SCOTUS Decision Gives a Green Light to Push for Closet Christians

The recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to establish same-sex marriage as a right, does not, by itself signal a dramatic change in the struggle between Christians and the LGBT community.  The real sign of imminent danger lies in the words of the majority opinion, both in what is said, and what is not said.

"Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons."

Notice first, the words of protection for Christians that are used:  "advocate" and "teach."  What is not said is that they "exercise" those beliefs.

I'm not the only one who noticed this dangerous omission by the majority.  A recent article in The Deseret News notes:

Chief Justice John Roberts said the majority's view offers "no comfort" to people of faith when contemplating the further religious liberty issues bound to arise from the ruling, saying that, "ominously," Kennedy's opinion doesn't discuss free exercise protections for groups or individuals.

What is the importance of 'exercise' versus teaching and advocating?  It means simply that you can still say you don't support same-sex marriage, but you cannot act on those beliefs.  If you make wedding cakes, regardless of how you believe, you won't have a choice in whether or not your edible sculpture, crafted to glorify the union of two lives, is used to glorify hetero-sexual marriage, or not.

The same is true of a lot of other wedding-related business.  Now, the amoral capitalist would just shout for joy at the recent SCOTUS ruling because it means his prospective client base just expanded dramatically.  But, contrary to media stereotypes, capitalism is not a synonym for being amoral.  In fact the vast majority of business owners I have met have very strong moral codes.

Many of these business owners really love their work.  It is their passion that helps power their success.  And, if they are forced to use their work to glorify a behavior they believe is immoral, it will sour them on their work and take their heart out of it.

The SCOTUS majority would have us believe that the media stereotype is reality and that business is divorced from religion and morality.

Christians know that you cannot divorce any part of your life from your religion or morality.  Being a Christian means that you not only believe, but you exercise your beliefs, because God will judge us for ALL our deeds, our words, and even our thoughts, and how those aligned with what we know to be right.  In spite of The Godfather and The Sopranos, you cannot be amoral in your business and still be right with God.

Some will argue with me and say, "So what if SCOTUS opened the door for people to use the force of law to make people support same-sex marriage?  No reasonable LGBT proponent will do that."

Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Virginia who has argued religious freedom cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, said there has been "an appalling lack of tolerance on both sides" of the marriage debate, first among opponents who believed they could outlaw same-sex weddings, and now from those supporting the changes.

He goes on to say, "... the gay-rights side ... are now intent on crushing the rights of dissenters."

To put it another way, now that the 'shoe is on the other foot' extremists in the LGBT community wants to shove Christians into the same closet that they came out of.  The closet where it is not seen or spoken of in the public square.

Anyone who says that members of the LGBT community won't push for this is blind to certain lessons about human behavior evident in human history.

The Puritans, after fleeing state-sponsored religious persecution in Europe promptly established laws which not only established their own rights of worship, but restricted the rights of worship of those who were not in their sect.

In this country, many in the black community want to punish whites for race-based discrimination in the past by allowing a form of race-based discrimination going the other direction.  They have even managed to redefine racism in some textbooks.  They have gone from the dictionary definition of racism (which is color blind) to one that defines racism as discrimination of whites against blacks.

Here is the dictionary definition of racism:

belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. 
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

In contrast with that definition consider this: 

Only white people can be racist, because only white people have institutional power.

 http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/2009/09/wonder-how-to-define-racism.html

And do you recall that Obama's former Attorney General, Eric Holder  while still in office said, "White people can be victims of racial injustice because they haven't suffered enough."  Meaning that the top law enforcement officer in the country wasn't willing to enforce the laws of the land if he didn't like the color of the plaintiffs, until white folks have been made to suffer a lot of discrimination and racial oppression.  Apparently, he didn't agree with Dr. Martin Luther King when he said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."  So, he thinks white people should be made to suffer the way blacks suffered from racism.  That sounds to me a lot like 'putting the shoe on the other foot.'

A Google search for "punish whites for racism" today yields more than 22 million hits.

In nearly every case of history where an oppressed minority managed to gain the upper hand, the result was the minority oppressing the majority in the exact same manner as they had themselves suffered. That is human nature.

Right now, the LGBT community if feeling that they have been an oppressed minority.  Now that SCOTUS has established their behavior as a right, the probability is almost a certainty that many of them will seek to put their opponents into the closet that they themselves came out of not so long ago.

