As I posted a couple of months ago, I am getting married! Because we're crazy (in love) we have set our wedding date as November 23, 2013. That being said, I am now left without much free time and one thing that must necessarily be cut -- to make room for tasting cakes, meeting with DJs, and general planning -- is blogging.
For this reason, I am putting Biblical Conservatism on break until after my nuptials. I hope to return sometime in December or January, but until then I will be taking a break from blogging.
If you are wondering, the Biblical Conservatism Facebook Page will remain active as best I can manage, so please feel free to interact with me there!
Should anything of particularly pressing need come up, I'll come back with a post. Otherwise, I'll see you in six months or so!
Monday, August 12, 2013
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Guest Post - How Being Anti-Abortion Is Like Being Anti-Slavery: An appeal to the Pro-Life movement
As I mentioned Tuesday, I was going to be the day I announced a hiatus from blogging
to give more time to preparing for my upcoming wedding...then my good
friend and fellow blogger The JC_Freak posted two great articles for his blog on the subject of abortion. Today I am happy to feature the second.
As a strongly pro-life individual, I am always pleased to pass along a simple, well articulated statement of how to properly debate with a Pro-Choicer.
I am not the kind of person who is frustrated when my opponent makes a point that I am not prepared for. My reaction is usually, "Huh. I should research that." But what really grinds my gears is when an ally makes a really bad point.
I'm sure as fellow pro-lifers you can empathize with that. Here we are, trying to stop people from killing babies, and somehow we are treated as horrible people. With a vast majority of the media on one side, all they have to do is quote any pro-life advocate that misspeaks, or when a stupid person who happens to be pro-life... well speaks. This is why it is incredibly important for us to really focus on messaging, because there are millions of lives that count on us communicating our message well.
So I propose a two piece plan. First of all, we need to associate ourselves with a historical movement which was not only successful, but recognized as a good thing by the general public, as well as one that we have a legitimate association with. And lo and behold this isn't that difficult: slavery.
So similarities between Pro-Life and Abolitionism:
Thank you.
The JC_Freak's blog can be read at http://jcfreak73.blogspot.com/ each week.
As a strongly pro-life individual, I am always pleased to pass along a simple, well articulated statement of how to properly debate with a Pro-Choicer.
I am not the kind of person who is frustrated when my opponent makes a point that I am not prepared for. My reaction is usually, "Huh. I should research that." But what really grinds my gears is when an ally makes a really bad point.
I'm sure as fellow pro-lifers you can empathize with that. Here we are, trying to stop people from killing babies, and somehow we are treated as horrible people. With a vast majority of the media on one side, all they have to do is quote any pro-life advocate that misspeaks, or when a stupid person who happens to be pro-life... well speaks. This is why it is incredibly important for us to really focus on messaging, because there are millions of lives that count on us communicating our message well.
So I propose a two piece plan. First of all, we need to associate ourselves with a historical movement which was not only successful, but recognized as a good thing by the general public, as well as one that we have a legitimate association with. And lo and behold this isn't that difficult: slavery.
So similarities between Pro-Life and Abolitionism:
- Both have to do with human rights. At the end of the day,
that is all that we are fighting for: that the rights of a particular
group of humans is recognized and respected. And not just the right to
speak or anything like that, but the right to be treated as human
beings.
- Both have to confront dehumanization. I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not think that being Pro-Choice is anything like being Pro-Slavery. Abortion and slavery are very different institutions, and thus the defences for them are very different. That said, since both abolition and Pro-life are based on recognizing a group's humanity, opposition to us must include why that group isn't fully human. This means that we can look to how such dehumanization was combated in the 19th century, and see if any of it is translatable. And of course maintain the campaign of showing people how these children really are children through pictures and other such means.
- Both are religiously motivated. I am not ashamed of this, but
it is important to point out how religion plays a role in this debate.
It is because the issue which really divides the two sides is whether or
not an unborn child is human, and defining what a human is outside of
religious circles is difficult. Indeed, the very notion of human rights
was founded by religious circles, and it is questionable whether the
concept can really survive when societies shift to secularism. But
philosophy aside, when we are accused about being overly religious, we
can look back and point out how important religion was to the
abolitionists.
- Both are driven by an uncompromising ethic. It is as
difficult to compromise on the killing of children as it is to
compromise on men, women, and children living in chains. Which means
that we should be the first who are appalled by sex-trafficking,
bigotry, and all denials of humanity that exist around the world. Don't
let the liberals own those issues. Those should be our issues.
- Both are movements championed by the Republican Party. Just saying.
Right now the Pro-Choice movement gets a lot of distance by connecting
itself to the feminist movement. We really should be using the same kind
of rhetoric since we are really grounded in the same tradition as the
abolitionists. So let us celebrate that heritage and proclaim it.
The second piece of the plan is to stay on message. We are about human
rights. The unborn child has rights. That's it. Any objection, and I
mean "any", can and should be answered from that basic viewpoint.
PC: What about in the case of rape?
PL: Does that justify killing the offspring?
PC: What if the mother's life were in danger?
PL: Yes, she also has the right to life. We don't ignore the women, and therefore there is not simple answer, but such a question should recognize that both lives are equally precious.
PC: It is the woman's body?Just this simple rule would prevent us from saying anything dumb. Nothing more needs to be said. The argument stands for itself. If the conversation shifts to why is the child human, than that is exactly where we want it to go! Focus all of our energy on that one point. The Pro-Life movement stands or falls on that point. Therefore let it!
PL: There are two person's bodies in question here. Both should be respected
Thank you.
The JC_Freak's blog can be read at http://jcfreak73.blogspot.com/ each week.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Guest Post - Abortion Is Not About Equality: An appeal to the Pro-Choice movement
Today was going to be the day I announced a hiatus from blogging to give more time to preparing for my upcoming wedding...then my good friend and fellow blogger The JC_Freak posted two great articles for his blog on the subject of abortion. Today I am happy to feature the first.
As a strongly pro-life individual, I am always pleased to pass along a simple, well articulated statement of what the Pro-Life movement really believes.
OK, a couple of caveats. I don't want to be deceitful, so I'll come right out and say that I am Pro-Life and I am sure that affects how I view Pro-Choice rhetoric. But, to any Pro-Choice person out there, please don't reject my point here until I have actually stated it, because I may not be saying what you think I will be saying.
First of all, I completely acknowledge that it is proper to understand the Pro-Choice movement as defending rights, specifically women's rights. What I reject is the idea that just because we are dealing with women's rights that we are therefore dealing with equality. In reality, we are dealing with a moral issue that happens to only directly affect women.
Here is where I think you (that is pro-choice people) have a point. In most contexts, a person has the right to decide what medial procedures will and will not be done to them. The government should not have the right to say that a smoker who develops lung cancer should just deal with the cancer because it is the natural consequences of their choices. In fact, I think we pro-lifers actually undercut our message when our arguments seem to ignore this.
However, there are other notable exceptions to this: suicide and drugs for instance. I would also include prostitution here, though it isn't a medical procedure. But it is still true that there are exceptions to the idea that we are allowed to do whatever we want with our own bodies. It is also important to note that the above activities are illegal for both men and for women. It is not gender specific.
And, quite frankly, neither is the illegality of abortion. The fact that it only influences woman is a consequence of biology, not patriarchy. Any Pro-Life person would equally abhor a man killing a fetus if he were pregnant; it just only happens in movies. The morality of the thing falls on our belief that the fetus is a human being and thus should have human rights. I want the full rights and privileges of the mother to be maintained in tension with the full rights and privileges of the child.
But here is the Pro-Life position, and I'll wrap it up really tight so that there is no confusion: fetuses are children. To me, the distinction between a fetus and a newborn is no different than a newborn and a toddler. Morally they are equivalent. So in a nutshell, we want human rights for fetuses. That is it. Period.
I regret that making abortion illegal will force a long term medical situation on the mother, and that is not shallow regret. I really regret it. It is a horrible thing to force on someone, especially since pregnancy shouldn't be something horrible. It is the most beautiful thing in the world, and I hate the fact that it can become something ugly in a woman's life because it was forced on her. That is appalling to me. But so is killing children.
And that is what we are against: killing children whether by men or women. This particular means is only biologically available to women, so naturally restricting it would only affect women. Thus, it is legitimately a matter of women's rights: how should the mother's rights and the child's rights be resolved when they are in direct conflict? That is a very difficult question, but it has nothing to do with mean at all, and thus has nothing to do with equality or inequality. I believe that equality is a very important thing, and tying abortion into the category of equality both waters down the word, and can hinder legislation that is truly about equality under the law between men and women. This issue is a separate issue, and should be kept separate.
Thank you for your consideration.
The JC_Freak's blog can be read at http://jcfreak73.blogspot.com/ each week.
As a strongly pro-life individual, I am always pleased to pass along a simple, well articulated statement of what the Pro-Life movement really believes.
OK, a couple of caveats. I don't want to be deceitful, so I'll come right out and say that I am Pro-Life and I am sure that affects how I view Pro-Choice rhetoric. But, to any Pro-Choice person out there, please don't reject my point here until I have actually stated it, because I may not be saying what you think I will be saying.
First of all, I completely acknowledge that it is proper to understand the Pro-Choice movement as defending rights, specifically women's rights. What I reject is the idea that just because we are dealing with women's rights that we are therefore dealing with equality. In reality, we are dealing with a moral issue that happens to only directly affect women.
Here is where I think you (that is pro-choice people) have a point. In most contexts, a person has the right to decide what medial procedures will and will not be done to them. The government should not have the right to say that a smoker who develops lung cancer should just deal with the cancer because it is the natural consequences of their choices. In fact, I think we pro-lifers actually undercut our message when our arguments seem to ignore this.
However, there are other notable exceptions to this: suicide and drugs for instance. I would also include prostitution here, though it isn't a medical procedure. But it is still true that there are exceptions to the idea that we are allowed to do whatever we want with our own bodies. It is also important to note that the above activities are illegal for both men and for women. It is not gender specific.
And, quite frankly, neither is the illegality of abortion. The fact that it only influences woman is a consequence of biology, not patriarchy. Any Pro-Life person would equally abhor a man killing a fetus if he were pregnant; it just only happens in movies. The morality of the thing falls on our belief that the fetus is a human being and thus should have human rights. I want the full rights and privileges of the mother to be maintained in tension with the full rights and privileges of the child.
But here is the Pro-Life position, and I'll wrap it up really tight so that there is no confusion: fetuses are children. To me, the distinction between a fetus and a newborn is no different than a newborn and a toddler. Morally they are equivalent. So in a nutshell, we want human rights for fetuses. That is it. Period.
I regret that making abortion illegal will force a long term medical situation on the mother, and that is not shallow regret. I really regret it. It is a horrible thing to force on someone, especially since pregnancy shouldn't be something horrible. It is the most beautiful thing in the world, and I hate the fact that it can become something ugly in a woman's life because it was forced on her. That is appalling to me. But so is killing children.
And that is what we are against: killing children whether by men or women. This particular means is only biologically available to women, so naturally restricting it would only affect women. Thus, it is legitimately a matter of women's rights: how should the mother's rights and the child's rights be resolved when they are in direct conflict? That is a very difficult question, but it has nothing to do with mean at all, and thus has nothing to do with equality or inequality. I believe that equality is a very important thing, and tying abortion into the category of equality both waters down the word, and can hinder legislation that is truly about equality under the law between men and women. This issue is a separate issue, and should be kept separate.
Thank you for your consideration.
The JC_Freak's blog can be read at http://jcfreak73.blogspot.com/ each week.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
If Zimmerman hadn't shot...
 |
| Just hypothesizing here... |
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Reactions to Zimmerman Verdict
On Saturday night, a jury in Florida pronounced George Zimmerman not guilty on all charges.
The reactions are pretty much expected from the Left -- "FLORIDA IS CLEARLY RACIST!" Of course, the individuals in question seem to only get their news from MSNBC and CNN -- who continue to feature increasingly younger photos of Trayvon Martin to continue to promote the falsehood that Trayvon was an innocent, 13 year old boy and not a 17 year old pseudo gang-banger. (I'm still waiting for a picture of Travon in a diaper or swaddled in an infant-sized blue blanket.)
The evidence -- which has been largely ignored by the Drive-By Media -- shows a story where Zimmerman was getting the living tar beat out of him by Trayvon and then shot in self defense. The Drive-By Media also ignored the fact that innocent little Trayvon was suspended from school three times for infractions including being found with drug paraphernalia and a bag with marijuana residue, once for vandalism and being caught with presumably stolen women's jewelry, and once for truancy. He was also reported to attempted to assault a bus driver. Not exactly the bright eyed little boy presented as having freshly outgrown playing with action figures.
Despite frequent race-baiting by the Left, it looks like George Zimmerman's story was actually true -- Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and after Trayvon had beaten Zimmerman thoroughly, Zimmerman fired his gun to save his life. The simple fact that Zimmerman had suffered severe trauma to the back of his head and a broken nose while Trayvon Martin's only injuries were bruised and bloody knuckles and a gunshot would means that the forensics back up Zimmerman's story.
