Just in case any of you have not heard, we received our CO (Certificate of Occupancy) yesterday afternoon, and will begin meeting weekly at our new building in Cahaba Heights, a suburb of Vestavia Hills, Alabama. This has been a while forth coming, yet it has also not been overly dragged. It did take a lot of work, but it does seem the Lord is rewarding our efforts.
The first thing we should do is give God glory and thanks for this opportunity to now own our own building. We have of course, owned our own building before, at 1401 Montgomery Highway in Vestavia. Overtime, we began to slowly descend into nothing. It was as if the Lord made us start over, almost, though certainly not entirely, from scratch.
Shortly after voting in favor of continuing the congregation instead of closing doors, several new families joined. Before we realized it, God gave us the gift/curse of outgrowing our facilities. Fortunately, the Lord gave us Berney Points Baptist Church to be a good and beneficial host to us. And not only did BPBC help us, but in certain ways, we probably helped them.
Now, after renting the facilities of BPBC for some four and a half years (give or take), we have worshipped for the last time at BPBC. We now have our own building once again. This is a gift for us. Many of the members of our congregation have never been able to worship at our church while having our own facilities.
We must ask what this means for us now. Because God has given us this blessing, we must use it to bless others. We must begin learning geography as well as Christology. In size, the building may be similar to that at 1401, but the location is vastly different. We are not off a major highway in a bustling Vestavia Hills. Nor are we a church with no sign that sits right off the interstate, but detached from a real city or community. Now, we have our sign, and we are a representative of a community. We do not represent CREC churches as much now. We are not as much of a global church known for its theology. We are a community church known for its love for that community.
It is easy, though maybe not as much now as used to be, to find Baptist churches that represented a community. It is not hard to find plenty of FBC’s around as you roam from city to city through the South. While we have a fun time naming our churches after Reformers or Reformed ideas, it is often hard to find a FPC, and even when we do, it is not the face of the community. My point is that often times churches like ours are known more for theology than community, and many Baptist churches, for example, are known more for community.
I am not trying to degrade the importance of theology, and I believe there are things we bring to the Kingdom that many other denominations do not. And since hiring Pastor Lusk, community has been a major theme of our church. And most people who visit our church can see that. Even before Pastor Lusk came, we had a form of community not many other churches had. I remember one of my first impressions upon our first visit to RHPC (former name of TPC) when I was ten was that the people were nice. Now, the Lord is giving us this building and this community, so that our love flows out from within just our congregation, to the wider community. It is time people like me use our hands and fingers for things other than posting theology on the internet. Instead of focusing on growing our minds by what we take in, it is time we focus on growing our hearts by what we give out.
It is easy for Presbyterian churches, through their form of church government, to be connected with another Presbyterian church five states away, yet hard to be really connected with the community. I even see this within our congregation. I hear so much about Jim Jordan’s church and Jeffrey Myers’ church, or about the works of Peter Leithardt and Douglas Wilson. I hear about CCB or about our sponsored church St. Marks in Tennessee. I’m sure with great reason, and I’m not by any means speaking against the Presbyterian form of church government. But are we known more just within our CREC Presbyterian group, or for being a blessing to the community we are in? I’m sure the same could be asked for many other churches like ours nationwide. Are we known for critiquing the other churches of this city because they don’t share our liturgy, or are we known for working with them to accomplish the same goals we have: to do the will of God and advance His Kingdom? Will we be known more for the blessing we are to Cahaba Heights, or for the blessing we are to CREC Presbyterian theology?
Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying we need to take over the Cahaba Heights community and make a monopoly on the churches. There are other churches in the community as well, and they may doing a great job. But we need to take the community we have with each other, and share it with the wider community. Nor am I saying I think we have a lot to change if we are to do a good job at the goals listed above. I believe God has been preparing us for this, and would not give us this building if we were not ready. But I am saying we should not take this for granted, nor only look at the benefits it gives us (not paying rent, not having a time to be out, better acoustics, not having people fuss about our little children). Those are great, but we should look at this as a new and better way to spread the Kingdom, first to Cahaba Heights, and then to Birmingham, and throughout the entire earth. “Presbyterian” should become more of an adjective for the noun (and perhaps even verb?) “Church,” instead of a noun within itself. I’ve heard it was mentioned we could take out the word “Presbyterian” from our name and just be “Trinity Church.” While I don’t think this is completely necessary or helpful, I am glad we are seeming to focus more on what it means to be a church than what it means to be Presbyterian.
In all ways, we should thank God for this new building we will worship in tomorrow. We should also thank Him for giving us BPBC for a while. It has been helpful. I am also personally thankful for the men and women in the church who helped make this possible. I did very little helping compared to some people in the church. We should also expect some stress to come in the first several weeks or so, until we get fully moved in and situated. I will probably be at BPBC in the morning for the first fifteen minutes or so of service to direct any misguided members or visitors to our new building. I look forward to coming for the second half of the service at our new building tomorrow morning.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless the Church
May 16, 2009
Ryan Hampton
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
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
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
Friday, October 31, 2008
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
Friday, September 5, 2008
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
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
Sunday, August 3, 2008
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
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
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Top 11 Ways To Destroy America
Top 11 Ways to Destroy America.
I don’t know about you, but I love America. But if you do want to see America destroy or fade away, then rest assure because I have given you 11 ways to successfully destroy America. And if you are one of those like me who love America, as I’m sure you are, then do not support any of these 11 ways. I wanted to keep this to ten, but when I came up with the eleventh way, I did not know which one to take out. So we’ll just have 11. I am trying to order this so that as you get closer to # 1, the more important it is. But this is hard because these are all so important. So may the countdown begin.
#11: Teach political correctness. One thing that can cause America to fade away is being politically correct. It’s hard to say exactly what political correctness is, but it generally has to do with teaching a relative moral or philosophical thought, that is, that there is no real standard of truth. This can destroy our country from within when we justify homosexual relations, abortion, or the like. Now this is not to say that anything not politically correct is good. Some people make outlandish statements that are really wrong. But we should stop forcing ourselves to avoid the truth in our words in the name of not offending anybody. If the truth offends somebody, I think it can also set them free.
#10: Have a weak border policy. I am by no means an anti-immigrant, or one who blames them for economic downfall and disregard for Patriotism. In fact I have blamed some conservatives for treating the border issue to seriously. I really do not see why we should make English our official language. I see no Constitutional jurisdiction for this, nor do I find it securing that the government should control the way we speak. But we do need some real border philosophy that we can manage, that keeps criminals out of our nation. I don’t think we need a fence, and I do not claim to know exactly how we do it, but we need something better than what we have now. Perhaps even less paper work, because those who avoid easy paperwork are probably coming here for illegal purposes, so that way we will have an idea of who should and should not be here.
For several administrations now, we have failed to get a grip on the border issue. Government hands our money to our immigrants, while citizens turn too far the other way sometimes, bordering (no pun intended) resentment to our immigrants. How about we treat them as human beings, and once they legally become an American, we treat them as Americans like you and I. They have all our privileges, and yet also their own personal responsibility. Until then, this will become a dividing issue at home and abroad, and the legals will be punished for the illegals crime, and the illegals will be rewarded for the legals work.
#9: Elect Barack Obama as President. If you want Hitler as our President, your sadly out of luck. But the good news for you is you just might get the next best thing. Barack Obama is basically a socialist. Think about it: universal healthcare, gun controls, government control of eduction, etc. were some of the same things that people like Karl Marx, John Lennon, et al pushed for.
If you were to take these tips on how to destroy our nation, Barack Obama would be guilty of about all of them. He is already politically correct, although if you analyze his (may I say important meaningful) words, then you will realize he is, in a politically correct way saying, “I AM A SOCIALIST.” Obama would hand out money to immigrants, which is certainly not the best way to handle the issue. And as you follow our future American-destroying tips, you will realize that he is guilty of about all of them as well. I don’t have time to fully explain everything, because I’m limiting each “tip” to just a couple paragraphs or so. But Obama would not be a saviour to our nation. He’s not even sure what his foreign policy is. He’s already flipping on that now. Even if he gets us out of Iraq in a couple years or less, he’ll have us somewhere else we definitely don’t need to be. I don’t think that Obama is the anti-Christ or anything like that, but he’s certainly not America’s saviour.
But the sad thing is, his opponent fascist John McCain is not much better.
#8: Keep the same two-party system monopoly we currently have in politics. Monopolies are never thought of as good things. Especially government controlled monopolies. One of the worst monopolies is when it comes to who will be our leaders. Washington D.C. is filled up with the same air heads year after year only in slightly different order. And our two party system has turned into a one-party system with two branches: the fascists and the socialists.
I think it is time we as American’s stand up and stop voting for the “best” of the two evils. McCain may not be as bad as Obama, and may not destroy the nation as much as quick, but do you really want someone as President who thinks that man can control the weather, and will therefore pass laws regulating your every action in the name of environmentalism? That is crazy, hypocritical, and politically correct all at the same time! Do you want someone who hangs on both sides of the fence as much as McCain? “I want the government to make healthcare more affordable to everyone, so we must give our economy choice” (not exact wording). That is like saying, “I think I should be a communist, but I’ll be fair and let there be some capitalism.” If you read on his website, he speaks of some of the same things Obama would: the government doing stuff for us. He’s no capitalist. He thinks we must sacrifice liberty for security. And while he may, today, claim that he’s pro-life, do you see him really making strides to overturn Roe vs. Wade?
