One of the most heated topics of debate in this year's Presidential Election is that of what our foreign policy should be. Should we have a humble foreign policy? Should we try to spread the American way of life? Do the two go together? How does our overall foreign policy philosophy fit into our foreign affairs of today?
Saying that I have mixed feelings toward these questions, particularly the last question, would be an understatement. To my admission, one reason I would consider it an understatement is because of ignorance. I do not know the entire situation of every country in the world, not that I really know a good chunk of it either. I can have an overall foreign policy philosophy, but determining how it plays into our position in the world today is really a tricky question.
As far as our place in Iraq, and whether we should have gone, should get out, and the like, I will pose the four basic viewpoints:
It was a mistake to go, but because we went, we should finish the job (stay in).
We needed to go, but we caught Saddam, so it's time to get out.
We needed to go, and we should finish the job (stay in).
It was a mistake to go, so it is a mistake to stay. Get out!
When I try to find some opinion on the matter, I really cannot make up my mind between those. On one hand, I want to finish the job, whether we should have gone or not. But on one hand I am ready to get out, because we are losing lives and seeing little progress of late. On one hand I tend to think that withdrawing would allow the terrorists a place to camp out, and they would soon follow us back here. On the other hand it seems that if the terrorists would follow us here if we left Iraq, then going to Iraq only means that they followed us to Iraq in the first place. If we go home and secure our borders, then we would be much safer.
I do want to make this point though: we have strayed from the foreign policy of our founding fathers, which I tend to think is the best foreign policy we can have. Our founders, particularly Washington, supported a humble foreign policy. History has dictated to us that things do not get better when we delve into the affairs of other nations. Not just this administration, but many administrations before have fallen from the foreign policy of Washington. Washington in his Farewell Address listed out several points that are often ignored, forgotten, or even denied today. One of these is that of a humble foreign policy. We should not force our will upon other nations. This would be like one family telling another family how to run a family life. Besides, we have our own problems to work out here at home.
But there are times for war, and that should not be ignored either. Our founders knew this. They just came from war, and they designated Congress the power of declaring war. But we should remember certain things about war, and what must happen to be in war. We must have
A just cause
A probable chance of winning, and
A proper declaration of some sort. Furthermore, it must be
A last resort.
We have fallen astray from these principles. And it is not just the Republicans. The Democrats have fallen astray, and perhaps to make the matter worse, they have turned the war into a political issue. When blood is on the line, the issue is no longer merely political. It is moral, sacred, all out hell.
But I do not believe that anyone against the war should be declared guilty of treason. A point can be made both for staying in Iraq, and for getting out. Ultimately, the question is about how we apply foreign policy philosophy to a world that has abandoned the philosophy. Should we have a mass pull out? Should we finish the course we are on, and then seek correction? Should we slowly but surely pull out? Answering these questions are hard and complicated, and I suppose that not many people really can answer the question with great evidence for their case.
Before leaving, I would like to make a few more points. I do believe that the acts of 9/11 were acts of war. We needed to go fight the war and win. Catch those behind attacks, and better secure the borders so no more terrorists gets in. They gave us hell and it was time to give them hell. However this does not mean we attack the entire Middle East. Many conservatives even then wanted a humble foreign policy, but they have been slowly changing since.
I would also rather be in no war than to be in a political war, and I see some Republicans making the war a political issue. If we are in the war, then we should fight it, win it, and not fiddle around with it.
Also, we should be making a move to return to the sound foreign policy of our founders. Be humble and friendly with other nations. Declare war when you should go to war. Win the war (or at least give a darn good effort). But do not "experiment" with other nations in war.
And certainly we should support our Troops, whether we agree with the war or not. Pray for those who risk their lives doing what their nation asks of them to do.
And the person I support for President is against the war. His name is Ron Paul, and he is a Republican Congressman from Texas. I would rather have someone who is against the war because of moral convictions and a strict interpretation of the Constitution, than I would have someone who is for the war for political reasons. Ron Paul is the best Constitutionalist running for President (at least of the major candidates), and can actually defend himself when questioned about his foreign policy. I would not deny the possibility that he may be a bit naive toward foreign policy, but I do agree with his long-term plan, and would put more confidence in someone like him than I would in those who make the war a political issue.
UPCOMING BLOGS: I will write a follow up on this declaring why I support Congressman Ron Paul. I call this a follow up, because it takes a whole separate blog to defend my support for an anti-war candidate to my fellow conservative friends. I then plan to write a four part series on building Christian theology. This will cover the ideas of predestination/free will, sacraments, salvation, and worship. I plan for each to build on each other.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
January 27, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Monday, January 21, 2008
Bronner Burgess
Maybe it seems a bit cliche` to publically mourn the death of someone famous, or would at any rate make the news, but I still can not help but to write a blog mourning for the Burgess family, and offering out my thoughts and prayers to the family, in light of the Saturday evening drowing of two-year-old Bronner Burgess.
In case you do not know, Rick Burgess is a popular co-host of the radio program Rick and Bubba, which airs on many different radio stations throughout different parts of the country. Rick has spent much time going out of his way to present and defend his Christian faith over the airwaves. He has also spent much time with Bill "Bubba" Bussy talking about his hectic family life. Now his two-year-old son, nicknamed "Cornbread," has died from an accidental drowing. Rick was speaking in Tennessee at the time, away from his Birmingham, Alabama home.