In fact, some accounts I have recently read show that LGBT leadership is planning exactly that.  We have entered a time when instead of "live and let live", minority groups are not content with winning their rights, they want to exterminate the opposition.  What could breed such relentless antipathy in the hearts of people who claim to be all about love and freedom?  To my view, it can only be the subtle, soul-twisting influence of Lucifer, leading them defense of their own freedoms into attacks on the freedoms of others.

I think this SCOTUS decision marks the beginning of a bloody retreat from the public square by Christians in the US.


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.

Christian Socialist Is An Oxymoron

Some of you may not know what the word Oxymoron means, so let me start with that.

Dictionary.com gives this definition...

a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous,seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”

I will also offer my own definition of Christian here:

A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Messiah, the Only Begotten Son of God after the flesh.  And who is attempting to follow the teachings of Christ as they are found in the scriptures.

Again, Dictionary.com, when using Christian as a noun (as I am here) says that a Christian is:

A person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity. A person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ

Now, we need to define Socialism.  Again, Dictionary.com is helpful:

1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of asociety to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

George Bernard Shaw, the noted Fabian Socialist, said that:

"Socialism, reduced to its simplest legal and practical expression, means the complete discarding of the institution of private property by transforming it into public property and the division of the resultant income equally and indiscriminately among the entire population." (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed., Vol. 20, p. 895.)

In short, Socialism drives toward the ultimate end of private ownership of anything and everything.  In practice, it is characterized by using the coercive powers of government to take resources from those who are producing them and redistribute those resources to those who merely consume them.  This coercive redistribution is called taxes.  It is coercive because, if you don't pay your taxes the government can take your money, your business, your home and even your freedom.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't an anti-taxation rant.  Nor am I advocating that we don't pay our taxes.  I am simply making the point unmistakably clear that taxation is not a voluntary program.

Now that we understand the meaning of the words in my title, we can fully understand what I mean to say by stating that "Christian Socialist Is An Oxymoron."  I am saying that you cannot genuinely and totally believe in Jesus Christ AND be trying to follow his teachings AND embrace the political and economic tenets of socialism.

Please note, I am being very exact in my words here.  When I say you "totally believe in Jesus Christ" it means that you don't pick and choose what to believe from among the things he teaches.  You either believe everything he said, or you believe none of it.  Because, either he was the Son of God, or he was a liar.

I believe totally in Jesus Christ.  AND I do my best to follow his teachings.  I am nowhere near perfect in this effort, as those closest to me can attest.  But, I am trying.

I know that there are many folks who will disagree with my bold statement that Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable foes.  But it is true.

First, let me give you some of the ammunition those who disagree will use.  Then, I will show you how they are really firing blanks.

In the New Testament the second chapter of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles appears to describe how the adherents of early Christianity were embracing a form of socialism.

44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

And again in Chapter 4 we read:

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 

 35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

 And from the Book of Mormon we get this about the Christians who were living in ancient America after the resurrected Jesus appeared to them, let them feel the wounds in his hands and feet and taught them, it appears they embraced socialism:

 19 And they taught, and did minister one to another; and they had all things common among them, every man dealing justly, one with another. 20 And it came to pass that they did do all things even as Jesus had commanded them.

3 Nephi 26

And this:

2 And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another. 3 And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift.

4 Nephi 1

In our own times, sometime in 1838 (note that the Communist Manifesto was written in 1848), Joseph Smith, Jr. the first president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints introduced to the Saints something called "The United Order."

For brevity, I will summarize here what happened in The United Order.  Members of the Church who desired to enter this Order handed over all their worldly goods to their Bishop (their religious leader).  The Bishop then put these into a 'storehouse' to be used by the Saints.  Then, the Bishop gave to each member in the Order from the storehouse according to their needs and abilities.  To be clear, he deeded these things back to them for their use.  Then, they were expected to pay a tithe (10%) on the gains they made from what he deeded to them.

According to LDS teachings, this United Order is what was being referred to in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles.  I accept that, and will address this as fact.  I will, from this point forward, refer to the United Order as what Christians practiced in this context.

From all of this, it appears that every devout Christian should be signing away their worldly goods to their church and then living off of what the church gives back to them.  Proponents of Socialism use these evidences to support their stance that Christ was saying we should give up private ownership and give to the poor so that we will have "no poor among [us]."