And this is from the best of the two main people running. But fortunately, I have the freedom to vote for someone else, someone better, so that maybe in the long run, we can make a move to overturning this two party monopoly. And I just might exercise that freedom. I recommend that you at least check into that as well, otherwise, us and our posterity will endure the same mess we’ve had for years.
#7: Have the government “fix” our “climate crisis.” One thing I mentioned about McCain is his environmental movements. It scares me to think that the person who may become our next President actually believes that mankind can control the weather. It scares me to think that the government would pass laws about what we can and can not do in the name of environmentalism.
Maybe I’m naïve, but I don’t really think that is the case. I see little evidence that we are attributing to warmer weather, much less, that the government should fix it. And I see a lot of circular reasoning in the save-the-climate-freaks. Samford University, which is where I will attend school at in the Fall, gave us summer reading at orientation. The book was about global warming, and is entitled “Field Notes from a Catastrophe” and is written by Elizabeth Kolbert. On page 17, the writer says, “As the climate warms, there is a good chance that these gases will be released into the atmosphere, further contributing to global warming.” Think about it, the cause and the result are the same. She is basically saying, “As the earth gets warmer, the earth gets warmer.”
I don’t have a problem with believing that the earth is getting warmer. It seems to be, but then again, some people called the 1800’s the “Little Ice Age.” The earth’s temperatures have varied over the centuries. There are so many questions to answer before assuming that the government should get involved: if the earth is really warming we must ask, “Is it temporary or will it probably continue to warm?” “Is it a bad thing that the earth is warming, or are there some good effects as well?” “Is this man made?” “Can the government really fix the problem?” “If the government can fix the problem, do the good results outweigh our sacrifice?” Just because the earth is warming, there is no reason to assume that the government should be involved. I’ll let God control the weather, not Congress or the President.
#6: Continue to inflate the economy with fiat money and abandon the gold standard. Have you seen the commercials telling you to buy gold? Probably so. There is actually probably some truth in them. The value of the dollar has gone down so low, meaning you could get so much money for gold, which never really looses its value. Unfortunately, legal tender laws and the federal reserve hinder gold from really being used in circulation. We are left with the meaningless inflated paper that we call money. And, of course, its value has dropped.
Think about the Great Depression. In 1917 President Woodrow Wilson created the federal reserve. All of a sudden we had a lot of money, which was good for most of the 1920’s. They were the “roaring twenties.” But in 1929 the dollar had lost so much value, that all the success of the economy now came back to haunt them. It’s like buying everything on a credit card with no limits. It’s all great, until the credit card bill comes in!
Abandoning gold is a common mistake of nations, and America has been no different. It started early on, one of the few mistakes our Founding Fathers made. The Confederates made this mistake fighting for their independence, and it weakened their economy. The problem was worsened in 1913. Finally in 1965 quarters, once made of silver (at least some form of precious metal), were no longer made of silver. Look at a $20 bill from say, 1950. It basically says it is redeemable for real money, gold. Now, $20 bills no longer say that, because we don’t have the gold to back up our money! This leads to high gas prices, just to name one of the many affects.
If we have a solid monetary money system, we would earn what we get. If anything, money will gain value as more and more people are fighting for the same dollar. The dollar has more credit at home and around the world. Saving money would be good. Under an inflated economy, we’re always one step under the current. It’s basically a hidden tax – perhaps the worst form of tax there is.
#5: Have a lolly-gagging foreign policy. Our name around the world is important, and we don’t help our case by having a weak military. And we certainly don’t help when we think we’re invincible.
We don’t have a weak military, but it seems to be weakening. What happened to Ronald Reagan’s strategy of “we win they lose?” What happened to winning a war without firing a shot? What happened to going to war, taking care of business, and then leave and send our troops home to safety? Now we go to the Middle East to build nations. Going over there to protect ourselves may not be a bad thing. I was for that on 9/11/01. But we have no moral right to build nations. We don’t need to make enemies overseas. I’m not sure we’re much safer now than we were on 9/12/01. “Gentle Giant” is not the best description of American right now, although it probably should be where we want to head. Feared and respected; yet respectable.
If we bring everyone home now, then there will probably be a lot of chaos. But building nations over there makes the chaos worse. And certainly while there is a time for war, our ultimate goal should be that we have little war. But whatever the case, when we are in war, it should not be lolly-gagging. We need to be the strong nation America is.
#4: Practice Socialist Economics. One way to destroy America, which comes from within, is to practice socialist economic policy. It’s the policy of Barack Obama. It’s about government control over the economy. But this is not good. Free markets work better. In a free market, we make our own choices, and since we make them for our own benefit, we will probably make beneficial choices. The government will not make choices better than us.
Besides this, isn’t it stealing to take from one person and give it to the other? And that is the philosophy of socialists and communists. We take the money (supposedly from the rich), and give it to the poor. Now it sounds good, but I’d rather this be charity than government forced taxation. No matter who you are, who you take from, and who you give it to in return, stealing is stealing. Even if 51% of the vote said it wasn’t!
The “common storehouse” did not work in the days of John Smith. It taught laziness. The same is today. If you know you’ll get something from the government, then why work?
But even things like minimum wage and price caps are socialistic, and they don’t work. Prices will go up with minimum wage. The worker not worth the new minimum wage will be out of a job. And companies will go out of business with price caps. If you want lower gas prices, stop inflating the economy, and allow us to drill where there is oil, increasing supply, lowering demand, lowering prices.
#3: Have the government continue to control education, education our children. One of the scariest things ever is to think that the government controls the education of children. But you know what? That’s how it is in America today!
Think about it. The government takes your money, supposedly gives it to education, forces children to attend one certain school (monopoly) unless they pay extra for a private school, and then hires teachers who then teach children. But I don’t want to be educated by the government. One person, I can’t remember who it was, said that “Man is better not educated than to be educated by his rulers.” And we worry about God in schools; prayer in schools; what side of history you teach in schools, etc. But if we let individual schools decide these things, and not the government, and let you decide where you go to school, then we wouldn’t have near as many of these problems. The free market would handle it.
Education is too important to be left to a free market, you say. Well I say that the education of our children is too important to be left in the hands of a few greedy politicians.
#2: Abandon the Constitution. This is being done today. Our leaders take Oaths of Office with their hand on the Word of God, swearing to uphold the Constitution. But I’m not sure how much they mean it. Their actions don’t seem to show that they mean it much. The Federal government controlling education is unconstitutional. Roe vs. Wade was (and is) unconstitutional. There are prescribed ways to pass laws and go to war, and we have done much of that in an unconstitutional way.
And how many voters really take time to think about who the most Constitutional candidate is? We have abandoned one of the most important documents ever in our history. And being an American without caring about the Constitution is like being a Christian without caring about the Bible.
I know that the Constitutional is fallible. It was written by men, not divinely inspired per se. But it is important. And when we abandon this document, we really abandon a large amount of what America is. This leads to our socialist economic policy, our inflated fiat money system (which is unconstitutional, since government can only “coin” money constitutionally), our bad education system, etc. Let’s restore the Constitution.
Fortunately there was one candidate who wanted to restore the Constitution. It was Ron Paul. Unfortunately, he only received little votes.
# 1: Take God away from public life. The best way to destroy America, is to force God out of our public life. This hurts us individually, but also as a nation as a whole, by abandoning much of our worldview in fighting for independence. The ideas of limited government and liberty which we cherish come from a Christian worldview. God gives us liberties, and governments protect them, not usurp them. And there is nothing unconstitutional about this. Congress shall not pass a law regarding religion, but that does not mean that there can be no religion, or that Congress shall force religion out, or even that states can have their own establishments of religion (although it would not be wise at this time and place for any state to establish a religion). But if we remove “In God We Trust” from coins, we may start trusting in men, which will give us a big utalitarian government. Let God control the weather, have final vengance, and let us in the name of God individually give to the poor, not the government who is comprised of foolish sinful men. To save America, we must trust in God, and keep Him in public life – not by force, but certainly not by force shall we remove Him, and His blessings, who has truly shed His grace on thee, America. God bless America.
So there you go. Hope you enjoyed that. Let me know what you think, agree or disagree. I’ll be happy to listen to what you have to say.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
July 19, 2008
Ryan Hampton
I don’t know about you, but I love America. But if you do want to see America destroy or fade away, then rest assure because I have given you 11 ways to successfully destroy America. And if you are one of those like me who love America, as I’m sure you are, then do not support any of these 11 ways. I wanted to keep this to ten, but when I came up with the eleventh way, I did not know which one to take out. So we’ll just have 11. I am trying to order this so that as you get closer to # 1, the more important it is. But this is hard because these are all so important. So may the countdown begin.
#11: Teach political correctness. One thing that can cause America to fade away is being politically correct. It’s hard to say exactly what political correctness is, but it generally has to do with teaching a relative moral or philosophical thought, that is, that there is no real standard of truth. This can destroy our country from within when we justify homosexual relations, abortion, or the like. Now this is not to say that anything not politically correct is good. Some people make outlandish statements that are really wrong. But we should stop forcing ourselves to avoid the truth in our words in the name of not offending anybody. If the truth offends somebody, I think it can also set them free.