We should be sad hearing of any death, whether it pertains to someone famous or not. But given that Rick has been a proclaimed Christian, this really can affect the way many view Christianity. If Rick gets through this situation with even a stronger faith, then perhaps the world will see it and believe the Gospel. If he doubts the validity of his faith and doubts the power and will of God, then perhaps many people will simply see Christianity as a feel-good myth.
So we should keep the camily in our prayers. For Rick and his wife that no blame will be placed on each other from each other. For the entire immediate and extended family, that they will cope well with this tragic loss. And also for Rick especially, that he will continue to share his faith over the air, and perhaps even with greater strength.
In all ways, may God have all Glory, even when we do not understand why.
What do you think?
God bless America
Support our Troops
January 21, 2008
Ryan Hampton
In case you do not know, Rick Burgess is a popular co-host of the radio program Rick and Bubba, which airs on many different radio stations throughout different parts of the country. Rick has spent much time going out of his way to present and defend his Christian faith over the airwaves. He has also spent much time with Bill "Bubba" Bussy talking about his hectic family life. Now his two-year-old son, nicknamed "Cornbread," has died from an accidental drowing. Rick was speaking in Tennessee at the time, away from his Birmingham, Alabama home.
We should be sad hearing of any death, whether it pertains to someone famous or not. But given that Rick has been a proclaimed Christian, this really can affect the way many view Christianity. If Rick gets through this situation with even a stronger faith, then perhaps the world will see it and believe the Gospel. If he doubts the validity of his faith and doubts the power and will of God, then perhaps many people will simply see Christianity as a feel-good myth.
So we should keep the camily in our prayers. For Rick and his wife that no blame will be placed on each other from each other. For the entire immediate and extended family, that they will cope well with this tragic loss. And also for Rick especially, that he will continue to share his faith over the air, and perhaps even with greater strength.
In all ways, may God have all Glory, even when we do not understand why.
What do you think?
God bless America
Support our Troops
January 21, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Friday, January 18, 2008
Look What Just Hit Me!
Now that post-highschool life is approaching for me, I have spent the past year or so trying to decide what I will do, where I will go to college (or if I'll go to college), and the other questions that inevitabely arise. I have spent time sending in my application to Samford University, as well as applying for scholarships, etc.
And although I am looking foward to this side of life, it comes with much fear. Not so much the fear that I feel uncomfortable with what is to come, but moreover the fear of losing that to which I have become accustomed to.
So with this comes a couple of emotions into play. For one, I desire the good of humanity, and the family and friends around me. For two, I do want to live life to the fullest - not in a bad sort of way that justifies evil in the name of "personal freedom," but live it to the fullest in a God-fearing way. I try telling younger people not to underestimate these times in their life, and their happiness is at the chief of my concerns.
I realize that there are people not much at all older than me who are in the Middle East fighting in war. I have just recently registered to vote, and it seems odd that now I have a vote in determing who would be the President, among other things, of this nation. I am doing this all while I am stuck to the older days of my life, albeit elementary school or middle school. My how the times change, and my how they probably will in just a few (or so) months from now.
So I write this for a few basic reasons. I want to relate to those who feel the same way, and encourage them not to underestimate these times. I also encourage all of you to remember the memories that God has given you, and appreciate the future memories that are the realities of today. I encourage you all to have a firm foundation in what you believe. Remembering who you are - your core identity - is the chief foundation to knowing where you are going. For a Christian, it is to remember your Christian worldview and foundation.
People say I'm turning into an old man, and maybe to a degree I am. But old men are often the one's who act the most like children. So that's what I'll do while I can, but all the while be prepared for when reality comes. All of these emotions are really starting to hit me (now that I'm in the final semester of high school). But I would rather this than rather the realities of these emotions and inevitable facts to hit me in life. That is much more dangerous.
What do you think?
God bless America
Support our Troops
January 18, 2008
Ryan Hampton
And although I am looking foward to this side of life, it comes with much fear. Not so much the fear that I feel uncomfortable with what is to come, but moreover the fear of losing that to which I have become accustomed to.
So with this comes a couple of emotions into play. For one, I desire the good of humanity, and the family and friends around me. For two, I do want to live life to the fullest - not in a bad sort of way that justifies evil in the name of "personal freedom," but live it to the fullest in a God-fearing way. I try telling younger people not to underestimate these times in their life, and their happiness is at the chief of my concerns.
I realize that there are people not much at all older than me who are in the Middle East fighting in war. I have just recently registered to vote, and it seems odd that now I have a vote in determing who would be the President, among other things, of this nation. I am doing this all while I am stuck to the older days of my life, albeit elementary school or middle school. My how the times change, and my how they probably will in just a few (or so) months from now.
So I write this for a few basic reasons. I want to relate to those who feel the same way, and encourage them not to underestimate these times. I also encourage all of you to remember the memories that God has given you, and appreciate the future memories that are the realities of today. I encourage you all to have a firm foundation in what you believe. Remembering who you are - your core identity - is the chief foundation to knowing where you are going. For a Christian, it is to remember your Christian worldview and foundation.
People say I'm turning into an old man, and maybe to a degree I am. But old men are often the one's who act the most like children. So that's what I'll do while I can, but all the while be prepared for when reality comes. All of these emotions are really starting to hit me (now that I'm in the final semester of high school). But I would rather this than rather the realities of these emotions and inevitable facts to hit me in life. That is much more dangerous.
