Conservatism and Slippery Slopes

It took some doing to figure out what to title this thought. After a while of thinking it through, though, I realized that a repeating theme through this post is going to be the "slippery slope". I am going to say some things, and people are probably going to initially react in horror. That's because of "slippery slopes" that are etched in our own brain. You use certain words - liberals like to call them 'code words' - and people who don't understand you are going to slide right into a set of well-worn tracks and assume your meaning based on the continued motion of well-trodden path. I'd like my readers to take a moment to shake themselves loose of the well-trodden paths, and not assume the meaning of my statements until I explain them.

First statement: The more I deal with liberals and children, the more I understand why not everybody is going to Heaven.

Yeah, I started out with the inflammatory-looking one on purpose, just to wake everybody up. I want to make it excruciatingly clear that I am not talking about sin. I am not making any particular person out to be evil. I could already hear the cries of "I work a job and I am nice to people and how dare you say I don't deserve" or whatnot. Yeah, cut that out, ok? I don't deserve Heaven. It isn't because I'm some sort of rotten and mean person who is worse than you. It's because I could be better than you and still not deserve it. This has nothing to do with whether you are a nice person, or even a good person. It has to do with heart and will.

Here's a second statement to add to the first one. Both Christianity and American Conservatism require by their very nature enough hearts and minds willing to follow it from their own free will.

The reason for this is that you can't force someone to follow a philosophy except by means of an oppressive authoritarian dictatorship. This is something liberals do understand all too well; it is why virtually every implementation of socialism thus far has been authoritarian. I'm about to hear the "Social Democrats" fuss at me over certain European countries that do not meet some sort of mystical requirement for being full-out Communist. Knock it off. If we are to be honest with ourselves, we must know that "Social Democrat" is a form of socialism that is only halfway implemented, and that the areas in which it is implemented do indeed easily meet the definition of "Communist". I'm going to get back to that thought in a moment.

Now I mentioned Christianity and American Conservatism for a reason. Both of them spring from the same root. To be more clear, Conservatism sprang from a period of reformation of Christianity, and Christianity sprang from the root of the One God, previously known by the world as the Hebrew God, and now known to be open to all takers. This is important, because this is the source of my point: To truly grasp and follow either, you have to be willing to do so.

You may have noticed - I certainly have - that a great many political topics have seemed to become needlessly complicated. So many of the minutiae being argued about nowadays seems blindly simple to the uninvolved. So many easy solutions lie by the wayside. This is because liberals are trying to rules-lawyer their way to forcing us to acknowledge that they have some sort of right to what they want. This in turn forces people to go on the defensive and enact laws meant to prevent authoritarianism, but ironically increase it themselves, pushing the government into places where it shouldn't have had to go. The only way you can force someone to follow a philosophy is by means of an oppressive authoritarian dictatorship.

I've mentioned in a previous post that I believe there to have been two Civil Rights movements. In the first, Democrat governments tried to get the government involved in "race" by Jim Crow laws in the South. In the second, Democrat politicians tried to gain power and get the government involved in "race" by Reverse Discrimination laws on the Federal level. Though you will never hear me disparage the overthrow of a single Jim Crow law, I must say that the true winners of the entire era were the Democrats. Considering disparate levels of fatherlessness, joblessness, jail population, poverty etc. we can hardly say that the true winners were actually the blacks. Like I said, liberals understand that the only way to force a philosophy on someone is by authoritarian dictatorship; their goal was to get the government involved in race, which is why the leadership was able to so quickly switch their allegiances from one race to another.

I believe that this is a very important point to make because there are elements in the Republican Party who have taken on that liberal point, muddying the actual definition of Conservatism. Their ardent support of President Trump, whom I do not oppose - this is not anti-Trump sentiment being expressed here - has confused people, especially since he ran as a Conservative. That is at the heart of why I, in a "safely" blue state, voted Johnson. (Before anybody jumps on me for this, the election results bore out what I had suspected; all of Johnson's votes in my state would not have defeated Hillary had they been Trump's votes instead. Sad to say, that's the way it was.) I'd also like to specifically call out Dominionism, which is at times conflated with Conservatism. Dominionism - trust me, I know what I am talking about here - is not a Conservative philosophy. It harkens back to pre-Reformation Christianity, in which unwise people violated the spirit of God's Laws and the message of Salvation by falling back upon that bastion of liberalism: oppressive authoritarian dictatorship. (Granted, even so, they were gentler than most... the more Biblical you get, the more you are protected against it, hence the rise of the Reformation in the first place.)

Back to my core point, to make sure it is understood. At the core of Conservatism is an understanding that we should hold to principles of guarded liberty, personal responsibility, and a very real sense of our government as something that must be under our control: not only for the people, but also of the people and by the people in a very real sense. We must be active individuals in our homes, in our workplaces, in our communities as well as in our government (as voters, for most of us), careful, and self-disciplined, because a government of an undisciplined people will never fail to establish its own discipline over them, and that is how the authoritarian dictatorship starts.

I do believe that the "silent majority", found in every corner of the country from the much-discussed 'heartland' to the simple New England farmer types from which I partly descended to the grateful Cuban refugees to the black families who still remember the pre-Reverse Discrimination mandate to be articulate, clean, and responsible, are willing and able to return to a time when our salvation depended more on our personal lives than our Federal laws.

Now I said I was going to get back to a point about the Social Democrats, and I'd like to close with it. I've been linking Conservatism and Christianity throughout this post. I do not want to make the same mistake as the Dominionists. I do not believe Conservatism to be especially blessed by God in the same way as God blessed the Nation of Israel or anointed King Saul, whom later-King David refused to cut down even when Saul was corrupt and oppressive in his later years. I do not believe Conservatism to be the only Christian-derived form of government, nor do I believe it to be necessary in any way to be a Christian, though I confess I suspect that Christians will find themselves living it in their personal lives no matter what their political affiliations. Conservatism is a derivation, a lesser production, a philosophy meant to address the here-and-now, and it is not especially favored by God aside from the natural benefits of working alongside the laws of nature rather than against.

I could picture some sort of unusually eloquent and gentle-thinking Social Democrat asking me, "Perhaps you might think the same thing of this philosophy as well? You do want to make it clear that Conservatism can be derived from Christianity without leading to an oppressive authoritarian theocracy. Think of Social Democracy in the same way; it is derived from socialism, but it is not going to lead to full-on Communism." To that, I would like to return to the concept of the slippery slope. You start at a point and fall into well-worn tracks that take you off the very edge of the precipice. In Conservatism, particularly American Constitutional Conservatism, there are a set of Human Rights very clearly enumerated. These are stops, barriers between us and an authoritarian theocracy. How firm are they? Whether any given Conservative personally believes in God or not, those who set up the barriers understood them to have been fixed by a Supreme Authority, quite out of their hands and well beyond their 'pay grade', and so the philosophy demands that they be treated that way whether you are a Christian or not. This, then, is the question to ask the Social Democrats: Where are your stops? What are your stops? Who laid them down, who keeps them steady, and under what circumstances could you violate them? In the area of health care, as we have seen with cases like Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard, the part of the country that follows Communism does so to the point where that particular country's government has the power of life and death over innocent citizens. So what *can't* Social Democrats allow the government to do, and why?

Or are the stops nothing more and nothing less than the current will of the people in charge, to be kept, discarded, violated, or worshiped at their desire?

Judge not.... what?

I saw a lovely post up yesterday talking about how homeschooling is growing sharply in popularity. Of course, I, like many homeschooling parents, cheered at the news. We firmly believe in what we're doing, and it's good to see more people swelling our ranks; if nothing else, there is safety in numbers, and there are still people who want to prohibit us from making this choice.

This morning, however, I saw a comment on that post, something that I suppose I could have seen coming, because it seems to happen at least once in every single conversation about homeschooling that is thrown out where the public can see it.

"Well, homeschooling isn't the best for everybody. Some kids do better in public school, and some kids do better in private school."

Of course.

If you take the absolute worst that homeschooling has to offer and compare it to the absolute best public school ever, no doubt the public school education will be superior.

I am getting so tired of lifestyle/moral equivalency. You can't say that homeschool is simply better than public school. If you do, you're judging, on a personal level, every single person who has ever been public schooled as 'inferior'. If you truly aren't, they will all believe that you are, and treat you as if you are. People are so quick to judge other people. We are all sinners. We all have inferiority complexes. Those of us who can't accept that have to try to make ourselves out to be 'righteous' by proving ourselves to be more 'righteous' than other people. Then comes the attempt to make yourself better than others by proving that you are "less judgmental" than others. It's hard, though, to not be judgmental, when you aren't allowed to view yourself as a sinner who is not really any better than anybody else.