#10: Have a weak border policy. I am by no means an anti-immigrant, or one who blames them for economic downfall and disregard for Patriotism. In fact I have blamed some conservatives for treating the border issue to seriously. I really do not see why we should make English our official language. I see no Constitutional jurisdiction for this, nor do I find it securing that the government should control the way we speak. But we do need some real border philosophy that we can manage, that keeps criminals out of our nation. I don’t think we need a fence, and I do not claim to know exactly how we do it, but we need something better than what we have now. Perhaps even less paper work, because those who avoid easy paperwork are probably coming here for illegal purposes, so that way we will have an idea of who should and should not be here.
For several administrations now, we have failed to get a grip on the border issue. Government hands our money to our immigrants, while citizens turn too far the other way sometimes, bordering (no pun intended) resentment to our immigrants. How about we treat them as human beings, and once they legally become an American, we treat them as Americans like you and I. They have all our privileges, and yet also their own personal responsibility. Until then, this will become a dividing issue at home and abroad, and the legals will be punished for the illegals crime, and the illegals will be rewarded for the legals work.
#9: Elect Barack Obama as President. If you want Hitler as our President, your sadly out of luck. But the good news for you is you just might get the next best thing. Barack Obama is basically a socialist. Think about it: universal healthcare, gun controls, government control of eduction, etc. were some of the same things that people like Karl Marx, John Lennon, et al pushed for.
If you were to take these tips on how to destroy our nation, Barack Obama would be guilty of about all of them. He is already politically correct, although if you analyze his (may I say important meaningful) words, then you will realize he is, in a politically correct way saying, “I AM A SOCIALIST.” Obama would hand out money to immigrants, which is certainly not the best way to handle the issue. And as you follow our future American-destroying tips, you will realize that he is guilty of about all of them as well. I don’t have time to fully explain everything, because I’m limiting each “tip” to just a couple paragraphs or so. But Obama would not be a saviour to our nation. He’s not even sure what his foreign policy is. He’s already flipping on that now. Even if he gets us out of Iraq in a couple years or less, he’ll have us somewhere else we definitely don’t need to be. I don’t think that Obama is the anti-Christ or anything like that, but he’s certainly not America’s saviour.
But the sad thing is, his opponent fascist John McCain is not much better.
#8: Keep the same two-party system monopoly we currently have in politics. Monopolies are never thought of as good things. Especially government controlled monopolies. One of the worst monopolies is when it comes to who will be our leaders. Washington D.C. is filled up with the same air heads year after year only in slightly different order. And our two party system has turned into a one-party system with two branches: the fascists and the socialists.
I think it is time we as American’s stand up and stop voting for the “best” of the two evils. McCain may not be as bad as Obama, and may not destroy the nation as much as quick, but do you really want someone as President who thinks that man can control the weather, and will therefore pass laws regulating your every action in the name of environmentalism? That is crazy, hypocritical, and politically correct all at the same time! Do you want someone who hangs on both sides of the fence as much as McCain? “I want the government to make healthcare more affordable to everyone, so we must give our economy choice” (not exact wording). That is like saying, “I think I should be a communist, but I’ll be fair and let there be some capitalism.” If you read on his website, he speaks of some of the same things Obama would: the government doing stuff for us. He’s no capitalist. He thinks we must sacrifice liberty for security. And while he may, today, claim that he’s pro-life, do you see him really making strides to overturn Roe vs. Wade?
And this is from the best of the two main people running. But fortunately, I have the freedom to vote for someone else, someone better, so that maybe in the long run, we can make a move to overturning this two party monopoly. And I just might exercise that freedom. I recommend that you at least check into that as well, otherwise, us and our posterity will endure the same mess we’ve had for years.
#7: Have the government “fix” our “climate crisis.” One thing I mentioned about McCain is his environmental movements. It scares me to think that the person who may become our next President actually believes that mankind can control the weather. It scares me to think that the government would pass laws about what we can and can not do in the name of environmentalism.
Maybe I’m naïve, but I don’t really think that is the case. I see little evidence that we are attributing to warmer weather, much less, that the government should fix it. And I see a lot of circular reasoning in the save-the-climate-freaks. Samford University, which is where I will attend school at in the Fall, gave us summer reading at orientation. The book was about global warming, and is entitled “Field Notes from a Catastrophe” and is written by Elizabeth Kolbert. On page 17, the writer says, “As the climate warms, there is a good chance that these gases will be released into the atmosphere, further contributing to global warming.” Think about it, the cause and the result are the same. She is basically saying, “As the earth gets warmer, the earth gets warmer.”
I don’t have a problem with believing that the earth is getting warmer. It seems to be, but then again, some people called the 1800’s the “Little Ice Age.” The earth’s temperatures have varied over the centuries. There are so many questions to answer before assuming that the government should get involved: if the earth is really warming we must ask, “Is it temporary or will it probably continue to warm?” “Is it a bad thing that the earth is warming, or are there some good effects as well?” “Is this man made?” “Can the government really fix the problem?” “If the government can fix the problem, do the good results outweigh our sacrifice?” Just because the earth is warming, there is no reason to assume that the government should be involved. I’ll let God control the weather, not Congress or the President.
#6: Continue to inflate the economy with fiat money and abandon the gold standard. Have you seen the commercials telling you to buy gold? Probably so. There is actually probably some truth in them. The value of the dollar has gone down so low, meaning you could get so much money for gold, which never really looses its value. Unfortunately, legal tender laws and the federal reserve hinder gold from really being used in circulation. We are left with the meaningless inflated paper that we call money. And, of course, its value has dropped.
Think about the Great Depression. In 1917 President Woodrow Wilson created the federal reserve. All of a sudden we had a lot of money, which was good for most of the 1920’s. They were the “roaring twenties.” But in 1929 the dollar had lost so much value, that all the success of the economy now came back to haunt them. It’s like buying everything on a credit card with no limits. It’s all great, until the credit card bill comes in!
Abandoning gold is a common mistake of nations, and America has been no different. It started early on, one of the few mistakes our Founding Fathers made. The Confederates made this mistake fighting for their independence, and it weakened their economy. The problem was worsened in 1913. Finally in 1965 quarters, once made of silver (at least some form of precious metal), were no longer made of silver. Look at a $20 bill from say, 1950. It basically says it is redeemable for real money, gold. Now, $20 bills no longer say that, because we don’t have the gold to back up our money! This leads to high gas prices, just to name one of the many affects.
If we have a solid monetary money system, we would earn what we get. If anything, money will gain value as more and more people are fighting for the same dollar. The dollar has more credit at home and around the world. Saving money would be good. Under an inflated economy, we’re always one step under the current. It’s basically a hidden tax – perhaps the worst form of tax there is.
#5: Have a lolly-gagging foreign policy. Our name around the world is important, and we don’t help our case by having a weak military. And we certainly don’t help when we think we’re invincible.
We don’t have a weak military, but it seems to be weakening. What happened to Ronald Reagan’s strategy of “we win they lose?” What happened to winning a war without firing a shot? What happened to going to war, taking care of business, and then leave and send our troops home to safety? Now we go to the Middle East to build nations. Going over there to protect ourselves may not be a bad thing. I was for that on 9/11/01. But we have no moral right to build nations. We don’t need to make enemies overseas. I’m not sure we’re much safer now than we were on 9/12/01. “Gentle Giant” is not the best description of American right now, although it probably should be where we want to head. Feared and respected; yet respectable.
If we bring everyone home now, then there will probably be a lot of chaos. But building nations over there makes the chaos worse. And certainly while there is a time for war, our ultimate goal should be that we have little war. But whatever the case, when we are in war, it should not be lolly-gagging. We need to be the strong nation America is.
#4: Practice Socialist Economics. One way to destroy America, which comes from within, is to practice socialist economic policy. It’s the policy of Barack Obama. It’s about government control over the economy. But this is not good. Free markets work better. In a free market, we make our own choices, and since we make them for our own benefit, we will probably make beneficial choices. The government will not make choices better than us.
Besides this, isn’t it stealing to take from one person and give it to the other? And that is the philosophy of socialists and communists. We take the money (supposedly from the rich), and give it to the poor. Now it sounds good, but I’d rather this be charity than government forced taxation. No matter who you are, who you take from, and who you give it to in return, stealing is stealing. Even if 51% of the vote said it wasn’t!
The “common storehouse” did not work in the days of John Smith. It taught laziness. The same is today. If you know you’ll get something from the government, then why work?
But even things like minimum wage and price caps are socialistic, and they don’t work. Prices will go up with minimum wage. The worker not worth the new minimum wage will be out of a job. And companies will go out of business with price caps. If you want lower gas prices, stop inflating the economy, and allow us to drill where there is oil, increasing supply, lowering demand, lowering prices.
#3: Have the government continue to control education, education our children. One of the scariest things ever is to think that the government controls the education of children. But you know what? That’s how it is in America today!
Think about it. The government takes your money, supposedly gives it to education, forces children to attend one certain school (monopoly) unless they pay extra for a private school, and then hires teachers who then teach children. But I don’t want to be educated by the government. One person, I can’t remember who it was, said that “Man is better not educated than to be educated by his rulers.” And we worry about God in schools; prayer in schools; what side of history you teach in schools, etc. But if we let individual schools decide these things, and not the government, and let you decide where you go to school, then we wouldn’t have near as many of these problems. The free market would handle it.
Education is too important to be left to a free market, you say. Well I say that the education of our children is too important to be left in the hands of a few greedy politicians.
