Current Events

[Oscar]

Interesting observation. There have been a number historical instances in which the above fact issued in a real dillemma for the Christian in view if 1 Peter 2:13,14.
I suspect that this kind of potential moral conflict will present itself with increasing frequency in these last days...a sobering prospect.
Verne

p.s. Some probably consider the founding of this country to be one such instance...

Verne,

You are 100% correct.  The Anglican church strongly supported divine right theory.  The revolution was "sold" to the 1/3 of the American people who wanted independence in 1775 by the Presbyterian and Congregationalist ministers.  They taught natural rights theory, and utilized ideas that can be traced to Duns Scotus about the rulers responsibility to the ruled.

Tom

[editor]

Verne,

You are 100% correct.  The Anglican church strongly supported divine right theory.  The revolution was "sold" to the 1/3 of the American people who wanted independence in 1775 by the Presbyterian and Congregationalist ministers.  They taught natural rights theory, and utilized ideas that can be traced to Duns Scotus about the rulers responsibility to the ruled.

Tom

Yes, great post Tom.

The Terry Shiavo situation put Jeb Bush, and President Bush in a tough situation.  They had to say the right thing, and go as far as possible in doing the right thing, without taking too much risk.  Compromise and triangulation is a wonderful thing...

What is happening is that the courts are fracturing, twisting and re-writing our constitution.  I need not cite the many instances that illustrate what I just said, you are aware of many of them.  The president took an oath to defend the contitution.

Here is the dilemna:  we have evolved to the point where we let the courts "interpret" the constitution in the same manner that the priests "interpreted" the Bible when the Church of Rome was at the height of its power.

A federal judge is not more authoritative than a king, and our founders saw fit to rebel against the King of England.  I really believe that this case, should have been resolved with bold action on the part of the "Christian" leaders we elected.  That's my opinion.  Sure, it would have meant breaking the law.  The Boston Tea Party was illegal, so was the Declaration of Independence, as well as a black woman sitting in the front of the bus, etc.  Sometimes you gotta break the law.

In Nazi Germany, the people didn't speak up, and didn't break the law, and things progressed from segregation, to vandalism, to genocide...all done legally.

The Terri Schiavo case is just the first drop of rain to fall.  More of this sort of thing is going to take place, and our leaders will find it ever harder to take a stand.  It would have been easy this time.

Also, you make a good point when you said, "When are the Libertarians going to stand up?"  I agree, there isn't much happening there in the form of a national uprising.  However, the republicans have already made it clear that they take a supine position on critical issues.

As far as I know, partial birth abortion is still being practiced in this country as we speak, and still being paid for with tax money.  Am I wrong? I hope so.

What I find interesting is that it is claimed that "welfare" is down x% since some time in the past.  What are they talking about?  Ask anyone who works in social services and they will tell you that their client base is growing, and that more people are being hired to handle the load in order to get people signed up for welfare.  I asked some of them if they noticed any decrease in welfare and they just laughed.

Prison guards in our area make between 80 and 200K per year, and have better benefits than teachers.

Good for you for not voting for Pete Wilson.   

Brent

[moonflower2]

GO ILLINI!!!!!!!!!    GET EM NEXT YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  [/color]

[al Hartman]

I just received this via e-mail:

Listen to a special message from Dr. R.C. Sproul
concerning the issues surrounding Terry Schiavo's tragic death:

                                  www.ligonier.org


Excerpts from the interview:

"What happened to Terry Schiavo is symbolic and illustrative of a significant shift in the structure of our culture. Though there are many complex issues here that we can discuss, what we've just witnessed is the willful starving and dehydration of a living human being. If we did that to one of our pets, we would be arrested. If we did that to a convicted killer on death row in one of America's prisons, we would be charged with cruel and unusual punishment."

 
"There is no more fundamental civil right according to the Constitution than the right to life. And if the government cannot be involved in this, then the government should not be involved in anything. The issues here are so much larger and more serious than the life of one person, as serious as that is. What I've seen is the serious threat to the whole principle of the balance of power in the government of the United States."

 
"A reasonable response to this tragedy would include within it an emotional response, because a heart that is not moved by understanding is really not rational. I think there should be a cry of mourning but also a cry of protest throughout the land. We have an ethical crisis in this country that is not going to go away with respect to the sanctity of human life."