I strongly suspect that if Zimmerman was a black man and Trayvon a white boy -- despite the way the Left race-baits -- there would be no trial. The Media would have actually...oh I don't know...REPORTED the forensic evidence months ago...there would have been a very different reaction from those who claim racism. Then again, people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will always jump to claim racism to ensure their own continued relevancy.
The reality of the situation is that -- surprisingly -- a jury of George Zimmerman's peers found him not guilty on all charges and accepted that Zimmerman did act in self-defense rather than racism. In short, justice was served.
Now the Drive-By Media is dying to make this into a race-riot in line with the Rodney King story in 1991 -- because if we don't keep the race-baiting going in a case that had no racial overtones, how will Democrats get elected?
The reactions are pretty much expected from the Left -- "FLORIDA IS CLEARLY RACIST!" Of course, the individuals in question seem to only get their news from MSNBC and CNN -- who continue to feature increasingly younger photos of Trayvon Martin to continue to promote the falsehood that Trayvon was an innocent, 13 year old boy and not a 17 year old pseudo gang-banger. (I'm still waiting for a picture of Travon in a diaper or swaddled in an infant-sized blue blanket.)
The evidence -- which has been largely ignored by the Drive-By Media -- shows a story where Zimmerman was getting the living tar beat out of him by Trayvon and then shot in self defense. The Drive-By Media also ignored the fact that innocent little Trayvon was suspended from school three times for infractions including being found with drug paraphernalia and a bag with marijuana residue, once for vandalism and being caught with presumably stolen women's jewelry, and once for truancy. He was also reported to attempted to assault a bus driver. Not exactly the bright eyed little boy presented as having freshly outgrown playing with action figures.
Despite frequent race-baiting by the Left, it looks like George Zimmerman's story was actually true -- Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and after Trayvon had beaten Zimmerman thoroughly, Zimmerman fired his gun to save his life. The simple fact that Zimmerman had suffered severe trauma to the back of his head and a broken nose while Trayvon Martin's only injuries were bruised and bloody knuckles and a gunshot would means that the forensics back up Zimmerman's story.
I strongly suspect that if Zimmerman was a black man and Trayvon a white boy -- despite the way the Left race-baits -- there would be no trial. The Media would have actually...oh I don't know...REPORTED the forensic evidence months ago...there would have been a very different reaction from those who claim racism. Then again, people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will always jump to claim racism to ensure their own continued relevancy.
The reality of the situation is that -- surprisingly -- a jury of George Zimmerman's peers found him not guilty on all charges and accepted that Zimmerman did act in self-defense rather than racism. In short, justice was served.
Now the Drive-By Media is dying to make this into a race-riot in line with the Rodney King story in 1991 -- because if we don't keep the race-baiting going in a case that had no racial overtones, how will Democrats get elected?
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Liberal Rhetoric 101: Get Things Done!
"Those obstructionist Republicans -- they won't let President Obama get things done!"
This common cry from the Left...blaming the lack of progress in our nation on Republicans who won't just go along with President Obama's agenda...because it would so totally work if we just let him do it!
Let's set aside for a moment the fact that a) President Obama had two years in his first term with no opposition and got to pass 100% of his agenda and it didn't solve our nation's problems and b) the American people purposely elected divided government and deal with the crux of the issue -- the Founding Fathers intended government to move slowly.
This is why new laws must pass through both the House and Senate (both at the committee level and then at a full body vote), and in the latter body can be stopped in it's tracks by a filibuster requiring a 60 vote super-majority to break. Then, the President must sign the bill to make it a law. If the President vetoes the law it requires a 2/3 majority of both the House and Senate to override the veto. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL just click here for a more appropriate explanation.)
It was SUPPOSED to be hard to pass a new law. The President isn't supposed to get his laws passed immediately because the President says so. Actually, many of our founders didn't even believe the President should set the agenda AT ALL but rather that this right fell to Congress. For this reason, the first six Presidents of the United States only used the veto 8 times over the course of a total of 40 years (this included John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams who did not use the veto AT ALL). These six Presidents made all their vetoes on Constitutional grounds ONLY...believing that the bills past were Unconstitutional. It wasn't until President Andrew Jackson did we see Presidents veto duly passed bills because they simply opposed them. (In fact, the first 14 Presidents only exercised the veto 19 times in the first 68 years of the Constitution.)
The point of this lovely history lesson? The Founders WERE NOT worried about "getting things done." They recognized that if the nation rams through laws it's very possible the nation ends up with unenforceable, impossible laws that end up causing more problems than they solve -- if they solve any at all (see: Obamacare).
Furthermore, the system of checks and balances created in the Constitution actual means there will be deadlock to ensure that the American people actually WANT the laws put into place rather than one party ramming through their agenda. If there wasn't the system of checks and balances there would be an upheaval of our society's laws each time the balance of power shifted in Washington.
In addition, allowing the party in power to just "get stuff done" and ram through their agenda would lead to the tyranny of the majority. If the majority decided to vote away the rights of men to wear red shirts, then that would become the law of the land until a new majority voted to change that law. After all, that would be letting that party "get things done" right? Outlawing red shirts on men is in fact a thing that got done.
No party has a right to ram through their agenda, regardless of whether or not they claim that it would so totally work. That is not how the Constitution was written and how our nation was founded. Liberals can whine and moan about poor President Obama being obstructed and stopped from getting things done, that's the way the Constitution was written. Liberals should feel free to deal with it.
This common cry from the Left...blaming the lack of progress in our nation on Republicans who won't just go along with President Obama's agenda...because it would so totally work if we just let him do it!
Let's set aside for a moment the fact that a) President Obama had two years in his first term with no opposition and got to pass 100% of his agenda and it didn't solve our nation's problems and b) the American people purposely elected divided government and deal with the crux of the issue -- the Founding Fathers intended government to move slowly.
This is why new laws must pass through both the House and Senate (both at the committee level and then at a full body vote), and in the latter body can be stopped in it's tracks by a filibuster requiring a 60 vote super-majority to break. Then, the President must sign the bill to make it a law. If the President vetoes the law it requires a 2/3 majority of both the House and Senate to override the veto. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL just click here for a more appropriate explanation.)
It was SUPPOSED to be hard to pass a new law. The President isn't supposed to get his laws passed immediately because the President says so. Actually, many of our founders didn't even believe the President should set the agenda AT ALL but rather that this right fell to Congress. For this reason, the first six Presidents of the United States only used the veto 8 times over the course of a total of 40 years (this included John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams who did not use the veto AT ALL). These six Presidents made all their vetoes on Constitutional grounds ONLY...believing that the bills past were Unconstitutional. It wasn't until President Andrew Jackson did we see Presidents veto duly passed bills because they simply opposed them. (In fact, the first 14 Presidents only exercised the veto 19 times in the first 68 years of the Constitution.)
The point of this lovely history lesson? The Founders WERE NOT worried about "getting things done." They recognized that if the nation rams through laws it's very possible the nation ends up with unenforceable, impossible laws that end up causing more problems than they solve -- if they solve any at all (see: Obamacare).
Furthermore, the system of checks and balances created in the Constitution actual means there will be deadlock to ensure that the American people actually WANT the laws put into place rather than one party ramming through their agenda. If there wasn't the system of checks and balances there would be an upheaval of our society's laws each time the balance of power shifted in Washington.
In addition, allowing the party in power to just "get stuff done" and ram through their agenda would lead to the tyranny of the majority. If the majority decided to vote away the rights of men to wear red shirts, then that would become the law of the land until a new majority voted to change that law. After all, that would be letting that party "get things done" right? Outlawing red shirts on men is in fact a thing that got done.
No party has a right to ram through their agenda, regardless of whether or not they claim that it would so totally work. That is not how the Constitution was written and how our nation was founded. Liberals can whine and moan about poor President Obama being obstructed and stopped from getting things done, that's the way the Constitution was written. Liberals should feel free to deal with it.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Liberal Rhetoric 101: Ignorance
"Republicans are obstructionists! They won't let poor President Obama GET THINGS DONE!"
When you spend time on Twitter, you will hear this sort of line from the typical liberal. The source? Usually getting 100% of news from MSNBC, CNN or the Daily Show. Whether it is unitentional or willful, many liberals simply are unaware that a) Congress is not required to pass a President's agenda b) our Constitution provides a system of Checks and Balances to ensure that a President DOESN'T have pure control over government therefore c) Republicans are within their Constitutional authority to reject the President's agenda.
Of course, the same liberals saw zero problem with minority Democrats during the first six years of the Bush Administration blocking President Bush's judicial appointees. This was perfectly fine! It was within the system checks and balances that the Founding Fathers intended in the Constitution!
While this is of course hypocritical, the typical liberal is actually completely unaware of this phenomenon! In most cases it's not at all willful hypocrisy but rather hypocrisy through ignorance.MSNBC or CNN is spoon-feeding them today that it's obstructionist for the GOP to stop President Obama's agenda, just as they spoon-fed those same liberals that it's perfectly Constitutional for the Democratic minority in the aughts to obstruct then President Bush. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, "the aughts" are 2000-2009.)
I will never forget seeing a famous liberal whose entertainment value I enjoy aside from politics lambasting Harry Reid for "giving up" to GOP "obstructionism" during battles over the last year or so. He was apparently blissfully unaware that poor, put upon President Obama was getting about 75% of what he wanted from the GOP who were, in fact, bending over backwards to compromise.
It is my opinion that this individual was literally unaware of this reality because, as he posts on his Twitter regularly, his news source is MSNBC. He is blissfully unaware of the reality of government, and will likely happily support the next Democratic minority in obstructing the next Republican President (when these two circumstances next occur simultaneously).
How do we deal with these liberals? That's a tough question. Most are Neighborhood Liberals, so don't forget your gentle kid gloves. Those who are Activist Liberals are basically a lost cause in this case (as in many cases). Your best bet if it's an open, willing person is to present the alternative view and present the simple facts of the issue. It may work, it may not. Ultimately, as Rush Limbaugh has stated on many occasions, nothing can overcome willful ignorance.
When you spend time on Twitter, you will hear this sort of line from the typical liberal. The source? Usually getting 100% of news from MSNBC, CNN or the Daily Show. Whether it is unitentional or willful, many liberals simply are unaware that a) Congress is not required to pass a President's agenda b) our Constitution provides a system of Checks and Balances to ensure that a President DOESN'T have pure control over government therefore c) Republicans are within their Constitutional authority to reject the President's agenda.
Of course, the same liberals saw zero problem with minority Democrats during the first six years of the Bush Administration blocking President Bush's judicial appointees. This was perfectly fine! It was within the system checks and balances that the Founding Fathers intended in the Constitution!
While this is of course hypocritical, the typical liberal is actually completely unaware of this phenomenon! In most cases it's not at all willful hypocrisy but rather hypocrisy through ignorance.MSNBC or CNN is spoon-feeding them today that it's obstructionist for the GOP to stop President Obama's agenda, just as they spoon-fed those same liberals that it's perfectly Constitutional for the Democratic minority in the aughts to obstruct then President Bush. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, "the aughts" are 2000-2009.)
I will never forget seeing a famous liberal whose entertainment value I enjoy aside from politics lambasting Harry Reid for "giving up" to GOP "obstructionism" during battles over the last year or so. He was apparently blissfully unaware that poor, put upon President Obama was getting about 75% of what he wanted from the GOP who were, in fact, bending over backwards to compromise.
It is my opinion that this individual was literally unaware of this reality because, as he posts on his Twitter regularly, his news source is MSNBC. He is blissfully unaware of the reality of government, and will likely happily support the next Democratic minority in obstructing the next Republican President (when these two circumstances next occur simultaneously).
How do we deal with these liberals? That's a tough question. Most are Neighborhood Liberals, so don't forget your gentle kid gloves. Those who are Activist Liberals are basically a lost cause in this case (as in many cases). Your best bet if it's an open, willing person is to present the alternative view and present the simple facts of the issue. It may work, it may not. Ultimately, as Rush Limbaugh has stated on many occasions, nothing can overcome willful ignorance.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
The Biblical Father-of-TheYear
This past Sunday was Father's Day, and as I often do, I found myself reflecting on the fathers of the Bible. The Earthly ones, I mean, not God the Father.
There are some notably good fathers in the Bible like Abraham, David, Job, Asa King of Judah (who has the distinction of being the only faithful King in Israel or Judah who both served the Lord and also raised a son who also served the Lord) to name a few.
There is one who stands out to me above the fold...and he is a father who isn't given a lot of credit in sermons and Biblical examples. His name is Joseph. His wife is better known, and his adopted son is the center of our faith.
Of course, I mean Joseph of Nazareth, husband of Mary and adopted father of Jesus Christ.
