Every Time Every Human Speaks

The times I’ve been charged with “teaching Christianity in a public school” make me laugh a little bit.

It’s as though administrators, principals, parents, and students think that Christians have some sort of other belief system, apart from their own, that is worthy of alienation. Of course, we know this is simply the world loving the darkness more than the light, because their deeds are evil (John 1). And we were once in the darkness, too.

IMG_7399 (1)

But the whole “stop talking about religion in public” is nonsense for another reason: every time every human being speaks, we are speaking our own belief system. For one person to tell another, “Don’t talk about your beliefs,” is to act like the speaker has no beliefs. But the truth is that we all speak our beliefs, every moment of every day.

To tell a Christian to drop the Bible is like telling a postmodern to stop speaking about scientism, neo-Marxism, or relativism. The postmodern literally cannot stop. It’s what she believes in.

We can talk about “separation of church and state” nonsense all day long, but it will never happen because it is a false dichotomy. Every time every human speaks, he speaks his worldview. Just be honest with each other, and lay those beliefs on the table.

Each of us has a belief system. None of them, on the basis of our own faith, is more or less true than another. In other words, nothing is absolutely true just because I believe it. Instead, all beliefs, and their systems, stand or fall based on their historical, internal, and supernatural veracity. And the Bible is the only one that passes any of the three (and all three at that!).

Thus, biblical faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is the only worldview that has full historical, internal, and supernatural truth. It stands beneath no other worldview, but it supreme above them all – because Jesus is supreme.

When we talk to those in the kingdom of the darkness, we must love them enough to care for their very souls. The first step is laying our beliefs on the table, explaining them, and asking the unbeliever to do the same. Only then can we have honest conversation that is out of the darkness and into the light.

Advertisements

Need a Tax Break? Murder Your Child

That’s what the IRS says, apparently.

In a report yesterday from Life Site News (complete with IRS links, for those concerned about “bias”), IRS publication 502 states that “legal abortion” can be cited as a medical expense for 2014.

I forgot, how again is murdering another person part of “medicine”? Isn’t that the exact opposite of the Hippocratic Oath? Or has that oath been changed to suit our murderous desires?

Beyond this madness of calling baby dismemberment “medicine,” there is the matter that, according to IRS Publication 501, the federal government does not allow the same tax credit for a stillborn child. Translation: if your child dies on his own, it’s not medicine; if you kill him, it is.

This is the most backward understanding of “medicine” imaginable.

No wonder that the federal government gives the abortion industry over $520 million a year – it is incentivizing the war on preborn children for taxpayers, too.

Is the Unborn a 14th Amendment Person?

[This post is the fourth in a series on Francis J. Beckwith’s seminal article, “The Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, and Abortion Law.” Part 1 is called, “The Lies and Fallacies Beneath Roe v. Wade;” Part 2, “Novel Inventions of Abortion Law;” and Part 3, “19th Century Anti-Abortion Law.”]

B. Is the Unborn a Person under the Fourteenth Amendment?

Blackmun and the abortion-hungry Court had one more legal foundation to tear down: the unborn’s right to the personhood under the Fourteenth Amendment. The relevant part of the amendment reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any  person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Blackmun cites three reasons why the unborn are not Fourteenth Amendment persons: the Constitution doesn’t define them as such, Texas had no cases holding the unborn as Fourteenth Amendment persons, and abortion’s de facto practice in the nineteenth century. As Beckwith argues, “each reason is seriously flawed,” (p.51).

First, Blackmun’s logic on the Constitution’s definition of “person” merely begs the question. The Constitution didn’t aim to define “person” biologically. Without such a definition, the lack of one cannot exclude the unborn. To do so is to construct an argument from ignorance, but it wasn’t the last time in Roe that Blackmun did so. Further, though the development of the unborn was not known at the time of the Constitution but was at the time of Roe, Blackmun allowed no room for that in his analysis, (p.51-52).

On Christian (Un)Citizens

1 Peter 2:11-17  Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul.  Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.  Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme,  or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.  For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.  Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.  Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

Nearly caught in the kind of teaching trap those of us educators are familiar with, Jesus tells the Jews in Luke 20:25 to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” and He leaves it at that. He doesn’t elaborate much, because the situation didn’t call for it. It was meant to be a crafty ploy (20:23) to get Him to slip up.