What do you think?
God bless America
Support our Troops
January 18, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The Origin of Economics
The following is an excerpt from a greater piece I am working on. This deals with looking at economics philisophically, and with a Christian worldview. May you enjoy.
The Origin of Economics
We have talked greatly about what economics is in relativity to the world today, but we have not really failed to grasp where the origin of economics comes from. To follow the logical coherence, we force ourselves to ask where the origin of life as we know it comes from, or the origin of the basic principles of human action, inaction, and relationships comes from, given that this is essentially what economics is the study of.
I remember once my younger sister asking the question to my Father, "Why do we have money?" She argued, "Why can't we have stores where people just go get what they want?" My Father answered her asking back, "How much is too much for the people? What if I get something I do not earn?" She answered back, "I guess that the they can make you get only a certain amount." When my Father asked her who "they" would be, my sister said, "I guess the government."
Although the economics my sister brought forth and proposed to my Father were full of fallacies, and was essentially communism, I do not wish for this little section to merely criticize her. She was young, and at least she was thinking about economics. Furthermore, her basic question really spawns us into the entire origin of economics altogether. The basic principles my Father argued against her answered her question, and the question of the origin of modern-day economics altogether (economics as the course of human nature, not the modern economic thought).
A (The Fall of Man)
The origin of modern-day economics, at least according to a Christian perspective, comes in the Garden of Eden. This is where the origin of human relations and actions and inaction as we know it began. But it did not begin at creation. After creation, there was another level that came to humanity, that changed our economic laws altogether. This was the Fall of man. The Fall in a way was almost an altering of the Natural Law that existed. Due to the Fall of man, our principles on government, justice, and economics have changed.
It is interesting that Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the forbidden Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, in order to become "like God." They ate the fruit to increase dominion and liberty. Even though there was an abundance of fruit, animals, and many other blessings of the world as they knew it, they wanted to increase their liberty the little more that they could. As a result, they fell into a world of pain and sorrow. The world essentially went from ever living to ever dying. Only by super human action to remodel creation could the world return to the stages of that it was in before the Fall. Even though man was in the world to remodel creation before the Fall as well, there was now much more work needed to be done. The world, in a way, needed resurrecting.
Because the world was ever dying, we entered a world of scarcity. That which Adam and Eve had was now scarce. Furthermore, it would be by the "sweat of [their] brow" that they would enjoy the fruits of the trees and all the other blessings. Now they must not only work, but they must work at the expense of giving up that which they want so that the world would be a better place, and they would be better people.
B (Our Economic Purpose)
All of this is consistent with the New Testament teachings of Paul and Jesus. Our liberty comes from our bondage to God. I have quoted 2 Corinthians 3:17 much before, stating, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Furthermore, the act of giving up something for something greater in return in also Scriptural. Christians are supposed to give their all for the sake of God's Kingdom, to enjoy in His righteousness and glory.
By this same token, the only way to decrease the scarcity of that which is on earth is to give up a portion of that which we have, in order to get it all back and more. Without sin, our economics would be different. The sinless descendents of Adam and Eve would not take the property of others. It would be immoral, and man would not be immoral creatures. But also, there would be abundance in the world, so why should we steal property in the first place? We would claim what we have, and give up much less for our rewards. Having real "money," though perhaps not being non-existent, would have less reasons for its existence.
In the grand scheme of things, we are equal partakers of the world with certain unalienable Rights (Natural Rights). This is something that did carry through over the Fall. Among these Rights is the Right to property. My sister was actually (even in her very flawed economics) getting to a good point. We are equal partakers of this world. Therefore, that which we earned, we went and got ourselves. But we did not go get it from a store. We got it from the world and claimed it.
But if it is claimed by someone else already, it is not ours. Not unless we trade. This is why we have money. We work hard for something, only to give it up to another person. But we do this to have something even better for us. We do this privately, helping ourselves, with only us as the attention. But in the grand scheme of things, we each help society in this. Ultimately, Christian economics is really the study of reclaiming what we had before the Fall of man. It is restoring the Christian way. Through this, we give up what we want, in order to have something even better. This is both personal and public.
C (The Purpose of Government)
Along with the Fall of man, we required a necessity for government. Now, government exists to protect our natural Rights, including the Right to property. This is why we punish those guilty of theft. The government, at some level, has the Right to stop of us from totally destroying the planet and defeating the purpose of restoring that which we had before the Fall. Government is force, and even my sister realized this in saying that the government would tell us when too much stuff from the store was "too much" (even though this is an unnecessary use of force, so that part of her logic is flawed). But far too often today, the government in the politically correct name of "environmentalism" defeats the purpose. They fail to understand that in order to have that which we want, we must give up that we have - even if it is scarce. Cutting down trees gives us a use for our natural recourses. Through this use, we may perhaps find something that accomplishes the same goals as cutting down trees, but does it more efficiently and economically. This enables us to restore ourselves to that day in which our economics is full of abundance and pleasure.