Consider Joseph for a moment. You have a man who has found the woman he wants to marry. He does everything right. He doesn't have sex with her until they are married. He is betrothed to her (that's engaged, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL) and was presumably in the process of preparing a home for the two of them as Jewish tradition dictated at the time.
Then he finds out that Mary, who again, HE HASN'T HAD SEX WITH, is pregnant.* It's clearly not his child. Joseph has two obvious choices in the eyes of the people around him: divorce Mary quietly (likely by sending her away to a distant relative to live out her days in disgrace) or have her stoned to death. Joseph was a kind man who apparently loved Mary and did not want to disgrace her -- much less kill her -- and planned to use the former option.
Then Joseph was informed, by an angel, that Mary's child was the Son of God and that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit. He still could have chosen to send Mary away, but instead chose to marry her as planned and raise Jesus as his own child. After the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph had four sons (James, Joses, Judas and Simon) and an indeterminate number of daughters.
Before Jesus was even born, Joseph made some sacrifices. He married Mary and likely subjected himself to significant ridicule by his peers. He also refrained from exercising his marital rights with Mary until after Jesus was born (that's "have sex with Mary" for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL). **
After Jesus was born, Joseph had to protect his adopted son from an evil King before he could settle down to life. Joseph was then charged to teach Jesus, along with his four natural sons, his trade of carpentry. I'm sure it wasn't easy to raise the Son of God. Yes, he was without sin and therefore would have been perfectly obedient to Joseph -- but his other four boys were not perfect and subject to the usual issues of childhood. I'm sure there was some rivalry against Jesus from the other brothers ("Sure, Dad, we're not perfect like Jesus...the best son ever!")
Joseph, knowing that Jesus wasn't his natural son, took on the difficult and trying task of raising Jesus as his own. He is perhaps the best known adopted father in history. I know (second hand) what it takes to be an adopted father of a child in general. I have an adopted sister and my fiancee has an adopted brother -- so I have witnessed my dad with my sister and have heard stories from my future father-in-law about his experiences.
Yet Joseph did what God asked him to do. He raised Jesus. He taught him to build tables and chairs, boats, carts, whatever. He handled Jesus' problems with His brothers. He cared for Jesus as his own, while knowing all along that this child was in fact HIS God.
So, this week after Father's Day, I'd like to salute Joseph of Nazareth. I look forward to meeting him someday in Heaven. Mary gets all the credit and PR -- and well she should -- but Joseph deserves a nod as well. He raised our Lord as his own child. As human Biblical fathers go, I'd say Joseph gets the top spot.
* If the child was indeed his, given his betrothal to Mary and according common practice in Joseph's time, it would not have been considered sin. Many historians report that a betrothed couple in Israel were considered married and allowed to have sex, although they did not live together.
** Despite what the Catholic Church teaches, the Bible says Joseph "did not know (Mary) till she had brought forth her firstborn Son." Translation: He did not know (have sex with) Mary UNTIL JESUS WAS BORN. It did not say he never had sex with her.
There are some notably good fathers in the Bible like Abraham, David, Job, Asa King of Judah (who has the distinction of being the only faithful King in Israel or Judah who both served the Lord and also raised a son who also served the Lord) to name a few.
There is one who stands out to me above the fold...and he is a father who isn't given a lot of credit in sermons and Biblical examples. His name is Joseph. His wife is better known, and his adopted son is the center of our faith.
Of course, I mean Joseph of Nazareth, husband of Mary and adopted father of Jesus Christ.
Consider Joseph for a moment. You have a man who has found the woman he wants to marry. He does everything right. He doesn't have sex with her until they are married. He is betrothed to her (that's engaged, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL) and was presumably in the process of preparing a home for the two of them as Jewish tradition dictated at the time.
Then he finds out that Mary, who again, HE HASN'T HAD SEX WITH, is pregnant.* It's clearly not his child. Joseph has two obvious choices in the eyes of the people around him: divorce Mary quietly (likely by sending her away to a distant relative to live out her days in disgrace) or have her stoned to death. Joseph was a kind man who apparently loved Mary and did not want to disgrace her -- much less kill her -- and planned to use the former option.
Then Joseph was informed, by an angel, that Mary's child was the Son of God and that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit. He still could have chosen to send Mary away, but instead chose to marry her as planned and raise Jesus as his own child. After the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph had four sons (James, Joses, Judas and Simon) and an indeterminate number of daughters.
Before Jesus was even born, Joseph made some sacrifices. He married Mary and likely subjected himself to significant ridicule by his peers. He also refrained from exercising his marital rights with Mary until after Jesus was born (that's "have sex with Mary" for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL). **
After Jesus was born, Joseph had to protect his adopted son from an evil King before he could settle down to life. Joseph was then charged to teach Jesus, along with his four natural sons, his trade of carpentry. I'm sure it wasn't easy to raise the Son of God. Yes, he was without sin and therefore would have been perfectly obedient to Joseph -- but his other four boys were not perfect and subject to the usual issues of childhood. I'm sure there was some rivalry against Jesus from the other brothers ("Sure, Dad, we're not perfect like Jesus...the best son ever!")
Joseph, knowing that Jesus wasn't his natural son, took on the difficult and trying task of raising Jesus as his own. He is perhaps the best known adopted father in history. I know (second hand) what it takes to be an adopted father of a child in general. I have an adopted sister and my fiancee has an adopted brother -- so I have witnessed my dad with my sister and have heard stories from my future father-in-law about his experiences.
Yet Joseph did what God asked him to do. He raised Jesus. He taught him to build tables and chairs, boats, carts, whatever. He handled Jesus' problems with His brothers. He cared for Jesus as his own, while knowing all along that this child was in fact HIS God.
So, this week after Father's Day, I'd like to salute Joseph of Nazareth. I look forward to meeting him someday in Heaven. Mary gets all the credit and PR -- and well she should -- but Joseph deserves a nod as well. He raised our Lord as his own child. As human Biblical fathers go, I'd say Joseph gets the top spot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* If the child was indeed his, given his betrothal to Mary and according common practice in Joseph's time, it would not have been considered sin. Many historians report that a betrothed couple in Israel were considered married and allowed to have sex, although they did not live together.
** Despite what the Catholic Church teaches, the Bible says Joseph "did not know (Mary) till she had brought forth her firstborn Son." Translation: He did not know (have sex with) Mary UNTIL JESUS WAS BORN. It did not say he never had sex with her.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Bloomberg Announces Water Gun Restrictions
DISCLAIMER: This post is entirely fictitious.
It was a normal summer day in suburban Queens. Neighbors Timmy Thompson and Georgie Green decided to engage in that great American pastime, the water gun fight. Timmy came armed with a standard air-pressure based water gun, but Georgie came with a NERF Super-Soaker equipped with a Hydro-Pack. Georgie's equipment gave him a full 100 ounces of water with which to drench Timmy, while poor Timmy had a miserable 5 ounces that required refilling regularly.
During one of these refilling stops, Georgie accidentally hit Timmy in the eye, causing some irritation. Although Timmy insisted he was just fine, his mom made him go to the doctor, where he was required to put Visine Eye Drops in his eye twice a day for a week.
It could have ended there, except for Timmy's mother works in the office of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the story of Timmy and Georgie's water gun fight. In his ongoing effort to help protect the health of New Yorkers through government, the Mayor proposed new regulations.
"There is no reason that someone would need a water gun that holds 100 ounces of water or even 30 ounces of water! Therefore, my office is presenting a bill to the City Council limiting the capacity of water weapons to 7 ounces and making the sale of high capacity water projectile weapons illegal."
When asked to comment, Roger Simpson of the National Water Gun Association (NWGA) stated,
"The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution specifically protects our Right to Bear Arms. It doesn't specify firearms, melee weapons, hand weapons including blade weapons, or even water weapons. All are protected. Americans of all ages have the right to protect themselves against a water attack with whatever size water container they desire from a 2 ounce water pistol to a garden hose and everything in between."
While neither gave an official comment, both President Obama and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo are said to support Bloomberg's bill.
Georgie was quoted as saying, "Seriously dude, it was a water gun fight. Timmy's fine."
Timmy, in response stated, "Georgie's right. I'm fine. My mom totes overreacted. Also, tell Georgie I demand a rematch."
No water guns were harmed in the writing of this post.
It was a normal summer day in suburban Queens. Neighbors Timmy Thompson and Georgie Green decided to engage in that great American pastime, the water gun fight. Timmy came armed with a standard air-pressure based water gun, but Georgie came with a NERF Super-Soaker equipped with a Hydro-Pack. Georgie's equipment gave him a full 100 ounces of water with which to drench Timmy, while poor Timmy had a miserable 5 ounces that required refilling regularly.
During one of these refilling stops, Georgie accidentally hit Timmy in the eye, causing some irritation. Although Timmy insisted he was just fine, his mom made him go to the doctor, where he was required to put Visine Eye Drops in his eye twice a day for a week.
It could have ended there, except for Timmy's mother works in the office of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the story of Timmy and Georgie's water gun fight. In his ongoing effort to help protect the health of New Yorkers through government, the Mayor proposed new regulations.
"There is no reason that someone would need a water gun that holds 100 ounces of water or even 30 ounces of water! Therefore, my office is presenting a bill to the City Council limiting the capacity of water weapons to 7 ounces and making the sale of high capacity water projectile weapons illegal."
When asked to comment, Roger Simpson of the National Water Gun Association (NWGA) stated,
"The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution specifically protects our Right to Bear Arms. It doesn't specify firearms, melee weapons, hand weapons including blade weapons, or even water weapons. All are protected. Americans of all ages have the right to protect themselves against a water attack with whatever size water container they desire from a 2 ounce water pistol to a garden hose and everything in between."
While neither gave an official comment, both President Obama and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo are said to support Bloomberg's bill.
Georgie was quoted as saying, "Seriously dude, it was a water gun fight. Timmy's fine."
Timmy, in response stated, "Georgie's right. I'm fine. My mom totes overreacted. Also, tell Georgie I demand a rematch."
No water guns were harmed in the writing of this post.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Reflections on the Restoration of Jesus Christ
Usually on Biblical Conservatism I stay away from my private life...save for talking about my work experience to support my expertise. However today, as I embark toward the happiest day of my life, I am going to reflect upon how the Lord has restored to me joy and companionship.
Let me explain.
Four years ago I went through the difficulty and heartbreak of divorce.While I wanted to give God the chance to restore the marriage and to honor the promise we made to God. She refused. If one won't, two can't. She ran away. I was devastated.
God, my family, and some terrific friends including my church family got me through it. God fully healed me and about two years I began to date again. I had a couple of relationships that didn't last long because we weren't the right fit for each other.
Then, seven months ago, I met Kristin, and she is amazing. From day one, everything fit wonderfully. She was strong enough to put up with me while being kind and sweet to truly make me feel loved. Even her family is amazing. Oh, and she has a dog, and I always wanted a dog. It didn't take me long to realize that I had met THE ONE.
Saturday, I asked Kristin to marry me and she said yes!
Today I stand recognizing that God is the wonderful God of restoration. I went from heartbreak at the end of an unhappy marriage and divorce to the joy that only God can grant. Not only did he restore the joy to my heart, He brought a woman into my life who is an infinitely better match for me and who shares my love of the Lord, my commitment to marriage. I went from in-laws who, at best, I had nothing in common with to of in-laws whose company I truly enjoy and who I truly connect with. I went from heartbreak to the joy of the Lord.
So here I am, realizing that finally, after thirty years of life and a heartbreaking divorce, I've met the mother of my future children. I find myself realizing that our God is not only the God of second chances but the God of even better. It's not enough to give me a second chance at marriage and happiness, He chose to give me better on all levels. Today, I am truly happy, and I thank the Lord for bringing Kristin into my life.
I close with this: God is good!
Let me explain.
Four years ago I went through the difficulty and heartbreak of divorce.While I wanted to give God the chance to restore the marriage and to honor the promise we made to God. She refused. If one won't, two can't. She ran away. I was devastated.
God, my family, and some terrific friends including my church family got me through it. God fully healed me and about two years I began to date again. I had a couple of relationships that didn't last long because we weren't the right fit for each other.
Then, seven months ago, I met Kristin, and she is amazing. From day one, everything fit wonderfully. She was strong enough to put up with me while being kind and sweet to truly make me feel loved. Even her family is amazing. Oh, and she has a dog, and I always wanted a dog. It didn't take me long to realize that I had met THE ONE.
Saturday, I asked Kristin to marry me and she said yes!
Today I stand recognizing that God is the wonderful God of restoration. I went from heartbreak at the end of an unhappy marriage and divorce to the joy that only God can grant. Not only did he restore the joy to my heart, He brought a woman into my life who is an infinitely better match for me and who shares my love of the Lord, my commitment to marriage. I went from in-laws who, at best, I had nothing in common with to of in-laws whose company I truly enjoy and who I truly connect with. I went from heartbreak to the joy of the Lord.