[editor]

I just received this via e-mail:

Listen to a special message from Dr. R.C. Sproul
concerning the issues surrounding Terry Schiavo's tragic death:

                                  www.ligonier.org


Excerpts from the interview:

"What happened to Terry Schiavo is symbolic and illustrative of a significant shift in the structure of our culture. Though there are many complex issues here that we can discuss, what we've just witnessed is the willful starving and dehydration of a living human being. If we did that to one of our pets, we would be arrested. If we did that to a convicted killer on death row in one of America's prisons, we would be charged with cruel and unusual punishment."

 
"There is no more fundamental civil right according to the Constitution than the right to life. And if the government cannot be involved in this, then the government should not be involved in anything. The issues here are so much larger and more serious than the life of one person, as serious as that is. What I've seen is the serious threat to the whole principle of the balance of power in the government of the United States."

 
"A reasonable response to this tragedy would include within it an emotional response, because a heart that is not moved by understanding is really not rational. I think there should be a cry of mourning but also a cry of protest throughout the land. We have an ethical crisis in this country that is not going to go away with respect to the sanctity of human life."

Great post Al,

I don't have the time to listen to it now, but can you tell me in a nutshell what RC proposes as a reasonable response?

Certainly he has encapsulated the grave nature of this turn of events.   I am incredibly disturbed by the total lack of protest.  I wonder what is needed to actually motivate us as a people?

The Schiavo case is but the first little test.  Much more like this, and even more challenging is going to take place.  It shouldn't take more than 4 or 5 years to get to the point where "aborting" sick or elderly people is seen as an act of mercy.

Brent

[al Hartman]

I don't have the time to listen to it now, but can you tell me in a nutshell what RC proposes as a reasonable response?

Certainly he has encapsulated the grave nature of this turn of events.   I am incredibly disturbed by the total lack of protest.  I wonder what is needed to actually motivate us as a people?

The Schiavo case is but the first little test.  Much more like this, and even more challenging is going to take place.  It shouldn't take more than 4 or 5 years to get to the point where "aborting" sick or elderly people is seen as an act of mercy.

Brent

Brent & all,

For reasons beyond my limited knowledge, I am unable to listen to such as this on my PC.  I hope to find a print version at www.ligonier.org , but haven't had time to look for it yet.

Personally, I don't see this as the first test, nor a "little" one.  Dr. Kevorkian & others have been setting the stage for a number of years.  I understand there are websites dedicated to the subject (they have been mentioned in the media-- I have not read them).  The public support of Terry's husband has been widespread.  You are absolutely right to think that government-supported euthanasia of citizens deemed "non-productive" by reason of age or mental or physical disability IS coming.  Calling it an "act of mercy" will be merely a thinly disguised justification of the act.  Already, practically all that are left to be decided are who will implement the decisions of who gets eliminated, and what will be the deciding criteria.

The dark side of this prospect should be obvious to any Christian, but there may also be an upside:  This, added to issues such as abortion, could be a unifying factor among God's people.  I agree with you that at this point, it is unclear exactly what will prompt us to a consolidated effort...

In Christ,
al

[sfortescue]

The thing that should be obvious to everyone is the origin of the illusions that plague our society.  The illusion capital of the world is Hollywood.  People need to wake up to the reality of the kind of monsters that run the whole show behind the scenes.  People are so infantile and are pacified by trinkets from Hollywood.

Brent, "thou shalt not kill" is a prohibition of murder, not killing.  The Bible prescribes several types of legal homicide.  War, capital punishment etc.

The prohibition against murder is based on Genesis 9:6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, (ie, you shall kill in this case), FOR IN THE IMAGE OF GOD HE MADE MAN".

The problem in the Schiavo case is that she is being killed LEGALLY.   Not righteously, to be sure, but legally.  Murder is the illegal killing of a human being.

Beware of a subtle ambiguity in the concept of legal killing.  What you are speaking of is that people sentenced to death are being killed for legal reasons.  Another concept to watch out for is killing by using means that are considered legal to use against anybody you like!  This is something that seems to be happening a lot lately.

[Oscar]

The thing that should be obvious to everyone is the origin of the illusions that plague our society.  The illusion capital of the world is Hollywood.  People need to wake up to the reality of the kind of monsters that run the whole show behind the scenes.  People are so infantile and are pacified by trinkets from Hollywood.