Fortunately, we see some of the blessings of good economic policy today (even with a big government). This is called technology. We are constantly coming up with new ways and better ways to do things, making the world less and less scarce. These things are essentially a great aspect of the American Dream, and are done mostly without government.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
January 13, 2008
Ryan Hampton
The Origin of Economics
We have talked greatly about what economics is in relativity to the world today, but we have not really failed to grasp where the origin of economics comes from. To follow the logical coherence, we force ourselves to ask where the origin of life as we know it comes from, or the origin of the basic principles of human action, inaction, and relationships comes from, given that this is essentially what economics is the study of.
I remember once my younger sister asking the question to my Father, "Why do we have money?" She argued, "Why can't we have stores where people just go get what they want?" My Father answered her asking back, "How much is too much for the people? What if I get something I do not earn?" She answered back, "I guess that the they can make you get only a certain amount." When my Father asked her who "they" would be, my sister said, "I guess the government."
Although the economics my sister brought forth and proposed to my Father were full of fallacies, and was essentially communism, I do not wish for this little section to merely criticize her. She was young, and at least she was thinking about economics. Furthermore, her basic question really spawns us into the entire origin of economics altogether. The basic principles my Father argued against her answered her question, and the question of the origin of modern-day economics altogether (economics as the course of human nature, not the modern economic thought).
A (The Fall of Man)
The origin of modern-day economics, at least according to a Christian perspective, comes in the Garden of Eden. This is where the origin of human relations and actions and inaction as we know it began. But it did not begin at creation. After creation, there was another level that came to humanity, that changed our economic laws altogether. This was the Fall of man. The Fall in a way was almost an altering of the Natural Law that existed. Due to the Fall of man, our principles on government, justice, and economics have changed.
It is interesting that Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the forbidden Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, in order to become "like God." They ate the fruit to increase dominion and liberty. Even though there was an abundance of fruit, animals, and many other blessings of the world as they knew it, they wanted to increase their liberty the little more that they could. As a result, they fell into a world of pain and sorrow. The world essentially went from ever living to ever dying. Only by super human action to remodel creation could the world return to the stages of that it was in before the Fall. Even though man was in the world to remodel creation before the Fall as well, there was now much more work needed to be done. The world, in a way, needed resurrecting.
Because the world was ever dying, we entered a world of scarcity. That which Adam and Eve had was now scarce. Furthermore, it would be by the "sweat of [their] brow" that they would enjoy the fruits of the trees and all the other blessings. Now they must not only work, but they must work at the expense of giving up that which they want so that the world would be a better place, and they would be better people.
B (Our Economic Purpose)
All of this is consistent with the New Testament teachings of Paul and Jesus. Our liberty comes from our bondage to God. I have quoted 2 Corinthians 3:17 much before, stating, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Furthermore, the act of giving up something for something greater in return in also Scriptural. Christians are supposed to give their all for the sake of God's Kingdom, to enjoy in His righteousness and glory.
By this same token, the only way to decrease the scarcity of that which is on earth is to give up a portion of that which we have, in order to get it all back and more. Without sin, our economics would be different. The sinless descendents of Adam and Eve would not take the property of others. It would be immoral, and man would not be immoral creatures. But also, there would be abundance in the world, so why should we steal property in the first place? We would claim what we have, and give up much less for our rewards. Having real "money," though perhaps not being non-existent, would have less reasons for its existence.
In the grand scheme of things, we are equal partakers of the world with certain unalienable Rights (Natural Rights). This is something that did carry through over the Fall. Among these Rights is the Right to property. My sister was actually (even in her very flawed economics) getting to a good point. We are equal partakers of this world. Therefore, that which we earned, we went and got ourselves. But we did not go get it from a store. We got it from the world and claimed it.
But if it is claimed by someone else already, it is not ours. Not unless we trade. This is why we have money. We work hard for something, only to give it up to another person. But we do this to have something even better for us. We do this privately, helping ourselves, with only us as the attention. But in the grand scheme of things, we each help society in this. Ultimately, Christian economics is really the study of reclaiming what we had before the Fall of man. It is restoring the Christian way. Through this, we give up what we want, in order to have something even better. This is both personal and public.
C (The Purpose of Government)
Along with the Fall of man, we required a necessity for government. Now, government exists to protect our natural Rights, including the Right to property. This is why we punish those guilty of theft. The government, at some level, has the Right to stop of us from totally destroying the planet and defeating the purpose of restoring that which we had before the Fall. Government is force, and even my sister realized this in saying that the government would tell us when too much stuff from the store was "too much" (even though this is an unnecessary use of force, so that part of her logic is flawed). But far too often today, the government in the politically correct name of "environmentalism" defeats the purpose. They fail to understand that in order to have that which we want, we must give up that we have - even if it is scarce. Cutting down trees gives us a use for our natural recourses. Through this use, we may perhaps find something that accomplishes the same goals as cutting down trees, but does it more efficiently and economically. This enables us to restore ourselves to that day in which our economics is full of abundance and pleasure.
Fortunately, we see some of the blessings of good economic policy today (even with a big government). This is called technology. We are constantly coming up with new ways and better ways to do things, making the world less and less scarce. These things are essentially a great aspect of the American Dream, and are done mostly without government.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
January 13, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Rethinking Ethics
The following is a piece on ethics, as apart of a greater piece I am working on:
ETHICS
Albeit abortion, homosexual marriage, drugs, prostitution, gun rights, etc., the government has failed in the proper handling of ethics. The notion of state's rights is obscured, and the basic means of government protecting our freedom is largely done away with.
i. Abortion
Roe vs. Wade was a Supreme Court decision in 1973 which ruled that abortion was a natural right for all women. No state could even take it away, except on a few precise measures that were spelled out by the Supreme Court. Many conservative pro-lifers consider this ruling as one in which the government fails to do what it should do, that it, the government is allowing for abortion, when it should be keeping abortions from being done. Although this is the case in many respects, we should also look at this in light of the greater cultural war that has been going on from quite some time. This cultural war, which brings forth much problem in the Central Government today, is the diminishing of state's rights, and the degrading view of the Constitution.