But it got me thinking: what does it mean to be a Christian (un)citizen?

God teaches us plainly that “our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,” (Philippians 3:20). So what does it mean to be a citizen of heaven while living on earth?

Without the time to go into all the details, Christians recently have struggled with two gross extremes: militant escapism and foolish assimilation. Or, more directly, being citizens of heaven that don’t live on earth vs. being citizens of earth that aren’t bound for heaven.

This is where Peter helps us immensely. Recall the context of 1 Peter: Peter was writing to suffering Christians to encourage them to hold on to Jesus in the midst of terrifying troubles.  So it might seem odd that he writes a section on honoring the government and its officers.

Notice that verse 11 has the encouragement to avoid “passions of the flesh which wage war against the soul,” then moves right into a discussion about . . . obeying authorities? This must be a bigger deal than we realize.

Verse 12 says that this conduct outlined in verses 13-17 is what will glorify God in front of the Gentiles, that is, in front of the unbelieving but watching world. Living under the authority of emperors and governors as “servants of God” is what shows the watching world that we are, in fact, not citizens of this world. What a strange concept?

Who would have thought that neither escapism nor assimilation was our calling?! So what is our calling, brothers and sisters? To fear God and honor everyone as He calls, including our (ever-so-often failing) government.

As to how exactly this ought to work with other callings (like standing up for the unborn, clarifying the meaning of marriage, voting regularly, etc.), we will work out in a future post.

In Education’s Problems, Technology Won’t Make a Dent

Says who, you ask? The late Steve Jobs, founder and visionary of Apple computers, IPods, and IPads, in a 1996 interview with Wired.com:

I used to think that technology could help education. I’ve probably spearheaded giving away more computer equipment to schools than anybody else on the planet. But I’ve had to come to the inevitable conclusion that the problem is not one that technology can hope to solve. What’s wrong with education cannot be fixed with technology. No amount of technology will make a dent.

It’s a political problem. The problems are sociopolitical. The problems are unions. You plot the growth of the NEA [National Education Association] and the dropping of SAT scores, and they’re inversely proportional. The problems are unions in the schools. The problem is bureaucracy.

Which is another way of saying: the problem is sin.

Sin in education looks like:

  • Teachers valuing paychecks over excellent performance.
  • Organizations valuing tradition and appearance over excellent teaching.
  • Parents valuing appeasement over tough love.
  • Students valuing free time over hard work.

Yep, it’s all of the above. And, nope, technology can’t fix any of that.

The Government Doesn’t Legislate Anything But Morality

Over the years, I’ve heard the phrase, “The government can’t legislate morality,” far too many times. Most often, this statement belies an attitude of nonchalant, postmodern hedonism that fears man more than it fears God. But lest we turn this into an ad hominem affair, we ought first prove the point:

The Government Doesn’t Legislate Anything But Morality

1. The government makes laws.
From Scripture, plain reason, and experience, we know that governments must make laws. That, in the first principle, is why they exist. If people could govern, i.e., reign over, themselves, governments would in no way be needed. But because of sin, miscommunication, and mistakes (mostly sin), governments must needs exist.

2. The government decides what is moral. To make a “moral” decision is to decide between right and wrong, to make a mark between the right and the wrong, to outline the body of what is right and what is wrong. This is the essence of law-making: people must decide what is right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable, fair and unfair, just and unjust in a given society. We ought not be uncomfortable with this; we make sense of life by making moral decisions. We say this is right and that is wrong; it is why we have fully-functioning, ever-active consciences.

3. Every law is a statement on what is moral, i.e., what is right and what is wrong. So go gun safety bills, veterans’ benefits bills, even national budget bills. Health care bills, economic stimulus packages, and constitutional amendments all make statements as to what is considered right and wrong in our country. This is the essence of lawmaking. “Laws” are statements about right and wrong.

4. Your sin doesn’t falsify or profane the government’s job. You may be disagreeing with me on the first two points, but that would only be because you have a vested interest in protecting one of your pet sins. Maybe you like to smoke pot on the side, or carry a same-sex attraction, or want to wink at your friend’s recent abortion. Maybe you love being well-liked by the people around you. Whatever the case, your disagreement with the moral legislation of the government is more a function of your own self-deception than of the verity of these claims.