Before we buy in to this view, let's look a little deeper at the differences between Socialism and the United Order.  And let's start by looking at what happened to one specific man and his wife when they sought to join the United Order while keeping back some of their property for their own discretionary use.

Acts Chapter 5 tells us the cautionary story of Ananias and his wife Saphira.

 1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
 2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
 3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
 5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
 6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. 7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
 8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
 9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
 10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

The key point I want to make from this is not about how dangerous it is to lie to God.  Rather, I want to emphasize what Peter said, "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?" The rights of this couple to have private property were not looked down on by Peter, rather they were affirmed by him.  And, their entry into the United Order was voluntary.  No one was being forced to sell their goods and join the Order.  

So, the first essential difference between Christianity and Socialism is that Christianity is entirely voluntary.  And, within the broad ground of Christian practice, providing assistance to the poor is considered a Christian duty.  But the fulfillment of that duty, as every Christian knows, is between the individual and God, and the accounting comes at the Final Judgment.

In contrast, Socialism is a compulsory system from start to finish.  Socialism uses the gun to ensure that everyone within their reach gives up their private property, whether they embrace Socialism or not.  Further, their objective is not to eliminate poverty, rather it is to destroy prosperity.

Now, some of my good LDS friends, and even some family, mistakenly believe that Socialism and the United Order are the same girl, just wearing a more chaste dress.  For them, and everyone else, I offer this link to a talk that was given in a General Conference of the Church, at the express request of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The talk is titled, "Socialism and the United Order Compared."  The talk was given in April 1966 by Marion G Romney, who was at that time a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Allow me to quote a couple of key passages here:

No, brethren, socialism is not the United Order. However, notwithstanding my abhorrence of it, I am persuaded that socialism is the wave of the present and of the foreseeable future. It has already taken over or is contending for control in most nations.

We here in the United States, in converting our government into a social welfare state, have ourselves adopted much of socialism. Specifically, we have to an alarming degree adopted the use of the power of the state in the control and distribution of the fruits of industry. We are on notice, according to the words of the President, that we are going much further, for he is quoted as saying:

"We're going to take all the money we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the 'haves' and give it to the 'have nots.'" (1964 Congressional Record, p. 6142, Remarks of the President to a Group of Leaders of Organizations of Senior Citizens in the Fish Room, March 24, 1964.)

Socialism takes: United Order gives

That is the spirit of socialism: We're going to take. The spirit of the United Order is: We're going to give.

The President of the United States (POTUS) that Romney was quoting was Lyndon Baines Johnson, the man who initiated "the war on poverty" and it was the means for waging this war that he was referring to in this quotes.

Please note that President Johnson is saying that un-elected US Government bureaucrats will decide how much money we need by deeming part of our spending unnecessary.  They will then, "take" and "give" according to their judgment, and whatever policies their superiors have put in place dictate that judgment.

To put this in perspective, consider the money you need to go visit your ailing parent, child, sibling or friend.  A government worker can say, "That trip is unnecessary.  Your child/parent/sibling/friend will live or die regardless of your visit.  I am taking the money you saved for that trip away from you.  I will take a portion of the money to pay for my time, and then, I will give the remainder to someone who believes that they deserve this money more than you."

Now, there are some who will say that this is just semantics.  Or that we are arguing over tomato or tomatoe.  That is a glib lie.  And I will illustrate the lie very easily.

Picture this:  You see a man taking money out of his wallet and handing it over to a homeless person.

That seems a lovely picture, doesn't it.  It warms the heart.

Now, let's complete the picture.  There is another man in the picture, he is holding a gun on the first man.

What's the difference? Tomato or tomatoe?

The first picture is what we call charity.  It is a voluntary act of sacrifice by one party to aid another.  We call it being a good Christian, giving back, and being charitable.  We universally consider it a virtue.

The second picture is what we call robbery.  It is the forcible redistribution of property and it is universally considered a crime, unless we give it the imprimatur of government and call it taxes and welfare.

Some might argue that when Marion G Romney decried the differences between the United Order and Socialism, he was going astray from the intentions of Joseph Smith, who was the source of the original revelation on that program.  Let's see what Brother Joseph had to say about property rights.  In 1835 he stated:

 1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.
 2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

Doctrine and Covenants, Section 134 

So, Joseph Smith asserted that the right and control of property ranks right up there with protecting freedom of conscience and protection of life as primary duties of governments to their constituents.