Let us go back to the way Jefferson viewed the Constitution. Jefferson wanted to build schools and roads, but did not see these things permitted in the Constitution. He therefore did not carry through these things. The Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion, leaving us to believe it is up to the states. If the Central Government did rule in the case of abortion, it should be done by an amendment. Furthermore, it would make since to make abortion illegal, if they did indeed rule in the case, given that it is the government's job to protect our liberties, which include life.
The question does become a question of "where does sacred life begin?" This question is scientific, religious, moral, and philosophical. Science can give us reason to believe in some sort of real human life, and when it begins. Consider this logical analysis:
Matter can not be created or destroyed.
I am matter.
I am human.
I have not always been human.
Therefore, there was a time in which my physical substance became human.
Science can answer this question, but only to a point. Science might could tell us that the right cells and DNA joined together in a place suitable for survival, making a real living being - in the case of human reproduction, a human. But as far as science is concerned, there is no real basis to defy human life as any more sacred than the life of a dog, for instance. This is where philosophy, religion, and morality come into play, all under the notion of natural law.
Some would argue that the government should not rule in deciding where sacred life begins. Supposedly, since this is a sacred question, in one respect, it would join government and religion together to have the government answer the question. But ultimately, government can not answer the question. Either life is sacred or it is not. The government is here to protect that which is sacred. If we reach a conclusion by science and natural law that sacred life begins in a human womb, then it should follow that abortion, at some level, should be illegal, so that the sanctity of human life may be preserved. Still, they do not answer the question - natural law does. Arguing that the government should not decide what life is sacred or not, is like arguing that the government should not decide if pigs could fly.
If it is concluded that abortion should be illegal, the next question is, "what level of government should make it illegal?" County government, state government, Central Government, the United Nations? The best possible solution would be that it come from the state government, as they have their own laws on murder, theft, etc. However if the Central Government did rule in the case, it should be done by a proper amendment to the Constitution to outlaw abortion. Now let us consider how Roe Vs. Wade was done. Did it pass the test?
The Central Government should be silent on the issue of abortion (Fail).
If the Central Government does rule in the case, it should make abortion illegal (Fail).
If the Central Government declares abortion a natural right, it should at least be done by a proper amendment to the Constitution (Fail).
The Supreme Court failed on all of these issues. This shows great ignorance for the Constitution and natural law on apart of the Judges in Roe Vs. Wade. This was a bad form of government.
ii. (Homosexual Marriage)
Homosexual marriage is a much heated topic in today's world, though there are little rulings to show for it. There is not infamous ruling on the issue as there is for abortion. Still the handling of the issue and the interpretation of the issue, shows great ignorance again for our Constitution and for natural law.
Fortunately, any ruling on the issue shows support for an amendment to the Constitution. The question becomes whether or not there should be that amendment. Like abortion, the Constitution is silent on the issue, leading us to believe it should be left up to the states.
Some would argue that ruling against homosexual marriages, basically outlawing them, would join the government more and more in with the church. But what we should really consider is if the government has a hand in marriage at all. Currently, the state issues marriage license for people getting married. If marriage is defined as a sacred covenental union between one man and one woman, then the government contradicts itself by issuing a legal documentation of marriage between two people of the same sex. However if the state was out of the issue entirely, not even to issue a marriage license, then two people of the same sex could live together, sleep together, and call it marriage, when in reality, it may not be marriage at all, given that it contradicts the definition of marriage. Marriage itself is sacred, and if two people have a partnership that defies the sacred definition of marriage, then it is no marriage at all.
With this said, Americans, including their politicians, seem to have a hard time understanding how government fits in to the issue of homosexual marriage, or if it even does at all. We forget that states have their rights to make the laws regarding these issues, and we forget the very nature of marriage itself. If two men want to sleep together, I would rather see the dollars I freely tithe go to help these men repent, than see my tax dollars go to having the FBI police their bedroom.
iii. The War on Drugs
The War on Drugs is another issue that is misunderstood. Many people see drugs as something that should be stopped, and they want it stopped by the Central Government. This can essentially invite the government into your home to see if you have drugs.
Do not misunderstand this to presume I make any point to morally justify drugs, or even to take away the right of a state to issue a war on drugs, although on state issues, it could even be argued that the state should be out of the drug issue.
Some illegal drugs can actually, in rare but existing circumstances, be used for beneficial medical purposes. But so long as these drugs are outlawed, law-abiding doctors and nurses will not obtain the beneficial illegal drug for the patient.
On the other hand, however, the drug-addicts will still go after drugs. They will get them from Mexico, from robbery, even from murder. A war on drugs actually increases crime. Prohibition led to more crime, so it can easily follow that prohibiting drugs, especially at the level of the Central Government, can lead to more crime. Results has shown that it has.
