, whether we date or court. It is that we are not preparing people for marriage. Conventional wisdom tells us that people should not think about marriage until their twenties. But I believe marriage should be on people’s minds from a very early age. We should be preparing ourselves to be emotionally, mentally, spiritually, financially, physically, etc. ready for marriage. Men should know how to treat women (with respect), and women should know how to treat men (by not always clinging to them for attention). This way we will be more prepared to date (or court), and beyond that, to marry.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

December 14, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Thanksgiving: The Forgotten Holiday

We are gearing up for another Iron Bowl, a day of turkey, and a time for college students everywhere to come home and finally re-unite with their family and enjoy some good ole home cooking from their momma. That’s right, it is Chri. . .oh never mind, Thanksgiving (the forgotten holiday) time again!

Of course, underneath all of this, is a time to be thankful. Sometimes it is good just to ponder on our blessings. We live in a nation, that despite her problems, is still a relatively safe and free place to live. We can go to church and not fear for our lives in the process. We can watch college or pro-football over a big plate of turkey and dressing. We can spend time with our families. We should be thankful for any work God has entrusted to us, and seek to be wise in how we use our money.

Not everyone in the world is blessed in these ways. Those of us who have good families, decent incomes, a free nation, and many other blessings should be thankful for all of this. However it is often those with the least who are the most thankful. Those of us who are rich are often times not thankful. Everyone is blessed to simply be alive, and have a chance to have a relationship with God and people.

I say this, and I am probably somewhere in between. I do not have everything I want all the time. But I have far more than I deserve. Even when times are tough financially, or when it is easy to give up pursuing a Christian life, I realize all I have been blessed with. This Thanksgiving, however, I am going to attempt to look at myself as rich, and not middle-class. Compared to what I deserve, I am rich.

What applications can we take from this? I believe that if we were more thankful, many parts of our lives would become better. Particularly, I believe that our politics and evangelism would change. I believe that if we were more thankful for what we had, we would not rely on the state as much. We would work harder and work more. We would have a real family, instead of the state being our family.

Furthermore, if we realized how fortunate we are to have our blessings, we may treat other less-fortunate people with more respect. We may be able to identify with them more. Sometimes our problems in evangelism and communication is that we fail to put ourselves in each other’s shoes. If we did this, we would be more competent communicators and witnesses, and would probably take more responsibilities for ourselves instead of relying on the state to take care of those financially or emotionally troubled.

In short, I encourage everyone this Thanksgiving season to be thankful. Don’t get too excited too quick about Christmas. I love Christmas and look forward to it. But how can we appreciate Christmas as much if we are not thankful first? Thanksgiving has become the forgotten holiday, and thus, we have forgotten to be thankful. The first Thanksgiving was probably the most thankful Thanksgiving. Yet it came at a time when people were starving and freezing to death. I encourage you to look at what you have, thank God for all you have in specific detail, and allow that to influence every part of your life, not just now, but also into the future.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

Be thankful!

November 24, 2008

Ryan Hampton

The Nature of Man

We have a messed up view of human nature in our world today. It seems like we cannot get it right. We may put man ahead of God. Or perhaps we believe in a relative morality ideology that in essence teaches us that man is not sinful, because there is no real right or wrong. Perhaps we believe that man can make it on his own, and that he does not need others to survive.

There are all sorts of different ways to look at the nature of man, and it seems we just have not been able to tie it together in a Biblical way that is self-evidently true. One great example of an ideology on the nature of man is the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment taught a very radical view that the human mind is the end to all things. We can achieve personal happiness, satisfaction, knowledge, etc. through the human mind. This was a rejection to the Christian faith which teaches that God is the end to all things and that our chief end is to glorify Him and enjoy Him forever.

One thing this did, which became as much of a political notion as religious, was reject the idea of the modern Roman Catholic Church and its teachings. It taught that our satisfaction and knowledge can be found within our own minds, not through the teachings of the Pope, Bishop, or through acts such as confession of sin, penance, etc. The ideas of individualism, relativism, etc., became the popular ideologies. These ideas along with the idea of utter separation of Church and State (which had been a problem) greatly influenced the political thought. Enlightenment thinking did somewhat influence our American Revolution and early basic American government.

Then came the Protestant Reformation. This was sort of the spiritual Enlightenment. The Protestant Reformation in many respects was a completely opposite approach to the Enlightenment. Yet it too had very radical beliefs that whether intentionally or unintentionally influenced political thought. Our Founders themselves were greatly influenced by the Protestant Reformation. How did two opposing forces join together in the American Revolution, and what does this say about human nature anyway?
Although these were two different viewpoints, let us look at some similarities these had. They both at some level rejected the Roman Catholic Church at that time. They both sought after religious freedom and separation of Church and State. They both believed one can obtain some sort of individual satisfaction apart from any Pope or Bishop. Similarly, they both rejected the notion that works in the Church buys something eternal (i.e. forgiveness of sin, less time in a purgatory, salvation, etc.). There was much common ground even in these completely different worldviews, which help build a structure for the American cause for independence.

Today we have drifted so far. We do not write with the same passion our Founding Father’s wrote. Modern-day self-acclaimed intellectuals are hardly the philosophers of the Enlightenment, and few theologians write with the same faith and piety that people like Luther or Calvin had. As a result, our politicians do not speak with the same zeal, passion, or intellect our Founding Fathers had. How many politicians do you hear saying “Give me liberty or give me death!?”

But even yet, we can still see remains of each worldview. The Protestant Reformation was probably one of the closest movements we have had that lead to a good understanding of human nature, and the American Revolution also ranks pretty high (which had much inspiration from the Reformation). Although I believe the church broke apart from Rome for good reason, I do believe many Protestants over-state some of the great reformers points to a point of misunderstanding human nature. Although salvation is offered by Christ on an individual basis, and not through works, Popes, etc., it is immature to consider ourselves “individualist” Christians. Although our salvation has its root in a personal relationship with Jesus, it is actually prideful to believe we can exercise this relationship just as well individually as we can corporately.

Another thing we do today too often is actually degrade our human nature. While we should not think in the anti-religious way the Enlightenment thinkers did, there is actually some real truth we can find in their ideologies. It is certainly true we should not give ourselves credit for any glory, but we must remember that mankind was made in glory. Man was created in the Image of God, and had ruler of the rest of God’s creation. Man will one day reign with God, and will even be higher than the angels.

Sometimes Protestants in America focus so much on the sinfulness of man that they forget about who man was before the Fall, and who man will be in Final Resurrection glory. It is the church, which is comprised of real human beings, that is the Bride of Jesus Christ Who is God Himself. Whenever the Church tries reaching out to non-Christians, we must be balanced in our approach to teaching the sinfulness of man, and showing the glories God has in store for His People. Far too often we teach a woe is me attitude and forget that man really does have dominion over all other animals, and will one day even be above the angels in perfect communion with God.

This false idea of human nature affects our worship, evangelism, political ideology, and frankly, our whole way of life.

Although there was error in some of the ideas of the Founders of this nation, there is much we can learn from them in regards to human nature. They understood that man stands out in creation. They understood that man has the ability to overthrow false government and create new government, and that salvation is not found at the hands of a king or Pope. They put a high emphasis on the human mind. They understood that we have a Creator Who gave us certain Rights on an equal and individual basis. However they did this realizing the sinfulness of man, thus creating a government for the purpose of punishing those who take away our God-given Rights.

In worship, our churches are often either so joyful they forget to be somber and take part in confession
or they forget about the joyful practices such as the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper is a real meal with God, which foreshadows our Final Resurrection glory which is to come.