So instead you take the easy way out. If all choices are equally good, then you don't have to try to view someone whom you think is making worse choices as if they are, nevertheless, no less perfect than you are. Or perhaps you think that, if they judge your choices and you "don't judge theirs", that makes you better than them. I'm not 100% sure what's going through these people's heads. All I know is that they have decided that the only way for them to show moral superiority is to show moral equivalency, because it never occurred to them (or they simply could not accept it) to view themselves and everyone else as sinners in need of a Savior. Their righteousness is not in Christ, so they need to find it elsewhere.

Meanwhile, this hurts every single person who is honestly, humbly, willingly trying to learn the best way forward. Young men and women beg for sexual advice, only to be told, "Well, ya know, maybe it's wrong to sleep with him, but maybe it's not. It's up to you, I guess. Do what'll make you happy." And if the young person points out in exasperation that he or she doesn't know what will make him or her happy, the best these people can do is to kind of vaguely repeat their useless advice.

So let me be the one to tell it straight.

Homeschool is better than public school.

Also, a home-prepared lunch is healthier than McDonalds, breastfeeding is better than bottlefeeding, your clothing will fit better and last longer if you make it yourself (or, at least, don't buy it from a cheapy place like Walmart), a small sedan will put out less pollution than a minivan, and you really ought to use those wipes on your hands and the handle of the shopping cart before you go in.

Guess what.

I will pull on an old t-shirt and pair of jeans from Walmart, herd my kids into the minivan, head off to a homeschool field trip without once using wipes, and pick up McDonalds on the road.

What we need to do is to focus, not on pretending that all options are 'equal', but on not judging each other. After all, life isn't about doing everything 'right'. We can't, even if we want to. It isn't about doing everything 'the best way'. If you make that your goal, you will be so stressed out that your health will fail far faster than if you eat a McDouble once every few weeks, or even *gasp* carry about twenty pounds more after having your children than you did when you got married.

Life is about growing, about loving and taking care of each other, about learning to change our priorities, about understanding that "superiority" and "inferiority" mean nothing next to Christ's sacrifice and love for us. I know that's hard for non-Christians to take in, but I hope for your sake that your worldview can come up with something close enough to follow my example here. She who is without sin can throw the first stone. By all means, stand there and state clearly that homeschooling is better than public school. But don't stand there in Walmart jeans with your kid eating a Happy Meal in your minivan (or even eating whole wheat sandwiches in your minivan) and say that the public schooling parent is not as good a parent as you are.

And if someone asks you which is better, breast or bottle, you can say 'breast' without going crazy trying to prop up the ego of every single woman who didn't take that path. But if you know a woman with an infant who is bottle-feeding, you go over there with a good meal, send her to bed, clean up her kitchen, and prepare that bottle so that she can actually rest for more than two hours.

It's much harder to learn how to not judge a person when you are willing to accept that not all choices are equally good.

But it's much, much more rewarding.

The opposite argument against women in combat

Recently, I saw a redux of a claim that I've seen made many times, on the subject of women in combat. "There are women who can be just as bloodthirsty as men," she proclaimed. "And they are just as fit to fight as men are!"

It occurs to me that many people seem to think this, and it is quite wrong.

Now in come the feminists screeching out what they appear to believe: "You Christians just don't believe that women can be rough and tough! You don't believe that women can fight! You believe that they have to be gentle and meek all the time and never stand up for themselves!" What they don't realize is that this is like telling someone who is taking high blood pressure pills that his real problem is that the doctors persist in thinking that his blood pressure is too low.

Yes, you are going to find plenty of Bible verses exhorting women to be gentle and sweet. Why do you think God keeps saying this? Do you think that God exhorts honest people to not lie? Do you think that God exhorts the naturally chaste to avoid sexual temptation? Jesus said it Himself: "I have come for the sick. People who are healthy have no need of a doctor." When we are reminded to not cheat, it is because we are tempted to cheat. When we are reminded that even looking at a woman with lust is tantamount to mental adultery, it is because we think that it's okay as long as we don't do anything physical. When God tells us to remember to give to the poor, it is not because we never think, "But then I won't be able to afford my new this-or-that." Women aren't continually exhorted to be gentle because God thinks we're nothing but gentle. It's because women need to be reminded to be gentle!

Anyone who works in public highschools, juvenile centers, women's prisons, and similar places will laugh in your face if you tell them that women are meeker and gentler than men. Women, they know, unrestrained by gentleness, will fight all the time. They won't just fight, however. They will try to do permanent injury. They will fight to disfigure. They will wage their battles on multiple fronts: physically, mentally, emotionally, and socially. People who will think nothing of breaking up a fight between two men will hesitate to enter a war between two women.

When men fight, they fight for dominance, and they learn that a loser can maintain social standing by losing well. The truth of this can be seen over and over again in stories based on studies and tons of widespread personal experience. When a boy has to deal with a bully, he has to strike a blow sufficient to show his worth. Either he has to defeat the bully once so that they can become friends, or he has to at least put up a good enough fight that his worth is proven within the group and he can join it as an equal member. When a girl has to deal with a bully, however, the only way to resolve the problem in most cases is that she must not knock her opponent down, but must humiliate her opponent to the point where said opponent cannot show her face in public again. Men can fight, lose (or win), brush themselves off, and become friends. Women, if driven to fight, fight to destroy utterly, so that their opponent can never rise again.

Consider an analogy in which women are like cats and men are like dogs. Uneducated folk might come to the conclusion that a 'good kitty' does not have claws at all. Nobody could make that mistake with a dog. The dog's claws tap on the floor. They show when he runs. If a dog launches himself on top of you, you will feel the claws. Now, though the claws can be used in fighting, they don't have to hurt you. You will feel the claws every single time, but they will not shred you. A cat, on the other hand, has retractable claws. If her claws are out, you will feel them. They will do damage. Furthermore, if a dog's claws are always out, you think that he is just a dog; if a cat's claws are always out, you know that there is something wrong with the cat. Just like cats, women are more than capable of fighting, but they need to remember to keep their claws sheathed - to practice gentleness - because with claws as sharp as these, it is all too easy to wound when you do not intend to do so.

Women are not sweet. Women are dangerous.

Now, just as countries are larger forms of tribal groups, just as a mountain is a larger form of the stone you pick up on the road, wars are simply larger forms of individual fighting. The reason why conservative Christians encourage fighting, when necessary, to be done between men rather than women is not because "women can't be bloodthirsty". It's because most fighting men are not bloodthirsty, and bloodthirstiness in battle leads to trouble. When men fight, they are more likely to regard women and children as non-combatants. Those who do not are treated with contempt by other groups of men, and may find themselves ganged up upon. Men can go into battle, fight, win (or lose), and then make friends with the warring countries. When men fight, enemies can become allies. They have a sense of mutual honor. We see this in World War I, on Christmas Day, when fighting stopped utterly in many areas and both sides shared meals and played games before returning to their trenches to try to kill each other the next day. Most women find this very hard to understand, and to most men it is obvious! Men always have their claws out, but their claws do not need to do damage; women do not unsheathe until they mean business.

I had to tell the woman who made the 'bloodthirsty' argument in her comment that, rather than being the best argument in favor of women in combat, it is actually the best argument against. God keeps reminding women to be gentle, not because we are in some way inherently meek, mild, and helpless, but because we need to be reminded to be gentle. In this day and age even more than most, when too many secular women glory in stalking about all the time with their claws unsheathed, causing casual wounding everywhere they go and stressing out bodies that were not meant to be 'on the bounce' all the time, we need to remember that the Bible calls for women to sheathe those claws and, inasmuch as we are able, to be at rest.

God as an Economic Ruler

On Easter Sunday, I was reminded of the Jewish holiday which was fully fulfilled by Jesus's death on the cross. On Passover, the people spread the blood of a lamb on the lintel and posts of their door, to show that they were set apart by blood sacrifice, and the angel of death passed over them. That got me thinking, of all things, about economics and the upcoming election.

See, it's an oft-mentioned Christian (and Old Testament Jewish) notion that we are to give God everything we own and everything we are. We're afraid to do that, usually because we get this image of God acting as an earthly king, using up what He feels like having, and returning little or nothing to us. When a king demands your gold, he wants it so that he can decorate his throne. When he demands your daughter, he is looking for a maid and a concubine. When he demands your son, he is looking for a guard or a soldier, someone to die for his safety or even his comfort or convenience.

When people give things to God, though, God has a long-standing habit of giving the things back, as a sacred duty and stewardship rather than simple, selfish ownership. You offer your computer to God, and you find yourself typing out resumes and formatting flyers, or maintaining websites, for churches and other ministries while still being quite able to entertain yourself with a video game in the evening. You offer your house to God, and it becomes a quiet, refreshing place that offers shelter periodically to people in need. Instead of you keeping a house of your own, you are now steward of a shelter of God, and you are, of course, expected to enjoy it while you are keeping it.