In saying this, an employer has every right to ask an employee or potential employee for a drug test, and deny them a job or fire them if they fail. If I was an owner of some sort of business, I would probably not want drug dealers working for me. But I would also not want the government telling me that they can't.
The drug war is like the gun war in many respects. Outlawing drugs reducing crime is about as likely (or unlikely) as outlawing guns would reduce crime. There will still be drugs out there, and the criminal will even go to the point of murder to get them.
It could be argued, and I would strongly support it, that there should be laws (at a local or state level), against the selling of drugs to minors. A six-year old may not really understand the effects of drugs, and anyone who causes this person to try the drug, except for medical purposes, shall be punished. At the same time, if drugs become rampant in one community, then it could be argued that drugs should become illegal at that local level. But they should never be outlawed on the level of the Central Government.
iv. Gun Control
Although there is no law against the possession of guns, the movement for it has become rampant. Gun control is perhaps one of the sillier of ideas. At least in Roe Vs. Wade the Judges claimed some honor for the Constitution, and even defended their ruling based on the Fourteenth Amendment (although it is a lame defense). The right to keep and bear arms is listed in (out of all places!) the Bill of Rights - even the Second Amendment. Out of all the things our Founding Fathers wanted to secure most, the right to keep and bear arms was listed just behind the freedom of the press, and denying a national religion or church. Owning guns not only protects the people against other citizens who take away life and property, but even against government that tries to take away their right to life and property, et al.
Beyond this, gun control laws do not help reduce crime. In fact, cities with the toughest gun control laws actually have higher crime. When people are free to own guns, criminals are scared. Many criminals actually say that they are scared of the people owning guns more than the government.
It could even be argued that no state shall pass a law against the owning of guns, and that the Central Government should secure this, given that it is deemed as a natural right. But at any rate, outlawing guns should certainly not come from the Central Government.
What do you think?
God Bless America
Pray for our Troops
God Bless You
January 10, 2008
Ryan Hampton
ETHICS
Albeit abortion, homosexual marriage, drugs, prostitution, gun rights, etc., the government has failed in the proper handling of ethics. The notion of state's rights is obscured, and the basic means of government protecting our freedom is largely done away with.
i. Abortion
Roe vs. Wade was a Supreme Court decision in 1973 which ruled that abortion was a natural right for all women. No state could even take it away, except on a few precise measures that were spelled out by the Supreme Court. Many conservative pro-lifers consider this ruling as one in which the government fails to do what it should do, that it, the government is allowing for abortion, when it should be keeping abortions from being done. Although this is the case in many respects, we should also look at this in light of the greater cultural war that has been going on from quite some time. This cultural war, which brings forth much problem in the Central Government today, is the diminishing of state's rights, and the degrading view of the Constitution.
Let us go back to the way Jefferson viewed the Constitution. Jefferson wanted to build schools and roads, but did not see these things permitted in the Constitution. He therefore did not carry through these things. The Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion, leaving us to believe it is up to the states. If the Central Government did rule in the case of abortion, it should be done by an amendment. Furthermore, it would make since to make abortion illegal, if they did indeed rule in the case, given that it is the government's job to protect our liberties, which include life.
The question does become a question of "where does sacred life begin?" This question is scientific, religious, moral, and philosophical. Science can give us reason to believe in some sort of real human life, and when it begins. Consider this logical analysis:
Matter can not be created or destroyed.
I am matter.
I am human.
I have not always been human.
Therefore, there was a time in which my physical substance became human.
Science can answer this question, but only to a point. Science might could tell us that the right cells and DNA joined together in a place suitable for survival, making a real living being - in the case of human reproduction, a human. But as far as science is concerned, there is no real basis to defy human life as any more sacred than the life of a dog, for instance. This is where philosophy, religion, and morality come into play, all under the notion of natural law.
Some would argue that the government should not rule in deciding where sacred life begins. Supposedly, since this is a sacred question, in one respect, it would join government and religion together to have the government answer the question. But ultimately, government can not answer the question. Either life is sacred or it is not. The government is here to protect that which is sacred. If we reach a conclusion by science and natural law that sacred life begins in a human womb, then it should follow that abortion, at some level, should be illegal, so that the sanctity of human life may be preserved. Still, they do not answer the question - natural law does. Arguing that the government should not decide what life is sacred or not, is like arguing that the government should not decide if pigs could fly.
If it is concluded that abortion should be illegal, the next question is, "what level of government should make it illegal?" County government, state government, Central Government, the United Nations? The best possible solution would be that it come from the state government, as they have their own laws on murder, theft, etc. However if the Central Government did rule in the case, it should be done by a proper amendment to the Constitution to outlaw abortion. Now let us consider how Roe Vs. Wade was done. Did it pass the test?
The Central Government should be silent on the issue of abortion (Fail).
If the Central Government does rule in the case, it should make abortion illegal (Fail).
If the Central Government declares abortion a natural right, it should at least be done by a proper amendment to the Constitution (Fail).
The Supreme Court failed on all of these issues. This shows great ignorance for the Constitution and natural law on apart of the Judges in Roe Vs. Wade. This was a bad form of government.
ii. (Homosexual Marriage)
Homosexual marriage is a much heated topic in today's world, though there are little rulings to show for it. There is not infamous ruling on the issue as there is for abortion. Still the handling of the issue and the interpretation of the issue, shows great ignorance again for our Constitution and for natural law.