Beware of a subtle ambiguity in the concept of legal killing.  What you are speaking of is that people sentenced to death are being killed for legal reasons.  Another concept to watch out for is killing by using means that are considered legal to use against anybody you like!  This is something that seems to be happening a lot lately.

Steve,

What I was pointing out was that what happened to Ms. Schiavo was according to due process of law.  There is a BIG difference between legal and moral.

What Hitler did to the Jews was legal!   

Adolph Hitler gained power by constitutiional means.  As soon as he was in the NAZI representatives in the Bundestag voted an enabling act giving him dictatorial powers, ie, it was all legal.

Hideously immoral...but legal in a society that was operating on the basis of certain ideas.

My post was made in a general discussion of Libertarianism.  Libertarianism is based on an atheist/materialist world view that ascribes to what is popularly known as "Social Darwinism". 

Ever notice that they are for abolishing the entire social wellfare system? Personal survival and personal prosperity are the supreme values.  If you are weak, foolish, or unfortunate...too bad for you Jack.  The weak die, the strong live and reproduce.   

Improves the race y'know.   

Anyone who thinks that this is what the founding fathers of the USA stood for is operating with an information defecit.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

Steve,




Ever notice that they are for abolishing the entire social wellfare system? Personal survival and personal prosperity are the supreme values.  If you are weak, foolish, or unfortunate...too bad for you Jack.  The weak die, the strong live and reproduce.   

Improves the race y'know.   

Anyone who thinks that this is what the founding fathers of the USA stood for is operating with an information defecit.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

There will always be a moral responsibily for any self-repsecting society to care for the the less fortunate among them -  the weak, the orphan and the widow. Much of this labor of love in days gone by would be performed by Christian men and women of compassion, particularly extended family. Church folk are too busy nowadays for this sort of thing...
What many peole fail to understand is that the frightful conditions that exist in American society today are by and large by design, whether you are taliking about the so-called drug problem or the heart-breaking vicious cycle of some seventy percent of African American kids being born out of wed-lock.
Has anyone read Moynihan's study on the well-fare system recently?
His predictions have come through in spades.
How sad that a government that suppposedly cares about its citizens, woould have crafted a policy that required the ABSENCE of a male in the household, before a struggling family could receive even minimal assistance!
I don't see how, apart from divine intervention, that this awful cycle is going to be brought to an end.
The church in the black community has failed miserably in this regard....MISERABLY!!
Verne

[editor]

There will always be a moral responsibily for any self-repsecting society to care for the the less fortunate among them -  the weak, the orphan and the widow. Much of this labor of love in days gone by would be performed by Christian men and women of compassion, particularly extended family. Church folk are too busy nowadays for this sort of thing...
What many peole fail to understand is that the frightful conditions that exist in American society today are by and large by design, whether you are taliking about the so-called drug problem or the heart-breaking vicious cycle of some seventy percent of African American kids being born out of wed-lock.
Has anyone read Moynihan's study on the well-fare system recently?
His predictions have come through in spades.
How sad that a government that suppposedly cares about its citizens, woould have crafted a policy that required the ABSENCE of a male in the household, before a struggling family could receive even minimal assistance!
I don't see how, apart from divine intervention, that this awful cycle is going to be brought to an end.
The church in the black community has failed miserably in this regard....MISERABLY!!
Verne

Verne, 

I agree with your post above, 99%.

In times past, the poor in society were indeed cared for by the church....and they still are today.  However, what I have found is that we tend to focus on the poor from other countries more than our own poor.

Case in point: Doctors Without Borders is an organization in which doctors of all types take time off at their own expense and perform free surgury/medical care in 3rd world countries.  In the states, many of the procedures would be very expensive indeed, but they do them for free in Peru.

There was a Tsumnami, and Christians came through with millions (billions?).  However, if we have a flood in the midwest, we expect the government to pick up the tab.

I am trying to communicate this to Tom, but he doesn't seem to get it yet.  Our "welfare" system, as you pointed out, creates and permanently enslaves an underclass.  Doing away with the system doesn't mean abolishing our ability to do good deeds and show compassion. 

On the contrary, there are plenty of compassionate good deeds being done all around the world by americans, especially Christians.  We would simply be free to do them here at home, if there was no welfare system. 

Tom, your argument that Libertarian thinking is Social Darwinism is humorous.  Why are people so excited to go to Mexico to build houses for the poor, without welfare assistance?  If we had more of our own money to spend, don't you think this sort of thing would increase?

