Rightful Role of Government Part 2

This is Part 2 of a two-part article on what I believe is the rightful role of government.

I wrote this in response to a couple of different groups that have been agitating for the scrapping of the US Constitution.

Before you go throwing the Constitution under the bus because of how it is being subverted today by an immoral people in favor of an anarchist view that has NEVER operated successfully, you should consider that our foundation is built on the notion that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  To me, that sounds a lot like the rallying cry of Libertarians and anarchists.  So what are they fighting against except the notion "that  to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

Libertarians and anarchists seem to want to throw out the baby along with the bath water.  The bath water is dirty (our government has become corrupted) so get rid of the baby since it made the water dirty (abolish the Constitution because it frame the government which others have corrupted).  This is a foolhardy approach to solving the problem, and one which, if followed will result in much less individual freedom, not more.

For more than 100 years, the US Constitution stood as a bulwark, generally doing a good job of protecting the majority of people from the predations of a minority (the minority being those who want to exercise unrestricted power over others - call them "king-men" (and women) if you will).
And protecting the minorities (minorities of race, religion or creed) from the predations of a majority.  There are notable big exceptions such as slavery and when the US Government declared war on the Mormons before the Civil War.  And there are notable smaller exceptions such as when local governments were corrupted and turned a blind eye to the operations of groups like the KKK who operated according to their own views of right and wrong (lawful and unlawful).

The Rule of Law has ushered in an unprecedented era in world history.  Today, the rule of law is being supplanted by the rule of regulatory fiat (monarchy or Executive Orders) posing as the rule of law.  Regulatory fiat (monarchy) allowed both the creation of the Ma Bell Monopoly and its later dissolution.  Regulatory fiat allowed the creation and later dissolution of the railroad monopolies.  Regulatory fiat (monarchy) has allowed the creation of the postal service monopoly and allowed the partial dissolution of that monopoly into its present pathetic state.  In this country the supplanting of the Rule of Law began when the ideas of Marx and Engels were embraced by powerful and weak Americans who wanted power and embraced the notion that the State should embody the will of the people instead of serving as a bulwark against the usurpation of their individual freedoms.  Inasmuch as people adopt the view that the state is to embody the will of the people, rather than serving the people to protect their individual freedoms, then they are embracing the notion that the state and the strengthening of the government of the state is the starting point for the solution to all of society's ills. 

The obverse view, that the state exists solely to preserve individual freedom, puts the burden for righting societal injustices or inequities on the shoulders of each individual and requires them to act on their own or to persuade others to join their cause with their time, energy and money given freely to act to improve the lot of the poor or other downcast or disadvantaged peoples. 

Too many people would rather abdicate their individual responsibility, along with their individual freedom, to government, thereby giving the government the ability to coerce folks who are not like-minded to support the "noble" causes adopted by the masses (or presented by demagogues to attract the attention and pity, or concupiscence of the masses).

I believe that government has no business getting into the business of charity.  And the federal government and Supreme Court have no business trying to legislate or adjudicate moral issues.

When government gets into the business of charity - providing economic help to disadvantage sectors of society, several bad things happen:

1. Government robs individuals of the responsibility to account to God for their treatment of the poor and needy by making the individual contributions both compulsory and utterly without connection to the individual contributor.
2. Government sets up programs which always have the unintended consequence of increasing the number of people in disadvantaged group.
3. Government always put most of the money (consistently around 80%) devoted to the issue into the hands of facilitators and government employees and a fraction (consistently around 20%) into form of actual benefits delivered to the needy.

When the Federal Government and the Supreme Court get into the business of legislating or adjudicating moral issues, several bad things invariably happen:

1. The democratic process is short circuited.  Instead of allowing for lively public debate to be held in each state and locality and allow local people to decide with their votes or vote with their feet by moving to localities that favor their views, a decision is forced upon major sectors of the society which is in direct conflict with their moral views.  This does not settle the matter, rather it drives lasting wedges between different segments of society.
2. When the Federal Government or Supreme Court try to settle a moral issue with laws or rulings, they ride roughshod over the right of every citizen to the free exercise of conscience.  They make it illegal to be on the "wrong/losing" side of a moral decision. 
3. This trampling of rights of conscience can only lead to what is, by definition, subversive behavior as people will violate the law, seek to thwart the enforcement of the law, or even violently oppose the government that is seeking to impose the law which they find morally reprehensible.