#2: Abandon the Constitution. This is being done today. Our leaders take Oaths of Office with their hand on the Word of God, swearing to uphold the Constitution. But I’m not sure how much they mean it. Their actions don’t seem to show that they mean it much. The Federal government controlling education is unconstitutional. Roe vs. Wade was (and is) unconstitutional. There are prescribed ways to pass laws and go to war, and we have done much of that in an unconstitutional way.
And how many voters really take time to think about who the most Constitutional candidate is? We have abandoned one of the most important documents ever in our history. And being an American without caring about the Constitution is like being a Christian without caring about the Bible.
I know that the Constitutional is fallible. It was written by men, not divinely inspired per se. But it is important. And when we abandon this document, we really abandon a large amount of what America is. This leads to our socialist economic policy, our inflated fiat money system (which is unconstitutional, since government can only “coin” money constitutionally), our bad education system, etc. Let’s restore the Constitution.
Fortunately there was one candidate who wanted to restore the Constitution. It was Ron Paul. Unfortunately, he only received little votes.
# 1: Take God away from public life. The best way to destroy America, is to force God out of our public life. This hurts us individually, but also as a nation as a whole, by abandoning much of our worldview in fighting for independence. The ideas of limited government and liberty which we cherish come from a Christian worldview. God gives us liberties, and governments protect them, not usurp them. And there is nothing unconstitutional about this. Congress shall not pass a law regarding religion, but that does not mean that there can be no religion, or that Congress shall force religion out, or even that states can have their own establishments of religion (although it would not be wise at this time and place for any state to establish a religion). But if we remove “In God We Trust” from coins, we may start trusting in men, which will give us a big utalitarian government. Let God control the weather, have final vengance, and let us in the name of God individually give to the poor, not the government who is comprised of foolish sinful men. To save America, we must trust in God, and keep Him in public life – not by force, but certainly not by force shall we remove Him, and His blessings, who has truly shed His grace on thee, America. God bless America.
So there you go. Hope you enjoyed that. Let me know what you think, agree or disagree. I’ll be happy to listen to what you have to say.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
July 19, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Friday, April 18, 2008
Do American's Exploit Foreigners Through Labor?
The following is a paper I wrote for economics class this year.
Basic Economics
April 18, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Question # 7
Do American companies exploit foreign workers buy paying lower wages to them than what they pay in the U.S.? Should the U.S. Federal Government pass legislation on this “exploitation?”
Many people today believe that American businessmen are evil. They want nothing more than a profit. They could not care less about moral virtues or “fair” trade. For an example, many people criticize Wal-Mart’s success because they “underpay” their employees, and take away the small businessman’s opportunity to succeed. Many people complain to the oil companies for “price gauging” the consumers. Along with all of this, many people complain at any typical American company for their policy on hiring any foreign work.
The arguments for all of these complaints come from little understanding of economics. People want minimum wage to help the poor, when in reality, it exploits the poor from work. People want regulations on foreign trade and work to help people at home, to help the home nation’s wealth, and to “protect” over-seas workers. Often, the reversal of their goals is met. The people at home and abroad are exploited because of government regulations. Government regulations simply do not work.
It is true that foreign workers generally work for less pay than workers at home do. Many Mexicans who come to the United States get jobs that pay much less than the average American is willing to work for. Some people complain that our businessmen are hurting the foreign workers by not paying them enough. Some people complain that businessmen are hurting American’s because the foreign worker takes away the American job. However neither argument would hold up in an economic courtroom.
People easily look at the negative side of things when it comes to free market economics, and look to the positive side of things in a government regulated economy. It is natural, because the “seen” effects are noticed first, and often, the seen effect go to support a government regulated economy. But we must look at the whole picture – all groups of people, for a long amount of time, not just one group of people for a short amount of time. Consider no laws on trade – no laws saying that a businessman must pay his foreign employees the same as he pays his native employees. Sure, the foreign workers may get some of the jobs that the American’s lost. Sure, they may not make as much money at first. But American businesses can expand more rapidly by hiring people for less money – creating more jobs in the long run. Meanwhile, the foreign workers can gain job experience and find another job that pays more money.
Yet despite the common sense of economics, many in today’s political arena fail to see it that way. CNN News anchor Lou Dobbs believes in this “exporting” of jobs, and says it is a result of “corporate greed.” But is the government going to put a law against this “greed?” If the government gets to outlaw greed, then they get to decide what greed is. Often times the government calls something greed that really isn’t greed, such as simply wanting to make a profit to support a family. All this does is further invite the government into your home.
Exporting jobs also does good things for the consumer. It saves them money! If a company gets cheap labor, they have more freedom to charge lower prices for a product to knock other companies out of business, or force them to drive their prices lower. Think of who benefits: the business benefit by buying cheaper labor; the consumers benefit in buying cheaper products; and the workers benefit by getting a job. The American workers will benefit in the long run as well, by paying less for products, and finding a job at an expanded company who “exported” the jobs overseas.
The problem with much flawed economic thought comes from the fact that people look to the seen effects and utterly ignore the unseen effects, that are just as real. They look at the glass half-empty. There are no side effects to any economic plan, for the good or bad. Fact-twisting politicians spoon-feed gullible Americans into believing lies.
Without government intervention, foreign workers still get paid a market wage. It could be that their market wage for a particular job is lower than that in America, but that does not make it immoral or illegal to higher them. Making laws against hiring over-seas workers is the immoral act. Basically laws forcing businesses to pay the same amount on over-seas workers is creating an artificial minimum wage overseas, which is turning their economy into ours. Why should the government try to make another nation’s economy like our own, especially when our economy has enough problems of its own? That is immoral.
Making laws against hiring over-seas workers for lower wages would obviously make prices go up, because workers at home would have to pay more money for labor. These laws would also probably force higher taxes, because it is another law that has to be passed, and, at least theoretically, enforced. Law enforcement requires someone working to enforce the law, which is much of the purpose of taxes. Of course, this is another reason making laws would be immoral and not wise, not to mention the fact that they are unconstitutional.
So why do many people including our politicians advocate so much government intervention in overseas working? Are they misguided? Are they greedy and power hungry? Is it somewhere in between, or somewhat of both? We really can’t tell if they are just hypocritical or just honestly misguided, but nonetheless it is a mistake that they make.
Often it comes in the name of a “favorable balance of trade.” Supposedly just giving American’s the jobs would help our economy. But we have already seen that forcing this would increase prices and taxes, cut jobs from those overseas, and possibly in the long-run even take away our own jobs at home. But supposedly, this would keep more jobs at home, and therefore keep more money at home. But that again is a fallacy of economics. Even if we did bring in more money in our nation, it would not help, because it would simply cause inflation. It seems that our leaders who make or call for these stupid regulations are either hypocritical or severely misguided.
In the end, nothing good would come from passing laws against cheap labor over-seas. If a law were passed, it would be very hard to define and uphold. How could someone define what too low of a wage was? Since it is hard to define and uphold, it would require all the more taxes and intrusion into your personal life and the economy.
Our taxes would be raised, our prices would go up. Our businesses would fail to expand into bigger businesses creating bigger and better things and more jobs. Those over-seas would not get the jobs that may have had without government interference. Nothing good would come from these rules and regulations.
However we would see good come from the government getting out of business affairs and international marketing. It is the government’s job to protect our liberties, which may include protecting the border from any enemies we may have abroad. But that does not mean that they must cut off any contact with any foreign nation, or pass laws keeping the people from having contact with foreigners. Government restrictions hinder economic growth. A free market would give us economic growth, and allow fair trades to take place, at home, or abroad.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
April 18, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Basic Economics
April 18, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Question # 7
Do American companies exploit foreign workers buy paying lower wages to them than what they pay in the U.S.? Should the U.S. Federal Government pass legislation on this “exploitation?”
Many people today believe that American businessmen are evil. They want nothing more than a profit. They could not care less about moral virtues or “fair” trade. For an example, many people criticize Wal-Mart’s success because they “underpay” their employees, and take away the small businessman’s opportunity to succeed. Many people complain to the oil companies for “price gauging” the consumers. Along with all of this, many people complain at any typical American company for their policy on hiring any foreign work.
The arguments for all of these complaints come from little understanding of economics. People want minimum wage to help the poor, when in reality, it exploits the poor from work. People want regulations on foreign trade and work to help people at home, to help the home nation’s wealth, and to “protect” over-seas workers. Often, the reversal of their goals is met. The people at home and abroad are exploited because of government regulations. Government regulations simply do not work.
It is true that foreign workers generally work for less pay than workers at home do. Many Mexicans who come to the United States get jobs that pay much less than the average American is willing to work for. Some people complain that our businessmen are hurting the foreign workers by not paying them enough. Some people complain that businessmen are hurting American’s because the foreign worker takes away the American job. However neither argument would hold up in an economic courtroom.
People easily look at the negative side of things when it comes to free market economics, and look to the positive side of things in a government regulated economy. It is natural, because the “seen” effects are noticed first, and often, the seen effect go to support a government regulated economy. But we must look at the whole picture – all groups of people, for a long amount of time, not just one group of people for a short amount of time. Consider no laws on trade – no laws saying that a businessman must pay his foreign employees the same as he pays his native employees. Sure, the foreign workers may get some of the jobs that the American’s lost. Sure, they may not make as much money at first. But American businesses can expand more rapidly by hiring people for less money – creating more jobs in the long run. Meanwhile, the foreign workers can gain job experience and find another job that pays more money.