Fortunately, any ruling on the issue shows support for an amendment to the Constitution. The question becomes whether or not there should be that amendment. Like abortion, the Constitution is silent on the issue, leading us to believe it should be left up to the states.
Some would argue that ruling against homosexual marriages, basically outlawing them, would join the government more and more in with the church. But what we should really consider is if the government has a hand in marriage at all. Currently, the state issues marriage license for people getting married. If marriage is defined as a sacred covenental union between one man and one woman, then the government contradicts itself by issuing a legal documentation of marriage between two people of the same sex. However if the state was out of the issue entirely, not even to issue a marriage license, then two people of the same sex could live together, sleep together, and call it marriage, when in reality, it may not be marriage at all, given that it contradicts the definition of marriage. Marriage itself is sacred, and if two people have a partnership that defies the sacred definition of marriage, then it is no marriage at all.
With this said, Americans, including their politicians, seem to have a hard time understanding how government fits in to the issue of homosexual marriage, or if it even does at all. We forget that states have their rights to make the laws regarding these issues, and we forget the very nature of marriage itself. If two men want to sleep together, I would rather see the dollars I freely tithe go to help these men repent, than see my tax dollars go to having the FBI police their bedroom.
iii. The War on Drugs
The War on Drugs is another issue that is misunderstood. Many people see drugs as something that should be stopped, and they want it stopped by the Central Government. This can essentially invite the government into your home to see if you have drugs.
Do not misunderstand this to presume I make any point to morally justify drugs, or even to take away the right of a state to issue a war on drugs, although on state issues, it could even be argued that the state should be out of the drug issue.
Some illegal drugs can actually, in rare but existing circumstances, be used for beneficial medical purposes. But so long as these drugs are outlawed, law-abiding doctors and nurses will not obtain the beneficial illegal drug for the patient.
On the other hand, however, the drug-addicts will still go after drugs. They will get them from Mexico, from robbery, even from murder. A war on drugs actually increases crime. Prohibition led to more crime, so it can easily follow that prohibiting drugs, especially at the level of the Central Government, can lead to more crime. Results has shown that it has.
In saying this, an employer has every right to ask an employee or potential employee for a drug test, and deny them a job or fire them if they fail. If I was an owner of some sort of business, I would probably not want drug dealers working for me. But I would also not want the government telling me that they can't.
The drug war is like the gun war in many respects. Outlawing drugs reducing crime is about as likely (or unlikely) as outlawing guns would reduce crime. There will still be drugs out there, and the criminal will even go to the point of murder to get them.
It could be argued, and I would strongly support it, that there should be laws (at a local or state level), against the selling of drugs to minors. A six-year old may not really understand the effects of drugs, and anyone who causes this person to try the drug, except for medical purposes, shall be punished. At the same time, if drugs become rampant in one community, then it could be argued that drugs should become illegal at that local level. But they should never be outlawed on the level of the Central Government.
iv. Gun Control
Although there is no law against the possession of guns, the movement for it has become rampant. Gun control is perhaps one of the sillier of ideas. At least in Roe Vs. Wade the Judges claimed some honor for the Constitution, and even defended their ruling based on the Fourteenth Amendment (although it is a lame defense). The right to keep and bear arms is listed in (out of all places!) the Bill of Rights - even the Second Amendment. Out of all the things our Founding Fathers wanted to secure most, the right to keep and bear arms was listed just behind the freedom of the press, and denying a national religion or church. Owning guns not only protects the people against other citizens who take away life and property, but even against government that tries to take away their right to life and property, et al.
Beyond this, gun control laws do not help reduce crime. In fact, cities with the toughest gun control laws actually have higher crime. When people are free to own guns, criminals are scared. Many criminals actually say that they are scared of the people owning guns more than the government.
It could even be argued that no state shall pass a law against the owning of guns, and that the Central Government should secure this, given that it is deemed as a natural right. But at any rate, outlawing guns should certainly not come from the Central Government.
What do you think?
God Bless America
Pray for our Troops
God Bless You
January 10, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
The Greatest War of All
Whether you are pro-war, anti-war, liberal, conservative, etc., there is always one war that will be going on. It will go on in your personally, through you corporately, and will always be the ultimate World War.
What is it? This war is the war between the City of God and the City of Man. Every single person is a member of either of the two cities. If we were to divide every single person in the world into one of two groups, it would be those of the City of God and those of the City of Man.
What are the differences? We should not believe that the difference between the two cities is that the City of God is of good people and that the City of Man has bad people. The difference is that the people of the City of God understand that they are sinners, and seek the forgiveness of God. Those in the City of Man look to the mind of man to free them of any problems in the world, but would never blame it on the sin of man - or at least not their own.
What are the effects? The effects of this war affect you personally and corporately; spritual, emotionally, mentally, and even physically; it affects you in almost every way. We should not believe that if you are a member of the City of God then you will never think like a member of the City of Man. But in the end, all of God's people will call upon His name. Consider the following personal and worldly aspects of this war (can especially be very personal):
Lust vs. Love
Popular before man vs. Humble before God
Individualistic Inward piety vs. Corporate worship
Theft and Murder vs. A respect for the property of others
Natural Selection vs. Natural rights, and, above all,
The love of money vs. The Love of God.