The decision of the Supreme Court to create a right to abortion, the decision of the Supreme Court to create a right to gay-marriage are high profile examples of situations where the imposition of a decision, instead of settling the matter, has provided a club for one group to attempt to rob the opposition of their rights to dissent on grounds of freedom of conscience.

What is needed today is not an abandonment of the US Constitution.  Rather what is needed is individual and mass commitment to adherence to the principles of individual responsibility and individual rights.  Along with acknowledgement that the exercise of individual rights requires the acceptance of the consequences of those exercises, including failure, unhappiness, ill-health, poverty, incarceration, disability, or even death.

The Constitution was designed to give us the opportunity to succeed and the opportunity to fail.  And, as every successful person knows, failure is always a necessary precursor to success.  What those who seek to cast aside the principles of our Constitution want is a framework that prohibits success and protects us from failure and from the negative consequences of our own choices.  That kind of institutionalized irresponsibility is what is largely wrong with our society today.

I believe that 90% of our current statutes and at least 50% of our Federal and State government infrastructures would evaporate if every regulation and every law passed or currently existing were forced to show 1) origination in the rights enumerated in the US Constitution and 2) adherence to the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

The problem is not the baby in the bath, the problem is the bathwater getting dirtier every minute  because mom and dad are using dirt for soap.  The problem is being compounded by the fact that some are deliberately throwing dirt on the baby because they want the baby to be thrown out so they can install their own child and rule the roost.

The solution is to find and elect individuals who are willing to adhere to and support a return to the foundational principles of individual responsibility AND individual freedom, protected by limited government restrained within the boundaries of enumerated powers consciously, deliberately and thoughtfully yielded by the people and preserved by the individual rather than collective energies of the people.

It took 100 years of misguided statism to get where we are today.  It will take many years, decades or perhaps even a century of unremitting, unceasing, individual vigilance and individual effort to regain the individual freedoms and responsibilities which have been usurped by those who I called statists (variously known as progressives, liberals, communists, socialists, marxist, maoists, etc.).

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.

Visit Tom's Amazon.com Author's Page

(c) Copyright 2015 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

 Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

Am I Being Judgmental?

 The Bible teaches, "Judge not."  Or does it?

"Judge not" is not the whole of the teaching.  What it really says, is, "Judge not, that ye be be not judged.  For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged"  Matthew 7:1-2

Many take this as a commandment that we should not judge others.  However, that understanding is false, because it is incomplete.  In John 7:24, we are told, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."  In Psalms (37:30) we read, "The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment."

So, actually, we are commanded by God to judge.  And, we are cautioned to use righteous judgment. 

That begs the question, "what is righteous judgment?" 

In part this can be answered by saying what is unrighteous judgment.

Hypocritical judgment, where we point the finger at someone else when we are guilty of even worse, unrepentant, behavior is unrighteous judgment.  This is what Jesus was referring to when he said we had to first remove the beam from our own eye (truly repenting), before we can legitimately help remove the speck (mote) from another's eye.

When our judgment is based on presuming to know things that we cannot know, we are engaged in unrighteous judgment.  For example, when you assume you know the motives for an action, unless the  actor told you their motives, you cannot know it, because you cannot read minds. 

Another example of this is when you assume someone is going to Hell, or Heaven.  You don't know the thoughts and intents of their hearts (which God will use to judge us), and you don't even know ALL the acts another has done, so you lack the necessary information to make righteous judgment on this matter.  And, God has reserved this particular judgment and kept it out of our hands.

You can exercise righteous judgment by judging actions (rather than actors).  To put it another way, you can righteously judge that someone who is commiting adultery is doing something wrong (evil).  But, if you judge that the adulterer is going to Hell you have engaged in unrighteous judgment.  You can righteously judge whether or not someone has broken a law of man or of God, but you cannot know if a person has broken a law of conscience.

Why am I talking about judgment in a politico-religious blog?  

This exploration was spurred by something that Star Parker said in her book, "Uncle Sam's Plantation."  She took the stance that much of the problems of poverty (and society) today is the replacement of the idea of right and wrong with the notion of values. She sums the idea in the following words,

“Life is chance, and values are relative. I can do whatever I think is right”

Then, she goes on to relate this idea to the actual behavior of a variety of individuals, including herself.

The events of the past several years reveal the natural consequences of a society embracing that philosophy. People blowing up federal buildings, mailing letter bombs or anthrax, disposing of live newborns in dumpsters—these are all acts that seemed right to those who carried them out. This type of moral relativism, taken to its logical extreme, can even justify using airplanes as human bombs to murder innocent civilians. I found it easy to reject the concept of faith because all absolutes were judgmental,

She found it easy to reject the concept of faith because faith introduces the idea that right and wrong can be absolutes instead of relative.  And all absolutes are judgmental.  And, being judgmental is being bad because we are told to "judge not."

Some of my children have accused my wife and I of being judgmental because we stated, without apology, that sexual promiscuity (heterosexual and homosexual) is wrong.  They conflated our condemnation of the acts with a condemnation of the actor (their friend).  Honestly, their confusion on that point is easy to understand.  Many folks don't make the distinction between the act and the actor when they make or express their judgments.  It isn't uncommon to hear someone say, "... he is a bad person, he did bad things."

The irony of my childrens' condemnation of my wife and I as "judgmental" is that they are probably the most judgmental people I have ever met.  Those who don't agree with their views on social matters are almost universally determined to be bad people.  Case in point, if someone opposes gay-marriage, they are a bad person, trying to deny same-sex-marriage proponents of their right to pursue happiness in their own way.

This is also consistent with the utter intolerance of atheists for religionists.  A recent FB dialog I had with folks on that topic is illustrative.  The response of atheists was that religionists should "just shut the f*** up."  Profanity, vitriol and personal attacks while discussing a topic are hallmarks of bigotry and intolerance.  Bigotry and intolerance are hallmarks of unrighteous judgment.

We also see this kind of bigotry and unrighteous judgment in the most ardent proponents of the LGBT movement and among racists (of any color).  The key point here is to make sure that we are not having a beam in our own eye on the point of judgment, regardless of the size of the chunk of wood in someone else's eye.  We cannot excuse our own bad behaviors by pointing to the bad behaviors of our opponents.

But, don't get me wrong here.  I am not saying we should continue to let liberal bullies beat on us while we scream "forgive me, for I have sinned."  Rather, we need to be very assertive and even confrontational without resorting to profanity, vitriol and personal attacks.  We need to argue the cases for Constitutional Conservatism by pointing stubbornly to facts and remaining calm.  When the bullies throw punches, we need to block their attacks and counter-punch with clear-headed facts and cogent arguments, rather than losing our temper and resorting to tantrums or purely emotional responses.

There is nothing inherently wrong with an emotional argument, as long as it can be backed up with facts.  But bear in mind that an emotional argument without facts is just an opinion, not an argument.

For instance, you can say, "I know that people who live by Christian principles, live happier, more fulfilling lives."  That is an opinion and an emotional argument.  It may be right and I may agree with it or it may move me.  AND when you can also cite unbiased surveys and studies that support your assertions, it moves from being simply an opinion or emotional argument into the realm of being a cogent, well founded argument in favor of your position.

To give you a counter example, consider the arguments of the gun-banners.  They assert that banning firearm ownership, or severely limiting it makes society safer.  This is an emotional argument and an opinion.  The emotion is based on the fear of being harmed by someone with a gun.  Unfortunately for the gun-banners, the studies and statistics show that banning or severely limiting legal gun ownership consistently results in higher rates of violent crime.  Consider the current high murder rates of Chicago and New York where legal gun ownership is highly restricted, with those low murder rates in Dallas, Houston, and Phoenix where gun ownership is widespread and the right to carry is largely unimpeded.

Or, to take this back to one of Ms. Star's points, consider that every time the minimum wage is increased, the unemployment and underemployment among the most economically challenged people in this country increases.  Employers, forced to pay more for each employee, cut back on the number of employees and pushes each employee still on the payroll to be more productive to make up for the folks who are no longer on the line, or they fire them all and hire robots instead.

Of course, the liberal answer to that last point is, "there oughta be a law against that." and then they try to push forward the nanny-state further by one more piece of ineffective, taxing piece of legislation.

But, back to the point about judgment, Ms. Star Parker says it well when she says, 

“God is your source, not the government!”

We should look to God, He is our source.  Look to His plan for our happiness (to bring to pass our immortality and eternal life [Moses 1:39]), and judge the actions of ourselves and others against that absolute measure of right and wrong, instead of using the changeable measuring sticks of society and government.

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.

Visit Tom's Amazon.com Author's Page

(c) Copyright 2015 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

 Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

Islam, Anti-Christ, and Prayer

The other day, I received this in my email.  Please read through it and I will comment at the end.

I know there are some of you that are Democrat and love Obama, but this is for Christians first, politics later.   I do pray that it doesn't offend anybody with the truth of the message, but it has to be sent. If you love your Lord first and your politics later, then you will appreciate this message. If you don't, I'm sorry I judged you wrong. When we get 100,000,000, that's one hundred million willing Christians to BOND together, voice their concerns and vote, we can take back America with God's help.   Become one of the One hundred million... Then let's get 200 million. It can be done just by sending this email to your friends.   Do the math. It only takes a single willing heart and a fed up SOUL. 

God Bless America and Shine your light on Her!   In 1952 President Truman Established one day a year as a "National Day of Prayer."   

In 1988 President Reagan Designated the first Thursday in May of each year as The National Day of Prayer.   

In June 2007 (then) Presidential Candidate BarackObama Declared that the USA "Was no longer a Christian nation.   

In 2009 President Obama Canceled the 21st annual National Day of Prayer ceremony at the White House under the ruse of "not wanting to offend anyone." HOWEVER... On September 25, 2009 From 4 AM until 7 PM, A National Day of Prayer FOR THE MUSLIM RELIGION Was Held on Capitol Hill, inside the White House. There were over 50,000 Muslims In D.C. that day. PRESIDENT OBAMA PRAYS WITH THE MUSLIMS! I guess it doesn't matter if "Christians" were offended by this event - We obviously don't count as "anyone" anymore.   Now President Obama is encouraging schools to teach the Quran for extra credit, while at the same time, they cannot even talk about the Bible, God, pray, or salute the American Flag. The direction this country is headed should strike fear in the heart of every Christian  especially knowing that the Muslim religion believes that if Christians cannot be converted, they should be annihilated.  

Send this to ten people, or even one hundred and ten!   And, send it the person who Sent it to you!. . To let them know that indeed, it was sent out to many more.

Okay, so that is the email I got.  First, let me say I really hate anything that resembles a chain letter. So, when someone sends me something that says "pass this on," I usually don't, just on principle. If you want to paste it into an email or put it on your blog or Facebook, feel free, but doing so won't prove your love of God or Country and not doing it won't reveal you as a Summer Patriot either. 

Regardless of the "chain-letter" feel, this one called attention to something that I think warrants widespread attention, especially from Christians.  And, since this blog is primarily focused on the collision space between God and Government, then this seemed appropriate.

Although it has consistently been soft-pedaled by the mainstream media, Obama publicly admitted in his books that he will stand with the Muslims.  Add to that a couple of other things in his resume.  
    1) During his first campaign I was watching one of his interviews where he referred to Islam as "my faith." Then he quickly backpedaled, saying "their faith", and the reporter totally let it slide. 
    2) In his own books Obama said he would stand with Islam. 
    2) For more than 20 years he claimed his spiritual guide was the Reverend Jeremiah Wright who takes the framework for his beliefs and preaching from "Liberation  Theology" which, if you didn't know, was created by the KGB as a means to get "Christian" ministers to preach the tenets of communism and anti-Americanism.

So, what we have in our current President of the United States is a Muslim who publicly embraces a theology that has it origins in the Communist Manifesto, which preaches that religion is nothing more or less than a means to control the masses ("... religion is the opiate of the masses.").

Some would be dismissive of all this and say, what does it matter if he is Muslim or not?  Well, to everyone who is not Muslim this is a really, really big deal, because it will ultimately determine if they live or die, when he gets his way.  You may think I am being melodramatic here, but it really is that serious.

Why would I say it is a matter of life and death?  Because, according to the teachings of "the religion of peace" anyone who is not a Muslim, a Christian or a Jew has the choice of either converting to Islam or being killed.  And Christians and Jews, if they want to live, get to pay an annual tax for the privilege of not being killed.  In Islam, there are exactly three categories of people: 1) Muslims 2) Infidels (Jews and Christians) and 3) Pagans.  And the Pagans are to be killed if they won't convert to Islam.  Now, do you understand why Pakistan and Bangladesh had to be carved out of India into separate countries and maintain a pretty hostile relationship with India?  It is because both Pakistan and Bangladesh are predominantly Muslim populations while India is predominantly "pagan."  Having pagans ruling over Muslims would be utterly intolerable, and produced violent results.

Now, one more point is worthy of mention here.  Many don't realize it, but Islam is anti-Christ.

Hold on!  Don't go all wild-eyed on me here.  Do you really know what that term means?

Most Christians get all wrapped up in the Book of the Revelation of Saint John (aka Revelations) and talk about "The Anti-Christ."  But they don't really even know what the phrase anti-Christ means.  They assume it means something like opposite-of-Christ.  You know, like in Star Trek where you have matter and anti-matter.  But, that isn't really what the term means.

What anti-Christ means is someone who says that Jesus of Nazareth was not the the Christ, meaning that they deny that he is the Only Begotten Son of God.

Islam promotes that there are four great prophets: Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed.  What is wrong with this picture is that Jesus was way more that JUST a prophet.  They even claim that Jesus did not ever claim to be the Son of God, even though he did on more than one occasion in the first four books of the New Testament, and of course there was that whole resurrection thing where he appeared to the Apostles, Paul, and upwards of 500 people at one time.  Add to that his appearance as a resurrected being, with the wounds in his hands and feet, to people in the ancient Americas, as recorded in the Book of Mormon and his divinity becomes pretty irrefutable.  Then, cap it off with his appearance in 1820 to a farm boy in upstate New York and later in the 1830s in Kirtland, Ohio to Joseph Smith Junior and Sidney Rigdon and prophet becomes the least of the terms appropriate for referring to Jesus of Nazareth.

So, when Islam says that Jesus is a prophet, folks think that means they are honoring and respecting him.  In fact, they are attempting to diminish him by saying he is NOT divine.  They are being anti-Christ. 

So, why would a closet Muslim lie about his religion and embrace communism wrapped in a mask of 

Christianity?  Well, I cannot know for sure, since he won't come out and tell the truth (the Qur'an [or Koran if you prefer] says it is okay to lie to infidels and pagans, so absolute rules of behavior don't seem to emerge from the Qur'an),  I surmise that he is looking for a scheme that will rationalize the imposition of some form of dictatorship or oligarchy - a totalitarian government which will have, as one of its aims, to make us all equally poor (except for those who are more equal than others, like the oligarchs and high ranking "public servants" who rule over us - they will get fancy houses, armed guards, servants, and chauffeured limousines).

When Obama declared that "the US is not a Christian nation," [see endnote below] he is saying what he wants, not what is.  And, he is well on his way to getting our government and laws divorced from Christ.  Once the divorce is complete, the moral underpinnings of our laws are cut away. that will lead to immoral laws (we've already seen some of those). Eventually, the laws will become so corrupt that people will cry out for a return to morality based rule.  They may even rise up in armed rebellion. What we will then get won't be a return to the Judaeo-Christian basis of laws that apply to all.  Rather, we will get something akin to Sharia Law, which discriminates against those of differing religious beliefs and puts a religious ruler in charge (like the mullahs of Iran) who can declare things to be both illegal and immoral and give their enforcers the confidence that the rewards of heaven are theirs for their zealotry in carrying out every instruction of their politico-religious leaders.

Not a pretty picture, is it?  Before you laugh it all off, consider the source. As a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka Mormons), I truly believe that we have a living prophet on the earth today.  I don't think he is perfect, but he is a very good man.  And, I believe that when he is acting in his office, he is telling me what God wants me to do.  However, I still fact-check with God himself.  And, I know that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Christ did what he did so that we would have freedom to choose.  He will not take that away from us and He is the one who inspired the Founding Fathers to write our Constitution.  He supports it.  

But, He will let us throw it away.  And a government that is truly run by God and according to His principles and teachings won't deprive us of choice, or tolerate mistreatment of others because they don't believe the same way as He wants us to. 

Every Christian who believes that the Bible is the word of God knows that in the end, Christ himself will return here to rule the world in person.  That is the only time it will be appropriate to have a theocracy in this land.  Until then, let the President and the Prophet be two different people.  And, let the government and the church not become one.

Endnote:  This is kind of an aside, but when I was looking into this quote I followed one link to FactCheck.org which is supposed to be exactly that - a source of facts instead of opinions.  Instead of telling me what he said, or did not say, the site tries to tell me what he meant.  " Here's what Obama meant to say,...".  Unfortunately, this isn't the first time I have found that FactCheck.org spouts editorial opinions instead of just providing facts.  So, rather than cite a source where the quote is written out, I linked to a YouTube video where you can hear exactly what he says.

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.

Visit Tom's Amazon.com Author's Page

(c) Copyright 2015 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

 Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.