We see this in the Passover story with Moses, who was born during a time when the Egyptian Pharaoh's men were killing baby boys, but letting the baby girls live. Moses' mother hid him for as long as she could, keeping him by her own power, but then she knew that all she could do was to give him to God. Of course, we know the end of the story. The Pharaoh's daughter found his basket in the water and decided to keep him. The detail we often miss is that the baby still needed to be fed, and his 'new mother' needed to find a wet-nurse for him. His sister, who had been watching the basket, stepped forward and bravely told the Pharaoh's daughter that she knew a woman who could do the job. And so Moses' mother, who had given her baby away to God, had her baby back in her arms by evening, with orders from royalty preventing him from death!

Where does this become political? Right here.

I see this election season as being a choice in direction, in which economic system we will take one more step towards in the coming years. Our choices are capitalism, corporatism, fascism, and communism.

Bernie Sanders embodies communism - the system in which the government collects and redistributes goods and services directly. Though the stated purpose is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," in practice this becomes "from each according to the government's need, to each according to the government's preference."

The economy in this system is controlled directly by the government as an oligarchy (rule of the few).

Hillary Clinton embodies fascism - the system in which the government controls the private companies, deciding what they are permitted to produce and fixing their wages/prices, but allowing them to act otherwise as 'private' organizations. People make the mistake sometimes of thinking that fascism is 'capitalist' because it involves 'nationalism'. The nationalism of fascism is not flag-waving and setting off illicit fireworks in vacant lots, but the action of permitting the government to take away rights, responsibilities, and freedoms for the (perceived) good of the nation. What decides what is good for the nation? The government, of course.

The economy in this system is controlled indirectly by the government as an oligarchy. There can be some crossover with corporatism, as members of government-favored companies may have a hand in setting policy.

Donald Trump embodies corporatism, previously called mercantilism - the system by which the corporations have the power to influence (or downright set) government policy. Through government taxation and regulation applied unevenly throughout the private world, the larger companies raise artificial barriers against their competition. With lack of competition, the pressure to provide a high-quality product at a lower price and the pressure to raise wages while improving working conditions are both greatly reduced.

The economy in this system is controlled (usually) indirectly by a few corporations as an oligarchy. There can be some crossover with fascism, as members of the government garner corporate support by promising increased corporate power in return.

Ted Cruz embodies capitalism - the system in which the government is empowered to prevent companies from using lawlessness to stifle competition, and the government is constitutionally fettered to prevent companies from using laws to stifle competition. In this system, neither the government nor the corporations are allowed to enact a "command economy".

The economy in this system is not controlled by any centralized authority.

The economist Adam Smith described a capitalist economy as being controlled by an "invisible hand". In short, he argued, even though you don't have an authority in charge of ensuring that prices are low, wages are high, and the poor are fed, it happens naturally through the process of capitalism. Though secular capitalists may have any of a number of explanations for this, including 'game theory' and belief in the power of 'nature', Christian capitalists (including those who first set up the system in this country) view that "invisible hand" as being God.

In this way, capitalism is a rather scary system. We basically give the economy to God, and trust Him to give it back to us as stewards. Just as Moses' mother only gave him up when she saw no other way for his survival, people who are otherwise comfortable may be afraid to give up their economy to this "invisible Hand", unless they believe that they will lose too much otherwise. In this day and age, capitalism means reducing some government social programs and ending others. Cruz has said that he will end the Department of Education. That means that the Federal Government will no longer have ultimate control over what public schools teach children. For someone who sees no authority above that of an authoritarian oligarchy, this is a frightening thought. They don't want to trust God with these things. Those who don't believe in God, of course, don't want to trust "chance", "fate", "luck", or whatever they call it, even though capitalist systems tend to work very well as long as the people aren't panicking and giving their freedoms away in hopes of being able to point to specific people and claim that they, at least, are in 'control'.

Why should this be a Christian nation?

Talk about a hot topic, especially today. What does it mean, to be a Christian nation? Is this a Christian nation? We can run the gamut, from those who believe that everyone in this nation should be taught Christianity and Christian morality in public school, and that laws should be made to enforce Christian morality, to those who believe that the Founding Fathers weren't really Christians at all, and that the most important thing is to never make any law that supports any other religion's morality at all. (Unless it happens to also support the morality held by the person who is arguing the point, of course.)

Forget all of that for a moment.

There are a few very important things that Christianity in particular, more than any other religion, brings to the philosophy that created this nation and this nation's government. They won't be found simply by attending the right kind of church for the right number of years, or swearing your oath on a Bible instead of a Koran, or even being able to quote Bible verses without sticking your foot so far down your throat that you can kick your own a-.........butt. These are principles that are simple and easily observable in the Real World, yet, in the U.S. political party which has basically repudiated God altogether, at least one of the most important is being forgotten.

Human beings are corruptible.
Government is made of human beings.
Thus, government is corruptible.

I'm going to pick on Bernie Sanders again, because he represents the epitome of this claim. Business owners, he argues, can be corruptible, because their mission is greed. (It isn't. But that's another topic.) The government, on the other hand, can be safely trusted with any amount of power.

Let me give you an invaluable little tip about socialism. When socialists, even purveyors of "democratic socialism", use the term "the people", what they really mean is the government. This makes sense, actually, doesn't it? If the government officials are elected by the people, that means that they speak for the people, right? Therefore, they practically *are* 'the people'. What's good for them is what's good for us, because they are us.

The reason why this mindset becomes a problem, the reason why socialism in all its forms has never yet worked, is because it assumes that government representatives are able to represent The People purely and perfectly. However, each representative is his or her own human being, and human beings are corruptible.

Our government was set up the way it was in hopes of reducing and decentralizing power, because it was set up by people who understand the Christian notion that man is corruptible. They practically counted on corruption in politics. The reason for separation of powers was the hope that corruption could be cornered and countered, and not given the power it needs to metastasize.

This is similar to the dual-hydraulic system in automotive brakes. You could just have one brake line with one cylinder, to make your brakes work when you press on the pedal. Instead, you have two. Why? If you lose one brake line (this happened to me a few months ago, actually), you will have weak braking power instead of no braking power. The hope is that both lines won't go at the same time, and generally, minus deliberate sabotage, they won't. The Founding Fathers never assumed, as the Democrats do, that they could create a government with no failure points. They simply tried to design a government which could have failure points without destroying the whole.

Bernie Sanders is advocating for simpler, more streamlined systems with higher government control, more centralized, to reduce the number of steps between us and our government. He believes that it will be less expensive and easier to run a country if all citizens must answer to the Federal Government in as many parts of their lives as possible. The Federal Government gives you your health care. The Federal Government handles your college education. His problem is that he really does believe - or at least preach - as if the government is the only human invention that is incorruptible.

He isn't the only one on my hotseat today, as you may have guessed from my allusion to Bible verses. Obama has been using executive orders in an unprecedented way, to circumvent a Congress which he complains is "too slow" and may not believe that his way is the right way. He is basically doing the equivalent of speeding up automobile production and making vehicles less expensive by outlawing the dual-hydraulic system instead of, say, loosening Federal restrictions on which types of extra peripherals a car might contain or, perhaps, ending Federal taxes on auto manufacturing employees.

I'm sure it sounds like a great idea.... until the inevitable corruption hits, and someone has to slam on the brakes.

What makes Christianity important in this nation? One of the most important theological guidelines is, increasingly, one of the most neglected - human beings do not become incorruptible just because they work for the government.

Don't we know that by now?

Search for the Cure

I heard yesterday that the Federal Government has now spent over $3.5 million on an ongoing HHS study on "why lesbians are fat". More specifically, they are trying to find out why nearly three-quarters of lesbians are overweight or obese, while obesity risk doubles in gay men compared to heterosexual men.

The person who advanced the news item had a typical conservative viewpoint on it. How ridiculous, that we should be wasting taxpayer dollars, the money that is paid to the government even by people who struggle to make their own mortgages and food budgets, on fat homosexuals! It is doubly silly from the viewpoint of a conservative Christian, who will naturally believe that the simplest way to solve the problem is to not openly encourage and laud open homosexual behavior, due to the various harms that it already causes on its own, regardless of what it may do to your figure.

I'd like to look at it differently for a moment. The people who should be most up-in-arms about this study are actually the homosexuals themselves, especially the activists. Why? Consider the ramifications of this: What if they found something?