So here I am, realizing that finally, after thirty years of life and a heartbreaking divorce, I've met the mother of my future children. I find myself realizing that our God is not only the God of second chances but the God of even better. It's not enough to give me a second chance at marriage and happiness, He chose to give me better on all levels. Today, I am truly happy, and I thank the Lord for bringing Kristin into my life.
I close with this: God is good!
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Liberal Rhetoric 101: Protesting (for things unsolvable by protests)
I was in New York City a few weeks ago and I saw a ridiculous sight: two individuals, one with a guitar the other with a sign proclaiming that they were "Occupying for a Job."
I desperately wanted to say something. I didn't for two reasons. One, my hosts (relatives) on the trip were with us on this day and they are liberals who actually identified with the protesters. Two, my girlfriend probably would have been very annoyed at me if I had gotten into a political debate with two hippies outside the Federal building when we had only one day for sightseeing.
The sheer ridiculousness of this "protest for a job" continues to make my head hurt today -- weeks after it happened. You see, I am thirty years old. I've been gamefully employed for sixteen of those years. From 14-19 I held three jobs for differing lengths of time in places like restaurants and retail stores. When in college I held a job at a local restaurant near college and a total of three separate summer jobs over the years while home from school. In the eight years since graduating college I've held different professional jobs, including working for my current job for going on four years.
The thing is I did not obtain any of the aforementioned jobs by protesting. I applied and interviewed for those jobs, convincing those prospective employers that I was the right person to hire. BECAUSE THAT'S HOW YOU GET A JOB! You don't stand outside a landmark and sing Vietnam War era folk tunes.
A better known example of this was the Occupy Wall Street movement. These individuals spent weeks protesting the fact that "evil individuals" dared to keep the money that said "evil individuals" actually earned and owned. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, it didn't work...BECAUSE IT DOESN'T BELONG TO THEM and PROTESTING DOESN'T CHANGE IT!)
Yet liberals seem to want to protest...apparently for the heck of it...basically because they believe protesting somehow solves everything. It's ridiculous, I realize at least most of you do (Palm Beach County residents aside), because money is not gained by protesting and neither is a job.
This isn't to say there is no reason to hold a protest. There is a history of legitimate protests in our nation that actually served a purpose. The Boston Tea Party was a protest, and I think you might say it served a big purpose. College students in the 1960s lead a protest movement which ultimately changed the tied of American opinion and ended the Vietnam War. Dr. Martin Luther King (a Republican for those who don't know history) lead a series of protests that helped lead to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The difference between these protests and "Occupying for a Job" were directed towards actions of government, rather than the perfectly legal actions of private citizens in not giving those individuals a job or keeping their own fiscal property. (That's "money" for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL.) Government doesn't actually have the RIGHT to confiscate the fiscal property (again, "money," for Palm Beach) nor can it force an employer to give someone a job.
Protesting for the sake of protesting serves no purpose. It's efforting after something at best, trying to be the center of attention at worst. Liberals love to protest to say they are "doing something about" whatever. It's about making a useless effort that shows they care. Ridiculous? Of course. Then again, they ARE liberals, aren't they? Caring without actually do anything is the name of the game.
I desperately wanted to say something. I didn't for two reasons. One, my hosts (relatives) on the trip were with us on this day and they are liberals who actually identified with the protesters. Two, my girlfriend probably would have been very annoyed at me if I had gotten into a political debate with two hippies outside the Federal building when we had only one day for sightseeing.
The sheer ridiculousness of this "protest for a job" continues to make my head hurt today -- weeks after it happened. You see, I am thirty years old. I've been gamefully employed for sixteen of those years. From 14-19 I held three jobs for differing lengths of time in places like restaurants and retail stores. When in college I held a job at a local restaurant near college and a total of three separate summer jobs over the years while home from school. In the eight years since graduating college I've held different professional jobs, including working for my current job for going on four years.
The thing is I did not obtain any of the aforementioned jobs by protesting. I applied and interviewed for those jobs, convincing those prospective employers that I was the right person to hire. BECAUSE THAT'S HOW YOU GET A JOB! You don't stand outside a landmark and sing Vietnam War era folk tunes.
A better known example of this was the Occupy Wall Street movement. These individuals spent weeks protesting the fact that "evil individuals" dared to keep the money that said "evil individuals" actually earned and owned. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, it didn't work...BECAUSE IT DOESN'T BELONG TO THEM and PROTESTING DOESN'T CHANGE IT!)
Yet liberals seem to want to protest...apparently for the heck of it...basically because they believe protesting somehow solves everything. It's ridiculous, I realize at least most of you do (Palm Beach County residents aside), because money is not gained by protesting and neither is a job.
This isn't to say there is no reason to hold a protest. There is a history of legitimate protests in our nation that actually served a purpose. The Boston Tea Party was a protest, and I think you might say it served a big purpose. College students in the 1960s lead a protest movement which ultimately changed the tied of American opinion and ended the Vietnam War. Dr. Martin Luther King (a Republican for those who don't know history) lead a series of protests that helped lead to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The difference between these protests and "Occupying for a Job" were directed towards actions of government, rather than the perfectly legal actions of private citizens in not giving those individuals a job or keeping their own fiscal property. (That's "money" for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL.) Government doesn't actually have the RIGHT to confiscate the fiscal property (again, "money," for Palm Beach) nor can it force an employer to give someone a job.
Protesting for the sake of protesting serves no purpose. It's efforting after something at best, trying to be the center of attention at worst. Liberals love to protest to say they are "doing something about" whatever. It's about making a useless effort that shows they care. Ridiculous? Of course. Then again, they ARE liberals, aren't they? Caring without actually do anything is the name of the game.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Yankee Fan Rhetoric 101
Once in a while, here at Biblical Conservatism, we like to take a break from politics and have a bit of fun. Today, we're going to do just that.
If you've read Biblical Conservatism over the past two plus years, you know that in addition to fighting for Conservative values and loving the Lord Jesus Christ, I'm also a die-hard New York Mets fan. Because of that, I often have to deal with Yankee fans and their obnoxiousness. This is especially true this past week, since my Mets swept the Yankees in a 4 game series (BOOYA) and my subsequent interactions with Yankee fans came back to the below routine.
My best friend is a Yankee fan (albeit not an obnoxious one -- dude this post isn't directed at you). Several other friends are Yankee fans. I've had to hear their usual responses whenever the Yankees are criticized:
Which leads me to ask, along with Mr. Condescending Willy Wonka:
Yankee fans love to discuss those 27 Rings. They also like to mention how the next closest team (the St. Louis Cardinals) has a mere 11 Championships.
They don't particularly like to mention that 4 of those rings where when Babe Ruth played, 6 were when Lou Gehrig played, 9 where when Joe DiMaggio played and 7 while Mickey Mantle played (there is some crossover). That means 20 of the 27 titles were won BEFORE 1962. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means 20 of those titles are over 50 years old.)
Speaking of 50 years old, when 20 of those 27 titles were won, Major League Baseball only consisted of 16 teams. Now, Major League Baseball has 32 teams.
Now to the last 50 years and the 7 championships the Yankees have won since Expansion. Seven is fairly impressive for 50 years, but it's not as impressive as that 27 they love to talk about. It is the most in the last 50 years, but not by a whole lot. The St. Louis Cardinals have won five rings in the last 50 years. The Oakland Athletics and Los Angeles Dodgers have won four each and the Cincinnati Reds have won three.
What about the last ten years? Considering that's the time frame when a lot of the active players were playing? Well, in the last ten years, the mighty Yankees have won only one championship. In that same decade, the San Francisco Giants, St. Louis Cardinals and Boston Red Sox have each won two.Why does this matter? Well, just in case you were confused, neither Babe Ruth, nor Lou Gehrig, nor Joe DiMaggio, nor Mickey Mantle, nor Yogi Berra, nor Reggie Jackson are currently on the team's roster, so their accomplishments mean precisely squat here in 2013, thus those "27 Rings" mean precisely squat.
What about the (correct) accusation that the Yankees buy championships? Many a Yankee fan has told me that "you can't discount the Yankees championships before free agency...they didn't buy THOSE players!"
For one, the Yankees bought LOTS of players before Free Agency entered in 1976. They just didn't buy those players from other teams:
Famously, the Yankees bought Babe Ruth from the Boston Red Sox for $100,000 (adjusted for inflation that's over $1.3 Million). They bought Joe DiMaggio from the minor league San Francisco Seals (over $400,000 adjusted for inflation). They bought Roger Maris from the Kansas City Athletics. These are just a few examples.
Let's also not confuse the ability to retain talent as free agents with "not buying players." Just because you are a player's original team, it doesn't mean that signing them for a ten year, $189 Million contract isn't buying a team. (If you don't think so, ask Billy Beane, who would have found his team in better shape if he could have afforded to resign Johnny Damon and Jason Giambi?) Ultimately, spending money on the best players (whether they are currently on your roster or not), to win is buying a ballclub.
A friend of mine likes to argue that the Yankees HAVE the money, therefore he has no problem with them USING the money. While that may be a fair enough assessment (ignoring of course the reality that a good deal of that money comes from selling different color Yankee hats to gang members as symbols of allegiance -- not to mention people who buy a Yankee hat because P. Diddy wears one and they don't give a rip about baseball), it misses the fact that baseball is hurt in the competitive market of Entertainment.
Baseball competition in a financial sense is not just the Yankees vs. the Red Sox and the Reds vs. the Marlins. It's Major League Baseball (MLB) competing for the entertainment dollar of Americans. They compete at different times with the National Basketball Association (NBA), the National Football League (NFL), the National Hockey League (NHL) and other less popular (in America) professional sports like soccer and lacrosse. MLB also is in competition with movies, live theater, Six Flags and Disney World and other amusement parks, Chuck E. Cheese, concerts, and so many other choices that Americans make on where to spend their entertainment dollars.
I think part of the reason the NFL is so popular (among other reasons) is the fact that no matter how poorly your team played last year, the parity due to the salary cap means that same team could win the Super Bowl this year. In MLB it takes a long time for a team to build up a solid enough team to compete with the financial powerhouses...and it lasts for one or two years before those developed players are lost to free agency since teams like the Tampa Rays can't afford to spend to keep their players like the Yankees can. The lack of parity means that fans in Tampa often will choose to spend their money on tickets to see the Buccaneers in stead of the Rays because the Bucs could become a winning team THIS YEAR. The Yankees overspending hurts the rest of baseball.
Which brings us to the final line that Yankee Fans will bring up once confronted with the above statements: "You're just jealous!" Actually, no. No I am not jealous. It turns out that expecting a championship every year and not getting it and thus being disappointed at not winning is in fact NOT as enjoyable as winning one every couple of decades or so, because the specialness is ruined.
Let me give you an example. My grandmother makes, by far, the World's most delicious lasagna. I have tried many other people's attempts at that dish and Gram's is THE BEST. She has offered to give me the recipe. I've declined. Why, you may ask? Because I want enjoying her lasagna to be a special experience.
I feel the same way about my teams winning championships. In 2003 the Syracuse Orangemen won the NCAA Basketball National Championship. It was one of the top ten best days of my life. I spent fourteen years of my life loving that team and following it passionately. Those fourteen years, including one heartbreaking NCAA Finals loss in 1996, all lead up to winning that title in 2003. Since then, I've seen the Orange succeed to various degrees including winning the Big East Conference twice and going to the Final Four this past season. Every year, the farther we get the greater my hope arises, but no win. They are an elite team, and it is likely they will win the title again...and that day it will again be very, very special. To date, I've waited ten years to see a second title.
Championships are meant to be special and certainly not annually expected. Not only does the specialness of winning become depleted by constantly winning, it makes the fans of said team huge jerks about it.
With your average Yankee fan, your best bet is to either a) walk away or b) distract them somehow. Throwing a tennis ball often works, as the Yankee fan will immediately go to retrieve it...jogging back sputtering about 27 Championships. Also showing them some sort of a shiny object helps. Ultimately, if you choose to have Yankee fans in your life, I suppose it's your own fault that you have to deal with them.
This post is designed to be humorous and not to be taken seriously AT ALL. If you are a Yankee fan, I sincerely hope you recognize the fun meant in this post. If you do not, you may want to reconsider how seriously you take your sports fandom. No Yankee fans or Yankee players were harmed in the writing of this post.
If you've read Biblical Conservatism over the past two plus years, you know that in addition to fighting for Conservative values and loving the Lord Jesus Christ, I'm also a die-hard New York Mets fan. Because of that, I often have to deal with Yankee fans and their obnoxiousness. This is especially true this past week, since my Mets swept the Yankees in a 4 game series (BOOYA) and my subsequent interactions with Yankee fans came back to the below routine.
My best friend is a Yankee fan (albeit not an obnoxious one -- dude this post isn't directed at you). Several other friends are Yankee fans. I've had to hear their usual responses whenever the Yankees are criticized:
Oh, and don't forget my favorite Yankee line:
Which leads me to ask, along with Mr. Condescending Willy Wonka:
Yankee fans love to discuss those 27 Rings. They also like to mention how the next closest team (the St. Louis Cardinals) has a mere 11 Championships.