I believe that Psalm 8:3-8 explains this paradox well. It reads, “When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained, what is man that You are mindful of him, and the Son of Man that You visit him. For you have made him a little lower than the
angels, and you have crowned him with glory and honor. You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands;You have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen – even the beasts of the
field, and birds of the air, and the fish of the sea that pass through the paths of the seas.” The only thing I can add to this, is that if we are in this life “a little lower than the angels,” we will be all the more higher in Final Resurrection glory.

The true identity of mankind and mans true nature is only found in a Christian worldview. However it is also self-evident, to quote from the Declaration of Independence. Therefore in a broader sense, this simply makes the Christian worldview itself at large self-evident. It becomes the only worldview that explains human nature in a manner that is consistent with everything we see around us.

The underlying explanation to man’s nature is this: Man is created in the Image of God. Every person bears God’s Image in some way, whether Christian or non-Christian. However this is more than just a
statement. This is also a command. Don’t be non-human. Be human. Live for God and live for others. Live in a faithful manner, a loving manner, and a hopeful manner, all done by the Trinity Himself.

Therefore I encourage every Christian reading this who does not go to church, to find a Church if in any way possible. I say this not because your salvation is reached by a Pastor or by a ritual, but because the routines done in a Trinitarian corporate worship service and the people you meet at a Godly church helps you reach the fullness of your salvation. It is non-human to have no community. It is non-human to believe you can reach God and experience Him fully without the company of others. Even God Himself is a company of three persons. When God created Adam, he said “It is not good for man to be alone.” And after He formed Eve, He gave them children. Community was formed by God.

And if you are a non-Christian, I encourage you to look at the many questions of the world around you and ask yourselves what other worldview can answer these questions. When I look at simply the nature of man itself, the only logical and consistent answer I find is that man is created in the Image of God. From where else do we obtain the kind of community we need? Where else do we become moral, conscience, aware, loving, personal, etc. people? Being in the Image of God is both a statement and a command. So in short, I command you to live in the Image of God.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

God bless His Church

November 19, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Obamanation

**To all Obama lovers, forgive my harsh words. I do wish the man well, and I ask that you read this open-mindedly.**

I have to admit, there are different sides of me when it comes to the reality of Obama soon being our President. Part of me is worried to death, part of me is hopefull that this will be a brick wall for America to run into, and start over returning to the ways of the Founders. Part of me just has faith in God. I realize that even if Obama is President, no matter how much he abuses his power, Jesus is King. Of course, I also wonder if Obama's life has much time ahead of it. I would not be shocked if someone takes his life in the next eight years.

Overall, I think that, despite socialism and anti-Americanism, I can handle an Obama Presidency. I guess that if I had the slick rhetoric skills of Obama, his money, support, and power, I might be tempted to abuse my power too. God in His infinite plan, put Obama here to be elected as our President for a reason, and I must trust His Will.

But my problem is that the American people are so ignorant to elect someone like Obama. Can our people not see we need less government, not more? Can they not see that we need a sensible foreign policy, one that, whether pro-war or anti-war is at least pro-America? Can we not see that socialism and communism does not work? Do we not understand the Constitution? It seems we have not realized these things. If we did realize these things, I believe that our President elect would not be Obama.

I know that we can not all of a sudden return to the ways of our Founding Fathers without some sort of catastrophic blow to our nation. We have simply drifted too far. But I am dissapointed in my fellow American's that we, of all people, have fallen for socialism. I would think that surely America would be a place where her people would not fall for such tyrannical government as socialism. I have been hopefull that we can sooner or later elect someone into office who would at least start returning us to a more Constitutional form of government, with a federal relationship between the states and their common central government. I would think that maybe we would start educating ourselves to realize that we are a mixed government, not a pure Democracy. I thought that we would eventually realize that we are a Constitutional Federated Republic, not a Socialized Centralized Democracy. If electing Obama is any indication, then we have apparently not realized these basic truths that founded this nation, and give us many of the gifts we benefit from even today.

I know Obama may sound good, but look at his policies. Is socialized healthare (excuse, "universal" healthcare), allowed in the Constitution? Is redistributing wealth an idea that Adam Smith would have supported? Is being friendly with terrorists, and stating who you want to bomb on national television really pro-America? Maybe some of the rumors about Obama are a smear on him, but if just half of them are true, he seems very anti-American, and anti-Christian.

God is in control, and He is still King. He may want Obama to destroy America for all I know. I would hate for that to be the case, but God has His reasons. People did not expect or want to see the Roman Empire to fall from within, but that is what happened. And the fading away of Rome is what in large part, over the course of some thousand years, help set up America herself. Interestingly enough, it was the Church that is in large part accredited to overthrowing the empire. The Church, with no real political power, overtook the greatest empire the world had seen, without war.

Now, under an Obama Presidency, the Church more than ever should be the Church. If the Church wants to get involved in the political system, the best way to do it is to be the Church. The most political thing the Church can do is to be the Church. Whether this restores America, overthrows America with the Power of the Gospel, or something entirely different, is in God's Hands. But the Church should not complain about an Obama Presidency when She has not done Her job. The Church has failed to show us what proper Biblical government should look like, and has failed to teach Herself government from a Christian perspective. Thus, our culture is not going to recognize the dangers of socialism. Our culture is not going to see the anti-Americanism and anti-God in Obama's policies. Thus, our result will be Obama himself.

If the Church is simply the Church - helping others instead of asking the government to help us, cleaning homes instead of searching them for Harry Potter, fixing our own marriages before asking the government to fix others, etc., then one of two things will happen. The Power of the Gospel will save our culture because our culture repents and follows the Gospel, or the Power of the Gospel will be a sword that our unrepentent culture cannot handle, and thus our culture will fade away like Rome, but the Power of the Gospel will give greater benefits throughout the earth.

All in all, I am dissapointed in America. We elected a socialist. That is unnaceptable for a nation founded on such principles as America was founded on. But maybe what we need is a brick wall to run into, and maybe Obama is that brick wall. Maybe the Church will get woken up. Who knows. I'm not too worried about an Obama Presidency itself. I voted my conscience, and let God deal with the results. But it is a little frightening that our culture would be so ignorant as to vote for Obama. May we wake up and smell the coffee. While we can.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

God bless President-elect Barack Obama

November 5, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Final Thoughts Before the Election

**Please do not discard this as simply another one of Ryan Hampton’s boring political notes. Though it may be political, and at times boring, I believe I can bring up some points that will be helpful for you and I to consider heading into the election this Tuesday. And although I am pessimistic towards the choices we have for President this year, I do offer some sort of optimism in this nasty political season. I ask that if you have time, to read this open-mindedly, and give me your thoughts (I know many of you do not have much time, but any thought is greatly appreciated : ))**

Forty-eight hours from now, it will probably be apparent who our next President will be. After a short time in the Senate, Barack Obama has come out of nowhere with an optimistic message of change. Meanwhile under-dog John McCain is hoping for a great comeback as he had some several months ago in the Republican primaries. With much at stake, this Presidential election seems to be all I see on television and even facebook.

There is so much I could write about in regards to the election, and I do not know where to begin. But I will try to cover each point I want to make thoroughly, while being economical with my words, and thus your time and mine.

First, I will cover the reason to vote. I believe that voting is an important thing to do, and I do encourage everyone who is registered to vote to show up at the polls, so long as you are educated and feel comfortable with one of the choices you will see on your ballot. However I will not say that you are not American for not voting. Here is what I believe to be un-American: “John McCain is a Republican, so I think I will vote for him,” “I think it would be cool to have a black President,” “I don’t care about who the leaders of this nation are, so I just won’t vote,” “There’s an election Tuesday?”

Being apathetic is really what is largely un-American. But if you are apathetic, at least admit it. I have more respect for the person who at least realizes and admits to being apathetic. I probably have as much or more patience for the last two of those un-American statements I listed above, than for the first two. At least they realize they are apathetic, and therefore do not force themselves to make an uneducated vote.