No, really. Think about this for a moment. What if scientists, backed by Federal Government money, found a link? What if they found a chemical imbalance, or even a faulty genetic expression, that increased the chances of both homosexual desire and obesity? What if we could "cure gay" and "cure obesity" at the same time, with a single supplement?

What if they succeeded?

Wouldn't the gay activists all be thrilled? For all these years, they have been painting themselves as the eternal victim. These poor young folk, you see, none of them want to be gay. None of them hope they are gay. They are only now embracing this desire because it's the only way they can feel good about themselves! They are what they are, and there's nothing they can do about it! If they could "not be gay", they'd do it in a heartbeat! They've tried so, so hard, the poor dears!

No doubt there are many of the rank-and-file who would jump at the chance. But would people who have built a livelihood on their victim status, people like Ellen Degeneres or George Takei, would they jump at the chance to take a simple supplement that would make them attracted to the opposite sex?

What if Science proved, for a fact, that homosexual desire was the result of a chemical imbalance?

How would the gay activist groups respond if parents started asking for their children to receive the supplement? What if pediatricians recommended it? What if it was the best possible way to prevent child and adult obesity? Would the government consider this a good thing or a bad thing?

What if the Federal Government issued a mandate through the Department of Health and Human Services - which both funds this study and has unprecedented control over our healthcare system thanks to the "Affordable" Care Act - requiring all Americans to have their sexual desire chemicals balanced in the name of preventing another "Obesity Epidemic"?

Suppose it was confirmed, in a way they could not ignore, that homosexual behavior was the result of something going wrong?

Remember the brouhaha about waterboarding Muslim terrorist suspects at Gitmo? What if the chemical imbalance can be shifted the other way? What if it gets out that American doctors can turn captured Islamists gay? What are the moral implications of that?

Frankly, it should be the gay activist groups who riot against the Federal Government spending money on a study that has a possibility of "curing gay". And in the grand scheme of things, with Obamacare costing nearly three trillion dollars in ten years, Obama's new environmental regulations costing Americans over 400 billion dollars, and nearly 800 million dollars paid in 'wages' to Federal employees who are on paid leave while awaiting verdicts in disciplinary actions, this particular little study is peanuts. There is so much more that a conservative Christian can work on before we even worry about a government study linking obesity with homosexual identity.

Can the gay activists say the same?

Dr. Ruth and the Evil Warnings

Dr. Ruth Westheimer, the mildly scandalous sex therapist, now in her mid-80's, has suddenly managed to turn the entire feminist movement against her. Oh dear. What on earth did she manage to say to rattle them so much?

"I know it’s controversial, but for your program, I’m going to stand up and be counted and, like I do in the book, be very honest. I am very worried about college campuses saying that a woman and a man or two men or two women, but I talk right now about woman and man, can be in bed together, and at one time, naked, and at one time, he or she — most of the time they think she can say, I changed my mind. No such thing is possible."

 Aye, that's relatively controversial as stated, However, in subsequent tweets, she clarified what she meant - and didn't mean - to say:

I am 100% against rape. I do say to women if they don't want to have sex with a man, they should not be naked in bed w/him.
That's risky behavior like crossing street against the light. If a driver hits you, he's legally in the wrong but you're in the hospital.

So what's the problem?

Apparently, the naysayers insist that Dr. Ruth is claiming that the man's action is no longer rape and should no longer be prosecuted as such, that the man has no responsibility over his actions whatsoever, and that she is basically placing the full fault of rape on the woman. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be able to refute her position without resorting to the bizarre, possibly because her position is quite reasonable. One commenter on an American Thinker article claimed that "blaming women for the rape", as Dr. Ruth was supposedly doing, was like "saying that if a dog humps your leg, it's your fault for having a leg." Others have brought up the old "asking for it by wearing a skirt that exposes her knees" claim. I find it strange that feminists are so bent on their goals of "free sex" that they cannot bear the thought of a woman engaging in any sort of selective behavior in her sex life without having to come to the bizarre conclusion that men are incapable of being responsible for anything they do.

But that isn't, at the core, what is bothering me about this "controversy".

What the naysayers are doing, at the core, is claiming that a private individual, however notable, cannot give advice to women in order to minimize the chances of them becoming victimized without somehow affecting the legal responsibility of the perpetrator of the crime. The reason this bothers me is because it depends upon the belief that we cannot simply choose how to regulate our own behavior; it must be unregulated entirely or under government control.

It seems that people are losing sight of the excellent "third way" between regulation and deregulation, the way upon which this country was founded. John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Putting aside the question of Christianity and religion in morality for the moment, I would hope that we can all agree that the intent of structuring the Constitution such that the government should not regulate us was to allow us to take up the responsibility of regulating ourselves. If we lose sight of that, we may deserve the tyranny we risk bringing upon ourselves.

Women should have every right to take control over their own sexuality by setting boundaries, starting with the very simplest and easiest to understand: if you don't want to have sex with a man, it will be much, much easier to avoid doing so if you do not climb naked into bed with him.

Religious Freedom leading to higher costs for nonbelievers?

My husband and I were discussing our health insurance situation this morning. We are on that very uncomfortable line in which we may possibly see only a very small increase in income, and it will be enough to make health insurance vastly more expensive under the ACA. I listed the alternatives I'd been considering. Chief among them was a Christian medi-share program, which has held costs down by refusing to cover 'vices' (birth control, abortion, sex-change surgery, etc.) and by not being subject to all the vagueries and bizarrities of the ACA which is driving up costs all over the country.

(Aren't costs coming down? Sort of. The cost of care is rising. The amount of money spent on care is falling. How does that work? A recent study shows that 25% of insured Americans are now putting off needed care because they cannot afford it!)

This is actually not my topic for the day.

As I explained our options, I suddenly realized something strange. "The situation is crazy," I told my husband as I put dishes into the dishwasher (yes, I leave supper dishes until the next morning), "but between our intelligence and our easily-proven adherence to our faith, we should be able to get by."

The original intent of the First Amendment statement on religion was to prevent the Federal Government from interfering in the free expression of religion. Among the first and most common practices defeated by application of the First Amendment were mandates and 'taxes' requiring everyone, whether a member or not, to contribute to the state-sanctioned church. In short, one of the biggest fears the Democrats plant in our minds regarding religion is that we may, if it is not suppressed, be forced to pay extra money to the government simply for the 'crime' of not adhering to the government-approved religion.

Curiously, a twisted version of this is now happening, and the Democrats are the ones responsible.

Now that the government has been reaching deeper and deeper into our personal lives, to the point where it not only can order us to purchase medical insurance, but also decide how much we should pay, what coverages we should receive, and how our doctors should be allowed to treat our ailments, it must satisfy the First Amendment by permitting religious organizations to take an exemption. This is especially true due to the Contraception Mandate, which I've spoken of before.

Now this is the fascinating result. Since people are increasingly being pidgeonholed into expensive, inefficient government programs and not being permitted by law to solve their problems through simpler measures that work well, only the religious folk are capable of living well with less income by taking advantage of the religious exemption. By all of my research, if we get bumped just barely into that higher ACA cost level, being Christians instead of atheists is going to save us at least an estimated $5,000 per year.

I know this isn't a very new thing. The Amish, for instance, are allowed to exempt themselves from Social Security taxes, and the Social Security program is certainly problematic. However, the ACA is now kicking this disparity into high gear.

From here, we have two alternatives. The Democrats would weaken these religious exemptions, damage the First Amendment if it could not be reworded into uselessness completely, ushering in a new era of religious persecution as people of faith are forced to openly celebrate and directly fund evil of various sorts. The Republicans would reduce government reach and control until an atheist could once again receive equal treatment from the government, and the lifestyles of people of faith would not have to conflict with theirs.

Capitalism is not one-size-fits-all

"Well, we won't have any problems with the dead ones, sir."
"They'll have relatives. They always do."

The Robocop series of movies lampoons a city that is increasingly run by 'capitalism'. A far-reaching company with a pitiless CEO runs various public utilities and services, including the police department. As a result, poverty and crime reign supreme, and environmentalism has gone right out the window. It's a very funny set of movies. Unfortunately, socialists tend to take these movies as the solid truth and the danger against which they are fighting every time they ensure that the government, "not some corporation", tells you want to do.

Unfortunately, there is one basic thing that socialists seem to not understand about capitalism. Capitalism is an economic theory.

Now that sounds a bit silly, so let me explain further. Of course socialists know that capitalism is an economic theory. However, socialism is not. Or, more properly. socialism is not only an economic theory. Socialism is supposed to provide a framework for economic activity by replacing the market with a redistribution center. It is supposed to abolish property by giving it all to the government. In this way, it is much, much more than an economic theory. The socialist government is supposed to do so much more than to provide a framework within which free people can pursue happiness. Instead, full socialism must provide an economic framework, take personal responsibility for the personal welfare of all citizens, decide the proper lifestyle and employment for all citizens, and the moral framework by which the citizens act properly within the society.