Some will read this and still wave their hands in dismissal and say, "The end of the matter is to help the poor as Jesus said we should.  So what does it matter if we do it through governmental or private means, as long as the end objective is met?"

This line of reasoning is that the end will justify the means.  A premise espoused by Nicolo Machiavelli in his book on effective leadership titled, "The Prince."

While the world may buy in to this reasoning, Christians should know better.  You cannot simply make the world be filled with righteous people by killing all the folks you think are sinners.  That is what led to the Spanish Inquisition, a notorious chapter in the history of churches.  It has also led to numerous wars that were initiated with the public objective of ridding the world of the unbelievers.  Even Islam, probably the most successful at spreading religion by force, has suffered the ill effects of using bad means while attempting to gain good ends.

When the armies of Islam swept across North Africa and Eastward across Persia and into India, the story was always the same in every conquered town.  "People of the Book", Christians and Jews or Infidels, were separated from everyone else, who were labeled Pagans.  The Pagans were given the choice, accept Allah as god and Muhammed as his prophet, or be killed on the spot.  Those with the courage of their convictions were killed.  Everyone else joined up, whether or not they actually believed.  The result was a Caliphate that was filled with Muslims, who believed whatever they wanted and did what they wanted, as long as they manifested the outward signs of belief.

Of course the Infidels were given a choice too.  They could accept Allah and Mohammed, or they could be forced to pay for the privilege of remaining alive, every single year.

Forced conversion, whether it be Islam, Christianity, or any other, does not produce converts.  It ends up with a church or religion that is torn apart by sects and division as members go their own ways based on their own ideas of what being a good member means.  In Islam, we see this today in the violence between Sunni and Shi'a.  In Christianity it was seen most clearly in our days in the 'Troubles' of Northern Ireland where Protestants were pitted against Catholics.

The ultimate purpose of religions is to get us to believe and behave in a moral manner because we believe it is in our own long-term (eternal) best interests.  When anyone attempts to enforce moral beliefs on others, the force destroys the morality.  When government, and the coercive power of taxation, are used to achieve moral ends, morality is destroyed, not enshrined, because belief and willing action are both irrelevant and rendered null.

Belief and willing action are the heart and soul of true religion.  They are the heart and soul of what Jesus Christ and his Apostles teach.

Not only is Socialism at odds with Christianity, it is at odds with every religion that embraces the notion that each individual must freely choose to accept or reject God on the grounds established by that religion.

My conclusion in all this matter is this:

1. Christians have a moral obligation to help the poor and needy.
2. Forcing people to give to the poor and needy is immoral and results in very bad ends instead of the good ends that are being sought.
3. Government as the means of administering charity is the same thing as trying to force people to do something good.  It will have very bad outcomes for everyone involved.

Because the use of force to get people to believe and behave in a moral manner is in total conflict with the teachings of Jesus Christ, no one call legitimately call themselves a Christian and say they support Socialism.

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.

Welcome to My God and Government

Welcome to My God and Government.  This first post is just to give you a bit of context about me and my views that will follow.  If you have strong feelings, for or against God and Government, I urge you to read and consider the articles to follow.  You may find that you influence my thinking, or I might influence yours.  Either way, know that I am ready for a spirited and civil conversation.

I am an American.  No offense intended to those from South America and Central America, or Canadians.  I am an American as first identified by Benjamin Franklin, to differentiate the North American Colonists from our European kin, be they from the United Kingdom or any other country, as well as to differentiate us from colonists in other parts of this hemisphere.

I believe that the United States of America, as established by its founders, represents the best form of government available in the world today.  It is in fact the best hope for the people of the world to realize their greatest hopes.  I believe our government has been undergoing a steady subversion to turn it into something totally at odds with what it was originally.  I believe that being a spectator to this drama is unacceptable.  We must each engage in this struggle and do our best to preserve our liberties, or we will lose them.

This blog is one way for me to carry on the struggle to preserve our freedoms.

First a short biography.  For those of you who know me, feel free to skip this part.  You probably have already heard this, directly from me.

I was born and raised in Montana.  Montanans tend to have a "live and let live" philosophy.  Which, in practice, means, "I don't care what crazy or stupid things you do on your own property or what crazy or stupid things you believe, as long as you don't interfere with my right to do and think whatever crazy and stupid things I embrace on my own land. Oh, and if you do mess with me and mine, I will as likely shoot you dead as look at you, especially if you come onto my land to harass me."