A lot of people I am sure, as I have received minor criticism even on facebook, look down upon me for highly considering placing a vote for Constitutionalist Party Candidate Chuck Baldwin for President. But that I believe is a better vote than an ignorant vote for McCain or Obama. Are half of our voters even intellectually qualified to vote? Do our voters know what our three branches of government are? Do our voters know much at all about the Constitution, such as its purpose, what it says, and its history? How many American voters assume that we are simply a Democracy (in case you think we are, we actually are not)? How many of our voters can recite even a line of the Declaration of Independence? How many voters can mention half of our nation’s Presidents, know when they served, etc.? How many people know how the electoral process works, how many Senators we have, etc? How many American voters understand economics and foreign policy – perhaps the two biggest issues of this election? How many voters even know where their favorite candidate stands on the issues (see the Howard Stern video below)?

Perhaps we should have a voters test. We have a drivers test, drivers permit test, citizenship tests for some foreigners, tests to graduate high school and college, etc. But any person of age can vote for whomever and whatever they want on any pretenses.

I support Chuck Baldwin because I believe that out of the candidates for President who will be listed on my ballot, he is our best choice. I definitely do not like Obama and his socialism, but I am not a huge fan of McCain either. I would like the think that McCain at least has more integrity than Obama, would be a better leader, and is not quite as much of a socialist, but many of his policies, etc., are nowhere near mine. Some consider it throwing my vote away, but here is the way I look at it: why continue to support the two-branches-of-one-party monopoly establishment we have? Why vote for someone who I do not like? McCain will probably take all of Alabama’s electoral votes anyway, so why give him even more support that he does not deserve? The more votes a third-party candidate receives, the more media attention they will receive. The more media attention they receive, the more they are likely to gain more support and more votes. And beyond this, a vote against the establishment of two branches of one party is a vote for another choice, and for our leaders to wake up and realize that not every American is so dumb to be fooled by socialist and tyrannical policies (I am not calling McCain or even Obama a tyrant, but understand that if we are oblivious to the possibility of a tyrant, we become at the greatest risk for one; people did not elect Hitler because they wanted a tyrant).

Do I fear the future of this nation? Well, I sort of do. I want best for the land of the free and the home of the brave, and I do not believe that projected winner Barack Obama is the best. Honestly, I believe he would be one of the worst Presidents America has had. And even if John McCain makes a last minute comeback, which is possible, he is by no means my ideal President either. But I do have optimism. No matter who becomes President, America will still have the same King. America, until her end, will be a monarchy ruled by the same Ruler. King Jesus will still reign in America and everywhere. And even if Obama becomes President, perhaps it will give more of an opportunity for the Church to show that it is Jesus, not Obama, Who truly rules this nation and all the nations.

I simply encourage you this political season to not be so apathetic. If you are educated and like one of the candidates running for President (also keep in mind there are other things we are voting on as well), and you are eligible to vote, then please vote for that candidate. If you at least understand that you do not know what you should, then please, be humble enough to stay at home and leave such an important task in wiser hands. If you are apathetic, then I encourage you to start trying to understand the issues better, and be more prepared to vote for the next election that comes around. But please, do not vote for someone because they sound good, or because you think your mom or dad is a Republican, etc. Understand the issues for yourself, and even ask yourself, “Who would Jesus, the true King of America, vote for?” When you ask yourself that question, vote according to the knowledgeable conclusions you reach.

Please consider what I have said here.

Below are some videos I think you may find interesting pertaining to this note:

Howerd Stern interviewing uneducated people

http://www.voddiebaucham.org/vbm/Blog/Entries/2008/10/16_Getting_What_We_Deserve.html

John Stossel’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics (this is just part 1 of 6, but you can find the rest on youtube as well. One part specifically talks about whether uneducated Americans should vote).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apsz_1sSTS0

Chuck Baldwin for President

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trqB6p02Kek

What do you think?

God bless America

No King but King Jesus

Pray for our Troops

November 2, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Happy Halloween: The Meaning of the Season

In a day filled with surprises, junk food, and many secular traditions, it is very easy to forget the meaning of the season. If you didn’t know any better, you would think I was referring to Christmas. But believe it or not, I am referring to Halloween. That’s right y’all, I am making the case that “The Devil’s Holiday” itself is actually a day filled with unique Christian tradition.

The origins of Halloween has secular and pagan roots. In the Celtic world of some 2,000 years ago, the New Year began on November 1. This day was the end of summer and the beginning of the dark and cold season. This time of year became associated with death, and it was soon believed that the night before November 1 the worlds of the living and dead became blurred. Such traditions of wearing costumes became prevalent. Thus, we have an early form of the Halloween tradition, and obviously,
this is very pagan.

But some few hundred years into the Middle Ages, Pope Boniface IV designated November 1 as “All Saints’ Day.” This was a day set aside by the Christians to honor all Christian Saints, especially martyrs. This does not mean that the Christians worship the Saints themselves any more than Mother’s Day means we worship Mothers, or President’s Day means we worship the Presidents. This was a Christian holiday that was set aside to thank God for raising up men and women in the Church who would be willing to live and even die for the cause of Christ. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.

Another term for Saints is “Hallowed ones.” Thus, another name for All Saints’ Day would be “All Hallows’ Day.” Hence, October 31 became known as “All Hallows’ Eve,” and eventually, “Halloween.”

So how did the Christian holiday of Halloween blur with the Celtic traditions of November 1 and the night before? Many people believe that the Pope had intentionally made November 1 All Hallows’ Day to replace the Celtic holiday. Christians have been known for doing this sort of activity over the years to mock pagan rituals that deny the Truth of the Gospel. Even such traditions of dressing up could have been used by the Christians to symbolically scare off demons from hampering the spread of the Gospel. It was a day in church history where the Christian could be proud of who he or she was, could mock the enemies of God, and be thankful for the rich Christian history he or she was apart of.

This does not mean that the Christian’s relied on pagan ritual for the support of their worldview. Rather it means that even prevalent pagan traditions fall short of the Gospel when the Gospel is spread. “Mocking” the enemies of God did not mean that we wage war on everyone who is not Christian; rather it means we show the non-believers just how sharp of a Sword the Gospel is, that it can pierce through anything that attempts to hinder the spread of the Gospel.

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther nailed (or perhaps mailed as some believe), his 95theses. The timing could have been intentional by Luther to make his 95 theses public on the eve of All Hallows’ Day. Thus right in the midst of All Hallows’ Day, we celebrate the Reformation and the brave Saints who gave their lives for the preservation and reforming of the Church.

So tonight as you go trick-or-treating, or walk around at your church’s Fall Festival, or whatever it is you do, I encourage you to think about God’s Church, the Bride of Christ. Think about the brave men and women who have pledge their lives for the Gospel. May we do the same. May we rise again as the lion hearted Saints of early Christendom. May we seek the unity of the Body of Christ, by tearing down denomination’s walls that keep us from piercing through our enemies with the Gospel, and worshiping God in Spirit and in Truth. May we remember the Saints of early Christianity who faced persecution in Rome, the Reformers Martin Luther, John Knox, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, and Martin Brucer, the brilliant Christian thinkers and writers who pledged their lives to studying God’s Word, i.e. C.S. Lewis, Peter Leithart, etc, and the Christian’s today who are facing persecution for spreading God’s Word, i.e. Roy Moore. May we stand together now as Saints and stand up for God. If it means giving up our lives, then may our blood become part of the seed of the Church.

Halloween may have origins in paganism. But when the Gospel took hold, the Pagan rituals did not stand scrutiny to the Sword of God. As Christian’s, we cannot let the Pagan’s take back the Holiday that we have won. This has unique Christian tradition. If you are an enemy to God, then you may enjoy Halloween tonight as you celebrate it with pagan intentions – that is, until the Gospel comes knocking on your door saying “Trick or Treat?!”

What do you think?