It is important for socialists to understand that capitalism is not meant to fulfill all of these needs for a society. In the United States, for instance, capitalism provided the economic framework, Christianity provided the moral framework, the people took personal responsibility for their welfare, lifestyle, and employment, and a mixture of the people and Christianity provided for those who could not provide for themselves.

I have often heard liberals panic at the thought of not mandating all of these levels of society through the Federal Government, as if there was no other force in existence. They seem to believe that capitalism is meant to serve for everything, and if it doesn't, then capitalists simply believe that these other systems are unimportant.

Consider this for a moment. Suppose you have a guest visiting you, and he walks into the bathroom while you brushing your teeth. "What are you doing?" he gapes. "Moving the brush in those little circles?"
"Well, it works for me," you reply. "That's the best way to brush your teeth."
"Yes," he explains, "but it'll wreck your hair!"
This is how conservatives feel when they try to explain capitalism to liberals. The liberals seem to have no concept that (back to our analogy) you can brush your hair with different strokes than you use on your teeth, much less that you can do a far better job on both if you do not use the same method. Unfortunately, this gap in knowledge simply leads to the two talking past each other: the liberal demands to know how the poor will be cared for (this is usually the part they focus on), while the conservative is mystified as to how they got to be talking about charity instead of economic theory.

How do you love your enemies?

I read a frustrated person's question this morning. The topic was a common topic these days: the Arizona shooting and the question of civility in politics. I have heard questions like this one before, and decided that I'd best address it. The question is basically, "How are we supposed to love someone like Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama?"

It would be all too easy to do as the rest of the world, most of which would excuse someone for hating the person who already shows unreserved hatred for you. That is because of the "Golden Rule", a twisted and misunderstood belief that "treat others as you would like to be treated" means that harsh treatment of others can be justified by their actions towards you. In today's bizarre morality, you are vindicated for being a jerk to a jerk.

God, however, asks for something grander and deeper. He asks for us to treat others as you would like to be treated, regardless of the way they treat you. He wants us to learn to love our enemy and do good to those who hate us. What does that mean for us today? Some say that we cannot say anything unkind or express any dissatisfaction with those with whom we disagree. Yesterday, on a popular radio show, the host was told that he was not being Christlike when he railed against the actions of Obama or Pelosi. However, Jesus referred to the Pharisees as "whitewashed graves" and "brood of vipers". What does this mean?

Jesus has always had a heart for the lost sinner. During His time on this earth, He was not ashamed to pardon tax collectors and prostitutes. He raised up the fallen, gave rest to the weary, and was gentle to the humble. However, He reserved some pretty choice words for the religious/political leaders who were leading His people astray. Given that, it is hard to believe that Jesus would never have us speak out against oppression, evil, and sin.

So what does it mean to love someone to whom you are politically opposed?

The next time you start to rail against Obama or Pelosi, keep track of your language and what you say. Are you wishing them harm, directly? Or are you wishing for an end to their harmful actions towards you? Are you mocking them to tear them down, or are you hoping that they will listen and turn? What are your motives? It is all too easy to turn human men and women into demons in your own mind. The best of us have a bit of the Devil in them, and the worst of us have a bit of God in them.

I wrote a post earlier this month doubting Obama's Christianity. Nobody could say that I am sweet and easy on him or Pelosi, whom I have accused of terrible ills. However, I can say truly that I would not wish violence or suffering on either of them. I would, in my anger, wish that Obama was impeached or that Pelosi decided to retire. I would speak out strongly against what they are doing to this country. I can do this without holding actual hatred in my heart for either of them.

Ask yourself this: If Obama had a sudden turning-around, if he suddenly experienced a revival of Christian thought and deed, if he eschewed his hateful language and swore to do better, if he apologized for his actions and sought your forgiveness, would you give it to him? Of course you might be cautious at first. So would I. But if he earnestly sought to undo the harm and his apology was genuine, would you hold back due to your anger with him? Would you refuse forgiveness so that you could see him suffer? Or would you welcome him gladly and rejoice that one more has been recovered?

To those who ask how to keep from hating Obama and Pelosi, I say this: First, do not wish them harm in your anger. Do not wish for a creatively painful death for them. Do not call any diseases or medical conditions upon them. I say this doubly to the Christians, because our words may have power and we are responsible for that power.

Secondly, be certain in your heart that you would accept them willingly should they repent and return. I'm using religious language here for a political process, so let me be clear... your fellow Christian is your brother or sister even if he or she disagrees with your politics. My point is that, whether it be politics or religion, any hesitation to welcome them in should be borne only of caution, and not a desire for revenge or refusal to forgive.

Why Liberalism fails

Despite decades of 'affirmative action', a disproportionate number of favored minorities go on to fail school and end up in jail. The percentage of people below the poverty line has wobbled within the same margin since the 1950's, despite increasingly massive government programs meant to end poverty. Despite legalized abortion-on-demand supposedly preventing child abuse due to unwanted pregnancy, deaths due to child abuse have been on an upward trend for decades. Everywhere liberalism has been tried, it has not only failed, but done so hugely. Many people who are drawn to liberalism are drawn, not to the failure, but to the promise. Liberalism promises utopia on earth, something which Christian Conservatism cannot. Why does Liberalism fail?

What is liberalism? There are many quick and pithy definitions, but none of them can quite encompass it, because liberalism, like so many worldviews, is complex and a simple definition will not adequately describe a complex system. This is my definition: Liberalism is a worldview that begins with atheism and secular humanism. Now I'm sure everyone's heard the old "liberals are atheists" rag and immediately dismissed it because, hey, lots of liberals are not atheists at all. However, many are agnostics, or they follow a 'buffet style' version of a religion that does not require them to go against any of their liberal beliefs. Liberalism quite simply works in a way that is always as close as it can get to being diametrically opposed to the principles in the Bible. Like the Ancient Romans, it permits any other religion so long as it is subordinated.

Liberalism becomes a slightly different creature depending on the venue in which you find it. In economics, it becomes socialism. In matters of personal freedom and responsibility, it becomes fascism. In the family, it becomes feminism. (I refer to the LAF description of feminism as it was overtaken by card-carrying members of the Communist Party in the 30's, not the very earliest stirrings of women seeking God-given rights and responsibilities in the Victorian Era.) Each time, whenever it has put its pet projects into effect, they have failed, usually miserably. Why?

The answer is because Liberalism fights against the ideas and beliefs best embodied in the Bible.

Now why the Bible? Am I some kind of nut? Why would Christianity be so big and strong and good that going against its precepts and lessons results in failure? Well, let me explain and qualify some of my statements. Many religions and belief systems are derived at least in part from the Bible, or the same principles are derived independently. If you follow the financial pointers in the Koran, for example, you will do well. However, those pointers were found first in the Bible. When other cultures do well, you will find that they are following Biblical principles, whether they know it or not.

Why the Bible and why Christianity? Because it is true.

The Bible is much more than just the long version of the Sinner's Prayer. It is a manual for the human condition written ultimately by the God who created us. As the inventor is ultimately the last word on how his invention was designed to operate, God knows best how we were designed to live. When we go outside that design, we run into trouble naturally and normally, not because God hates us or doesn't want us to have fun, but because He designed us to have fun in different ways and to find our pleasure in other things.

If you have always looked to the Bible for spiritual matters only, I would like to invite you to look at it again this year as a human manual in which you can discover details about how you were designed to live. I would like to especially recommend a thoughtful read of Deuteronomy, Proverbs, Romans, and both epistles of Timothy. You may come away from it with a new appreciation of the human condition... and a better understanding of why the principles of liberalism, when applied to it, will always fail.

Being Bold

I watched The Dark Knight on our new Blu-Ray player tonight. The player was a Christmas gift to the entire household, and it is gorgeous. I loved the visuals and the sound. I do believe that it is an excellent movie, though not for children... it is rated PG-13, but it really should have been rated PG-15.

During one part of the movie, Joker has threatened to kill people each night until Batman gives up his identity and turns himself in. At a press conference, Harvey Dent tries to convince the people of Gotham that they don't really want to insist on this. He tells them that Batman will have to answer to his vigilante behavior, but he must answer to the people of Gotham, not to a madman. He must answer in their own timeline, not under threat by a terrorist.