Yet despite the common sense of economics, many in today’s political arena fail to see it that way. CNN News anchor Lou Dobbs believes in this “exporting” of jobs, and says it is a result of “corporate greed.” But is the government going to put a law against this “greed?” If the government gets to outlaw greed, then they get to decide what greed is. Often times the government calls something greed that really isn’t greed, such as simply wanting to make a profit to support a family. All this does is further invite the government into your home.
Exporting jobs also does good things for the consumer. It saves them money! If a company gets cheap labor, they have more freedom to charge lower prices for a product to knock other companies out of business, or force them to drive their prices lower. Think of who benefits: the business benefit by buying cheaper labor; the consumers benefit in buying cheaper products; and the workers benefit by getting a job. The American workers will benefit in the long run as well, by paying less for products, and finding a job at an expanded company who “exported” the jobs overseas.
The problem with much flawed economic thought comes from the fact that people look to the seen effects and utterly ignore the unseen effects, that are just as real. They look at the glass half-empty. There are no side effects to any economic plan, for the good or bad. Fact-twisting politicians spoon-feed gullible Americans into believing lies.
Without government intervention, foreign workers still get paid a market wage. It could be that their market wage for a particular job is lower than that in America, but that does not make it immoral or illegal to higher them. Making laws against hiring over-seas workers is the immoral act. Basically laws forcing businesses to pay the same amount on over-seas workers is creating an artificial minimum wage overseas, which is turning their economy into ours. Why should the government try to make another nation’s economy like our own, especially when our economy has enough problems of its own? That is immoral.
Making laws against hiring over-seas workers for lower wages would obviously make prices go up, because workers at home would have to pay more money for labor. These laws would also probably force higher taxes, because it is another law that has to be passed, and, at least theoretically, enforced. Law enforcement requires someone working to enforce the law, which is much of the purpose of taxes. Of course, this is another reason making laws would be immoral and not wise, not to mention the fact that they are unconstitutional.
So why do many people including our politicians advocate so much government intervention in overseas working? Are they misguided? Are they greedy and power hungry? Is it somewhere in between, or somewhat of both? We really can’t tell if they are just hypocritical or just honestly misguided, but nonetheless it is a mistake that they make.
Often it comes in the name of a “favorable balance of trade.” Supposedly just giving American’s the jobs would help our economy. But we have already seen that forcing this would increase prices and taxes, cut jobs from those overseas, and possibly in the long-run even take away our own jobs at home. But supposedly, this would keep more jobs at home, and therefore keep more money at home. But that again is a fallacy of economics. Even if we did bring in more money in our nation, it would not help, because it would simply cause inflation. It seems that our leaders who make or call for these stupid regulations are either hypocritical or severely misguided.
In the end, nothing good would come from passing laws against cheap labor over-seas. If a law were passed, it would be very hard to define and uphold. How could someone define what too low of a wage was? Since it is hard to define and uphold, it would require all the more taxes and intrusion into your personal life and the economy.
Our taxes would be raised, our prices would go up. Our businesses would fail to expand into bigger businesses creating bigger and better things and more jobs. Those over-seas would not get the jobs that may have had without government interference. Nothing good would come from these rules and regulations.
However we would see good come from the government getting out of business affairs and international marketing. It is the government’s job to protect our liberties, which may include protecting the border from any enemies we may have abroad. But that does not mean that they must cut off any contact with any foreign nation, or pass laws keeping the people from having contact with foreigners. Government restrictions hinder economic growth. A free market would give us economic growth, and allow fair trades to take place, at home, or abroad.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
April 18, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Friday, March 21, 2008
The Other Side of Feminism
Forgive me for being a while getting back on here. I have been busy with work, school, and traveling to the lake.
The Other Side of Feminism
Feminism is a movement sweeping into the minds of many people across the globe, and it destroys the traditional and proper view of humanity. But there are many myths surrounding feminism. We have the general idea of what feminism is. Women are to blame - they want power and want to be equal or greater than man - that general sort of idea. But feminism is much more than a modern attempt at electing a woman as President. Feminism is a constant struggle throughout the race of mankind, and it is not merely the fault of women.
What feminism does is destroy the way we should view humanity. It takes us away from the traditional God-ordained way of viewing men and women, giving us a worldly alternative. This movement is not really modern - in fact, the very first sin man committed was feministic in nature. The "modern" side of feminism is just the different applications and rhetoric used.
When Eve ate from the forbidden fruit, she was putting herself to the level of God, or so in her mind, and did so even without asking her husband. Perhaps it would be forgivable if, when Eve felt tempted, she asked her husband's permission, and he said no. But Eve did not do this.
However at the same time, Adam is blamed for this sin much more than Eve is. The Scriptures do not tell us about "Death through Eve" but rather "Death through Adam." Adam seemed to have been present watching Eve eat the fruit, and he failed to remind her of God's grace and His law that they should not eat of that tree. He failed to be the man! See, feminism is not so about women wanting too much power, but it is often about men not being men. If men are not the men, protecting their families, loving a wife with a passion unknown to the mind of mortal man, raising a family in a God-fearing way, being the head of the house as Christ is the head of the church, etc., then it is very forgivable to the women to want to take over.
I do not agree with the women feminists of today, so do not get me wrong. But it seems the actions of the men speak as louder or louder as the words used by women. So often while working at Chick-Fil-A, I notice women paying for the food, telling me what they and their husband want, grabbing the food and taking it to the table, etc. These may not be great big deals, but there is something behind them. If men are not willing to make a living for the family, then who can blame the women for doing that?
Once again, I do not write this to condone the women leaders of modern feminism, because they, the voices, are at fault too. This blog is written to show 'the other side' of feminism, not the only side of feminism. But it is the side that does not get talked about much today.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
March 21, 2008
Ryan Hampton
The Other Side of Feminism
Feminism is a movement sweeping into the minds of many people across the globe, and it destroys the traditional and proper view of humanity. But there are many myths surrounding feminism. We have the general idea of what feminism is. Women are to blame - they want power and want to be equal or greater than man - that general sort of idea. But feminism is much more than a modern attempt at electing a woman as President. Feminism is a constant struggle throughout the race of mankind, and it is not merely the fault of women.
What feminism does is destroy the way we should view humanity. It takes us away from the traditional God-ordained way of viewing men and women, giving us a worldly alternative. This movement is not really modern - in fact, the very first sin man committed was feministic in nature. The "modern" side of feminism is just the different applications and rhetoric used.
When Eve ate from the forbidden fruit, she was putting herself to the level of God, or so in her mind, and did so even without asking her husband. Perhaps it would be forgivable if, when Eve felt tempted, she asked her husband's permission, and he said no. But Eve did not do this.
However at the same time, Adam is blamed for this sin much more than Eve is. The Scriptures do not tell us about "Death through Eve" but rather "Death through Adam." Adam seemed to have been present watching Eve eat the fruit, and he failed to remind her of God's grace and His law that they should not eat of that tree. He failed to be the man! See, feminism is not so about women wanting too much power, but it is often about men not being men. If men are not the men, protecting their families, loving a wife with a passion unknown to the mind of mortal man, raising a family in a God-fearing way, being the head of the house as Christ is the head of the church, etc., then it is very forgivable to the women to want to take over.
I do not agree with the women feminists of today, so do not get me wrong. But it seems the actions of the men speak as louder or louder as the words used by women. So often while working at Chick-Fil-A, I notice women paying for the food, telling me what they and their husband want, grabbing the food and taking it to the table, etc. These may not be great big deals, but there is something behind them. If men are not willing to make a living for the family, then who can blame the women for doing that?
Once again, I do not write this to condone the women leaders of modern feminism, because they, the voices, are at fault too. This blog is written to show 'the other side' of feminism, not the only side of feminism. But it is the side that does not get talked about much today.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
March 21, 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, December 20, 2007
Lessons in American History, Part II: America's UnCivil War
One of the most misunderstood events in American history is the American "Civil War." In fact, the "Civil War" was no civil war. The classic textbook story of the case goes something like this: The South had slaves, and the North wanted to end slavery. The South rebelled and waged war with the North. But they did not really secede because secession is illegal. Abraham Lincoln saved the Union without unnecessary violence. But that is VERY far from the way the story actually goes.
We should ask ourselves what caused the war, how the war went and how it was carried through, and what the effects of the war were, or are. There is little doubt that slavery was an issue, and in fairness, it must be addressed to a degree. But let us remember that the victorious North wrote the historical accounts, making our "history" very bias.
The war was largely a cultural war. It was not a war fought only over slavery, but a war fought between two different cultures. The cultures were different in terms of religion, politics, economics, custom, philosophy, etc. Essentially, they were different in almost every way imaginable. The North and South are different today, but not nearly as much as they were then.
Slavery was an issue that had been going on for a long time. The slave trade in Africa had been going on for perhaps thousands of years. It made eventually made its way to England, and eventually to Western Civilization. It was an issue that the founders pondered on. We would think that because our founders thought so highly of natural law theory, and liberty, that they would have outlawed such an act in the nation. But we must remember that is was considered the norm at the time, and many early Americans wanted to take slaves and treat them right, perhaps even showing them the Christian Gospel.
American slavery acutally began in the North. But as the two cultures grew more and more different, slavery became more indigenous in the South. The South was largely agriculturous, and needed slaves much more than the largely industrious North. Slavery was an issue that separated the North and the South.