Trick or Treat?

God bless America

God bless His Church

Happy Halloween

October 31, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Liberty Vs. Security

Nearly two-hundred and fifty years ago, Patrick Henry made the claim that he would rather have death than a life of no liberty. Patrick Henry and many more of our Founding Fathers understood and cherished the idea of liberty. Today, we have seemingly forgotten the value of liberty, and make excuses for not holding to it so dearly.

A life with no liberty, to many of our Founding Fathers, is not worth living. They understood that the government is here to protect and secure life, liberty, and property, or more broadly, the pursuit of happiness. True, they understood the idea that freedom doesn’t come free. Sometimes in order to obtain liberty, we must give up our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor as they did. Obviously in order to have our property protected, we must give a small portion of our profit to a common defense, in the form of taxes. To secure our lives, it is sometimes required that brave men and women give up their lives. To secure our liberty, we must enslave ourselves to the cause of liberty itself.

But never did our Founding Fathers embrace the notion that liberty and security are opposing forces. They believe as I do, that when we sacrifice liberty for security, we lose both. After all, the purpose of the government is to secure liberty. Why then would we sacrifice the very thing we want secure in the name of security itself? Why do we believe we must submit everything to the government to direct our time, money, education, etc., in the name of security?

Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this. In the Bush administration, we have seen the idea that we need a “Patriot Act” to better secure us. We give up our privacy to what should probably be considered an unconstitutional establishment. We have the notion that a one-hundred years war is justified in the name of securing the peace. The government even forced nearly a trillion dollars of our money into corrupt banks in the name of securing the economy.

Democrats may claim to support personal liberties, but they often sacrifice our liberties in the name of securing comfort. Democrat and socialist Barack Obama wants to take away our liberty of choosing our healthcare in the name of the comfort of having affordable healthcare for everybody. Many Democrats suggest we must give up the liberty of owning a gun, a personal security, so that we have the comfort of knowing there are no guns around us (which is not very comforting to me if the criminals own guns). We must give up the freedom of educating ourselves so that the government can provide a level of comfort of teaching every child (again, not very comforting that the government controls education).

When will we stop sacrificing liberty for security, or comfort? When will we stop relying on the government and do things better ourselves? Liberty does not necessarily mean we are never enslaved to anything. In a sense as mentioned above, our Founders were enslaved to the cause of liberty. The major world religions teach that their followers be enslaved to the core principles of their faith. But our enslavement should not come from the rule or force of any other man. We cannot sacrifice liberty, and in the long-run have more security. In order to be more secure, our liberties must be secure. As Patrick Henry seemed to understand, what is the purpose of this life, if all of our liberties are taken away? Why live if we are not allowed to spend our money how we want to, worship how we want to, educate our children the way we want to, or even take care of our bodies the way we want to? I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

October 27, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Why I Believe in God

Why do you believe in God? It is probably something that you have been asked, or at some time will be asked. It’s not always the easiest question to answer. The idea of there being a governing all-powerful force behind everything that happens is certainly no simple idea, and there is no perfect syllogism that would convince the most staunch of skeptics. Still for us Christians, it is an important question. It’s not important in that we question God or doubt our faith until we receive a sufficient physical or philosophical proof, but it is important because we as Christians are told to “always be ready to give an account for the hope that is in us” (1 Peter 3:15).

Reading 1 Peter 3 tells us to separate Christ in our hearts, living in accord to His ways, abstaining from anything sinful, etc. And in a sense, this should be our ultimate apologetic for the faith. Our works should be carried out in such a beautiful way that would make people think, “If man really is made in the Image of God, then I want to know this God.” However verse 15 tells us to give an account of our faith. The wording seems to indicate that we should be prepared to verbally defend the Hope in us. And so with this mindset, I have asked myself, “Why do I believe in God.”

Obviously there are many different angles to come into this. I could give the scientific argument that it would be frankly impossible for the world to come together the way it is all by chance. That would be a good and valid argument, but I would probably lose a debate with an unbelieving scientist. I could give historical evidence for Christ being the Son of God, and that too, but would be valid. But again, someone could simply dismiss it as something strange going on with “that man Jesus.” I could give a philosophical defense, by asking how we can have any sort of absolute Truth without an absolute God of Truth, and that is by all means a very valid way to defend the Faith, and in some ways ties into the argument that I will present in a moment. But again, the skeptic will always rebuttal by attributing the same questions you pose to the universe to God. “If God can be infinite, why not the universe?,” if God can have truth, why not the universe?,” if God is eternal, why not the universe?,” and the list goes on. Or perhaps they would argue that there was an outside force that was not God that caused the universe into existence, e.g. a multiverse system. No matter how persuasive you see these arguments as being, there is something radically missing.

Certainly the goal should not be that you in one hour convince the most raving of skeptics to pick up the Cross and follow Christ all his life. It is certainly a great thing if that happens. However the goal of apologetics is simply to keep those who reject God from using their schemes to pull those struggling in the faith or searching for faith away from Christianity. We should be able to come across as if the Christian worldview is not under-minded by the “rational” atheistic worldview (or any other worldview). The struggling Christian should have his faith reinforced when he sees Christianity offer a solution to all of the arguments posed against it. The person in search for some identity and faith should see that the Christian worldview holds scrutiny to anything posed against it.

With this in mind, the most basic and sometimes the most beneficial argument to use, is to say that we as Christians, and each one of us on a personal level, have been given the knowledge of the Grace of God. We know God because He revealed Himself to us, and that no matter what argument is used against Christianity, nothing can shake the foundation of someone’s faith. Obviously this does not go far in convincing many skeptics, but if we show integrity and our lives reflect that, then perhaps the truth of our arguments will be made known. However, there is still nothing wrong with going a little bit further.

So why do I believe in God, without just saying God has revealed Himself to me? I believe that the beauty of this universe reflects God. I believe that the questions we pose to the universe at large are only answered through a Christian worldview. Again we could use the example of truth. What is truth, and from where do we obtain it? Pilot asked Jesus this question during Jesus’ trial. Jesus answers it in John 14:6 by saying “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but through me.” This in a sense is Jesus saying that any philosophical question to the universe is answered in Him. We all long for a direction or purpose, and Jesus calls Himself the way. Perhaps we wonder where life originated. Jesus calls Himself the Life. It comes from the Word made flesh, the second person of the Trinity, the Son of the Father God.

Perhaps we wonder what love is. To an atheist, love is simply a human emotion, where if consistent with their thinking, only happens through random predestined chemical processes. The God of Christianity calls Himself love (1 John 4:8). Therefore, the God we know and love, is from whom we obtain any of our earthly love among one another.

What about the problem of evil. This has been used against Christianity, but I believe can be used in favor of Christianity. Christianity shows us what evil is (Satan, abominations to God). It shows us how it originated (Satan rebelling, and the Fall of Man in the Garden). It shows us a solution to evil (Jesus Christ). Atheists cannot answer any of those three questions, yet still believe in the existence of evil. Any other religions can makes stabs at the problem of evil, but there is always something missing. Christianity offers us the reason for morality at large. Where is there any form of absolute morality under a worldview that teaches we are all here by random chance? Yet even the most staunch atheist believes in some form of moral standard, often similar to that of the Christian’s.
People search for faith search for a community. They search for true love and grace among each other. They search for a personal community with God. Christianity offers both, and both only through Jesus Christ. It offers it so much through Christ, that He is God who came to us even when we were too sinful and fallen to come to Him.

The idea of death and resurrection that even Hollywood adores is given a radical example in Christianity. It is seen through Jesus, and from Him in each believer individually. You could argue that it is seen in God’s People universally by falling in the Garden, and ultimately being resurrected in Christ on the last day.
Imagine even the idea of marriage. Christianity shows us what marriage is. In fact, Christianity is the greatest love story of all. The Bible begins with a marriage (Adam and Eve) and ends with a marriage (Christ and the Church). The story of the Gospel is about a Man dying to save His Bride. Again, we long for this story, and it is offered in the Gospel (keep in mind we are made in the Image of God).