After the movie, I settled down to check my emails and forum posts, and found myself typing a comprehensive response to the question of whether a certain political figure was a Christian. As I explained how Christianity was more than just attending church, how a Christian over time sees humility replace pride and self-sacrifice replace selfishness, I was already catching myself cringing over my own words. "I am not fit to sit on the judgment throne, but we were given this power on Earth, judgment and excommunication, in order to prevent the insincere from making God's power seem meaningless." (Those were not my exact words, but it was the gist of what I was saying.) Even as I typed, though, I caught myself cringing. My debate opponent was definitely going to accuse me of pride, I thought, and thereby argue that I am not a real Christian if this political figure is not.

Then I remembered the movie, and from that I have this message to give to Christians at the close of the year.

Those who are working against Christianity have been steadily redefining words and changing labels. This is not only a Christian-Humanist thing, but a liberal-conservative one as well. You redefine compassion and accuse your opponent of having none, so that he supports socialist programs in order to appear to the people to have compassion. You redefine pride, so that  you can keep your opponent from speaking out boldly for fear that people think he is prideful and thus a hypocrite. If you can accuse him of hypocrisy, you have won the debate, even if the facts are on his side.

Now, I am not the kind of 'bold' Christian who says anything on my mind without softening, without thought. Some people are eager, for instance, to walk up to anyone on the street who appears to adopt a homosexual identity and declare that this person is going straight to Hell. I do not. However, others try very hard to act accepting, to hold their tongue when they should speak honestly and carefully, because they do not want to be seen as intolerant. They fear that society can no longer tell the difference between integrity and pride, between humility and hypocrisy. They fear being seen as prideful and hypocritical if they act in simple, honest, genuine boldness.

Speak and be bold. Let God alone tie your hand or still your speech. Be plain and honest in your dealings. Speak the truth, not with anger or harshness, but with love. When you do keep silent, when you do cushion your words, when you do choose your battles and decide that a certain time is not the time to fight, do it for love and concern for the other person. Do not do it out of fear for your own reputation.

Show true humility. It is pride that makes you want to appear to fit the new definition of humble. Avoid hypocrisy. Do not fear being labeled as a hypocrite. This generation is inundated by definitions and ideas which are as shallow and weak as artificial flavoring in an artificial meal. You can satisfy yourself with it unless you are exposed to the real thing. People will know, deep inside, when they see the real thing. The charges of hypocrisy, or pride, or ruthlessness, will not stick if you hold to the truth of humility, strength, and honesty. You do not need to meet their definitions out of fear.

Even someone who has heard only their side for an entire lifetime will know what's real when they see it. Christians must be bold in God, humble in God, honest in God, and compassionate in God... and properly represent the truth.

Plenty

I did laundry today. I hung sheet sets and jeans/pants on the line and did underwear and the smaller stuff in the dryer. Not as economical as hanging everything out, I know. Still, this middle-of-the-road solution works for me. As I finished putting the clothes away, I got a sense of well-being. I do enjoy having the laundry done, for the same reason why I love foodshopping. I get a deep satisfaction from seeing my house set up with plenty. Not wastefully huge, not scarce... just plenty. I know my husband would give me an odd look if I demanded that he come and see my 15-month-old daughter's dresses all hanging neatly in the closet, so I will show it to my readers instead.

Since my family is a classic single-income homeschooling family, we don't exactly have a lot of clothing money. I shake my head incredulously when I hear of women going to the store and spending $200 on clothing as if it's nothing. So how did I manage to glean such a lovely wardrobe? Well, "glean" is a good way of putting it.

Back in the Old Testament days, according to the laws of Ancient Israel, you were told to only harvest your field once. Instead of picking over it again and again to garner every grain and every fruit, you needed to leave it alone for the poor, the widows, and the orphans. This was an interesting kind of 'welfare program' unlike most common systems in that it required the recipients to work for their gain. Look in the book of Ruth to find a story of a widowed woman patiently gleaning leftover grain in order to feed herself and her mother-in-law.

My church has a giveaway room, and my aunt has kept the pretty dresses that family members sewed for her daughters. My stepmother-in-law also keeps an eye out for pretty things at yard sales. Through these sources, I have patiently assembled my daughter's wardrobe. The things you don't see hanging are the 2-3T dresses that I have folded and put in a box for next year.

Making plenty from little can be done, but it does take patience and foresight. I need to be willing to pick up items that I don't need right away. I need to have enough skill with a needle to repair discarded outfits with very little wrong with them besides a lost button or burst seam. I need to be vigilant and creative. My reward is that lovely closet full of little hanging dresses that my girl hugs in delight when I present them to be worn.

Does my post have a point? It has several, which is why this isn't really a proper Article Post of the sort that I usually write. For now, though, I just want to focus on that happy feeling I get when I see "the plenty" in the wardrobe, and how fulfilling my job as a homemaker in a frugal household can be.

Maybe you'll get a picture of my garden vegetables another time.

And you shall become one flesh

I have seen a trend that disturbs me. It is a similar trend to that which was seen in the 1800's, in areas of Europe and the southern United States. It always seems to follow wealthy societies. It would be nice to pretend that our wealthy society has been able to increase our worldly goods without falling into some of the traps of previous times, but humankind has not 'evolved' as many claim.

There are a few ways that we have seen wealth harm families in modern-day society, but there is one in particular that I would like to focus on today, and that is the separation of spouses from each other and parents from their children.

In the Victorian era, the very wealthy husband and wife did not find it unusual to have separate sleeping chambers. They spent their time among different friends; the wife in the parlor with the women, and the husband in the drawing room with the men. He might travel for months or years in search of more wealth, while she might go to visit a friend and not return for months or years. They were so wealthy that they could afford for each of them to live basically entirely different lives.

Most people in the U.S. share a marital bed (many of whom are not married, but that's another post), so how can I say that we're falling into the same trap? Well, have you ever seen the standard Master Bath of today? A separate shower, separate tub, two sinks set with a swatch of countertop in-between, and the toilet closed off into its own little alcove. There are, not one, but two walk-in closets in the typical New Home design that I see on the architectural websites, and the closets are nowhere near each other.

My concern goes far beyond walk-in closets, though. The huger homes of the upper-middle class and the rich allow for people to pursue their separate hobbies far beyond calling distance of each other. Even the middle class and lower-middle class often boast one vehicle for each family member above the age of 16. The largest separation in the family that I see, however, comes from the common cell phone.

The working husband and working wife, with their separate dressing areas and their separate mobile offices and their separate lives, could go for a week or longer while barely speaking a word to each other. As their children spend the working hours at daycare and school, and their evenings and weekends on a myriad of lessons meant to make them as fine and fancy as the other 'rich' kids, a family comes to the point where they strive to have a hasty sit-down dinner just in order to have the chance to see each other.

Now I hardly seem to be describing the life of a "rich" family. The upper-middle class, middle class, and even some lower-middle class families can meet this definition. Of course, so can the 'poor'... that is, those who are sufficiently poor for the Federal and State governments to provide their cars and cell phones and various activities. That is because this has become a decadently wealthy country. When we speak of the 'poor', we truly do not understand what it is to be poor. You may no longer be able to ask your mother for a description. Ask your grandmother.

Imagine for a moment a well-to-do but not 'wealthy' American farm out somewhere in the Midwest. The father and mother sleep in a bed that would be considered tiny by modern standards, in a room that would barely fit a modern nursery. The children share rooms. They need to discuss who needs the horse and buggy and who is going to accompany them. There is no daycare. The parents spend each day in the company of their children.

In the evening, there is no house big enough for each person to pursue separate hobbies in places where they cannot be heard by the others. The entire family sits down in the same room to learn writing or darn socks with no means of amusement except each other. This was not even considered poverty. It was merely the means by which the 'common folk' lived.

By now I can almost hear the objections. "But back then, the medicine was bad, and the food was harder to come by! The literacy rating was lower, and the technology was practically nil! We have all of those benefits today!" To which I answer: What does it benefit you if you gain the world and lose your soul?

Am I advocating an end to technology? Certainly not. However, I would like for us to show some ability to gain wealth while not making the mistakes that come with it. I would like to see the benefits of a modern society without the drawbacks. After all, if our lives are longer and more miserable, our education is up but our children are increasingly disturbed, our health is better but we are emotionally harming ourselves on a daily basis, have things truly improved?

How much better would we be if we took the best from each era? If technology helped to bind families together, wealth was a means to living well and aiding others instead of drifting off into fuzzy selfishness, and our longer lives were spent doing that which is worthwhile?

Giving back to whom?

President Obama said something in his speech at Notre Dame that caught my attention. Actually, he said many things that caught my attention, but there is one that I want to focus on here. I knew that there was something wrong with his statement, but I did not realize what it was until I started reading today's transcript from the talk show host Rush Limbaugh. I'll be using quotes from both Obama and Limbaugh before taking the discussion in a slightly different direction. Obama was trying to speak as a Christian. Limbaugh was trying to speak as a Conservative. I will be considering this from the perspective of a Christian Conservative. Let's start with Obama.

Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice.

Of course, Obama has a fix for this. He spoke of it during another speech, this one at Arizona State:

With a degree from this university, you have everything you need to get started. Did you study business? Why not help our struggling non-profits find better, more effective ways to serve folks in need. Nursing? Understaffed clinics and hospitals across this country are desperate for your help. Education? Teach in a high-need school; give a chance to kids we can't afford to give up on - prepare them to compete for any job anywhere in the world. Engineering? Help us lead a green revolution, developing new sources of clean energy that will power our economy and preserve our planet....one thing I know about a body of work is that it's never finished. It's cumulative; it deepens and expands with each day that you give your best, and give back, and contribute to the life of this nation.

Part of this is not news... he's been mistaking personal charity for nationalism for a while now. Nowadays what's important isn't helping people, it's contributing to the nation. This is, of course, the point at which patriotism becomes fascism.
Now Rush Limbaugh responded to the phrase on his radio program today, and brought up a very interesting point:

And then he was telling them, "Give back, give back," all these college graduates. Give back what? They've got nothing to give back. They haven't acquired anything yet! The things they do have, have been given to them, everything -- by their overindulgent Baby Boomer mommies and daddies. Now when they can go out and earn money so they can repay what they've been given, Obama is trying to tell 'em, "Don't do that! Don't give back. Go back and 'give back' by working at a nonprofit or some such thing." It's convoluted.

I hate this whole concept of "giving back" anyway, that somehow it is the duty of the successful to "give back." Walter Williams, an occasional guest host on this program, has it exactly right on this whole notion of "giving back." The only people need to give anything back are the thieves among us: the thieves and the criminals, the people who have taken things which are not theirs. They're the ones that need to give back... But this notion of giving back is so convoluted because Obama is talking to a bunch of college graduates who don't have anything yet and telling them to give back.

This whole notion of giving something back is rooted in the belief whatever you have is somehow ill-gotten. That you've cheated, lied, or stolen to get it or that you're somehow not entitled to it, and so you need to give back.

Now for a different perspective.

Obama is not telling people to do something wrong. It isn't a terrible thing to work for a non-profit. It's true that the country could benefit from more people being engaged in charitable work. Also, Rush is not off-base. To give, you need to have something to give. Some people choose to acquire and give money. Some give their time. Those who give their money support those who give their time. When's the last time you heard a missionary speak at your church? What's the first thing a new missionary needs if he's ever going to make it to the field? Funding. However, this is getting off my intended subject, so let me actually begin to make my point.

The problem with Obama's bent is that he is motivating by guilt. He would have you believe that being well-off is intrinsically evil, and trying to work at a well-paying position is nothing but rank selfishness. He also would have you believe that the rich only become rich at the expense of the poor, and there is no other way to do it except to not be rich. I've spoken on this before.

But the Bible does not motivate charitable giving by guilt. The story of Ananias and Sapphira proves that, when they are told that while they still owned the land, it was their own, and when they sold it, the money was under their control. In the Gospels, we learn that God loves a cheerful giver. Obama is trying to produce the fearful giver.

God wants us to give because we have charitable feelings towards our fellow man, because we care about others, and out of gladness for what God has provided for us. Obama is telling us to give because we owe our fellow man for the simple fact that we succeeded and they did not. (Of course, the definition of success is rapidly shrinking. At first it was $250K/year, then $200K/year, then $120K/year, and now it seems that merely having a college degree puts you in the crosshairs, even if you are not yet employed.) Obama is not approaching this from a Christian viewpoint, no matter what he claims. He is approaching this from a very authoritarian socialist viewpoint.

In the authoritarian socialist government, the State craves control. It cannot bear to rely on people's goodwill, which is why it seeks to control us through fear and coercion. The tax increases Obama is planning is the coercion, and his speeches to these colleges is the fear. He, like most or all liberal Democrats, do not believe that enough people will give to others unless they are giving back... unless they are paying a debt that they know will be collected upon one way or the other. Remember the death threats made against the AIG executives.

I actually have a way to describe the State craving for control. With my first baby, I had to bottle-feed. I got used to it pretty quickly and had him on a schedule. At x time, he got x ounces of milk. Now, for my second, I am able to successfully breastfeed. Breastfeeding is not like bottle feeding. It is a co-operation between the mother and the infant, a matter of supply and demand. It does not run on a schedule. She lets me know when she is hungry, which could be anywhere from one to five hours since her last feeding. There is no gauge, no ounce markers, and I have no way of knowing how much she has had when she refuses the breast and decides that she is done. The only way I can measure my success is when she is weighed at the doctor's office. Then I find out that, despite my fears that she isn't getting half what I would have given her on a bottle, she is actually gaining so well that the doctor is surprised that she is only on breastmilk. Now if I gave into my fear and switched to bottle-feeding, she would be deprived of a wide variety of benefits so well known by now that they no longer need to be proven, and that for no good reason, because breastfeeding is working perfectly well.

The authoritarian socialist government has the same sort of fear. It wants to know how much money is going into charity, and where it is going. It wants to be sure that everyone is "doing their fair share". It is not content with trusting a people who are so generous that, though our government's charitable contributions put us near the bottom of the list of contributors, the private outpouring put us clearly at the top. Obama will not be content with "measuring success by weight gained", in this case merely checking to see if there are fewer poor and/or they are better off than before. No, he must have full control over the very process, even if it is not the best and healthiest way for society to operate.

The Christian Conservative does not scoff at charity, nor does he believe that people can only be poor because they do not deserve help. He sees helping the poor as his blessed duty, blessed because he is capable of doing so, a duty because God's love motivates him to help. However, he must watch out for the liberal rhetoric, and understand that charity should not be coerced; nor must it be motivated by fear and coercion.

Lack of Hatred

I can't believe it took me this long to realize this. I must be going senile. Perhaps I can blame this 'failing' on my pregnancy. Then again, as I haven't specifically seen anyone else writing about it, perhaps we have all simply fallen into a certain level of taking things for granted.

This morning I was getting ready for the day while talking to my husband, who was also getting ready for his day, and it occurred to me to wonder about the community response to President Obama rescinding the Mexico City Policy. This policy, for those of you either hiding under a rock or not involved in the abortion debate, prevented the U.S. from funding abortions overseas. This is a definite blow for those on the pro-life side, and so controversial among many Christian and/or conservative groups that he even signed it secretly and off-camera.

So I sat down to chat with a friend of mine. "Hey, you hear more from the mainstream media than I do," I typed. "Over this past week, have there been an upswing of stories about pro-life violence against pro-choice groups/people/abortion clinics/abortion doctors? White powder sent to clinics, people trying to enter a clinic being knocked down and beaten, things like that?"

"Not that I've heard of," he answered.

I told him that it was interesting, but also what I'd expected to hear. He wanted to know why, and I pointed out that the Mexico City Policy had been rescinded a few days ago. "So?" he responded.

"That's the second interesting thing I noticed," I typed.

See, when the gay activists don't get their way, they go on a rampage. They threaten, they cause violence, and they not only boycott places, but they prevent other patrons from entering. Interestingly, nobody's surprised when they react this way, and I have heard more than once the phrase "I can understand their anger." However, when pro-lifers don't get their way, nobody goes on a rampage, and nobody is surprised.

The same thing happens when Christians are marginalized in the media. When Muslims are marginalized, the protests invariably start. Places are set on fire, people are injured or killed, guns fired, knives used... it's not a pretty picture. Parts of Europe refuse to even criticize Islam anymore for fear of seeing death and destruction. However, people are allowed to speak downright blasphemously about Christianity without fear, because Christians do not respond with violence, and nobody wonders why.

In many cases, groups that used to claim their way as the peaceful solution are bullying their way into society merely by making people afraid of the violence that they'll visit upon us if they are not given their way. Meanwhile, the groups marginalized in society as mean and violent and evil are simply remaining civil... and what's more, nobody's surprised by it!

Obama wants us to be Boxer

Obama's inauguration speech was very interesting. At first, it appeared to travel in two different directions, conservative and liberal. It took me several hours and the memory of a quite memorable animated version of Orwell's Animal Farm to realize that he was, in fact, driving in the same direction the entire time.

Conservatives value and wish to reward hard work and responsibility. On the surface, Obama appears to agree with them. Watch for the reasons he gives to work hard, however, and who he hopes will benefit! That is where you will find the difference between the conservative and Boxer.