Does anyone dare to state that the Great Society, or any of the "welfare" programs have been successfull?

On the other hand, look at Samaritan's purse, an organization I support.  I would be free to give them many more thousands of dollars if I wasn't having to pay graft for all the programs that sustain and attract the poor.

Is there a verse somewhere that says,  "If a man doesn't(refuses to) work, neither shall he eat."?

That jives really nice with Libertarian thinking, but it sure grates against the notion that government is needed to protect us and take care of us.

Brent

[Oscar]

Verne, 

I agree with your post above, 99%.

In times past, the poor in society were indeed cared for by the church....and they still are today.  However, what I have found is that we tend to focus on the poor from other countries more than our own poor.

Actually, the care of the poor by the church was part of the system used in the middle ages in Europe.

In the colonies, and later in the states of early US history, poor relief was the responsibility of individual counties.  The church also helped the poor, but their aid was supplemental to the government system. 

That system worked well at the time, but two things have changed that: First, the rising technological level of medical practice raised the cost tremendously.  Yes, government interference into the system is also a factor, but let's face it, the services of a modern medical lab, X-ray, MRI's and so on didn't exist in 1789.

The other factor is that the industrialization of America created rich and poor counties.  Rural West Virginia can't afford what Marin County Calif. can.

So, the state and feds stepped in and took over much of the responsibility for funding.

There is no way the church can fund health care for the poor.  Do some things?  Sure. 

Do it all?  No way, not possible.

Now, here is an example for you.

When my daughter Glory developed Wilm's tumor when she was 13, she had to have surgery, chemotherapy and radiation.  Wretched time for us all.

The chemotherapeutic agents alone cost over 20,000 dollars.  I was sent some bill copies for the hospital bills for about 6 months. I totalled them up.   Around $85,000 dollars.   I never saw the doctor's bills.   I would guess her treatment, (that saved her life), cost $200,000-$300,000 dollars. 

When she first went into CHOC there was a little girl in the next bed with the same problem, requiring the same treatment.  I had excellent insurance, and it cost me very little out of pocket.   Her folks had no insurance at all, and were working folks that didn't have much.

She was treated under MediCal.   But if MediCal or some similar program hadn't been there, she would have died a horrible death in some hospice, probably being helped by Christians who would do what they could.  But they just can't bear that burden alone my friend.

So, I guess we will just have to plug along with the traditional American way.

Case in point: Doctors Without Borders is an organization in which doctors of all types take time off at their own expense and perform free surgury/medical care in 3rd world countries.  In the states, many of the procedures would be very expensive indeed, but they do them for free in Peru.

There was a Tsumnami, and Christians came through with millions (billions?).  However, if we have a flood in the midwest, we expect the government to pick up the tab.

I am trying to communicate this to Tom, but he doesn't seem to get it yet.  Our "welfare" system, as you pointed out, creates and permanently enslaves an underclass.  Doing away with the system doesn't mean abolishing our ability to do good deeds and show compassion. 

No it doesn't.  But it does drastically reduce the resources available, which are already inadequate.

YES...we need to protect or borders, punish fraud....kick free riders off the rolls...stop rewarding illigitimacy.   But those are "tweaks", not total abolition.

On the contrary, there are plenty of compassionate good deeds being done all around the world by americans, especially Christians.  We would simply be free to do them here at home, if there was no welfare system. 

We still are free to do them here at home.

Tom, your argument that Libertarian thinking is Social Darwinism is humorous. 

Glad you are amused...but that doesn't change what it is. 

Why are people so excited to go to Mexico to build houses for the poor, without welfare assistance?  If we had more of our own money to spend, don't you think this sort of thing would increase?

You know why Brent.   But millions of Mexicans live in hovels. 

Does anyone dare to state that the Great Society, or any of the "welfare" programs have been successfull?

Most failed, due to the pollyana attitude towards evil that infects Liberals.  But there were and still are success stories from the few programs that were well designed.

On the other hand, look at Samaritan's purse, an organization I support.  I would be free to give them many more thousands of dollars if I wasn't having to pay graft for all the programs that sustain and attract the poor.

Is there a verse somewhere that says,  "If a man doesn't(refuses to) work, neither shall he eat."?

That jives really nice with Libertarian thinking, but it sure grates against the notion that government is needed to protect us and take care of us.

Brent

What is needed is a change from "either/or" thinking to  "what will actually work" thinking.

Blessings,
Thomas Maddux

[editor]

Tom,

Let me ask you a serious question,

Have you ever given someone something, money, car, etc.?

If so, have you ever given to the point where it injured you, but you were happy to give anyways?

I suspect the answer to that quesion is yes.

If you had fifty thousand dollars that you didn't need, and your neigbors daughter needed expensive oral surgery, would you help her out?

I suspect the answer here is also yes.

All I am saying is that if you kept more of your money, you would be able to do more giving.  Bush Sr's 1000 points of light idea wasn't bad.  He just ruined it by  raising taxes, which took away surplus money from individuals.

Look at it this way, if you could give an extra 2000 dollars a month to your church, along with 200 others, do you think the church could do some neat things?  If the government wasn't there to force me to pay for someone else's healthcare, I could give more, which would make the church look pretty good.

Freedom encourages magnanimous actions.  The selfish and greedy don't look so good among the generous.

I hope you know what I am saying.

Brent

[vernecarty]

So, the state and feds stepped in and took over much of the responsibility for funding.

There is no way the church can fund health care for the poor.  Do some things?  Sure. 

Do it all?  No way, not possible.
Thomas Maddux

I agree in the case of such complex medical procedure as the one you referenced, you need some kind of support beyond what a church-based ministry can provide.
We are getting a first hand look at how ordinary folk can have a real impact here in Champaign.
Wayne Matthews is part of  a leadership team of faith-based ministry and providing health care to the community.
We should not overlook the matter of the inherent efficiency of this approach, nor the fact that effective preventive care goes a very long way toward reducing the burden borne for the poor and indigent by the rest of society. The data on how many folk get care only from the emergecny room is quite startling.

Verne, 

I agree with your post above, 99%.

In times past, the poor in society were indeed cared for by the church....and they still are today.  However, what I have found is that we tend to focus on the poor from other countries more than our own poor.
Case in point: Doctors Without Borders is an organization in which doctors of all types take time off at their own expense and perform free surgury/medical care in 3rd world countries.  In the states, many of the procedures would be very expensive indeed, but they do them for free in Peru.

There was a Tsumnami, and Christians came through with millions (billions?).  However, if we have a flood in the midwest, we expect the government to pick up the tab.
Brent

I suspect that this finds its root in the idea that we all here are so much better off than the rest of the world.
This is indeed by and large true. I do not think that any one can have less of an excuse for being indigent than people living in this country. Whle I know we will always have the poor with us, no country presents more opportunity for self-reliance, and indeed personal prosperity than does America.

Verne

[Oscar]

Tom,

Let me ask you a serious question,

Have you ever given someone something, money, car, etc.?

If so, have you ever given to the point where it injured you, but you were happy to give anyways?

I suspect the answer to that quesion is yes.

If you had fifty thousand dollars that you didn't need, and your neigbors daughter needed expensive oral surgery, would you help her out?

I suspect the answer here is also yes.

All I am saying is that if you kept more of your money, you would be able to do more giving.  Bush Sr's 1000 points of light idea wasn't bad.  He just ruined it by  raising taxes, which took away surplus money from individuals.

Look at it this way, if you could give an extra 2000 dollars a month to your church, along with 200 others, do you think the church could do some neat things?  If the government wasn't there to force me to pay for someone else's healthcare, I could give more, which would make the church look pretty good.

Freedom encourages magnanimous actions.  The selfish and greedy don't look so good among the generous.

I hope you know what I am saying.

Brent

Brent,

1. Yes.
2. Yes.

3. You are correct in your ideas on the church taking collective action.  And about freedom encouraging magnanimity.

But do you really believe that 10-11 percent of the US population can provide the charitable resources for the entire nation?  I think the answer would be "no". 

What this boils down to is a worldview question.   Should we base our values on religion or on "nature".

Do I exaggerate?  Let's hear from a real libertarian: Ayn Rand, the founder of Libertarianism.

"  ... The three values which men held for centuries and which have now collapsed are: mysticism, collectivism, altruism. Mysticism -- as a cultural power -- died at the time of the Renaissance. Collectivism -- as a political ideal -- died in World War II. As to altruism -- it has never been alive. It is the poison of death in the blood of Western civilization, and men survived it only to the extent to which they neither believed nor practiced it. But it has caught up with them -- and that is the killer which they now have to face and to defeat. That is the basic choice they have to make. If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject. "

Rand was a Jewish atheist.  She hated religion, socialism/communism/nazism, and what she called "altruism".
Here is her argument against "mysticism".

"Now there is one word -- a single word -- which can blast the morality of altruism out of existence and which it cannot withstand -- the word: "Why?" Why must man live for the sake of others? Why must he be a sacrificial animal? Why is that the good? There is no earthly reason for it -- and, ladies and gentlemen, in the whole history of philosophy no earthly reason has ever been given."

Rand is correct in her belief that "there is no earthly reason for it".  There isn't.  There is no reason to be found in nature.  If the materialists are correct, all existence can be explained in terms of the evolution of hydrogen atoms according to natural law.  That's it.  No reason to recognize any moral standards at all...except for what you wish to as an individual.

So, according to our Libertarian prophetess...who is the guilty party?

"It is only mysticism that can permit moralists to get away with it. It was mysticism, the unearthly, the supernatural, the irrational that has always been called upon to justify it -- or, to be exact, to escape the necessity of justification. One does not justify the irrational, one just takes it on faith. What most moralists -- and few of their victims -- realize is that reason and altruism are incompatible. And this is the basic contradiction of Western civilization: reason versus altruism."

There you have it.  It's that nasty fellow, God, who has caused all our problems.  It's those irrational believers who are robbing us and ruining our lives.


The founding fathers of the USA were almost all members of Christian churches.  A couple who weren't, like Franklin and Jefferson, were definitely theists and believed in morality, prayer, and the need for a Christian religious base for a moral society, which could then be a free society.  They didn't want an established church, but they did want a society that reflected Christian morality.

Libertarians such as Ayn Rand want to de-Christianize society.  Back to "rationality", ie, materialism.  We, the strong, will do as we please.  If the weak, the sick, the handicapped die...well, that's nature.  (Social Darwinism btw).  If it pleases us individually  to help them, fine. But only at the level of my personal choice.

Notice that Rand thinks in terms of either/or.  Its either the poverty and slavery caused by the evils of mysticism, (religion), and altruism, or its total abolition.   She was a doctrinaire idiologue.

Yes, the current situation has some very severe problems, and many of the programs in place don't work well at all.  But there are other options than the sweeping away of the wisdom of the founders in the name of a vaguely defined "freedom" that has a meaning they rejected.  They believed  "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" meant something for all of us, not just individuals.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[editor]

Brent,

1. Yes.
2. Yes.

3. You are correct in your ideas on the church taking collective action.  And about freedom encouraging magnanimity.

But do you really believe that 10-11 percent of the US population can provide the charitable resources for the entire nation?  I think the answer would be "no". 

What this boils down to is a worldview question.   Should we base our values on religion or on "nature".

Do I exaggerate?  Let's hear from a real libertarian: Ayn Rand, the founder of Libertarianism.

Rand was a Jewish atheist.  She hated religion, socialism/communism/nazism, and what she called "altruism".
Here is her argument against "mysticism".

Rand is correct in her belief that "there is no earthly reason for it".  There isn't.  There is no reason to be found in nature.  If the materialists are correct, all existence can be explained in terms of the evolution of hydrogen atoms according to natural law.  That's it.  No reason to recognize any moral standards at all...except for what you wish to as an individual.

So, according to our Libertarian prophetess...who is the guilty party?

There you have it.  It's that nasty fellow, God, who has caused all our problems.  It's those irrational believers who are robbing us and ruining our lives.


The founding fathers of the USA were almost all members of Christian churches.  A couple who weren't, like Franklin and Jefferson, were definitely theists and believed in morality, prayer, and the need for a Christian religious base for a moral society, which could then be a free society.  They didn't want an established church, but they did want a society that reflected Christian morality.

Libertarians such as Ayn Rand want to de-Christianize society.  Back to "rationality", ie, materialism.  We, the strong, will do as we please.  If the weak, the sick, the handicapped die...well, that's nature.  (Social Darwinism btw).  If it pleases us individually  to help them, fine. But only at the level of my personal choice.

Notice that Rand thinks in terms of either/or.  Its either the poverty and slavery caused by the evils of mysticism, (religion), and altruism, or its total abolition.   She was a doctrinaire idiologue.

Yes, the current situation has some very severe problems, and many of the programs in place don't work well at all.  But there are other options than the sweeping away of the wisdom of the founders in the name of a vaguely defined "freedom" that has a meaning they rejected.  They believed  "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" meant something for all of us, not just individuals.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Tom,

Ayn Rand is a libertarian icon, to be sure.  However, what you are quoting from is her ideas on Objectivism, which is her secular philosophy set forth in her writings.  As a Christian, I reject her atheism.  However, she makes some excellent points about governments, hypocritical religious thinking, socialism and the like.

That being said, not all libertarians are Ayn Rand clones, in the same way that not all Republicans are clones of Jerry Falwell.  Mind you, Libs like to pretend that all republicans are right-wing-fundamentalist-christian-tonguetalking-wifebeating-gayhating-holier-than-thou hypocrits...but is this really fair?

If we examine a handful of prominent republican leaders who are hypocrites, can we conclude that every member of the party is like that? 

In the same way, you can't project a couple paragraphs from Ayn Rand onto the whole of Libertarianism and make the claims you do...although I understand why you would.  You don't like it, because you have decided to be a republican, regardless of whether or not they actually do what they say.

But do you really believe that 10-11 percent of the US population can provide the charitable resources for the entire nation?  I think the answer would be "no". 

I'm shocked at this statement.  Not only do I believe that 10-11 percent of the population can provide the charitable resources for the entire nation, but this is exactly, precisely what has been going on for decades!  Have you ever looked at the breakdown of who pays taxes?  The vast majority of federal revenue comes from the about 10% of the population.  These are the same people who give charitable donations as well.  So your statement above is totally wrong.  It's not a matter of "if" they could provide the resource....cause they already are, and have been for a long time.

Also, let's just say that they weren't doing so.  Is it your contention that we should make people give by force?  If our citizens don't want to help the poor, and we have a representational government....are you suggesting that we should force people to take care of the poor?  This is pretty much what Karl Marx wanted, is it not?

Not even God does that, He prefers a willing giver.  But your argument has been set forth by plenty of socialists, and do-gooders over the years.  You all believe that government is the solution and the protection for "the Little guy."  Actually, if one tries this theorey out, as has been done in communist/socialist nations over the last century....it doesn't work too well, and actually creates "little guys," who loot and mooch off of honest, productive people because the socialist world view rewards the needy with greater rights. Those who enforce the rights of the needy are the politburo types, whose job is to live high on the hog and keep the needy alive and in need.  Why in the world would you want to adopt this faulty reasoning here in the US?

There you have it.  It's that nasty fellow, God, who has caused all our problems.  It's those irrational believers who are robbing us and ruining our lives.

Again, I am shocked by your thinking and reasoning.  Tom, do you remember 911?  Weren't those guys religious zealots, doing and justifying their murder in God's name?  What about the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition?  History is rife with religiously based wars, killing and murder.  People love to exercise power over others in God's name.  That is what Ayn Rand is talking about.  Are you are so threatened by the idea of freedom that you worry that you won't be able to be a Christian anymore, if we don't have welfare, taxation, and hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations?  Do you only think that Islam does horror in God's name?  I shudder to think at what would happen if the likes of Jerry Fallwell were able to exercise power over this nation. 

Could you ever see yourself giving a dime to someone of your own freewill? 

If so, why do you assume that others would not?  Do you see yourself as superior to them?

So, to sum up, I understand your emotional attachment to big government and welfare, especially medi-cal and teachers insurance.

I am not lucky enough to be on the receiving end of any of these programs....I am only forced to "give," so that others can benefit. If my kids get sick, I'll have to find a way to pay for it myself.  So, I am not fond of forced charity, as I am one of the ten percent who fund the whole nut.

However, your attachement to these programs notwithstanding, what you are basically stating is that we need a certain amount of socialism and wealth redistribution in order to be a "christian" nation.  I reject that notion in toto.  Christians are free to give when they are free.  If my money is taken from me by force, I am not free to exercise giving with it, am I?

So, what we have now isn't working....no argument there.  Do we need more of it, or less, in order to fix it?  The USSR tried more.  The USA has largely been of the "less" thinking, until recently.  Which country do you think did a better job, and which direction should we move towards?

In a free society, you are able to base your "worldview" on anything you wish, including religion.  In a religious society, you are not.  Saudi Arabia and the Taliban are good recent examples. 

As a Christian, my values are based on freedom.  I pity the poor nation that attempts a "christian" theocracy.

Brent