I could go on all day about how each of our questions about the universe are answered in Jesus Christ. He becomes all we need. I have not even gone into detail about the beauty of such things as music, art, creation, etc., that we know could not have become so beautiful on their own. I hardly mentioned how the sciences show us that a Creator is the only way to view existence, or the history that shows that Christ really did rise from the dead. All I did was show that the Christian worldview holds more than scrutiny to any other worldview or any question we pose to the world. The skeptic may still say that this is made up because it is what we need. But this is too great to be made up. Beyond this, what else is there that would answer all the questions I had just mentioned? They are not just answered, but are only answered through Jesus Christ. May our lives and actions as Christians become even a greater defense than the words I have mentioned here.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

Pray for our church

October 11, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Ryan Hampton Endorses...

With just a little over a month until the general election, I have figured it is time for me, Ryan Hampton, to throw out my official endorsement for our next President to all of my millions (*cough*choke*gag*) of readers. Some of you who have read much of what I have said lately probably have a good idea of who it would be. Some of you probably have a good idea of who it would be because you know that I, Ryan Hampton, am no liberal, much less a socialist like Barack Obama. And so you naturally figure that I would endorse John McCain.

But I have decided to go out on a limb and not endorse John McCain. So how could I endorse Obama of all people? I don’t. I decided to do what should be the honorable and reasonable thing to do: to support the person who I felt would make the best President out of those running. And that person is Baptist Pastor Dr. Chuck Baldwin.

For starters, Pastor Chuck Baldwin has all of the “conservative Christian” in him that Huckabee did, but without all the political junk behind it. He is no “Washington insider,” which is something that many people adore Sarah Palin for supposedly not being. He wants to return to a humble and sensible foreign policy, while recognizing that pulling every troop out of Iraq now will not make everything perfect. Dr. Chuck Baldwin will start caring about that document…what’s it called…I think it might be the most important document in our nation…the Con…Consti….Constitution, that’s it! Chuck Baldwin will do all he can as the President to reduce taxes, cut wasteful spending, etc. Meanwhile, he will focus on the more important issues of protecting innocent life even if it is in the womb, protecting our borders, etc.

I have been hesitant to endorse Mr. Baldwin. I know he doesn’t have much chance to win. Libertarian candidate Bob Barr was also running and I considered endorsing him. Senator McCain has had war experience which I admire and did pick, from best I can tell, a fairly decent running mate. He would probably be the best of the two evil out of him and Obama. And an Obama Presidency is certainly not a good thing.
But I knew I had to endorse somebody. I could not endorse the socialist Obama. But neither could I endorse John McCain who is certainly no proponent of free enterprise. Both McCain and Obama would lead us more and more toward socialism, it’s just that McCain would take us there a little slower. I had a hard time wrapping my mind around voting for someone who honestly believes that mankind controls the weather, and wants laws to protect us from the weather! I also have a hard time voting for someone who would desire to keep innocent lives in a foreign land for one-hundred years. And obviously, it would be hard for me to vote for a grumpy old man who thinks he can get away with anything with a goofy smile.

Ever since Ronald Reagan, the Republicans have not put out an inspiring candidate into the general election. McCain is no different. At least Huckabee had a somewhat solid platform by his Christian foundations. Fred Thompson at least appealed to the hard-line conservative Southerner. Tom Tancredo had a platform of restoring our borders. None of these were a Ronald Reagan, but all would have been more Presidential and more inspiring than McCain! At least Barack Obama is inspiring if you believe what he says. I know inspiration is not the only thing to vote on, but I want someone who makes me feel proud to be an American.

Ron Paul was inspiring. He stood up for the Constitution, and provided an idea of real change. Now I understand that he was not popular among conservatives because of his war ideas, and some of what he said sounded too radical to the 21st century American. But perhaps what we needed is someone radical, not typical. Ron Paul was my endorsement in the primaries.

Now, Ron Paul has, I believe, officially endorsed Chuck Baldwin, which pretty much finalized my decision. I certainly would not do something just because Ron Paul did it (I’m not that obsessed with him!). But it was logical. I trust much of what Paul says because he has proven trustworthy. Chuck Baldwin, who heavily campaigned for Paul, is basically running a second Ron Paul race. If fact, his slogan is “Continuing the Revolution,” when Paul’s was “The Revolution.” And he getting a semi-major endorsement like that will probably help him out a bit. Consider if every Ron Paul supporter from Alabama voted for Chuck Baldwin. Paul received approximately 3% of the vote in the primaries. If Baldwin got up to 4% of the vote, then he would make an amazing showing for a third-party candidate, and probably get much media attention for him, or a future candidate like him. Yet in Alabama, at least, it would not shift the vote to Obama. If no third-party candidate was involved, then McCain would probably take at least 60% of the vote. That four percent would simply not go to McCain, but would also not go to Obama. So the percentage would be (hypothetically), 56% for McCain, 40% for Obama, and 4% for Chuck Baldwin. Me voting for Chuck Baldwin, I do not believe, will prevent McCain from winning in Alabama, and obviously, the winner of Alabama will take all of her electoral votes no matter what the margin is.

I could have supported Bob Barr. But his record is not as consistent as Baldwin’s. He is not as inspiring as Baldwin. Though he is running as a libertarian, he is, best I can tell, simply one of the better Republicans. Those out there like me, who wanted to support a third-party candidate who followed the Constitution, seemed to like Chuck Baldwin far more than Barr. And again, with Paul endorsing Baldwin, it kind of solidified it. I like some of his ideas, but he just failed to grasp me as much as Baldwin did.

I have given a brief defense of my endorsement for Pastor Chuck Baldwin. I obviously have not touched on everything about him. Are there things about him I would change to make an idea candidate? Probably so, as perhaps I would have changed things about Paul. But he seems to be the best candidate to reflect what political views I have. His Constitutional views of pro-gun, pro-life, pro-family, pro-national sovereignty, anti-big government, anti-policing-the-world, anti-U.N., etc., seem to stem from a solid Christian worldview he has. And that, my friends, is much more than you can say about either of our two main candidates running. So I ask that you don’t assume that I don’t care about America because I support somebody who has little chance at winning. I am voting for someone who I believe would make the best President out of those running. To sum this up, I will leave you with some videos and links for you to see for yourself. Obviously I won’t condemn you for voting for McCain or Obama, but I encourage you to at least check out Chuck Baldwin and consider him to possibly receive your vote this crucial election year.











Website: http://www.baldwin08.com/

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

September 29, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Andy Griffeth is Back!!

Well maybe not quite. He's old and seems to be we past his prime. But it is good to see him back in this music video, Brad Paisley's cou "Waitin' on a Woman." I know that a lot of today's music, even in country music, is corrupt and not, for lack of better terms, real. But this is actually a fairly decent song, and putting Andy Griffeth in the video, in my opinion, makes it better. He will always be remembered as Sheriff Andy Taylor from Maybury, but even in this video, he's still the same town sheriff, just a bit older! I am unable to enbed this onto my blog because of user requests on youtube, but I have provided the link to take you to the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvKgnkIN8C8

Lessos From the Olympics

The Olympics have recently been wrapped up in Beijing, the Communist Capital of the world, and I must say that America did really great. America earned the most medals of all countries, and was only second to China is most golds. Michael Phelps added to the summer of super-heroes by becoming, to steal Ray Melicks word, "aqua-man," Nastia Luckin and Shawn Johnson took gold-silver in the women's gymnastic all-around, Dara Torres was one of the fastest women swimmers, and certainly the fastest 41 year-old, American beach volleyball took gold in both men's and women's, and as expected, America took gold in men's and women's basketball. That's not to mention plenty of other sports where America took home medals as well.