What is best for man in the long run? Lust does not forgive the imperfections of that being lusted after. Love, true, love, would forgive imperfections. Popularity comes with many prices and can easily be lost. God accepts us for walking humbly (Man's fluctuating acceptance compared to God's eternal acceptance). Individualism (some forms of it) often will not forgive one's mistakes, and is apart from the forgiveness and love God shows through others. Corporate worship strengthens even the worst of sinners, and through it God can enable us true acceptance even among men. Theft and Murder against someone can result in someone else robbing or murdering you. Natural selection accepts and deny's people by standards one can not help. Natural rights affirms everyone certain God-given and unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The love of money is never satisfied, and always wants more money. The Love of God enables us to rest in confidence for the greatest treasure of all.
But even yet, the glories of the City of Man seem so great at first. Money, popularity, and the like seem so attractive. But how many people in Hollywood, with so much money, so much fame, and seemingly perfect bodies really seem happy in the end? Not many.
Ultimately, money, acceptance among men, and happiness, will come by faith in God, and participation in the City of God. Matt. 7:13 says, "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it."
And in the end, it will be the City of God who wins. We are told that the gates of Hell can not even prevail against the Rock on which God builds His Church. Matt. 16:18 says, "...on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." Hells gates, the guard of the City of Man, will not be able to offend the City of God, nor be able to defend against the offense of the City of God. Ultimately, it's a blow-out. Hell has no chance, and the winner of the war is predestined.
So as a New Year's Resolution, I encourage you to examine your life, and see how you are living. Are you living as someone who understands that you are a sinner, and one who seeks the forgiveness of God? Or, are you living as someone who does not care about the way you live your life, or the only care you do have is popularity, fortune, fornication, and many other things or sins that seem to have so much glory, but who's path only leads to destruction? Do you even realize that there is this war, that affects you personally, corporately, and in every way of your life? Or do you ignore this war? If you do understand this war, if you do seek the forgiveness of God and seek to live better, then you can rest assure that the City of God will win, the City of Man only leads to destruction, and you will be apart of eternal glory.
God bless His Church
For all the Saints
God bless you
Lift High the cross
Janurary 2, 2008
Ryan Hampton
What is it? This war is the war between the City of God and the City of Man. Every single person is a member of either of the two cities. If we were to divide every single person in the world into one of two groups, it would be those of the City of God and those of the City of Man.
What are the differences? We should not believe that the difference between the two cities is that the City of God is of good people and that the City of Man has bad people. The difference is that the people of the City of God understand that they are sinners, and seek the forgiveness of God. Those in the City of Man look to the mind of man to free them of any problems in the world, but would never blame it on the sin of man - or at least not their own.
What are the effects? The effects of this war affect you personally and corporately; spritual, emotionally, mentally, and even physically; it affects you in almost every way. We should not believe that if you are a member of the City of God then you will never think like a member of the City of Man. But in the end, all of God's people will call upon His name. Consider the following personal and worldly aspects of this war (can especially be very personal):
Lust vs. Love
Popular before man vs. Humble before God
Individualistic Inward piety vs. Corporate worship
Theft and Murder vs. A respect for the property of others
Natural Selection vs. Natural rights, and, above all,
The love of money vs. The Love of God.
What is best for man in the long run? Lust does not forgive the imperfections of that being lusted after. Love, true, love, would forgive imperfections. Popularity comes with many prices and can easily be lost. God accepts us for walking humbly (Man's fluctuating acceptance compared to God's eternal acceptance). Individualism (some forms of it) often will not forgive one's mistakes, and is apart from the forgiveness and love God shows through others. Corporate worship strengthens even the worst of sinners, and through it God can enable us true acceptance even among men. Theft and Murder against someone can result in someone else robbing or murdering you. Natural selection accepts and deny's people by standards one can not help. Natural rights affirms everyone certain God-given and unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The love of money is never satisfied, and always wants more money. The Love of God enables us to rest in confidence for the greatest treasure of all.
But even yet, the glories of the City of Man seem so great at first. Money, popularity, and the like seem so attractive. But how many people in Hollywood, with so much money, so much fame, and seemingly perfect bodies really seem happy in the end? Not many.
Ultimately, money, acceptance among men, and happiness, will come by faith in God, and participation in the City of God. Matt. 7:13 says, "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it."
And in the end, it will be the City of God who wins. We are told that the gates of Hell can not even prevail against the Rock on which God builds His Church. Matt. 16:18 says, "...on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." Hells gates, the guard of the City of Man, will not be able to offend the City of God, nor be able to defend against the offense of the City of God. Ultimately, it's a blow-out. Hell has no chance, and the winner of the war is predestined.
So as a New Year's Resolution, I encourage you to examine your life, and see how you are living. Are you living as someone who understands that you are a sinner, and one who seeks the forgiveness of God? Or, are you living as someone who does not care about the way you live your life, or the only care you do have is popularity, fortune, fornication, and many other things or sins that seem to have so much glory, but who's path only leads to destruction? Do you even realize that there is this war, that affects you personally, corporately, and in every way of your life? Or do you ignore this war? If you do understand this war, if you do seek the forgiveness of God and seek to live better, then you can rest assure that the City of God will win, the City of Man only leads to destruction, and you will be apart of eternal glory.
God bless His Church
For all the Saints
God bless you
Lift High the cross
Janurary 2, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