But it was not the only issue. New Orleans was shaping out to be a powerful American city. I was close to the Gulf of Mexico and close to the Mississippi River. It was central to both the East and West of the country. But it was a southern city. The North did not like the South becoming more geographically dominant to the once dominant North.
The South was good for producing cotton and the like. A good economic trade system was going on between England and North and South United States. But a disproportionate tariff was placed on imported goods. This hurt the South's economy because they would be forced to buy at a more expensive price, and because it forced others to buy from somewhere other than the South, given that the South would raise their prices to drown out the tax. The South saw this as unkind, unconstitutional, and unfair. They saw it as Central Aggression that benefited the North at the expense of the South.
The South was largely ridiculed due to growing in line with the romantic movement and becoming much more religious oriented. The North was more intellectually oriented as opposed to the South's emotionalism. The South was sensitive to their pride and to any outer aggression or intolerance. The South wanted a smaller government, particular the Central Government. They saw the Central Government as drifting from the Constitution.
The South could not stand Abraham Lincoln. He did not even receive a single vote in the South when he ran for President. Yet he one the election. The South saw him as a tyrant, and a hater of the South. Lincoln probably did not hate the South as much as other Northerners did, or as much as the South thought he did. But Lincoln was not quite the Saint or martyr we make him out to be.
Lincoln once supported secession, but changed his mind when the South seceded. Lincoln was not quite the saviour to the slaves as we think. Lincoln did not want the slaves in America, but he wanted the slaves sent back to Africa. Lincoln was a political flip-flopper (like politicians today perhaps!). When Lincoln was elected President, the South immediately seceded.
Secession is legal. The Constitution never addresses the matter, at least not directly, leading us to believe that the Central Government may not interfere on the issue. But the Central Government did interfere. The Central Government, under Lincoln, waged war on the seceding South.
Therefore, this was a war against two nations - the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. If this was one nation, as Lincoln often suggested, then this war would be unconstitutional, being that the Central Government of the United States waged war on a particular section of its very country! This is not only unconstitutional, but is flat out absurd! And why would or should Lincoln want to wage war on the South if he loved them so much and just wanted them happily ever after in the Union?
But Lincoln waged war on the South. Not only to punish those who own slaves, but to completely demolish the South. The North Burnt churches, houses, and killed innocent people. Slavery was used as an emotional argument to Northern Abolitionists to justify the war. But slavery was not as rampant in the South as we think. Most Southerners did not own slaves, and most of who did owned very little. Very few people in the South owned over ten slaves. And there were still some people in the North who owned slaves anyway.
A point can be made that the South should not have seceded. But it is absurd to think that the South was the "bad guys" in this war, and the North was the heroes. This was no "Civil War." This was a war for Southern Independence fought against Northern Aggression. A Civil War is a war fought between two different parts of one nation seeking the same government. But this was for Southern Independence. The South had - and wanted to keep - their own nation. They drafted a Constitution as did the founders of the United States. It was very similar, simply leading out the "general welfare" clause, and interestingly enough, outlawing the slave trade. After secession, the South should have been left alone, or mildly encouraged to join the Union.
But the North won the war, and in doing so, was able to show dominance and write history. The North began winning many votes by the emotional argument used on the slaves. The North with the help of the Central Government, made the South submit to many of their ways. Reconstruction was not just cleaning up the economy after the war, but reconstructing the South. Much terror against the South still continued. Robert E. Lee himself said that if he knew that the South would have been treated the way they were after the war, he would not have surrendered, but would have fought to the last man.
I do not attempt to claim perfection to the South. They probably should not have seceded, at least not at the time that they did. Slavery, except for rare exceptions, is wrong, and contradicts the founders view of natural law and natural rights. There were good people in the North, and good people who fought for the North, and some people in the South with bad intent. But there were many things that the South stood for that were good, and many things that the North stood for and did that were absolutely immoral. In the least, I hope this provides balance to a largely unbalanced issue.
But don't just take my word. Here are some interesting links:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=x0nCil3D1ZU
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/14.2/vorenberg.html
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Abraham.Lincoln.Quote.C318
http://www.geocities.com/mark_willey/civlwar.html?200720
We should ask ourselves what caused the war, how the war went and how it was carried through, and what the effects of the war were, or are. There is little doubt that slavery was an issue, and in fairness, it must be addressed to a degree. But let us remember that the victorious North wrote the historical accounts, making our "history" very bias.
The war was largely a cultural war. It was not a war fought only over slavery, but a war fought between two different cultures. The cultures were different in terms of religion, politics, economics, custom, philosophy, etc. Essentially, they were different in almost every way imaginable. The North and South are different today, but not nearly as much as they were then.
Slavery was an issue that had been going on for a long time. The slave trade in Africa had been going on for perhaps thousands of years. It made eventually made its way to England, and eventually to Western Civilization. It was an issue that the founders pondered on. We would think that because our founders thought so highly of natural law theory, and liberty, that they would have outlawed such an act in the nation. But we must remember that is was considered the norm at the time, and many early Americans wanted to take slaves and treat them right, perhaps even showing them the Christian Gospel.
American slavery acutally began in the North. But as the two cultures grew more and more different, slavery became more indigenous in the South. The South was largely agriculturous, and needed slaves much more than the largely industrious North. Slavery was an issue that separated the North and the South.
But it was not the only issue. New Orleans was shaping out to be a powerful American city. I was close to the Gulf of Mexico and close to the Mississippi River. It was central to both the East and West of the country. But it was a southern city. The North did not like the South becoming more geographically dominant to the once dominant North.
The South was good for producing cotton and the like. A good economic trade system was going on between England and North and South United States. But a disproportionate tariff was placed on imported goods. This hurt the South's economy because they would be forced to buy at a more expensive price, and because it forced others to buy from somewhere other than the South, given that the South would raise their prices to drown out the tax. The South saw this as unkind, unconstitutional, and unfair. They saw it as Central Aggression that benefited the North at the expense of the South.
The South was largely ridiculed due to growing in line with the romantic movement and becoming much more religious oriented. The North was more intellectually oriented as opposed to the South's emotionalism. The South was sensitive to their pride and to any outer aggression or intolerance. The South wanted a smaller government, particular the Central Government. They saw the Central Government as drifting from the Constitution.
The South could not stand Abraham Lincoln. He did not even receive a single vote in the South when he ran for President. Yet he one the election. The South saw him as a tyrant, and a hater of the South. Lincoln probably did not hate the South as much as other Northerners did, or as much as the South thought he did. But Lincoln was not quite the Saint or martyr we make him out to be.
Lincoln once supported secession, but changed his mind when the South seceded. Lincoln was not quite the saviour to the slaves as we think. Lincoln did not want the slaves in America, but he wanted the slaves sent back to Africa. Lincoln was a political flip-flopper (like politicians today perhaps!). When Lincoln was elected President, the South immediately seceded.
Secession is legal. The Constitution never addresses the matter, at least not directly, leading us to believe that the Central Government may not interfere on the issue. But the Central Government did interfere. The Central Government, under Lincoln, waged war on the seceding South.
Therefore, this was a war against two nations - the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. If this was one nation, as Lincoln often suggested, then this war would be unconstitutional, being that the Central Government of the United States waged war on a particular section of its very country! This is not only unconstitutional, but is flat out absurd! And why would or should Lincoln want to wage war on the South if he loved them so much and just wanted them happily ever after in the Union?
But Lincoln waged war on the South. Not only to punish those who own slaves, but to completely demolish the South. The North Burnt churches, houses, and killed innocent people. Slavery was used as an emotional argument to Northern Abolitionists to justify the war. But slavery was not as rampant in the South as we think. Most Southerners did not own slaves, and most of who did owned very little. Very few people in the South owned over ten slaves. And there were still some people in the North who owned slaves anyway.
A point can be made that the South should not have seceded. But it is absurd to think that the South was the "bad guys" in this war, and the North was the heroes. This was no "Civil War." This was a war for Southern Independence fought against Northern Aggression. A Civil War is a war fought between two different parts of one nation seeking the same government. But this was for Southern Independence. The South had - and wanted to keep - their own nation. They drafted a Constitution as did the founders of the United States. It was very similar, simply leading out the "general welfare" clause, and interestingly enough, outlawing the slave trade. After secession, the South should have been left alone, or mildly encouraged to join the Union.
But the North won the war, and in doing so, was able to show dominance and write history. The North began winning many votes by the emotional argument used on the slaves. The North with the help of the Central Government, made the South submit to many of their ways. Reconstruction was not just cleaning up the economy after the war, but reconstructing the South. Much terror against the South still continued. Robert E. Lee himself said that if he knew that the South would have been treated the way they were after the war, he would not have surrendered, but would have fought to the last man.
I do not attempt to claim perfection to the South. They probably should not have seceded, at least not at the time that they did. Slavery, except for rare exceptions, is wrong, and contradicts the founders view of natural law and natural rights. There were good people in the North, and good people who fought for the North, and some people in the South with bad intent. But there were many things that the South stood for that were good, and many things that the North stood for and did that were absolutely immoral. In the least, I hope this provides balance to a largely unbalanced issue.
But don't just take my word. Here are some interesting links:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=x0nCil3D1ZU
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/14.2/vorenberg.html
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Abraham.Lincoln.Quote.C318
http://www.geocities.com/mark_willey/civlwar.html?200720
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Christian Music
Christian Music
October 12, 2007
A major way God moves His people is through music. Music is a common theme throughout the Bible. We are told to praise God with music (Psalm 33:3, 40:3, 137:4, Isaiah 23:16). Music itself was created by God and has existed since creation, and will always exist. Music is distinct from other general sounds. Music is sound, but not all sound is music. The popular styles of music change, but music itself never changes.
Music is a reflection on religion, culture, and lifestyle. Music itself is amoral- that is, without moral absolutes behind it. There is no way we can say as an absolute fact that any style of music is wrong, or that any kind is necessarily and always better than another. However relative to given points in time, music can have an impact on someone depending on the culture it relates to. In the Southeast today, we see many people using popular sounds of music with spiritual lyrics to give praise to God. There seems to be a revival-like attitude sweeping through our churches in Christianity today, as shown largely through the music.
Music is amoral, but yet can be related to given cultures, whether sinful or Godly. How can Christians today apply this to their lives? How does music influence our corporate worship, private walk with God, and every decision we make? How can we relate Christian music in particular to these questions as well?
First off, we should look to Scripture. Scripture speaks of everything either directly or indirectly. What becomes hard is knowing what to believe when it is not mentioned in the Bible directly. There are many cases of Christian doctrine, or of any issue today, that are believed even when the Bible does not directly support the belief in mind. However we should remember that sometimes the Bible may speak of something indirectly. As a somewhat extreme example, what if someone said "college football needs playoffs." There is no direct Scriptural evidence to defend that claim, but it may be a true statement. The Bible speaks, you could say, of fairness, equality, etc., and then it is up to us to decide what constitutes as Biblical fairness and equality. There is not that much said about music genre, music lyrics, etc. in the Bible directly, but that does not mean we can not reach a Biblically based conclusion with truth and objective to it. However the Bible speaking of everything whether directly or indirectly does not mean there is an absolute right and wrong to any given subject at hand. Music itself was already stated as amoral. This is a premise, however, and if shown to be false by Scripture, can be rejected. However I do not believe that Scripture would object to this, although there may be some relative sense of morality in music because it relates to the culture, people, or the person who listens to it. We should now use Scripture in finding the balance to these premises. The below will sum up what was said:
1): Scripture should be used, whether directly or indirectly, to defend anything we believe, because Scripture is absolute and speaks of everything whether directly or indirectly (presupposition).
2): Music is amoral, that is, lacking absolute moral sensitivity (premise).
3): Morality can be indirectly and relatively related to music (premise). [This does not mean that morality is absolutely relative, but that it is relatively absolute. The ‘relative’ in this case is only based off of God’s absolute standard of morality].
I have written of some of this before, getting mixed opinions. First off, for those who have read some of what I have said of Christian music, I in no way judge anyone based merely off of the music they listen to, or whether the Christian music they listen to is contemporary, tradition, or classical. I do not think that it is Biblical to just reject any style of music absolutely, whether it be Christian or secular. I have heard of people who would essentially bash contemporary Christian music, and I find no direct or indirect Scriptural evidence to do such a thing. However we should keep a few things in mind.
For one thing, the church is distinct from the world. The church should not just mimic the world, even in the name of gaining followers. Another thing we should keep in mind is what point number three (seen above), gets at. Music and culture are related, and culture and religion are related as well. Essentially, all culture is, is religion externalized. Music is music, but we can tell a lot about a culture based on its song. Therefore, there is some sort of moral sensitivity that should be placed in music. This leads me to my third point. As Christians, anything we do, especially if done directly in the name of Christ, should be done with complete reverence and fear. If music images a culture, then church music, at some level, should be unique, because the church is unique.
Once again, we should not declare anything as completely absolute. We should be bringing the nations to Christ, and so in theory, if the world had a largely unified culture, unified in Christ (a utopian view), then there would be no reason to be distinct. In the same sense, it is true that the church is to be ‘in’ the world. Furthermore, the world in the sense of the universal planet earth, is filled of both Christians and non-Christians. Even a culture within the world is filled of both Christians and non-Christians. There are some traditions that are held by both Christians and non-Christians. The difference is found in the motive. What often separates music as being glorifying to God or not is the motive of the musician, and all those who listen to or sing or play the music.
Here, we see a two-fold relationship. On one hand, logic seems to tell us that Christian music should be separate and unique from other music. On the other hand we seem to see that Christian music can give full glory to God no matter what genre it is of. Music is music, and the styles may change. The sound of classical Christian music today may have been considered ‘pop’ music five hundred years ago (in theory). Will people see bands such as Third Day, Mercy Me, etc., five-hundred years from now in the same way we see people such as Martin Luther and John Newton today?
So once again, there is this nagging two-fold relationship. We dug deeper, but the two sides are still there. They haven’t yet reached a point. We can all reach different conclusions, and perhaps, you have already disagreed with my logic. But now I desire to write what my conclusions would be.
All of our music should be done with full reverence to God. Any music written for God should be done in fear. This does not mean that songs can not be ‘simple’ and still good. But the song should be something that comes from the heart, and the heart should be focused on God. Therefore, any Christian song written should be bold, firm, and attesting to the grace of God.
Beyond this, I believe that there is a difference between corporate church music and private Christian music. The Christian is a Christian in personal sense, but also in the corporate sense. When a portion of the body of Christ comes into God’s presence and assembles for corporate worship, they are called out of the world. They are called boldly, and they should come in a manner that shows their corporate relationship with Christ. We are the body, not a bunch of bodies. We are one. We are the body and the bride of Christ. The music should reflect God’s work with His people, and His people’s work together with God. I believe that today’s popular Christian music reflects more of the personal relationship with Jesus, while traditional or classical hymns reflect the overall picture. Both are important and have their place, but corporate worship is designed for the overall picture.
When I am driving down the road by myself, I don’t necessarily enjoy listening to classical music or corporate hymns. It would be more likely of me to turn to a popular Christian radio station than to put in a CD of old people singing older hymns. But when in the presence of covenant renewal service, there is something much more powerful about these hymns. They have beauty and truth. They have bold statements that are not seen in today’s Christian music such as "Jesus, What a Friend of Sinners," "Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound," "We are God’s People, the chosen of the Lord; Born on His Spirit, established by His word," and "Lift High the Cross," all just to name a few. There are some popular Christian songs today with powerful lyrics, but many of them lack what the hymns so richly have. In enjoy some contemporary Christian such as Casting Crowns and Three Driven Nails, but I don’t much care for a lot of what I hear on popular Christian radio. We must be lyrically and musically sensitive to what we label as Christian music. What if we label some sappy or watered-down ‘inspirational’ message as Christianity? A non-Christian might say, "If that is today’s Christian music, then I don’t want to be a part of today’s Christianity." Once again, music reflects the person and the culture.
But this does not reject bringing contemporary music to God. Someone has to write the music. Sometimes there are some traditional or Reformed churches today that seem scared of presenting any new Christian music. I don’t think this is good. We are to "sing to the Lord a new song" (Psalm 33:3). Of course, reading further in the verse, it says to "play skillfully with a loud noise." There is nothing wrong if the Christian music is loud as long as it is reverent and bold. The same chapter tells us to "Praise Him with the Psaltery and with an instrument of ten strings." Music should reflect the Bible. We are told to "Praise Him with the Psaltery."
I also believe we should be careful in relations to the style of Christian music that is brought out. Rightly or wrongly, some styles of music relate to a sinful culture. It becomes dangerous if Christian music is played in the style that portrays a sinful culture. Such styles may include rap music, hard rock music, etc. It becomes worse when the Christian band or artist dresses like the norm of this style, perhaps with tattoos, excessive body piercings, etc. We should desire to bring all the nations to Christ, but I’m not sure playing their style of music is the best way. We should alter an alternative to their sinful lifestyle found in the hope of Jesus. We should offer community to a self-centered lifestyle, rooting ourselves in the doctrine of the Trinity. Playing to their level is not necessarily the correct way to go.
Also, if someone is a Christian artist, they should make sure the way they live their lives attests to the grace of God. I also do not particularly care for a Christian to assume that any music produced by any Christian must be directly Christian. As a Christian and a musician myself, I do write Christian songs, but I also write secular songs. I try to keep it all to the glory of God and all consistent within the Christian worldview.
So when we hear Christian music, we should ask six basic questions:
1): Does the style of music seem to be influenced by and does it seem to promote a sinful lifestyle?
2): Is the music bold enough lyrically and musically to be declared as Christian music? (Keep in mind if it is declared as Christian music, then it becomes a much stronger representative of Christianity.)
3): Does the music seem to simply mimic the world music for popular gain and attention?
4): Is this music written and played to the full glory of God?
5): Is this music better in the context of corporate worship, or private listening?
6): Does the author or artist of this music live their lives attesting to God's grace?
In my opinion, if the music passes this little "test," then it is good Christian music. I also believe that even if the music does not necessarily pass this test completely, then it should not necessarily be criticized. God may be pleased even with our imperfect attempts to praise Him, if our hearts are in the right place.
Continue to guard what you hear with the Word of God, but also keep in mind how you should interpret God’s Word correctly. One of the next blogs will address this question. Remember the importance of music. It is a major way God moves His people. Therefore, we should be sensitive to our music, but also praising with it. We should lift high our voices, so that we may "Lift High the Cross."
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
God bless His church
October 14, 2007
Ryan Hampton
October 12, 2007
A major way God moves His people is through music. Music is a common theme throughout the Bible. We are told to praise God with music (Psalm 33:3, 40:3, 137:4, Isaiah 23:16). Music itself was created by God and has existed since creation, and will always exist. Music is distinct from other general sounds. Music is sound, but not all sound is music. The popular styles of music change, but music itself never changes.
Music is a reflection on religion, culture, and lifestyle. Music itself is amoral- that is, without moral absolutes behind it. There is no way we can say as an absolute fact that any style of music is wrong, or that any kind is necessarily and always better than another. However relative to given points in time, music can have an impact on someone depending on the culture it relates to. In the Southeast today, we see many people using popular sounds of music with spiritual lyrics to give praise to God. There seems to be a revival-like attitude sweeping through our churches in Christianity today, as shown largely through the music.
Music is amoral, but yet can be related to given cultures, whether sinful or Godly. How can Christians today apply this to their lives? How does music influence our corporate worship, private walk with God, and every decision we make? How can we relate Christian music in particular to these questions as well?
First off, we should look to Scripture. Scripture speaks of everything either directly or indirectly. What becomes hard is knowing what to believe when it is not mentioned in the Bible directly. There are many cases of Christian doctrine, or of any issue today, that are believed even when the Bible does not directly support the belief in mind. However we should remember that sometimes the Bible may speak of something indirectly. As a somewhat extreme example, what if someone said "college football needs playoffs." There is no direct Scriptural evidence to defend that claim, but it may be a true statement. The Bible speaks, you could say, of fairness, equality, etc., and then it is up to us to decide what constitutes as Biblical fairness and equality. There is not that much said about music genre, music lyrics, etc. in the Bible directly, but that does not mean we can not reach a Biblically based conclusion with truth and objective to it. However the Bible speaking of everything whether directly or indirectly does not mean there is an absolute right and wrong to any given subject at hand. Music itself was already stated as amoral. This is a premise, however, and if shown to be false by Scripture, can be rejected. However I do not believe that Scripture would object to this, although there may be some relative sense of morality in music because it relates to the culture, people, or the person who listens to it. We should now use Scripture in finding the balance to these premises. The below will sum up what was said:
1): Scripture should be used, whether directly or indirectly, to defend anything we believe, because Scripture is absolute and speaks of everything whether directly or indirectly (presupposition).
2): Music is amoral, that is, lacking absolute moral sensitivity (premise).
3): Morality can be indirectly and relatively related to music (premise). [This does not mean that morality is absolutely relative, but that it is relatively absolute. The ‘relative’ in this case is only based off of God’s absolute standard of morality].
I have written of some of this before, getting mixed opinions. First off, for those who have read some of what I have said of Christian music, I in no way judge anyone based merely off of the music they listen to, or whether the Christian music they listen to is contemporary, tradition, or classical. I do not think that it is Biblical to just reject any style of music absolutely, whether it be Christian or secular. I have heard of people who would essentially bash contemporary Christian music, and I find no direct or indirect Scriptural evidence to do such a thing. However we should keep a few things in mind.
For one thing, the church is distinct from the world. The church should not just mimic the world, even in the name of gaining followers. Another thing we should keep in mind is what point number three (seen above), gets at. Music and culture are related, and culture and religion are related as well. Essentially, all culture is, is religion externalized. Music is music, but we can tell a lot about a culture based on its song. Therefore, there is some sort of moral sensitivity that should be placed in music. This leads me to my third point. As Christians, anything we do, especially if done directly in the name of Christ, should be done with complete reverence and fear. If music images a culture, then church music, at some level, should be unique, because the church is unique.
Once again, we should not declare anything as completely absolute. We should be bringing the nations to Christ, and so in theory, if the world had a largely unified culture, unified in Christ (a utopian view), then there would be no reason to be distinct. In the same sense, it is true that the church is to be ‘in’ the world. Furthermore, the world in the sense of the universal planet earth, is filled of both Christians and non-Christians. Even a culture within the world is filled of both Christians and non-Christians. There are some traditions that are held by both Christians and non-Christians. The difference is found in the motive. What often separates music as being glorifying to God or not is the motive of the musician, and all those who listen to or sing or play the music.
Here, we see a two-fold relationship. On one hand, logic seems to tell us that Christian music should be separate and unique from other music. On the other hand we seem to see that Christian music can give full glory to God no matter what genre it is of. Music is music, and the styles may change. The sound of classical Christian music today may have been considered ‘pop’ music five hundred years ago (in theory). Will people see bands such as Third Day, Mercy Me, etc., five-hundred years from now in the same way we see people such as Martin Luther and John Newton today?
So once again, there is this nagging two-fold relationship. We dug deeper, but the two sides are still there. They haven’t yet reached a point. We can all reach different conclusions, and perhaps, you have already disagreed with my logic. But now I desire to write what my conclusions would be.
All of our music should be done with full reverence to God. Any music written for God should be done in fear. This does not mean that songs can not be ‘simple’ and still good. But the song should be something that comes from the heart, and the heart should be focused on God. Therefore, any Christian song written should be bold, firm, and attesting to the grace of God.
Beyond this, I believe that there is a difference between corporate church music and private Christian music. The Christian is a Christian in personal sense, but also in the corporate sense. When a portion of the body of Christ comes into God’s presence and assembles for corporate worship, they are called out of the world. They are called boldly, and they should come in a manner that shows their corporate relationship with Christ. We are the body, not a bunch of bodies. We are one. We are the body and the bride of Christ. The music should reflect God’s work with His people, and His people’s work together with God. I believe that today’s popular Christian music reflects more of the personal relationship with Jesus, while traditional or classical hymns reflect the overall picture. Both are important and have their place, but corporate worship is designed for the overall picture.
When I am driving down the road by myself, I don’t necessarily enjoy listening to classical music or corporate hymns. It would be more likely of me to turn to a popular Christian radio station than to put in a CD of old people singing older hymns. But when in the presence of covenant renewal service, there is something much more powerful about these hymns. They have beauty and truth. They have bold statements that are not seen in today’s Christian music such as "Jesus, What a Friend of Sinners," "Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound," "We are God’s People, the chosen of the Lord; Born on His Spirit, established by His word," and "Lift High the Cross," all just to name a few. There are some popular Christian songs today with powerful lyrics, but many of them lack what the hymns so richly have. In enjoy some contemporary Christian such as Casting Crowns and Three Driven Nails, but I don’t much care for a lot of what I hear on popular Christian radio. We must be lyrically and musically sensitive to what we label as Christian music. What if we label some sappy or watered-down ‘inspirational’ message as Christianity? A non-Christian might say, "If that is today’s Christian music, then I don’t want to be a part of today’s Christianity." Once again, music reflects the person and the culture.
But this does not reject bringing contemporary music to God. Someone has to write the music. Sometimes there are some traditional or Reformed churches today that seem scared of presenting any new Christian music. I don’t think this is good. We are to "sing to the Lord a new song" (Psalm 33:3). Of course, reading further in the verse, it says to "play skillfully with a loud noise." There is nothing wrong if the Christian music is loud as long as it is reverent and bold. The same chapter tells us to "Praise Him with the Psaltery and with an instrument of ten strings." Music should reflect the Bible. We are told to "Praise Him with the Psaltery."
I also believe we should be careful in relations to the style of Christian music that is brought out. Rightly or wrongly, some styles of music relate to a sinful culture. It becomes dangerous if Christian music is played in the style that portrays a sinful culture. Such styles may include rap music, hard rock music, etc. It becomes worse when the Christian band or artist dresses like the norm of this style, perhaps with tattoos, excessive body piercings, etc. We should desire to bring all the nations to Christ, but I’m not sure playing their style of music is the best way. We should alter an alternative to their sinful lifestyle found in the hope of Jesus. We should offer community to a self-centered lifestyle, rooting ourselves in the doctrine of the Trinity. Playing to their level is not necessarily the correct way to go.
Also, if someone is a Christian artist, they should make sure the way they live their lives attests to the grace of God. I also do not particularly care for a Christian to assume that any music produced by any Christian must be directly Christian. As a Christian and a musician myself, I do write Christian songs, but I also write secular songs. I try to keep it all to the glory of God and all consistent within the Christian worldview.
So when we hear Christian music, we should ask six basic questions:
1): Does the style of music seem to be influenced by and does it seem to promote a sinful lifestyle?
2): Is the music bold enough lyrically and musically to be declared as Christian music? (Keep in mind if it is declared as Christian music, then it becomes a much stronger representative of Christianity.)
3): Does the music seem to simply mimic the world music for popular gain and attention?
4): Is this music written and played to the full glory of God?
5): Is this music better in the context of corporate worship, or private listening?
6): Does the author or artist of this music live their lives attesting to God's grace?
In my opinion, if the music passes this little "test," then it is good Christian music. I also believe that even if the music does not necessarily pass this test completely, then it should not necessarily be criticized. God may be pleased even with our imperfect attempts to praise Him, if our hearts are in the right place.
Continue to guard what you hear with the Word of God, but also keep in mind how you should interpret God’s Word correctly. One of the next blogs will address this question. Remember the importance of music. It is a major way God moves His people. Therefore, we should be sensitive to our music, but also praising with it. We should lift high our voices, so that we may "Lift High the Cross."
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
God bless His church
October 14, 2007
Ryan Hampton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