I believe that our olympians represented themselves and their nation well. Outside of being close with China, America dominated the competition and did so with class and sportsmanship.

And it makes me wonder - what if our leaders viewed their jobs the same way as our olympians viewed their jobs. What if John McCain and Barack Obama took the Constitution as seriously as Michael Phelps took the techniques of swimming, or Nastia Lucan took the routines of gymnastics. We can only wonder. Maybe I would vote for one of them in that case.

Kerri Walsh and Misty May don't take an oath with their hand on the Bible to win gold. But they do it anyway. Michael Phelps did not swear on national telivision to win gold in all of his competition. But he did anyway. Those who are elected President take an Oath of Office with their hand on the Bible to simply do their best to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against enemies foreign and domestic. But it seems so often that they are the enemy of the Constitution themselves.

I can only wonder, what if our leaders cared as much about their jobs as most of us care about ours, where we'd be today.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

August 25 , 2008

Ryan Hampton

Some Inconvenient Questions

Some Inconvient Questions

September 5th 2008 (finished just past mid-night)

Ryan Hampton

After hearing much about global warming (we were supposed to read a book about it over the summer for Samford), I think it is time to shed some logical light on the issue. Now this is not going to be a whole bunch of propaganda telling you about how there is definetely no such thing as global warming. I am not going to give you much direct evidence about how our temperature changes are definetely cyclical, or about how I can show there is not temperature or climate change after all. I may hint at some of that evidence, but my main purpose in this post is actually to ask plenty of questions that any proponent of government intervention because of their belief of global warming or climate change has been left unanswered.

What do I mean? Well consider what many global warming finatics tell us. They tell us that the earth is definetely warming (or they may use the term “climate change” on cold days). They tell us it is our fault. They tell us that it is a problem. They tell us that since we caused this problem, then we must be able to fix it over time. But since we are not going to individually take the sacrafice, the government must force the issue upon us by law, and eventually this should turn into a global effort – still, most likely, by force.

Here is the way I look at: the burdon of proof falls upon the one’s making these claims. The idea of a global government controlling the environment comes only after all of the other things have been proven. That is a lot to prove! I mean think about it. Do we have full proof that the earth is really warming up a whole lot? Now I’m sure it has been some. Most people say that. But c’mon. I’ve heard that we just came out of the “little ice age” in the 1800’s. So perhaps we are just recovering from that and it’s all good. Perhaps it is cyclical. Perhaps we are warming a little but is it necessarily a bad thing? Maybe not. Maybe it is even a good thing. Maybe we get more flowers, more sunshine, more green grass (ironically that is what we are supposed to move toward anyway). Maybe it is a problem, but maybe not. Again the burdon of proof is on those who believe that it is a problem because they are advocating doing something about it. And if they do prove that, there are still more questions to answer.

Are humans involved. Sure, we drive SUV’s. Sure, every now and then we accidently set off a wildfire. I’m trying to think what else we may do. Mow our lawns using gasoline. But do these things contribute to global warming? Really? Does mowing my lawn really make the earth hotter? Or even driving the gas-guzzling 1993 Ford Explorer? Where is the proof from those who bear its burden? I have heard that everyone driving cars for about fifteen years does not even put out as much heat into the atmosphere as one single volcano that we can not control. So is it really our fault? If the models that are used to show how the earth’s temperature has risen over-time are correct, we must also admit that the earth’s temperature is cyclical. If the graphs are incorrect, then perhaps people five-hundred years ago were “suffering” from the same heat that we are today.

And you know something? I would wager to say that we are more energy efficient and environmentally beneficial with our recources than we used to be. The “environmental” Native Americans would burn down a whole forest to get some wood or some land. A whole forest when they only needed a little bit of it. Do you know how they would kill just one buffalo? Run a whole herd off of a cliff. They’d kill them all when they only needed one! These actions today would be considered wrong as they should be. The Indians knew no better and had little of the machinery (oh the evil machinery!) to be more energy efficient. We do. So not to sound like a hyper-libertarian, but the free market will work better than government intervention. That goes for a safer environment as well as the economy. We are constantly coming up with better ways to do things because we as humans demand it. There is a scarcity in the world, so we by nature know we must have things that best deal with that scarcity. The free market will probably overtime push SUV’s out of the market because we come up with better solutions for carrying a large family somewhere – more enery efficient and economical ways. And yes we may even by the power of the businessman (oh that evil greedy businessman!) get something other than gasoline to power our automobiles – without government intervention.

And even if we have been causing global warming, could it be that perhaps our actions level off somewhere – where we don’t just keep on and keep on getting warmer? I find it very hard to believe that we will just die in the next fifty years because we got too hot. I believe in God and I don’t think He’d let that happen to His earth. Even if your atheist, you probably believe that the earth has been here for billions of years anyway. So are you just going to all of a sudden think that the earth is warming due to non-cyclical reasons and unless we do something, the earth is going to die? This happened all of a sudden and evolutionists are supposedly uniformists!

But let us assume even yet that the earth is warming, it is a problem, humans are causing it, and it appears that we in and of ourselves are making no progress to fix our problem. This is the beginning – and only the beginning – of an argument for government intervention. If we are not fixing the problem, will the government help? Will the rewards be worth the sacrafices? What about the things we give up? What if we gave the government so much power to control business and our personal decisions that we fell under some sort of tyranny? What if we fell back into the life of the 1700’s? As romantic as it is to think of those times, I am glad for the improvements we have made. Instead of dying from a blizzard riding on the back of a horse to go see an old friend, we drive cars and write e-mails, etc., and then complain of the heat or the price of gasoline! What if we took away all the things that make our life the blessed life it is now, and returned to living in a life where turning 50 was a big deal, and where an out-of-state travel may have taken a couple of weeks if not your life?

Furthermore, even if we realized that government intervention is the right thing to do, we must ask what the proper precedure should be. We should go about this in a Constitutional way – probably an ammendment passed in the way that the Constitution prescribes. And the last thing we need is a global government to get involved. The last time I checked, I am an American, not a globalist. The last time I checked, we can individually take action by picking up after ourselves, not being careless with our recources, etc. I have nothing wrong with personal action to keep the world a better place. But making a wager that we as humans are controlling the weather and the government must get involved because of it, takes much proof to many questions. And so far I see more questions than proof.

My verdict is this: until I see more evidence, the idea of global warming is still up in the air (no pun intended).

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

September 5th 2008

Ryan Hampton

Waiting on God

**"Waiting on God," by Ryan Hampton, is inspired by the August 10, 2008 Trinity Presbyterian Church Youth Bible Study located in Branchville, Alabama, as taught by Pastoral Intern Jeremy Sexton.**

Patience is a virtue. It is so much of a virtue that the world’s problems stem from one man’s lack of patience, and the Redemption in the world come from one man’s patience.

Yes – I am referring to the Fall of man and the death and Resurrection of Christ. But what Christ faced – except in much greater amount – was very similar to what Adam and Eve faced when tempted by the Serpent in the Garden.

Let’s read Genesis 3:1-6:

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

And now let’s compare this to the temptation of Jesus in Matthew 4:1-11:

1Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. 2After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."
4Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'[a]"
5Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:
" 'He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'[b]"
7Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'[c]"
8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9"All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."
10Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'[d]"
11Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

There is great similarity in these passages. Both were tempted by Satan. Both involve food. Both deal with the three basic roots of sin. 1 John 2:16 says, “For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world.” This is considered all that is in the world. These three sins – the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life – are essentially the roots to all of our sins in some form or fashion. Both Adam and Jesus were tempted in direct ways to each of these.

For instance, they were tempted by the lust of the eyes. The food looked good. Food was offered in both cases. So was the lust of the flesh – that they could have dominion. Adam and Eve already had dominion over the animals and Garden, and life was good for them – but they had still not reached full maturity. God was preparing them to multiply into future generations and be lord over creation. But they weren’t ready yet for everything.