They don't particularly like to mention that 4 of those rings where when Babe Ruth played, 6 were when Lou Gehrig played, 9 where when Joe DiMaggio played and 7 while Mickey Mantle played (there is some crossover). That means 20 of the 27 titles were won BEFORE 1962. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means 20 of those titles are over 50 years old.)
Speaking of 50 years old, when 20 of those 27 titles were won, Major League Baseball only consisted of 16 teams. Now, Major League Baseball has 32 teams.
Now to the last 50 years and the 7 championships the Yankees have won since Expansion. Seven is fairly impressive for 50 years, but it's not as impressive as that 27 they love to talk about. It is the most in the last 50 years, but not by a whole lot. The St. Louis Cardinals have won five rings in the last 50 years. The Oakland Athletics and Los Angeles Dodgers have won four each and the Cincinnati Reds have won three.
What about the last ten years? Considering that's the time frame when a lot of the active players were playing? Well, in the last ten years, the mighty Yankees have won only one championship. In that same decade, the San Francisco Giants, St. Louis Cardinals and Boston Red Sox have each won two.Why does this matter? Well, just in case you were confused, neither Babe Ruth, nor Lou Gehrig, nor Joe DiMaggio, nor Mickey Mantle, nor Yogi Berra, nor Reggie Jackson are currently on the team's roster, so their accomplishments mean precisely squat here in 2013, thus those "27 Rings" mean precisely squat.
What about the (correct) accusation that the Yankees buy championships? Many a Yankee fan has told me that "you can't discount the Yankees championships before free agency...they didn't buy THOSE players!"
For one, the Yankees bought LOTS of players before Free Agency entered in 1976. They just didn't buy those players from other teams:
Famously, the Yankees bought Babe Ruth from the Boston Red Sox for $100,000 (adjusted for inflation that's over $1.3 Million). They bought Joe DiMaggio from the minor league San Francisco Seals (over $400,000 adjusted for inflation). They bought Roger Maris from the Kansas City Athletics. These are just a few examples.
Let's also not confuse the ability to retain talent as free agents with "not buying players." Just because you are a player's original team, it doesn't mean that signing them for a ten year, $189 Million contract isn't buying a team. (If you don't think so, ask Billy Beane, who would have found his team in better shape if he could have afforded to resign Johnny Damon and Jason Giambi?) Ultimately, spending money on the best players (whether they are currently on your roster or not), to win is buying a ballclub.
A friend of mine likes to argue that the Yankees HAVE the money, therefore he has no problem with them USING the money. While that may be a fair enough assessment (ignoring of course the reality that a good deal of that money comes from selling different color Yankee hats to gang members as symbols of allegiance -- not to mention people who buy a Yankee hat because P. Diddy wears one and they don't give a rip about baseball), it misses the fact that baseball is hurt in the competitive market of Entertainment.
Baseball competition in a financial sense is not just the Yankees vs. the Red Sox and the Reds vs. the Marlins. It's Major League Baseball (MLB) competing for the entertainment dollar of Americans. They compete at different times with the National Basketball Association (NBA), the National Football League (NFL), the National Hockey League (NHL) and other less popular (in America) professional sports like soccer and lacrosse. MLB also is in competition with movies, live theater, Six Flags and Disney World and other amusement parks, Chuck E. Cheese, concerts, and so many other choices that Americans make on where to spend their entertainment dollars.
I think part of the reason the NFL is so popular (among other reasons) is the fact that no matter how poorly your team played last year, the parity due to the salary cap means that same team could win the Super Bowl this year. In MLB it takes a long time for a team to build up a solid enough team to compete with the financial powerhouses...and it lasts for one or two years before those developed players are lost to free agency since teams like the Tampa Rays can't afford to spend to keep their players like the Yankees can. The lack of parity means that fans in Tampa often will choose to spend their money on tickets to see the Buccaneers in stead of the Rays because the Bucs could become a winning team THIS YEAR. The Yankees overspending hurts the rest of baseball.
Which brings us to the final line that Yankee Fans will bring up once confronted with the above statements: "You're just jealous!" Actually, no. No I am not jealous. It turns out that expecting a championship every year and not getting it and thus being disappointed at not winning is in fact NOT as enjoyable as winning one every couple of decades or so, because the specialness is ruined.
Let me give you an example. My grandmother makes, by far, the World's most delicious lasagna. I have tried many other people's attempts at that dish and Gram's is THE BEST. She has offered to give me the recipe. I've declined. Why, you may ask? Because I want enjoying her lasagna to be a special experience.
I feel the same way about my teams winning championships. In 2003 the Syracuse Orangemen won the NCAA Basketball National Championship. It was one of the top ten best days of my life. I spent fourteen years of my life loving that team and following it passionately. Those fourteen years, including one heartbreaking NCAA Finals loss in 1996, all lead up to winning that title in 2003. Since then, I've seen the Orange succeed to various degrees including winning the Big East Conference twice and going to the Final Four this past season. Every year, the farther we get the greater my hope arises, but no win. They are an elite team, and it is likely they will win the title again...and that day it will again be very, very special. To date, I've waited ten years to see a second title.
Championships are meant to be special and certainly not annually expected. Not only does the specialness of winning become depleted by constantly winning, it makes the fans of said team huge jerks about it.
With your average Yankee fan, your best bet is to either a) walk away or b) distract them somehow. Throwing a tennis ball often works, as the Yankee fan will immediately go to retrieve it...jogging back sputtering about 27 Championships. Also showing them some sort of a shiny object helps. Ultimately, if you choose to have Yankee fans in your life, I suppose it's your own fault that you have to deal with them.
This post is designed to be humorous and not to be taken seriously AT ALL. If you are a Yankee fan, I sincerely hope you recognize the fun meant in this post. If you do not, you may want to reconsider how seriously you take your sports fandom. No Yankee fans or Yankee players were harmed in the writing of this post.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Liberal Rhetoric 101: Double Standards
You can't talk about your faith in Jesus Christ in public, but you can definitely tell everyone about your private sex life and be celebrated for it.
You can't tell a woman that it's wrong for her to destroy her unborn child in the womb, but it's perfectly fine to tell people they shouldn't smoke tobacco, drink sugary beverages, and eat trans-fats (which only hurts themselves).
Don't you dare criticize someone's religious faith...unless they're Christians or Jews. Then go for it!
When there is a slow response by FEMA to Hurricane Katrina, it's totally George W. Bush's fault! When there's a slow response by FEMA to Hurricane Sandy, you can't blame Barack Obama!
Bill Clinton commits perjury but it's just fine because he lied about sex (under oath). Newt Gingrich has an extramarital affair but doesn't lie about it under oath, and he has to resign.
The 1% are evil! (Except for Steve Jobs, Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin, Matt Damon...)
Celebrate Diversity! (Except for conservatism, Christianity, or white people in general.)
There are so many examples of liberal double standards, spoken by politicians and college professors, repeated by Drive-By Media, regurgitated by liberals everywhere. Oh, there's always some excuse...often accusing conservatives of being the hypocrite to deflect their own hypocrisy.
Ultimately, the answer is to reject the premise that "one hypocrite in a camp means you can't say a word, even if you're not the hypocrite." Perhaps Newt Gingrich should have had to resign...but so should have Bill Clinton (especially since he committed a crime -- perjury -- and Gingrich was only morally wrong in his actions). If you don't want to hear people talk about their sexual orientation in public, don't complain when Tim Tebow praises the name of Jesus Christ. Either all religions are fair game for criticism or none are. It's that simple.
As always, the answer is to break down the ridiculousness of the premise and force your liberal opponent to debate with one standard. When that is required, few liberals can even hang in the debate.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Twitter Files: The Definition of Socialism
For the record, Wikipedia definines socialism as follows:
Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.
Seems pretty clear, doesn't it? Socialism is specifically an economic system, and in our modern society it colloquially means a system of government. Which brings us to our mystery tweeter, who will be referred to here as Boo-Boo Bear (Boo-Boo's real name and handle have been whited out):
So much is wrong with what Boo-Boo had to say. For one, he never actually backed up my thesis in the original argument which stated specifically that JESUS was not a Socialist, but rather that Christ's actions were privately charitable by distributing both miraculous which were His to give and tangible gifts that were donated to Him also therefore His to give.
As far as the Church at Antioch, I believe Boo-Boo is missing out on the important theological message of Acts 2:44-45 and is instead reworking it into a political theory. First, the text of the passage:
44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. - Acts 2:44-45 (NKJV)
Two major issues with relating Acts 2:44-45 with Socialism. One, and this is perhaps the most important, the believers in Antioch were not FORCED to share their goods with each other. There was no government authority requiring it of them. It was 100% Voluntary.
Secondly, (now we will enter not into the realm of fact but the realm of theological theory) I believe the early church was not applying some form of pre-Marx Marxism, but a different, very familiar concept: family.
Throughout the New Testament, Christians referred to themselves as "brethren" and "brothers." I believe the actions of the Church in Antioch was acting as a family, caring for each other and sharing their possessions.
Those who have read my blog have heard me mention my good friend and fellow blogger the JC_Freak. We attend church together and lead a Bible Study together. He and his wife are two of my dearest friends. I refer to his son as my nephew. If the Lord someday blesses me with children, they will call him and his wife Aunt and Uncle. In every way but genetics, he is my brother. I consider him, his wife, and his son my family in precisely the same way I consider my parents and two sisters family. The only thing missing is a genetic relationship.
Much like the Church at Antioch, we often share possessions. For example he still has my copy of "Moneyball" which he borrowed. (Dude, I want that back.) When his car needs serviced, he often hangs out at my apartment, even if I'm not at home, because it's close to the garage. When my car was in the shop in October, he and his wife loaned me one of their cars for a couple days. We've shared countless meals together and have supported each other through the most difficult times in our lives.
This is the model of the Christian church that Antioch modeled. Not socialism. FAMILY.
The difference, in a nutshell is simple: Treating people like family is a choice. Socialism is a government requirement. No, Boo-Boo, Jesus did not promote Socialism. Jesus promoted Christians treating each other as FAMILY.
Two major issues with relating Acts 2:44-45 with Socialism. One, and this is perhaps the most important, the believers in Antioch were not FORCED to share their goods with each other. There was no government authority requiring it of them. It was 100% Voluntary.
Secondly, (now we will enter not into the realm of fact but the realm of theological theory) I believe the early church was not applying some form of pre-Marx Marxism, but a different, very familiar concept: family.
Throughout the New Testament, Christians referred to themselves as "brethren" and "brothers." I believe the actions of the Church in Antioch was acting as a family, caring for each other and sharing their possessions.
Those who have read my blog have heard me mention my good friend and fellow blogger the JC_Freak. We attend church together and lead a Bible Study together. He and his wife are two of my dearest friends. I refer to his son as my nephew. If the Lord someday blesses me with children, they will call him and his wife Aunt and Uncle. In every way but genetics, he is my brother. I consider him, his wife, and his son my family in precisely the same way I consider my parents and two sisters family. The only thing missing is a genetic relationship.
Much like the Church at Antioch, we often share possessions. For example he still has my copy of "Moneyball" which he borrowed. (Dude, I want that back.) When his car needs serviced, he often hangs out at my apartment, even if I'm not at home, because it's close to the garage. When my car was in the shop in October, he and his wife loaned me one of their cars for a couple days. We've shared countless meals together and have supported each other through the most difficult times in our lives.
This is the model of the Christian church that Antioch modeled. Not socialism. FAMILY.
The difference, in a nutshell is simple: Treating people like family is a choice. Socialism is a government requirement. No, Boo-Boo, Jesus did not promote Socialism. Jesus promoted Christians treating each other as FAMILY.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Liberal Rhetoric 101: The False Premise
"I would never get an abortion myself, but a woman's body is her own business."
This is the classic, most prevalent liberal false premise. It is used to tell conservatives they don't have a right to argue against abortion, because it's essentially none of their business. They can feel free to not have an abortion themselves, of course, but they can't tell others what they can't do because of privacy, or something.
Don't get me wrong...privacy is important. People have the right to do pretty much any LEGAL thing in their own homes. If you want to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, participate in any form of consensual activity between adults in your own home, as long as it does not harm another human being, I do not have the Constitutional right to stop you.
That being said, abortion does not fall under that criteria of "does not harm another human being." It is doing the highest form of harm to another human being...destroying him or her. Cliches about "a woman's body" are a false premise...it's actually NOT her body. It's that baby's body!
This is the classic, most prevalent liberal false premise. It is used to tell conservatives they don't have a right to argue against abortion, because it's essentially none of their business. They can feel free to not have an abortion themselves, of course, but they can't tell others what they can't do because of privacy, or something.