At the age of 12, I began hunting.  Of course, that was after I took the approved NRA hunter's safety course.  I lived in the country, about 10 miles outside of Helena, Montana.  We used to sight in our hunting rifles from a rest at the West end of our house, shooting at targets on our fence line.  We couldn't do that now, as the town has grown up around us totally and just a few feet across our fence line are several houses.

At the age of 13, I left the United Methodist Church and joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, known commonly as the Mormons.  More on that later.

I graduated high school in 1977, at the age of 18.  I went to college for one semester in the fall of 1977 and in February of 1978 I left home to go to Ecuador, South America for two years.  One result of my experience of living in a third-world country was a sharpened appreciation of just how good we have it here in the US.  I will share more explicit lessons learned from this experience is subsequent posts.

When I returned to the US in 1980 I used a shovel to lower the floor of my parents' basement and helped pour the concrete slab so that they could finish their basement.  That work paid for my return to college in the Fall of 1980.  In the interests of full disclosure, I couldn't have finished the job if it hadn't been for the help of my sister, Christine.  I used a rope and pulley to lift the buckets of dirt out of the basement to her.  She dumped them into a wheelbarrow and emptied the wheelbarrow, returning in time to get the next five-gallon bucket of dirt from me.  And pouring the slab was a family affair involving cousins and uncles as well as my mom and dad.  We all worked hard that day and had a lot of fun together.

In the summer of 1981 I met my wife-to-be, Angela Ball.  Of course, I didn't know she was going to be my wife (but I think she knew it).  We dated for three months and were engaged for one month before getting married.  For those who disparage such a short engagement and courtship, we have been married now for almost 34 years (as of this writing).

I tried being a full-time student, full-time breadwinner, and full-time husband and found I couldn't manage it. I dropped out of college in the fall of 1981 and enrolled full-time in the school of hard knocks.

By the winter of 1982/83 I had discovered that I wanted to work in the computer field.  Against all my own expectations and imaginings, in early 1983 I joined The United States Marine Corps.

Even though, by Marine Corps standards, I was an old man of 24 years of age, the Marines did put their 'brand' on me.  Although it has been many years now since I was on active duty, I am still a Marine.  The Marines taught me many things which have served me well outside the Corps. I may tell you a bit more on those points later too.

After four years in the Corps, and having earned my Bachelors Degree, I left the Corps and went into Defense Contracting.  From there, I went into banking.  After several years on banking I left to devote my self full-time to running my real estate business.  I found out I was a better project manager than I was a landlord and returned to banking as a project manager, consulting on high risk, high profile projects.

From the time I left the Corps to today, I have owned and operated several businesses on the side.  As a result of these experiences (and others), I am an unapologetic capitalist. I have learned that whatever we attain too cheaply, we value too lightly and that the laborer is worthy of his hire.  I also learned that the axiom "an honest days work for an honest days pay," is a two-way street.  It admonishes both labor and management to be fair and honest in their interactions.

So, now that you know where I have come from, let me tell you where I am at.

Politically, I am a Constitutional Conservative.  Although I have been a registered Republican all my life, in recent years it has become increasingly clear that both major political parties have embraced to a greater or lesser degree the principles of socialism - which are antithetical to the principles of government embodied in the US Constitution, The Declaration of Independence and The Federalist Papers.

I hold The US Constitution to be the first line of authority in any discussion on the proper powers of our government.  The Declaration of Independence reveals much of the motives and principles which drove the creation of the Constitution.  And The Federalist Papers reveal the thinking of the chief architects of the Constitution.  Much can also be learned by studying the historical and social context of the authors of the Constitution, our Founding Fathers.  I recommend that anyone who is serious about having an informed view of our government in this country read The US Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, and The Federalist Papers.

I have found a select few popular (and some unpopular) publications useful in this voyage of discovery.  The first is Cleon Skousen's book The 5000 Year Leap.   Next is The Citizen's Constitution: An Annotated Guide by Seth Lipinsky.  Both of these books have a four and 1/2 star out of five rating on Amazon.  So, clearly, I am not the only person who thinks these are very good books.  After you read them, I think you will agree on that point.