Pride was also in both cases, especially in the case of Jesus being tempted. Satan told Christ that if He was really God, He should be able to jump off of the Temple, and save Himself, similarly to how many mocked Him on the cross. In the Garden, it was a bit more subtle and not quite as noticeable. But Satan questioned more of God’s identity to Eve. He wanted her to think that God was jealous of Adam and Eve and their life, and that the only way to keep them from becoming even greater would be from not eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Of course, Jesus’ temptations were probably harder for Him, because He was offered food while He was fasting. He was hungry. Adam and Eve had so much other food around them at the time anyway. Also, Jesus knew that He would have to undergo death, and what is perhaps even worse, His Father turning His back on Him. Adam and Eve were certainly in a maturing period, but they already had so much as it was. They were not expected to die for God.

So both of these temptations was actually more aimed at the patience level. Jesus had the patience to declare “It is finished!” at the right time – not a premature time. If Adam and Eve would not have eaten of the fruit when offered to them by the Serpent, I think there is a good chance God would have later given it to them. There was nothing sinful about the Tree in and of itself. In fact, Scripture says that they could eat of any tree. It almost seems to imply that eventually, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil would be given to them.

But Adam and Eve ate prematurely. Jesus waited on God. He had His Father, God Almighty, turn his back on Him. Jesus suffered through fasting, rejection, and even a death much more painful than we can imagine. Yet He was patient. He waited on God. Adam and Eve on the other hand did not wait on God, and prematurely ate from the forbidden fruit.

So what applications can we take from this? I think we need to wait for God. Do not prematurely rush into anything. This could be true whether it’s work, relationship issues, marriage, leaving home, college, etc. How often do people rush into things, especially relationships? And how often do they work? A lot of people rush into going to a high-level university, and find themselves back home with no degree and a whole lot of debt two years later (I hope this does not happen to me!!). People often think they can wake up with a good job, instead of perhaps starting at minimum wage and then working up the line to have a good full time job. People often rush into thinking they should move away from their house. Home is not big enough. Their family is not good enough. But most eighteen year-olds are not mature enough to be all on their own. Many people rush into taking part in marital fruits prior to marriage, instead of waiting until real vows have been spoken. [I actually think this is very symbolic to the case of Adam and Eve in the Garden. They both deal with life, some sort of lust, something is good and moral but only after a certain waiting time, and in a sense, both deal with marriage – our marriages here on earth, and man’s relationship with God similarly to how the Church is the Bride of Christ.]

Society teaches us to rush. It teaches us that we must find our own happiness. That we can tell ourselves what is right and wrong. It teaches us that we become our own gods. But our society is in many ways Adam’s Serpent. Jesus responded by giving Scripture to Satan. So when Satan in the disguise of society and her conventional wisdom tells us not to wait, tell us to be only our own, and all of the other popular rhetoric, shun it away with the Word of God, so that you may be equipped for every good work (II Timothy 3:16-17).

So I encourage you to wait on God. Wait on Him to give you what you need. He will take care of you. He takes care of the birds care-free, so He will take all the more care of you (Matthew 6:25-34). And ultimately, we will reach our greatest treasures in Heaven and the Final Resurrection (Matthew 6:19-21). And when you are patient, God will allow you to have true Dominion. We will then inherit the earth. Matthew 5:5 tells us that it is the meek of all people who will inherit the earth. So wait for God; do not prematurely take part in the pleasures of this world. Allow God to give you all the joy you need. Easier said than done, but certainly a nice goal.

What do you think?

God bless America

God bless His Church

Pray for our Troops

August 17, 2008

Ryan Hampton

The Politics of Racism

The Politics of Racism

This will probably a long in-depth blog and might bore you. But I do believe that if you have patience and try to follow this, then it should (hopefully!) be thought provoking, interesting, and possibly even worth your time.

Clifton Gardner did a similar piece on this (1) in which takes up much less of your time to read. I will try to expound upon Clifton's points, and go into deeper detail.

His point was that liberalism is actually filled with much more racism than conservatism, and that, conservatism at its truest is actually not racist at all, despite what the liberals and the media tell you about how conservatives are passionless, authoritarian, rich, white, idiots from the South.

But I will go into deeper points, discussing what worldview and religion have to do with this, and I will be fair. I will give criticism to conservatives when they need it, and I will not bash every liberal in this world as a racist. I will only blame the liberals worthy of being held a racist as a racist, and the rest; I will simply try to inform politely.

But let me explain my politics, which I consider to be more or less conservative, although I may not fit in exactly with every so-called conservative today. It begins with my Christian worldview.

I believe that God created this world and all that is in it. That includes me; that includes you. I can only trust Him for my life, and give thanks ultimately to Him for the blessings upon this life of liberty and property He has given to me. I believe that I, like all other people (except Jesus), am a sinner who deserves Hell, and can only be saved by the blood of Christ. In the New Covenant, this salvation is open to those of all races, both to men and women, from all cultures, ways of life, etc., and can be received simply through faith in Christ. The theology of predestination might could be argued (that is, God predestines His people from before all worlds, so salvation is in God's Hand), but even yet, since we would not know who the elect were, we must assume as if this salvation is offered to all, and must preach the Gospel to everyone as if they can receive it. Obviously, this is not racist.

Now to some, this Christian worldview supposedly leads to the conservative politics of forcing Christianity, hating those who may not believe exactly as they do, etc. But that is not where it leads me or many other Bible-believing conservatives. Here is where it leads me:

God created everyone, and He created him or her equally.
God created everyone good, but each man has responsibility for his sinful nature, and must call upon God to have it forgiven.
God gave us certain Rights under His Law. The core Rights He gave us are the Rights to life, liberty, and property.
The way each individual exercises these Rights is between him and God. He must make his decisions and take responsibility for his actions before God.

But we have a little problem: men being sinners, will want to naturally use force against others to achieve their ends, something they do not have the Right to do under God's Law. Taking the life of someone is murder. Taking their liberty is slavery. And finally, taking their property is theft. All of these things (murder, slavery, and theft) can be used to achieve one's ends at the expense of others. But God works in very subtle ways, and is not going to strike someone down the moment they kill someone. Before the Flood, God pretty much let it go. But when it got out of hand, God sent a flood to destroy the evil of the world. Afterwards, He promised not to destroy the world again like that, so He gave man the authority to set up government for the purpose of punishing wrongdoers (Rom. 13:4).

Therefore governments purpose is to secure everyone, of all races, their Rights to life, liberty, and property, or more broadly, the pursuit of their own happiness.

But we have a catch 22. Government is comprised of sinful men. Sinful men usurp one's Rights. Therefore there must be limits on government. In America, we have a Constitution that limits the Central government to their authorities. We have checks and balances. Also, as written in the Declaration of Independence, it is the Right and Duty of the people to overthrow bad government (certainly as the Declaration says it is wise to suffer under sufferable, for no government is perfect, but there are times to overthrow a bad government). Not all governments do or should limit themselves in the exact way, but a limited government is important so that the government protects our Rights, and does not usurp them.

To sum all of this up, let's look at the Declaration of Independence itself:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Now within this Christian worldview that establishes this basic form of government, there are some questions that still linger and are harder to answer. What about war? Immigration? What about social issues, as today we have the homosexual marriage debates, debates over drug laws, abortion, etc.?

With war, we are killing people, blowing things up, doing all sorts of things that destroy life and property, and we are sometimes withholding the liberty of our soldiers. Yet at the same time, it is the duty of the government to protect us at home, and sometimes war becomes the only rational way. Therefore, "war as a last resort" is generally the battle cry for foreign policy. Putting that in perspective in today's world is very hard to do.