Don't get me wrong...privacy is important. People have the right to do pretty much any LEGAL thing in their own homes. If you want to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, participate in any form of consensual activity between adults in your own home, as long as it does not harm another human being, I do not have the Constitutional right to stop you.
That being said, abortion does not fall under that criteria of "does not harm another human being." It is doing the highest form of harm to another human being...destroying him or her. Cliches about "a woman's body" are a false premise...it's actually NOT her body. It's that baby's body!
Let's take the "privacy" premise to it's next logical conclusion: if it's a matter of "privacy" to allow a woman to destroy her unborn child in the womb, it logically would also be a matter of "privacy" to allow a woman to destroy her BORN child. What's the difference?
Liberals will tell you that the unborn child is unable to survive without the mother, and this is true. You know who else is unable to survive without his parents? My two year-old nephew. He can't find himself, dress himself, change his own diaper, protect himself. Without his parents to care for him he would not survive. So if we applied the same logic that defends abortion, it'd be a matter of privacy if someone murdered him.
"OF COURSE NOT!" I hear you shout at your screen, "HE'S A LIVING, BREATHING HUMAN BEING!" You're right, he is a living, breathing human being, and if I anyone attempted to do my nephew harm you better believe I would move heaven and earth to stop them...and if they succeeded may God have mercy on their soul.
Now for my real question: Why is it different if the child is in the womb? My answer is that it is not. I can hear liberals responding (probably "Jeff") that that I can't tell a woman what to do with her body, or privacy, or the Supreme Court, or some other such deflection to avoid discussing the real question: IS THAT BABY A HUMAN BEING. If it is a person (which I argue that it is indeed a person) then you cannot destroy it for your own convienence.
Liberals cannot debate this issue on a true premise. The only true premise to debate abortion on is this: Is that unborn child a person. If it is a person, then, like all people, it is endowed by his or her creator with certain unalienable rights, among those are LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is the real question. If it isn't human, it's okay to destroy it, if it is, then it is a living, breathing human being then it is absolutely, unequivocally not okay to destroy it -- any more than it would be okay to destroy a living breathing two year-old human being -- with the sole exception being if the mother's life is in danger and it becomes necessary to save the more viable life (which in most cases would be the mother).
If you want to argue that the unborn child is not a person based on medical and/or scientific fact, be my guest. I'll have that discussion. Few liberals will. Liberals would rather deflect the reality on the false premise of "privacy" or "a woman's body is her own business" or perhaps on the back of what "the Supreme Court says." The bottom line, as demonstrated by the Kermit Gosnell trial, is a question of the humanity of that child. Any other premise of this debate is a false premise.
Liberals would love to debate this issue on any other subject. They won't debate it on the premise of protection of human life. It completely shuts down the rest of their arguments.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Liberal Rhetoric 101: Teachers Should Earn More!
Liberals and "moderates" especially love to give lip-service to the idea of cutting spending, but never want to give up anything they deem REALLY, SUPER-DUPER IMPORTANT. Because if you can name something really, super-duper important, then the money grows on trees to pay for it. School spending is one of the most prevalent examples.
My sister is a middle school Biology teacher. She has bought into the idea that the problem with schools failing is that we're just not spending enough money. If we just threw enough money at the problem, it would go away! Apparently if every student had an iPad and every classroom had a SMART Board, such problems as poor teachers with tenure, lack of parental involvement, and students who don't know how to read would just magically disappear.
Of course, they wouldn't disappear. Good teachers can teach with equal success with a chalk board and a 15 year-old textbook, especially in areas like History and English, where the material simply doesn't change that much. Romeo and Juliet hasn't changed since 1998. Neither have the events of the American Revolution. The Battle of Bunker Hill was still the first battle.
Similar to that is the attitude that "teachers don't make enough" based on the intangible "value to society." This mentality suggests that we should pay teachers like we pay business executives, because they're "more valuable to society." Except...
Except companies like Apple, Inc had nearly $156 Billion in gross revenue last year. They sell products that people want or need at a high market value. They have over $156 Billion coming in annually, making it possible for them to compete to hire the best and brightest in our country by offering them high salaries.
Public schools, not to put too fine a point on it, bring in $0 in gross revenue each year. (Yes, they're nonprofit organizations. Just bear with me.) The employers of public schools are taxpayers. The Median Income of American Taxpayers is just over $32,000 a year. The median teacher's salary is right around $52,000 a year. That means the average teacher earns more than his or her (average) employer, the taxpayer!
Find a private employee who makes more than his or her employer in total compensation? It doesn't exist in the Real World. The idea that teachers should make more than a professional athlete or a movie star misses the reality of the latter two occupations: The athlete and movie star earn MILLIONS OF DOLLARS for their employer and those employers both have millions and earn millions more from that person's work.
While a teacher's work may indeed have greater societal value in an abstract way, that does not change the reality that the employers of teachers (again, taxpayers) do not have the funds to pay based on that abstract societal value, while the employers of athletes and movie stars do. Furthermore, the employers of athletes and movie stars will get immediate, real world returns on their investment that will in fact exceed the initial investment. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means athletes and movie stars make lots and lots of money for the people who own teams and make movies.)
Teachers don't directly make money for their employers (taxpayers) so their compensation will necessarily be based on what their employers (taxpayers) can AFFORD to pay them. Considering only 7 states (5 of which are controlled by Republicans in both Governorship and Legislature for the record and the other 2 only have mixed control) do not have a budget deficit, clearly the money DOESN'T EXIST to pay more.
At the end of the day, it's not how much money an employee "should" make, it's how much their employees CAN pay. No amount of calling teachers really, super-duper important will make that money appear.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Reactions to the Gosnell Verdict
Kermit Gosnell is guilty and some of my faith in this country has been restored.
On Monday, a jury found Gosnell guilty of three counts of murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter and countless lesser charges.
While Gosnell's actions were absolutely reprehensible and I would have far preferred that these children weren't murdered, the silver lining here is that his trial has shone a light on the realities of abortion. Stories have been told of individuals who were pro-choice have realized the reality of abortion -- and what is really going on in these procedures -- is as evil as those of us who are pro-life have said for years.
Gosnell is a murderer, plain and simple. He destroyed countless human lives in the womb, including several after he managed to botch the procedure destroying viable, living human beings. That's called murder, friends.
This verdict does give me hope for America. It gives me hope that there are people who have risen past the canned liberal rhetoric that refers to destroying an unborn human as a "choice" and "a woman's body" instead of paying attention to the right to life of that unborn child.
A jury has convicted Gosnell of murder for these atrocities. Now perhaps we can have a real conversation about the nature of abortion in America?
The real issue is one of protecting a human life. Despite how liberals keep the focus on the pregnant woman (who, in nearly all cases made the conscious choice to have consensual sex which caused her pregnancy), the real focus ought to be the child.
My good friend and fellow blogger the JC_Freak shared with me an article where a pro-choice columnist actually had their mind changed by the Gosnell trial. Thank the Lord! Even though the Drive-By Media has largely ignored this trial, the story is out there and we can FINALLY have a real discussion about the travesty that is abortion without faltering to false cliches about "privacy" and "a woman's body."
A jury has declared that Gosnell was guilty of murder. They were 100% correct. Now, let's have a real discussion about abortion that isn't entirely focused on the mother (who, as we discussed before, made the conscious choice to have sex in 99% of cases) and instead remember there is a second human being involved in the discussion -- THE BABY!
On Monday, a jury found Gosnell guilty of three counts of murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter and countless lesser charges.
While Gosnell's actions were absolutely reprehensible and I would have far preferred that these children weren't murdered, the silver lining here is that his trial has shone a light on the realities of abortion. Stories have been told of individuals who were pro-choice have realized the reality of abortion -- and what is really going on in these procedures -- is as evil as those of us who are pro-life have said for years.
Gosnell is a murderer, plain and simple. He destroyed countless human lives in the womb, including several after he managed to botch the procedure destroying viable, living human beings. That's called murder, friends.
This verdict does give me hope for America. It gives me hope that there are people who have risen past the canned liberal rhetoric that refers to destroying an unborn human as a "choice" and "a woman's body" instead of paying attention to the right to life of that unborn child.
A jury has convicted Gosnell of murder for these atrocities. Now perhaps we can have a real conversation about the nature of abortion in America?
The real issue is one of protecting a human life. Despite how liberals keep the focus on the pregnant woman (who, in nearly all cases made the conscious choice to have consensual sex which caused her pregnancy), the real focus ought to be the child.
My good friend and fellow blogger the JC_Freak shared with me an article where a pro-choice columnist actually had their mind changed by the Gosnell trial. Thank the Lord! Even though the Drive-By Media has largely ignored this trial, the story is out there and we can FINALLY have a real discussion about the travesty that is abortion without faltering to false cliches about "privacy" and "a woman's body."
|
| Just in case someone who reads this needs to have reality explained to them... |
A jury has declared that Gosnell was guilty of murder. They were 100% correct. Now, let's have a real discussion about abortion that isn't entirely focused on the mother (who, as we discussed before, made the conscious choice to have sex in 99% of cases) and instead remember there is a second human being involved in the discussion -- THE BABY!
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Liberal Rhetoric 101: Overgeneralization
"Jihadists are right wing, as is the Tea Party!"
"The Ku Klux Klan is right wing, so is the Tea Party!"
"Jesus taught to help the poor, ergo massive government welfare is Biblical!"
I'm guessing you've heard these claims, yes? It's all part of the liberal practice of taking a subject, looking at it from a great distance and boiling them down to a single common denominator while ignoring the dozens of other significant differences between the two.
Lets consider the above three examples, shall we?
"Jihadists are right wing, as is the Tea Party!" and "The Ku Klux Klan is right wing, so is the Tea Party!" belong in the same explanation, so we'll treat them together.
The argument is based on the overgeneralized fact that "Radical Islam, the Ku Klux Klan and the Tea Party are on the political right. While this is true, there is a matter of scale that is ignored by this comparison (please excuse the crudity of this model, it IS NOT to scale):
Note that while the Tea Party, the Ku Klux Klan and Radical Islam (as well as Monarchy, added in for comparison) are on the right wing of the spectrum. But no one who actually UNDERSTANDS the Tea Party (rather than the Drive-By Media's meme of the Tea Party) could consider it the same as the KKK or Radical Islam.
The Tea Party stands for equality and freedom FOR ALL, irregardless of race, in stark contrast to the KKK. It stands for a Constitutional Representative Republic, not a monarch, in stark contrast to monarchy. Finally, the Tea Party stands for the First Amendment's protection of Freedom of Religion, in stark contrast to Radical Islam.
The same would be true if a conservative were to attempt to claim that American Liberalism was the equivalent of Nazism (yes, the NAZI party was the NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY aka Left Wing, not right) or Communism. While these two factions do fall on the Left of the political spectrum, they are starkly farther to the Left than American Liberalism. (Comparing American Liberalism to European Socialism is a close comparison, however.)
Now for my third example:
"Jesus taught to help the poor, ergo massive government welfare is Biblical!"
While Christianity teaches us to help and provide for the poor, and liberals (at least claim) to try to help the poor using government welfare, there is a major difference in the way Jesus taught us to help the poor and how liberals try to help the poor. as I've pointed out over and over, there is no place in the Bible where Jesus said "Give your money to the government, and let the government help the poor." There's nowhere ANYWHERE in the Bible where God commands the government to care for the poor.
Even though liberals love to give the false impression that conservatives don't care about the poor, it's just not true. It's just that our plan to help the poor doesn't involve government. We believe in the Biblical model of individuals helping the poor either directly or through private charities.
All three of these examples show the liberal mentality of looking at things from only one angle, without looking at the nuances and specifics of the situations which make these supposed equivalencies not actual equivalencies. To respond to these arguments is simple. Just take the time to break down the sheer ridiculousness of these comparisons by discussing the very nuances and specifics that make the equivalencies not equivalent.
*yes I AM quoting Back to the Future intentionally
"The Ku Klux Klan is right wing, so is the Tea Party!"
"Jesus taught to help the poor, ergo massive government welfare is Biblical!"
I'm guessing you've heard these claims, yes? It's all part of the liberal practice of taking a subject, looking at it from a great distance and boiling them down to a single common denominator while ignoring the dozens of other significant differences between the two.
Lets consider the above three examples, shall we?
"Jihadists are right wing, as is the Tea Party!" and "The Ku Klux Klan is right wing, so is the Tea Party!" belong in the same explanation, so we'll treat them together.
The argument is based on the overgeneralized fact that "Radical Islam, the Ku Klux Klan and the Tea Party are on the political right. While this is true, there is a matter of scale that is ignored by this comparison (please excuse the crudity of this model, it IS NOT to scale):
Note that while the Tea Party, the Ku Klux Klan and Radical Islam (as well as Monarchy, added in for comparison) are on the right wing of the spectrum. But no one who actually UNDERSTANDS the Tea Party (rather than the Drive-By Media's meme of the Tea Party) could consider it the same as the KKK or Radical Islam.