My last bit of recommend reading on the political front may surprise you.  The renown author The Art of War, Sun Tzu is credited with saying, "Know your enemy."  He was right, and that is why this next piece of reading is important for everyone who values our freedoms.  The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels is to Communism and Socialism, what the US Constitution is to Capitalism.

I first read  The Communist Manifesto  a few short years ago.  When I did, I confess I was stunned at how much of that agenda has been obtained in our country beginning over a hundred years ago and picking up speed dramatically since the 1960s.  I will make a separate post (or posts) revolving around  The Communist Manifesto.  I will likely also post in-depth reviews of the other books I have mentioned and those which I may yet consume.

I think that gives you a pretty good context for my political views.  Now, about that religion thing.

I am an unapologetic Christian.  Many Christians hold the very mistaken belief that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not Christian.  That is patently false.  I won't belabor the point here, I will just refer you to the Church's own websites to figure it out for yourself.  Mormon.org and LDS.org.

I didn't always believe as I do today.  As I stated, growing up, until I was 13, I was a member of the United Methodist Church.  When I joined the Church it wasn't because I had a burning belief in what I was taught.  I liked what I heard, but my feelings toward God and religion were intermittent, sometimes intense, at other times nonexistent.  During the next few years I drifted far away from the practices of the Church.  I won't go into great detail here, but around the time I turned 18 I had experiences that helped me to learn for myself that God is real, He lives and we are literally his children.  I learned that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of God and that God has, in our day continued his long-established pattern of dealing with his children through living prophets.

I put this out here not in an attempt to convert you, rather to give you the context for much of what will follow.  There will be times in these articles where I will cite certain teachings and scriptures.  Many of those will be common points for all Christians.  Some will be specific to the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I won't apologize for that.  I grab hold of truth wherever I find it.  Be that in the world of science, the realms of warfare and politics, and in religions of the world, both old and new.

I take this inclusive approach because the Church teaches that all truth can be circumscribed into one great whole.  Joseph Smith Jr., the first President of the LDS Church taught, "The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another..." (This quote comes from a letter from Joseph Smith to Isaac Galland, March 22, 1839, Liberty Jail, Liberty, Missouri, published in Times and Seasons, February 1840, pp. 53-54; spelling and grammar modernized.  I found it in Chapter 22 of the official Church publication, Teachings of the Presidents: Joseph Smith.)

In Parting
So, now you have the political, religious and life context which underlays the articles that will follow.

If you find my articles stimulate you, I invite you to comment, whether you agree or disagree (and I expect there will be plenty who do not agree with me).  I do warn you however, that I am a big believer in civil discourse.  I believe that as mature human beings we must be capable of disagreeing without being disagreeable.  In practical terms, this means that I won't tolerate comments with vulgarity, profanity or personal insults.  Vulgarity and profanity reveal that, at a minimum, you have a profound deficiency in your vocabulary and likely lack in imagination.  So, if you really want to be insulting, and have your comment remain seen, you may need to crack open the dictionary and search for some seldom used word that conveys your meaning.   But, before then, you need to read the next paragraph.

Demonization and denigration of those whose opinions differ from your own does not actually diminish the validity or their arguments, nor does it increase the veracity of your own. Rather, it reveals a lack of maturity in your own thoughts, as well as a profound insecurity in the strength of your own reasoning and arguments.  John F. Kennedy is credited with saying, "Just because you have silenced a man does not mean that he agrees with you."  If you are truly passionate about your view, your objective is to win over adherents by the strength of your position, not to silence opponents.

Dialogue is a two-way conversation.  These articles will be a monologue, which I hope will inspire some dialogues in the comments.  At the very least, I hope they will 1) strengthen those who agree with my views and give them words they can use in this struggle, 2) cause those who are unconvinced or who disagree to consider a view that is different than their own, and 3) perhaps it will win over some from indifference or opposition to support the cause of individual and collective liberty as envisioned by the Founding Fathers when God inspired them to establish this nation.

One final note, on the capitalist angle, and in the interests of full disclosure.  I frequently insert links in my articles to various relevant products and publications.  Most of those links go through my Amazon Affiliates account.  So, if you follow one and buy something, I will get a small fee from Amazon.  I don't apologize for that.  I told you I am a capitalist.  I believe that if I found, read and reviewed a product enough to recommend it to you that my efforts are worthy of some compensation when you find that information helpful to you.

Welcome to My God 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.