Immigration is hard because we should want to offer liberty (although ultimately liberty comes only from God – 2 Corinthians 3: 17) to everyone. We certainly do not want to take it away from those who seek it – even foreigners. But at the same time we must be willing to guard our borders from any enemy we may have. If we have no border, we essentially have no nation or government, and that goes against the Christian worldview.

Social issues are hard as well. Homosexual marriage does not directly take away my life, liberty, or property, but it by no means is apart of the conservative Christian morals that come from the Christian faith, and this relativism can sometimes be enough to destroy a nation. (Abortion would be different, because it involves taking life, which should definitely be protected by government and law.)

And all of the civil rights battles, the civil war, and all of the other political turmoil that has gone on, particularly in the conservative South, does lead some in their right minds to assume that the South or that conservatives our racist. I had one person from Connecticut say that her Aunt, or someone or another told her that a lot of people in the South are racists. And although I find it a bit of a smudge on the South, and very untrue, to someone who does not understand the complicated issues and has had a one-sided education on the "Civil War," it may seem like a fair statement.

And while certainly I am no liberal on the issues I listed above (war, immigration, homosexual marriage), I do think it is possible that some conservatives are a bit too hard-nosed the other way. I would not consider it racist that they support the war, want real tough immigration laws, and are morally and legally against homosexual marriage, but perhaps some conservatives do border a small amount of bigotry, or if not, perhaps it can easily be seen that way to someone who grew up hearing liberal propaganda.

So I have been fair. I have, to the degree that I can without falling over dead, put myself in the shoes of a liberal, and seen how some conservatives may could border or appear to border being bullies, or being bigots of some sort. But now it is time to look at the liberal point of view, and show its racism. And I will begin with none other than an atheistic worldview.

How do liberalism and atheism go together? Liberals are all for giving, right? And isn't that what Christianity is largely about? Helping the poor, providing equality for everyone, etc.? And how would racism fit into this?

I am not going to say that all liberals are racist, or that all liberals are atheists, or even all atheists are racist, or any other combination of the three there is. But the platform of modern liberalism is very atheistic, and very racist in its essence. How so?

Well imagine that there is no God (atheism). We are all here by the chance of predestined molecules that arranged in the way they did to form us. There is no real standard of good and evil, we must make it for ourselves. Furthermore, Darwin's idea of "survival of the fittest" becomes supreme, where if one group of species can survive over another by force, then so be it. And if that worked for different kinds of fish, then it could work (though no one would admit it), for humans today, where one race can claim superiority over another. Consider what Darwin had to say: "Whilst living with the Feugians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours, and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate." (2).

And with no God, we have no destiny, nothing to live for other than today, etc. We live for ourselves; for today; that's it.

So what is the purpose of government, if it is not to punish wrongdoers as Paul spoke of in some of his writings? In an atheistic worldview, there is either no government (because there is no real "sin"), or there is an all-powerful government, because it is now the government's job to become god. This sounds like modern liberalism: moral relativism, yet the government controls wages and measures equality, and, to put radically, teaches racial superiority. Abortion is kind of the climax of it, because it teaches both moral relativism, and it teaches that the government can strip an unborn child of its Right to life. It teaches that we can by force take away the unwanted children of the world.

And government programs that liberals ask for fits right in with this atheistic racism. Equal opportunity becomes equal wages, or at least that's what it seems. It's not the government's job to control wages. Our property is between God and us. The government, at the very least, stands as the middleman between God and us in the world of modern liberalism. Think about it: liberals call conservatives racists, when it are the liberals themselves asking to distribute wealth by force from one group of people to another based on race and/or social status. That is the real racism!

Government control of education, as offered by the liberals, is atheistic, and in a sense, racist. It puts all of man into on common basket for the government to control. It strips poorer children the opportunity to receive better education because they are stuck in the bad sides of town with bad school zones. So much for the cultural diversity that liberals are supposedly for. So much for the freedom to choose our religion that liberals are supposedly for. We are stuck being taught what the government wants us to be taught – whether it is politics, religion, etc.

Modern liberalism took hold in the mid nineteenth century, mostly in the North. Interestingly enough, they were called Republicans. Northern intellectuals were the one's who founded government schools. Darwin, someone of the middle of this century, brought evolution to a whole new perspective. Even Abraham Lincoln, America's "hero" and the one who supposedly saved the blacks, was swept into the idea of racial superiority. Consider his words:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. (3)

Strong words for the man who "united" America. Of course, Lincoln was also the person who waged the bloodiest war in American history.

This Republican Party stayed strong in the North until the Democrats in the South lost touch with reality and taught the things this new liberalism began to teach. Republicanism began to change into what it is today: a moderate change from oppressive liberalism. The ideas of liberalism then spread to people such as Karl Marx among others who took the ideas into a more radical approach. These liberal extremist ideas were coined with terms such as "communism," "socialism" and "fascism," although even many Republicans today are fascists. It becomes easier to see how atheism and communism fit together, but modern liberalism is really not far from communism or socialism. Consider the song "Imagine" by John Lennon:


Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

It's easy to see the atheism in this, but Lennon was a communist as well, a strong supporter of Karl Marx. And the idea of the world being one is the same utopian propaganda we hear from modern liberalism. The idea that the government can take away hunger and greed is part of modern liberal propaganda. John Lennon would not be far from modern liberalism.

To be fair, I understand that many liberals are simply misguided by the attractive propaganda taught by modern liberal leaders. It sounds good to think that the government can solve our problems; it sounds nice and fair that we'd all make the same amount of money; and it seems to be only descent not to judge homosexuals, people who put drugs in their body, etc. (And for the record, I have not judged any of these people in this blog or even mentioned government control in the matter anyway, simply that I do disagree with their choices by a real moral standard). And it's easy for me being brought up a white Southerner to be conservative, as I'm sure it is easy for someone of the Northeast to be liberal. For some, liberalism teaches we're all one, so we must all live as one, which would include wages, etc. Even some who borrow from atheism only do so thinking it makes us one and equal, not realizing that atheism teaches more racism than Christianity which is offered to all groups and races of people. I think this is the reason for much tension in liberalism. Liberalism teaches some sort of racial superiority that the government can control; yet it teaches some sort of moral relativism in which you can be whoever you want to be. And atheism is the cornerstone to both of these ideas. So it makes me wonder, inasmuch as liberals justify homosexuality, a woman's "right" to choose, "equal opportunity" for minorities, if liberals really have a hypocritical motivation, being to destroy these things. Perhaps conservatives are the better friends to the homosexual, minorities, and a struggling soon-to-be mother, because they offer a true and real alternative that is much better than a hypocritical liberal answer.

These issues are confusing, and can sometimes be taken both ways, so I understand some liberals are simply mistaken and misguided (as are some conservatives on tough issues as well). But I have done a great deal to show that liberalism is founded much in atheism, which can in the long run be the most racist worldview there is. The politics I believe in, however, based on my Christian worldview, is by no means racist. I look at people as people, not classes or groups; majorities and minorities; whites and blacks; etc. People are people created in the image of God – from conception, I believe – with unalienable Rights to life, liberty, and property, or perhaps more broadly, the pursuit of happiness. You can call this conservative, libertarian, Constitutional, or for all I care, liberal. There was a time when these beliefs were considered liberal or Democratic (but if you called me one of those, please put "classical" before it). But I am unable to stand on the platform of modern liberalism because it goes against who I am, my core beliefs, etc. I am forced to believe in small government, free markets, and a meaningful Constitution, none of which are racist.

What do you think?

God bless America

God bless you

Pray for our Troops

August 2, 2008

Ryan Hampton


Works Cited:
(1) http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=20692146491&subj=518112463&index=1
(2) http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_07.html
(3) http://home.att.net/~howingtons/abe.html

More suggested articles:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/cleveland/docs/justice
http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm