Ryan Hampton Endorses...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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











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

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

September 29, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Andy Griffeth is Back!!

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

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

Lessos From the Olympics

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

August 25 , 2008

Ryan Hampton

Some Inconvenient Questions

Some Inconvient Questions

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

Ryan Hampton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

September 5th 2008

Ryan Hampton

Waiting on God

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

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

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

Let’s read Genesis 3:1-6:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

God bless America

God bless His Church

Pray for our Troops

August 17, 2008

Ryan Hampton

The Politics of Racism

The Politics of Racism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

What do you think?

God bless America

God bless you

Pray for our Troops

August 2, 2008

Ryan Hampton


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

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

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

God is Closer Than You Think

One mistake we as Christians often make is assuming that God is somewhere far off. We fail to see God as right here with us, and His glory among us. We fail to open our eyes and see God. In a sense, we fail to know much about God, and much of God.

I'm not a superstitious finatic who thinks that I can hear God's voice, or think that He reveals Himself in things such as dreams or grilled cheeses or animal crackers. I don't think that God necesarily gives us things that are meant to be extroadinary signs of His existence, except perhaps in a few cases to help someone who's faith is struggling.

But God is right here among us. His presence is here when it is just you alone at night, and His presence is even greater when two or more are gathered to worship Him in spirit and in truth (Matt 18:20). And even something that is not God Himself may be something that shows His glory.

What are some things that show His glory? Perhaps a corporate Body of Believers singing hyms of praise together in corporate worship. How about the sacraments of Baptism and Communion? Perhaps when a child is brought to life on earth, or when two people are made one through marriage. Or perhaps even, as put before, when you get lost in prayer that it seems as if God is your best friend.

This does not mean that one day of worship will be a revival for the history books. It doesn't mean that God's going to show all His glory at once. It doesn't mean that the elements in the Lord's Supper become the real physical substance of what they represent. But it does mean we must have a higher view of corporate worship and the sacrament of Communion. It's more than just a nice memorial; it's the place we have supper with Christ, who is among us. Corporate worship is where we ascend into God's presence and the gates of Heaven are opened up for us, and we worship with angels and archangles and all the company of Heaven.

Scripture often speaks of the gates of Heaven being opened up to someone. In the Old Testament and at the beginning of the New Covenant, God would give more direct signs to His People because they did not have the written Word, or many of the other advantages we have. Their access to God was limited, so God had to come down more in real voice and substance. So today we are not able to literally see Heaven, whereas, though only in certain rare situations, God may reveal Heaven to some of His People in the Old Covenant.

But it always seems as if Heaven was right among them. They simply had to be shown. We can not literally see Heaven now, but that does not mean it is not right among us. Heaven never moved. (It is not as if earth and Heaven are the same thing, but perhaps Heaven is some sort of parallel relation to the earth; a fourth dimension we can't see, or something like that.) The book of Revelation often pictures Heaven as right among us, as if there is simply a door in between (Rev. 3:8, 20; 4:1). It seems as if Heaven is right there. And although we can not literally see Heaven, we do have the ability to come into God's real presence through the name of Jesus Christ, something that people of the Old Testament may not have had. We do not have to go through a Priest, or our parents or ancestors, or an animal sacrifice to have any relation with God. All we need is Jesus Christ.

This simple yet profound theological idea, that God is right with us, gives us both a vision for God's Kingdom, and an idea of how we should live now. We have the vision that one day Heaven and earth will be joined. That our body and souls will be one. Many think that we are physical creatures with spiritual experiences, while others say that we are spiritual beings with a physical experience. The truth is we are meant to be both body and spirit, both together. In the Garden, Adam and Eve were with God. God was right among them talking to them. The Garden was in a real sense God's Kingdom. There may have been a Heaven, but it was one with the earth. But the Fall seperated it all. Our bodies and spirits are now apart, and our direct relationship with God is cut off. But in the end when all things are made new, it will all be one again, and we have everything and more of what we had in the Garden.

This idea is also relative to us here and now. We are told to make our bodies a living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1). Our many bodies are to be one Body in the Lord, and our many sacrafices are to be one sacrafice in the Lord. We should not be Christians merely as individuals, but as one People. And when we live as one People, we see God the most. When we reject community and friendship and become mere individuals, we can not function fully as a Christian. We need each other. It is one Body that is the Bride of Christ, not many bodies.

So in summary, God is closer than you think. He is right here with us. Unfortunately we live in a fallen world where Heaven, whether is be a fourth dimension or a parellel universe or whatever, is not fully revealed. But God does reveal some of it through worship, through heart-felt prayer, through the love Christians share together as friends, through Christians together singing hyms of praise, through the sacraments, etc. He does not show Himself in animal crackers or grilled cheeses as some may make millions off of believing. But He is right here among us.

So while friends should not be the only reason you go to church, perhaps it should be one reason. Friends can helps us come closer to God and see Him revealed to us.

What do you think?

God bless America

God bless His Church

July 11, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Independence Day

I think it is good to occasionally sit back and think about our many blessings we have as people and as American's. And Independence Day, the Fourth of July, is the fitting time to do so. So that we do not fall or fade away as a nation, we must take the time to remember both those fighting for us now, and those who have fought for us before.

It may be cliche' to write this and to talk about our Troops, but yet it is necesary. Our men and women - some of whom are my age - are out fighting for us, or preparing to fight for us. Fighting so that we can debate who should be our President, whether or not we need more or less or the same taxes, debate the roles if any the Federal Government should play in the economy, and debate our presence in the Middle East in the first place. Those are great things that should be debated, but sometimes we should put those aside for our love of our nation. Whether you are for this war, against it, or just unsure what to think like myself, you can still join others in a love for America, and a support for those who are fighting.

But I don't want to only think of those overseas in the present. Many have gone before them in previous wars. Many men died fighting to become an independent nation just less than two and a half centuries ago. July 4th is the birthday of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Each one who signed that document pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" for their nation. And even in our great success as we are today, so often both us as regular citizens, and our leaders forget about the meaning of the Declaration of Independence. We forget about those who founded this nation as a City upon a hill. Think of the unity and togetherness our early leaders had, even in a time that should be much more splitting than today. Breaking off from another nation is nothing small. Yet the American's joined together then to claim their independence, and so may we this Independence Day come together and reclaim ours.

So while you are celebrating with your families today, eating watermelon, swimming, or whatever you are doing, take a time to thank God for the brave men and women of the past and the present who have fought and perhaps even gave up their lives for this nation. May we be ever greatful.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

July 4, 2008

Ryan Hampton

The Hypocricy of Feminism

Not too long ago I posted a blog entitled "The Other Side of Feminism" in which I argued that we shouldn't blame just women for feminism. Feminism often comes from men failing to be men. You would have to read my blog to understand my full points, but I think that the blog did well to show others at fault for the dangerous movement as modern feminism.

But that doesn't mean I justify all women feminist leaders either. There is a great amount of hypocricy in their ideology. So often women fight for the "right to chose" to have an abortion, and fight for equal pay in the workplace (something that should be handled by the free market), but so often utterly ignore the disrespect that many men, or boys, give them.

I have been reading "How To Ruin the United States of America" by Ben Stein and Phil DeMuth. In it they make a good point. The writers argue, "It amazes us that the women's-rights lobby is too busy fighting for abotion and for allowing multimillionare females into country clubs to notice that the most popular form of music among youth today routinely refers to all women as 'hos' and 'b*t*hes.' Don Imus can't get away with this - why is it tolerated in the rest of the radio dial?"

Not to defend the comments made by Don Imus, but if the media would have left it alone then they would be much more harmless than the songs "Low" or "Stronger." If Don Imus should have been mandatorily fired, then perhaps half the rap songs should be banned from the radio.

This is kind of an inverse of my previous blog on feminism. The other one showed the fault men had to play in feminism. This one, you could argue, shows women's fault in not just feminism itself, but for the lack of respect they get. If they want respect then actually attack real disrespect, and don't become so disrespectful as to fight for the "right," or so it is called, to abort a baby or fight for money you did not earn. Stand up for yourself where it matters, practice what you preach, and if you want to dominate the workfield, then all the more power to you to do so on your own initiative without the government's help. If you want respect, then make yourself respectable. Don't tolerate being treated as a sex object, and don't place yourself in a position where you probably would be treated as one.

If your going to be a feminist, then do so without being a hypocrite about it.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

June 30, 2008

Ryan Hampton