Who is Boxer? Boxer is the Animal Farm version of the working class, a draft horse who puts his all into his duties, doing everything he can. Uncomplaining, he does not take advantage of the perks of socialism, like the pigs do. His loyalty never wavers, and he trusts his new leaders even when their planned retirement for him is not a good rest, but the knacker's wagon. (In other words, for those of you who don't read British books regularly, the butcher.)

Let's take a look at Obama's speech. We already know the parts in which he mentions the importance of hard work, responsibility, and tough choices. Let us now examine for what or whom we are to sacrifice:

But those values upon which our success depends — hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

And earlier:

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect.

When speaking of the military, what does he praise?

We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves.

Yes, after years of trying to feed us falsehood-by-simplification, claiming that the extremism of liberalism is socialism and the extremism of conservatism is fascism, we now have someone telling us that the reason why we must work hard and be responsible is to benefit the Nation first and the entire world second. He is now able to spout fascism, and it is likely that few people will take this for what it is, because we've had repeated to us over and over that only Right-Wingers can be fascists.

That isn't to say that socialism was not a theme in his speech, however. Consider his goal for government:

We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.

And again, you notice government's role in the everyday lives of its citizens:

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.

Lest you continue to question whether or not he is truly speaking of conservative responsibility or a new era of socialism, I point you towards his own websites detailing his own plans for America. Would you hear it only in his speech, and nowhere else? Try this piece:

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

Though many will try to tell you that his speech is a mixture of conservativism and liberalism, in actual fact his speech is a mixture of facism and socialism. We are to be hard-working and responsible to support the government, and the government is to provide for us. But how can he believe that this will work? It failed on Plymouth Rock. It failed in Russia. It failed in Italy. It is failing in China. Everywhere this has been tried, it has failed. He actually anticipates that question and answers it, also in his speech:

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.

That's right, he is speaking fascism and socialism, and he knows it. He cannot deny it, only attempt to cloak it and confuse the issue. But in the end, he is doing two things: he is asking us all to be Boxer, and he is claiming that This Time It Will Work.

Focusing on the wrong end

I keep hearing it from the Republican so-called leadership who are hijacking the party into moderate materialism... "We need to focus on the financial conservatism and jettison the social conservatives... so that we can reach more people." They have their tactic completely and totally backwards. If anything, we need to do completely the opposite. I'd go so far as to say that if I had to choose between social or financial conservatism, I would choose social.

Did anybody reading this also read George Orwell's Animal Farm? I recommend it. Right now I am thinking of a specific character in the story, a pig named Snowflake. In the story, the farmer is chased from the farm and the pigs set up a socialist government that turns brutally totalitarian by the end. Snowflake, chased off and killed eventually by the power-seizing Napoleon, is a 'gentler dictator' and genuinely works towards the good of the other animals. He may be an economic liberal, but he acts as a social conservative, and does not seem to govern his own life by the mantra that you do what you can to secure your own power and satisfy your own pleasure. He is not a moral relativist.

I will never truly believe that socialism is the best way for a country to operate, but I would rather have a good dictator than a society left adrift and manipulated by evil men. Even government-mandated programs for the poor is better than a set of undisciplined rich men who sneer at and oppress those beneath their income levels. Indeed, in a morally-corrupt culture, a firmer hand is needed. Liberty is for adults, not children.

If we truly work for the good of our society, we must focus on morality, even above freedom. If our sons and daughters are not raised in such a way as to be willing to give up power voluntarily, what will it matter when we send them into public office with their heads full of capitalism? We will end up with tyranny of a different sort.

Those who prize economic conservatism above social conservatism will create a land so undisciplined and brutal that socialism will be needed eventually just to hold man's passions in check. Those who prize social conservatism will create a land in which government power holds no fear for the citizens and can be lowered over time by those who have not grown to love power.

We are headed for a time of increases socialism under Obama, but we can still train ourselves and teach our children to be people of moral standing, who not only understand, but feel that lying, cheating, and stealing is plainly wrong. That is the only way we will continue to be worthy of the economic conservatism we so badly want back!

The most dangerous word in politics

There's a word I would like to strike from political language today and for the rest of this year. Unfortunately, with Obama's presidency, I suspect this word will only gain strength and importance far beyond it's merit. This single word is what's wrong with our political system, our economic system, and our societal morality. The word is entitlement.

We are, in fact, entitled to nothing. We are born naked, and survive though the love and instinct of fellow men and women. We take nothing when we die. Pure nature scoffs at entitlement. Not even predators have a right to long life, much less the prey. If we live from the prey and avoid or kill the predators, still nothing we can gather is utterly safe from disastrous storms. A volcanic eruption or an earthquake can level the proudest building in seconds, leaving us, yet again, with nothing. Natural law promises... nothing.

All that we have is what we are allowed to have, what we are given, by God. The main overreaching reason why God gives us things is because of His overwhelming love for us. We are not entitled to it. God owes us nothing. We do not deserve anything God gives us. We can't even keep up our end of the easiest bargain, the lightest burden. Despite this, God has chosen to bind Himself with promises toward our greater good.

The increasing shift to government programs replacing charitable interests have helped to foster a spirit of entitlement among the citizens of this country. Poorer members of society who used to accept what people were willing to give them with a grateful heart now demand what they feel they deserve for no reason at all beyond having been born.

Don't get too confused here in attempts to ream me out for insensitivity. I would prefer that every single person in this world, in the spirit of human dignity and humble appreciation for God's gifts to us, found what aid was necessary in keeping themselves clothed, fed, and sheltered. We are called to generosity and charity, remembering where we would be if not for God's grace. But neither they nor we are entitled to a single thing.

Hard work is honorable and required of Christians, but even it is no absolute guarantee of success, nor a reason to demand that the world responds favorably to you. You can do everything right, and there is still no guarantee. A simple fire set by an irresponsible idiot can destroy an entire lifetime of fortune, and the flames do not care how or when you acquired it. Again, I am not decrying hard work or responsibility. I am just reminding all of us that we are not entitled to anything.

For this reason, I object to government social programs of every sort. I believe charity to be the best replacement, a process by which people are bound together with gratitude and humility, rather than being split apart by entitlement and resentment; of the rich for having their hard-earned goods forcibly taken, and of the poor for the rich not having given them everything they feel they deserve simply for existing.

Responsibility versus Entitlement

I submit for your consideration the following from a Moneynews article today:

“One very troubling point is that, whether measured using 30-day or 60-day delinquencies, re-default rates increased each month and showed no signs of leveling off after six months and even eight months,” said Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan.

“This trend of increasing delinquencies underscores the need to understand why these modifications have not been more sustainable.”

I can explain precisely why these modifications have not helped. Many of these mortgages were initially given to people who should not have qualified for the loans. In many cases, they were also used not to allow a working-class worker to move into a small suburban starter home, but to let people who have spent their entire lives expecting the government to provide for them stretch their budget to the limit to build or buy a "McMansion" on abandoned farmland. These are not people who are genuinely struggling to put proper clothing on their children and milk in the fridge. These are people who are "struggling" to keep up with their brand new car payments, their cell phone bills, and still have enough money left over to get their manicures.

I did not watch a lot of the Obama commercial that focused in on "poor families who need help" (from the Democrats, naturally), but I saw enough to remember the woman who said that her kids drank soda because she could not afford milk. I had two immediate thoughts. One was that if her kids drank water like water instead of drinking soda like water, no doubt she could afford a little milk for them. Maybe not a lot, but a little milk and a lot of water is healthier than a lot of soda. The other thing I noticed was her finely manicured nail job, which I asked around about and discovered that $40/month was a very low estimate for upkeep on that kind of beauty product. $40/month will buy a lot of milk... easily two gallons a week. That would give four children a little over a cup of milk each day right there.

My point? These are people who are used to expecting things. They likely got given what they wanted by their parents. They grew up watching commercials that told them what they needed to want. From allowances given for doing nothing to college credit cards gone sky-high, when have they ever learned that they can't have what they "must have"? What kind of standard of living do you have, anyways, if you can't have your hair the color you want it? And if they can't afford it, that's someone else's problem.

So why should they start paying now that they have a more reasonable loan? They've just learned that if they cry enough, banks will do everything possible to accomodate them, to ensure that they aren't (horrors) turned out of their five-bedroom lake-view domiciles. If they continue to cry and don't bother to pay, no doubt in the end they can get what they want for free, especially with a political party in place who doesn't seem to understand that the government does not create wealth... it just takes wealth away from other people.

In the midst of all this nonsense, one family acquired a modest raised ranch on a fixed-rate FHA and have held onto it with all they've got, forgoing cell phones for electricity, forgoing car loans for student loans, forgoing nail jobs and hair jobs for milk and potatoes. They have never missed a payment. It's that kind of attitude, responsibility rather than entitlement, that will bring down foreclosures of modified loans.