The Tea Party stands for equality and freedom FOR ALL, irregardless of race, in stark contrast to the KKK. It stands for a Constitutional Representative Republic, not a monarch, in stark contrast to monarchy. Finally, the Tea Party stands for the First Amendment's protection of Freedom of Religion, in stark contrast to Radical Islam.
The same would be true if a conservative were to attempt to claim that American Liberalism was the equivalent of Nazism (yes, the NAZI party was the NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY aka Left Wing, not right) or Communism. While these two factions do fall on the Left of the political spectrum, they are starkly farther to the Left than American Liberalism. (Comparing American Liberalism to European Socialism is a close comparison, however.)
Now for my third example:
"Jesus taught to help the poor, ergo massive government welfare is Biblical!"
While Christianity teaches us to help and provide for the poor, and liberals (at least claim) to try to help the poor using government welfare, there is a major difference in the way Jesus taught us to help the poor and how liberals try to help the poor. as I've pointed out over and over, there is no place in the Bible where Jesus said "Give your money to the government, and let the government help the poor." There's nowhere ANYWHERE in the Bible where God commands the government to care for the poor.
Even though liberals love to give the false impression that conservatives don't care about the poor, it's just not true. It's just that our plan to help the poor doesn't involve government. We believe in the Biblical model of individuals helping the poor either directly or through private charities.
All three of these examples show the liberal mentality of looking at things from only one angle, without looking at the nuances and specifics of the situations which make these supposed equivalencies not actual equivalencies. To respond to these arguments is simple. Just take the time to break down the sheer ridiculousness of these comparisons by discussing the very nuances and specifics that make the equivalencies not equivalent.
*yes I AM quoting Back to the Future intentionally
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Liberal Rhetoric 101: Just Pass a Law, Problem Solved!
I think this meme pretty wonderfully sums up the pure lack of logic in the liberal attempts to pass laws to stop gun violence by passing new laws. After the Sandy Hill Elementary Shooting, after the Colorado Shooting, and after pretty much any gun violence, liberal Democrats begin to push for the passing of new gun restrictions. As always they ignore the fact that not only do the criminals involved have no issues committing the crimes of murder and attempted murder, but also that the vast, vast majority of gun crimes do not in fact involve legally obtained guns.
Now let's take the above comparison of marijuana. Whether or not you believe it marijuana should be legalized, it is completely illegal in 26 states, 8 states have decriminalized possesion in small quantities but retained criminalization of sale of large quantities, 7 states have made it legal ONLY with a doctor's prescription, 7 have both medical marijuana and decriminalization laws in place and only 2 have legalized it for recreational use.
Does anyone want to tell me that marijuana use is stopped in the 26 states where it is illegal or that it is only used for medical purposes in the 7 states where it is only legal with a prescription? For that matter, does anyone believe people who want to obtain marijuana are stopped by these laws? OF COURSE NOT!
So why would any rational person believe that gun control laws would stop criminals from obtaining guns to commit crimes? It turns out criminals don't follow laws...only law abiding citizens do.
The answer is: "It wouldn't!" But liberals are convinced that passing a law would make a difference. Liberals want to make a difference, they generally mean well...at least the Neighborhood Liberals do...but the results don't matter.
Yet, to go back to what we said above, how many people smoke marijuana even though it's illegal. And that's not even a violent crime motivated by hate. Criminals DON'T follow laws. A gun criminal is already committing at least one crime: murder or attempted murder. But, they're apparently going to stop committing that crime which they have planned and premeditated because it's illegal for them to have a particular gun.
The only people who will be stopped from buying guns are law-abiding citizens. You know, the ones who would use those guns for protection. Perhaps those law-abiding citizens would use their legally purchased and licensed guns to stop a murderer?
Bottom line, passing a law only effects law-abiding citizens. It doesn't effect criminals. Because criminals don't follow laws, by definition.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
No "Jeff," Jesus was not a Socialist
Yep, "Jeff" is back, warping whatever he needs to warp to continue believing in liberalism. It's nothing new. "Jeff" now is claiming that Jesus was a socialist, in this tweet:
Oh "Jeff," seriously? I mean, it's just not possible you equate Jesus giving away what essentially belonged to him with socialism?
Let me ask you a question, "Jeff." If a doctor chooses to treat a patient, FOR FREE, without government compulsion but of his own free will, is that Socialism?
While we're at it, if I have food, and I choose to directly give it to a hungry person, without government compulsion but of my own free will, is that Socialism? Or, in the case of Jesus, if someone gave me some bread and fish to give to help feed hungry people I distributed them, is that Socialism?
Or if I were to take some wine, which I purchased with my own money, and wrap it up and put a nice bow on it and give it to someone, without government compulsion but of my own free will, is that Socialism?
No to all three, my friends. The first two fall under a very common English word: Charity. The third falls under another very common English word: Gift.
Now none of these are perfect analogies, because what all three of the examples "Jeff" gave were actually Jesus performing miracles. As God incarnate, Jesus took five loaves of bread and two fish and turned them into enough bread and fish to feed thousands miraculously; He healed the sick miraculously; and He turned water into wine miraculously. Jesus healing the sick wasn't through government compulsion and it didn't confiscate peoples' money to provide it.
Jesus had the ability to heal sick people, so He healed them (similar, if not exactly, in result to a doctor who chooses to give a sick person free care on his own).
A small boy gave (donated) his lunch to Jesus to help feed the hungry crowd. Jesus then miraculously multiplied it to feed thousands.
Wedding patrons gave Jesus pots of water, which Jesus was able to turn into wine and give to the wedding guests.
Now, how is this socialism, "Jeff"? Before you answer let's review how Webster's dictionary defines socialism, shall we?
Socialism (n) Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
So, "Jeff," was Jesus part of the government? No, He was not. Was Jesus taking collective goods by means of government and distributing them? No, He was not.
Jesus was privately charitable. And private citizens and charities taking care of the poor is not socialism, nor is it liberalism. It is an exercise of the conservative principle of charity. Plain and simple.
Oh "Jeff," seriously? I mean, it's just not possible you equate Jesus giving away what essentially belonged to him with socialism?
Let me ask you a question, "Jeff." If a doctor chooses to treat a patient, FOR FREE, without government compulsion but of his own free will, is that Socialism?
While we're at it, if I have food, and I choose to directly give it to a hungry person, without government compulsion but of my own free will, is that Socialism? Or, in the case of Jesus, if someone gave me some bread and fish to give to help feed hungry people I distributed them, is that Socialism?
Or if I were to take some wine, which I purchased with my own money, and wrap it up and put a nice bow on it and give it to someone, without government compulsion but of my own free will, is that Socialism?
No to all three, my friends. The first two fall under a very common English word: Charity. The third falls under another very common English word: Gift.
Now none of these are perfect analogies, because what all three of the examples "Jeff" gave were actually Jesus performing miracles. As God incarnate, Jesus took five loaves of bread and two fish and turned them into enough bread and fish to feed thousands miraculously; He healed the sick miraculously; and He turned water into wine miraculously. Jesus healing the sick wasn't through government compulsion and it didn't confiscate peoples' money to provide it.
Jesus had the ability to heal sick people, so He healed them (similar, if not exactly, in result to a doctor who chooses to give a sick person free care on his own).
A small boy gave (donated) his lunch to Jesus to help feed the hungry crowd. Jesus then miraculously multiplied it to feed thousands.
Wedding patrons gave Jesus pots of water, which Jesus was able to turn into wine and give to the wedding guests.
Now, how is this socialism, "Jeff"? Before you answer let's review how Webster's dictionary defines socialism, shall we?
Socialism (n) Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
So, "Jeff," was Jesus part of the government? No, He was not. Was Jesus taking collective goods by means of government and distributing them? No, He was not.
Jesus was privately charitable. And private citizens and charities taking care of the poor is not socialism, nor is it liberalism. It is an exercise of the conservative principle of charity. Plain and simple.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Liberal Rhetoric 101: Condescension
"If you think X, you clearly don't understand Y at all!"
Ever hear that? "You're stupid because you don't know how brilliant this liberal whatever!" Usually it is accompanied by either a quote about how much more they know than you (or the person they are quoting), or how much more educated they (or the person they are quoting) is, or how you're just plain dumb for believing whatever it is you believe.
It's a common debating tactic amongst liberals. Most of the time, they excuse it as "no, your points really are stupid so my condescension is validated." (I pretty much guarantee I'm going to get at least one of these via tweet or comment.) Liberals love to talk down to everyone. They're smarter than everyone, just ask them!
Often, this condescension is used in replacement of an actual argument. I spoke recently with an individual who was arguing with me for the need for hate-crime legislation. Ultimately, when I responded to all of his arguments, I was told he knew what he was talking about more than me because he went to law school. There was no need for him to provide actual evidence of the necessity of such laws when...you know...actions like murder and assault are illegal, regardless of the motive behind the crime. He knew better because he was a self-described expert. (By the way, to this day, I have no idea if this individual's legal expertise was in criminal law, real estate, or business mergers.)
Yet another condescender was a person who I've known for years. This individual always feel back on the typical liberal response of "LOL, that's stupid because reasons." When asked for evidence, I would further be told how I should accept what Expert X said, again, because reasons. (Please note that "because reasons" doesn't equal actual evidence, just a one-off bumper sticker quote.) These arguments fall in the same category with the classic statement "Italians are never wrong, just ask one!"
Far too many Activist Liberals use this tactic as a shut-down. It's all about making you feel like you don't even deserve to debate with them. Ultimately, the answer is to walk away from these individuals. At Biblical Conservatism, repeated condescension will get you blocked as a commenter, both here at the blog and on our Facebook Page. In real life, it generally is best to just walk away. If someone won't debate with respect, it's not worth debating with them. Let them look like a jerk, then walk away.
Ever hear that? "You're stupid because you don't know how brilliant this liberal whatever!" Usually it is accompanied by either a quote about how much more they know than you (or the person they are quoting), or how much more educated they (or the person they are quoting) is, or how you're just plain dumb for believing whatever it is you believe.
It's a common debating tactic amongst liberals. Most of the time, they excuse it as "no, your points really are stupid so my condescension is validated." (I pretty much guarantee I'm going to get at least one of these via tweet or comment.) Liberals love to talk down to everyone. They're smarter than everyone, just ask them!
Often, this condescension is used in replacement of an actual argument. I spoke recently with an individual who was arguing with me for the need for hate-crime legislation. Ultimately, when I responded to all of his arguments, I was told he knew what he was talking about more than me because he went to law school. There was no need for him to provide actual evidence of the necessity of such laws when...you know...actions like murder and assault are illegal, regardless of the motive behind the crime. He knew better because he was a self-described expert. (By the way, to this day, I have no idea if this individual's legal expertise was in criminal law, real estate, or business mergers.)
Yet another condescender was a person who I've known for years. This individual always feel back on the typical liberal response of "LOL, that's stupid because reasons." When asked for evidence, I would further be told how I should accept what Expert X said, again, because reasons. (Please note that "because reasons" doesn't equal actual evidence, just a one-off bumper sticker quote.) These arguments fall in the same category with the classic statement "Italians are never wrong, just ask one!"
Far too many Activist Liberals use this tactic as a shut-down. It's all about making you feel like you don't even deserve to debate with them. Ultimately, the answer is to walk away from these individuals. At Biblical Conservatism, repeated condescension will get you blocked as a commenter, both here at the blog and on our Facebook Page. In real life, it generally is best to just walk away. If someone won't debate with respect, it's not worth debating with them. Let them look like a jerk, then walk away.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Left Still Waiting for that Elusive "Tea Party" Attacker
The Left was quick to surmise that the Boston Marathon bombing came from some sort of "right wing activist."
According to PMS-NBC's Iraqi Defense Minister act-alike Chris Matthews, "Domestic terrorists...tend to be on the far right." CNN Analyst Peter Bergen asked "Right-Wing Extremists to blame for explosions?" Salon.com writer David Sirota said "Let's hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a White American."
Not surprisingly to anyone without a deep desire to blame political opponents, it turned out the bombers were Islamic Jihadists.
It's hardly the first time the Left has immediately blamed conservatives in general and the Tea Party in specific. When James Holmes was identified as the shooter, the Left immediately jumped to suggest that he was a Tea Party member. When Jared Loughner went on a shooting spree, killing six people and severely injuring several people including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the Left immediately suggested Loughner was a Tea Partier. He wasn't. Officially he was a registered Independent, but his writings suggested not a right wing extremist but a left wing extremist!
While some could argue that Islamic Jihadists are officially on the "right wing" they are not modern American conservatives in any way. They are more extremely right-wing than a monarchist. So while some liberals will claim Islamic Jihadists are "technically right-wing" it is yet another liberal false-equivalency. Same can be said of right-wing extremists like the Ku Klux Klan. It is a classic liberal false equivalency, just as it would be false to lump in most American liberals with Communism. (Comparing them to European style Socialism is fair based on a true equivalency of policies. Communism is inaccurate.)
The Tea Party stands for classic American ideals like keeping government as small as reasonably possible, keeping taxes as reasonably low as reasonably possible, and keeping people personally responsible for their own lives. The Tea Party is not extreme in the first place...it is classic American conservatism. The attempt to lump us in with Islamic Jihadists is an incredible lie.
Ultimately, every time there is an attack the Left will openly hope and suggest it is a Tea Partier, and so far it just keeps ending up being Jihadists. Maybe, and I know this is asking for a lot, maybe the Drive-By Media could knock off the politically based speculation and...oh I don't know...report the news?
I guess that'd be too much to hope for these days.
According to PMS-NBC's Iraqi Defense Minister act-alike Chris Matthews, "Domestic terrorists...tend to be on the far right." CNN Analyst Peter Bergen asked "Right-Wing Extremists to blame for explosions?" Salon.com writer David Sirota said "Let's hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a White American."
Not surprisingly to anyone without a deep desire to blame political opponents, it turned out the bombers were Islamic Jihadists.
It's hardly the first time the Left has immediately blamed conservatives in general and the Tea Party in specific. When James Holmes was identified as the shooter, the Left immediately jumped to suggest that he was a Tea Party member. When Jared Loughner went on a shooting spree, killing six people and severely injuring several people including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the Left immediately suggested Loughner was a Tea Partier. He wasn't. Officially he was a registered Independent, but his writings suggested not a right wing extremist but a left wing extremist!
While some could argue that Islamic Jihadists are officially on the "right wing" they are not modern American conservatives in any way. They are more extremely right-wing than a monarchist. So while some liberals will claim Islamic Jihadists are "technically right-wing" it is yet another liberal false-equivalency. Same can be said of right-wing extremists like the Ku Klux Klan. It is a classic liberal false equivalency, just as it would be false to lump in most American liberals with Communism. (Comparing them to European style Socialism is fair based on a true equivalency of policies. Communism is inaccurate.)
The Tea Party stands for classic American ideals like keeping government as small as reasonably possible, keeping taxes as reasonably low as reasonably possible, and keeping people personally responsible for their own lives. The Tea Party is not extreme in the first place...it is classic American conservatism. The attempt to lump us in with Islamic Jihadists is an incredible lie.
Ultimately, every time there is an attack the Left will openly hope and suggest it is a Tea Partier, and so far it just keeps ending up being Jihadists. Maybe, and I know this is asking for a lot, maybe the Drive-By Media could knock off the politically based speculation and...oh I don't know...report the news?
I guess that'd be too much to hope for these days.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
The 2nd Amendment was NEVER about Hunting, Personal Security
You'd be surprised to find how many liberals believe this...and why wouldn't they? It's what liberal teachers are teaching our children in public schools. I'll bet you this quote never comes up:
Don't get me wrong, personal security makes the Right to Bear Arms further necessary. While major cities and even smaller towns had some law enforcement, just like today the sheriff couldn't stop a robbery at the sight unless he happened to be on site at the time. Despite what liberals in their Happy Imagination Hats believe, you can't call the police if someone is trying to assault you, at least in most cases.
However, the reason for the Second Amendment, was, is and always will be is to ensure that the citizens of the United States are capable of remove our government if the government ever becomes tyrannical.
(I AM NOT suggesting that such a revolt is currently necessary, nor should this post be construed as a call for such a revolution. Anyone who takes this post to mean we should revolt is wrong.)
It turns out the Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that our nation could stand up against our own government if it was ever necessary. So far, in the over 230 years of this nation's history, such a revolution has not been necessary -- but only a fool would assume that it is 100% impossible for such a need to arise in the future.
Therefore, if the United States government has a particular firearm, citizens DO in fact "need" to be able to purchase the same firearms, just in case we need to remove a future tyrannical government. Whether we would need an M16 rifle for hunting deer or bear is irrelevant. We would need that if we ever needed to overthrow a tyrannical government (which would absolutely have those weapons, because duh).
Liberals have either missed the point of the Second Amendment or are willfully ignoring it. The Second Amendment is about protection from tyranny from within. Plain and simple.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Liberal Rhetoric 101: The Supreme Court Says...
This one comes from yet another conversation with my Twitter friend "Jeff." This time our debate was on abortion. This was his final response:
"Jeff" has just demonstrated a class liberal rhetorical fallacy: The Supreme Court said X, ergo X is a fact.
For the record, my entire point to "Jeff" was moral, not Constitutional. I made the argument that abortion was immoral because it was destroying a human being. He relied on the classic liberal platitude of a woman's body and something about "forcing a woman to carry a fetus," ignoring the fact that she made a decision that caused that child to be conceived in the first place.
Back on the subject, the attempt at a shut-down argument using the Supreme Court is illogical and frankly ridiculous. Based on this logic, separate was indeed equal from 1896 through 1954. That's right, starting with the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, separate facilities, including schools, based on race was perfectly acceptable. By the logic "Jeff" is proposing, not only was this the legal and Constitutional policy, but it was apparently perfectly moral -- because the Supreme Court said so -- until Brown v. Board of Education overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.
I choose the ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson because it has important MORAL implications, not just Constitutional ones. Unlike cases like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which dealt only with Constitutional issues, the case of Brown v. Board of Education dealt with a MORAL issue. Regardless of what the Supreme Court said, separating people by race is morally reprehensible and absolutely wrong. Brown v. Board of Education was not only needed to change the Constitutional policy but to restore moral practice to the United States.
If we followed the logic "Jeff" applies, separate but equal was perfectly moral for 58 years, since the Supreme Court said so. Furthermore, if we followed the logic "Jeff" supports, black Americans who were held in slavery weren't a full person but only 3/5 of a person, because that's what was Constitutional until the 13th Amendment rendered Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution moot in 1865 and the 14th Amendment formally repealed it three years later in 1868.
The bottom line is this: While the Constitution is, in my opinion, the best governing document ever, it was imperfect in it's original writing and required amendments...28 to date...to adjust imperfections in the Constitution. More importantly, just because the Constitution says something doesn't mean it is a moral authority argument. Liberals may try to use a decision from the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution to answer a moral argument, but ultimately it is a sidestep, ignoring the moral argument entirely.
 |
| This is not "Jeff's" real Twitter page although it is his real tweet. @UpstateMetFan is my Twitter handle, not "Jeff's" |
For the record, my entire point to "Jeff" was moral, not Constitutional. I made the argument that abortion was immoral because it was destroying a human being. He relied on the classic liberal platitude of a woman's body and something about "forcing a woman to carry a fetus," ignoring the fact that she made a decision that caused that child to be conceived in the first place.
Back on the subject, the attempt at a shut-down argument using the Supreme Court is illogical and frankly ridiculous. Based on this logic, separate was indeed equal from 1896 through 1954. That's right, starting with the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, separate facilities, including schools, based on race was perfectly acceptable. By the logic "Jeff" is proposing, not only was this the legal and Constitutional policy, but it was apparently perfectly moral -- because the Supreme Court said so -- until Brown v. Board of Education overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.
I choose the ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson because it has important MORAL implications, not just Constitutional ones. Unlike cases like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which dealt only with Constitutional issues, the case of Brown v. Board of Education dealt with a MORAL issue. Regardless of what the Supreme Court said, separating people by race is morally reprehensible and absolutely wrong. Brown v. Board of Education was not only needed to change the Constitutional policy but to restore moral practice to the United States.
If we followed the logic "Jeff" applies, separate but equal was perfectly moral for 58 years, since the Supreme Court said so. Furthermore, if we followed the logic "Jeff" supports, black Americans who were held in slavery weren't a full person but only 3/5 of a person, because that's what was Constitutional until the 13th Amendment rendered Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution moot in 1865 and the 14th Amendment formally repealed it three years later in 1868.
The bottom line is this: While the Constitution is, in my opinion, the best governing document ever, it was imperfect in it's original writing and required amendments...28 to date...to adjust imperfections in the Constitution. More importantly, just because the Constitution says something doesn't mean it is a moral authority argument. Liberals may try to use a decision from the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution to answer a moral argument, but ultimately it is a sidestep, ignoring the moral argument entirely.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Letter Bag: Does the Bible Promote Liberalism?
Well sports fans, it's time for the
Biblical Conservatism Letter Bag! Although this time we got something very,
very rare: A legitimate question and not anonymous to boot! So, unlike previous
Letter Bag posts where I get to make up a fun nickname, we're going to answer
this one straight:
I happened upon your website when I googled the bible and
conservatism. I googled the subject because I attend church with god loving
people who are sometimes pretty liberal. What do you say when people bring up
the redistribution of wealth is supported by Jesus because of scriptures such
as "give all you have to the poor and follow me" then they don't and
then Jesus says "it's harder to get a rich man in heaven than a camel to
go through the eye of a needle". Like you I am a Christian conservative,
but I find myself having to defend conservatism more and more even with church
friends. Also, do you recommend some reading material on this subject?
Thank you for your time,
Daryl
Dear Daryl:
It's definitely a claim a lot of liberals like to make. Most
are Neighborhood Liberals
who mean well but just don't understand the line between Jesus' command to
care for the poor and the Left's attempt to say government should care for
everyone.
I ask them "Show me the part in the Bible where Jesus says 'give your money to the government, and let the government care for the poor.' "
Of course, there is no such passage! Which is particularly interesting considering that the government in Christ’s time was, at least partially, the church!
Let’s look at God’s original plan to care for the poor:
I ask them "Show me the part in the Bible where Jesus says 'give your money to the government, and let the government care for the poor.' "
Of course, there is no such passage! Which is particularly interesting considering that the government in Christ’s time was, at least partially, the church!
Let’s look at God’s original plan to care for the poor:
When you reap
the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather
the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or
pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner.
I am the LORD your God.
- Leviticus 18:9-10
- Leviticus 18:9-10
And here’s another example:
When you reap
the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field
when you reap, nor shall you gather any gleaning from your harvest. You shall
leave them for the poor and for the stranger: I am the LORD your God. - Leviticus 23:22
It’s interesting that there’s no mention of the government taking care of the poor, am I right?
It’s interesting that there’s no mention of the government taking care of the poor, am I right?
That's because Jesus didn't command us to let
government take care of the poor, but rather instructed US to directly care for
them. In the time of Jesus it meant giving alms. Today, the practical
application is largely through giving to our churches and other charities, not
the government, although directly providing for those in need is also possible.
I suspect you're dealing largely with what I
refer to as "Neighborhood Liberals."
Neighborhood
Liberals tend to see only the compassionate
intention of government programs, rather than the results. They legitimately
care, but don't bother to look at the results of these big government programs.
As far as the supposed Biblical railing on
wealth, ask them if they think Abraham entered the Kingdom of Heaven? How about
King David? There were many heroes of the faith who God blessed with wealth.
The Bible never says wealth is evil, but only
the LOVE of money. Not only that, but
there is tremendous hypocrisy on the Left on this subject. They claim the
Constitution has a "Separation of Church
and State" which by the way is not in the Constitution at all) but then
want to use Biblical principles to push their agenda.
It is indeed frustrating!
Ultimately, if you’re dealing with a Neighborhood Liberal,
ask them if they want to see the poor actually helped, and then explain the
complete failures of liberal programs to actually HELP the poor. Conservatives
DO want to help the poor. We just want to ACTUALLY HELP THE POOR, not just give
them free benefits that never lift them out of poverty. We don’t want to set a
bunch of money on fire in an effort to help without actually helping.
Furthermore, the Bible is not a socially liberal document by today’s standards (although it certainly was in its own day). The woman caught in adultery was not told “Neither do I condemn you, go and keep doing exactly what you were doing because that’s who you are.” She was told “Neither do I condemn you, go and SIN NO MORE.”
The liberal mentality is “everything you’re doing is fine, period,” and “to love the person, you must love their actions.” This is not the Biblical mentality AT ALL. The Bible preaches “love the sinner, hate the sin” and “go and sin no more.” Despite what liberals will tell you, the Bible doesn’t promote the liberal mentality of “if it feels good, do it.”
Furthermore, the Bible is not a socially liberal document by today’s standards (although it certainly was in its own day). The woman caught in adultery was not told “Neither do I condemn you, go and keep doing exactly what you were doing because that’s who you are.” She was told “Neither do I condemn you, go and SIN NO MORE.”
The liberal mentality is “everything you’re doing is fine, period,” and “to love the person, you must love their actions.” This is not the Biblical mentality AT ALL. The Bible preaches “love the sinner, hate the sin” and “go and sin no more.” Despite what liberals will tell you, the Bible doesn’t promote the liberal mentality of “if it feels good, do it.”
Ultimately, the Bible is not, nor has it ever been a liberal
book. Attempts to do otherwise are either Neighborhood Liberals are misguided
enough to believe that compassion equals government spending or Activist
Liberals who want to falsely convince people to follow their mentalities.
Daryl, thanks for writing and for reading!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)