5. The government must punish wrong-doing. Again, your own self-deception may trouble you here, so let us turn to an illustration outside of our self-defensive cocoons. Suppose a madman murders your dearest loved one, and you are an eyewitness. At his trial, you are called to testify. What do you say? Do you ask the judge to let him go free, or punish him? Unless your conscience is irreparably broken, you scream, “Justice!”

As 1 Peter 2:13-14 says, “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.” The government doesn’t bear the sword (or the court system, or the jail system, or capital punishment) in vain. It’s sent by God to punish wrongdoers.

Don’t Hide
In the end, it’s clear that the government legislates nothing but morality. So don’t hide behind your saying that “it’s not their job to tell me who I can marry” or “it’s not their job to tell me what I can do with the child inside my body” (the two most common personal reasons for objecting to moral legislation). And please don’t be a coward and hide behind your fear of what others will think.

Just say that you believe same-sex marriage and abortion are completely moral, just, right acts, and be prepared to back those claims up logically. Don’t ask the government to give you a free pass because you like your favorite depraved act, or because you don’t have the courage to stand up against those who do. As a citizen of earth, it’s your job.

Poison in the Water

In response to my post earlier in the week on how funding Planned Parenthood is apparently the sine qua non of the federal government, a commenter wrote that federal PP support doesn’t necessitate federal support of abortion. I disagreed, and disagree today.

The facts are these: the Democrats say that “the battle over planned parenthood was never about abortion,” and the Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions. The relevance of those points depends on how exactly one defines “money used for abortion.” We could talk about political tactics and doublespeak, but here’s the issue: poison in the water.The water here is Planned Parenthood (a stab-to-the-brain name if I’ve ever heard one). The people drinking the water are you, me, the American populace, and our representatives. The poison is abortion.

  • If there’s poison in the water, we can’t drink it. Period. Why do we want poisoned water?
  • If abortion is performed in PP offices, we can’t fund them. Period.
  • Since abortion is performed in PP, we can’t fund them. End of Story.

Let’s put this another way: Planned Parenthood exists to kill children. Margaret Sanger began the American Birth Control League to kill “unfit” children.

Do the research yourself. Go on Google Books and read Margaret Sanger’s articles. PP is a bastion of eugenics, genocide, discrimination, and death; and we can’t keep drinking their poison.

Letters from Margaret Sanger: the Truth about Planned Parenthood

In the midst of our national discussion on Planned Parenthood, I decided to do some research to clear up the facts about their origins by doing a handy Google Books search on Margaret Sanger. Here’s what I found..

1. From The Case for Birth Control: a Supplementary Brief and Statement of Facts (1917):

When authorities prohibit marriage for the unfit, they have in mind the probable fruits of such marriage. Women suffering from the diseases mentioned in this chapter give birth to children mentally and physically inferior likely to sink into pauperism and certain to be in some way a burden upon society. If physicians were free to instruct parents how to prevent conception, the reproduction of their kind by defective and diseased parents living outside of institutions would be eliminated as a social problem.

In other words, Sanger believed that the “mentally and physically inferior” children of women suffering from insanity, epilepsy, alcoholism, and drug abuse (among other ailments) were better off never being born at all. Sanger and her crew of scientists and doctors wanted to play God, teaching others who ought and ought not to have children.

2. From The Pivot of Civilization (1922):

There is but one practical and feasible program in handling the great problem of the feeble-minded. That is, as the best authorities are agreed, to prevent the birth of those who would transmit imbecility to their descendants.

Here it gets even worse. Now Sanger is saying that not only are the insane and addicted unfit for bearing children, so are the stupid! In her twisted ideology, people of below-average intelligence shouldn’t have children.

She explains later in The Pivot of Civilization:

Modern studies indicate that insanity, epilepsy, criminality, prostitution, pauperism, and mental defect are all organically bound up together and that the least intelligent and the thoroughly degenerate classes in every community are the most prolific [at bearing children]. Feeble-mindedness in one generation becomes pauperism or insanity in the next.

So let’s get this straight: people who don’t know nothin’ just are too good at makin’ babies. So let’s stop ’em. They’ll bring the whole world to tarnation!

To put it another way, Sanger envisioned a world in which those of lowest intelligence would be constantly weeded out by preventing them from reproducing. Her utopia dystopia was one of government control, the strong eating the weak, and the smart dominating the stupid.

3. From Woman and the New Race (1920):

Being the most sacred aspect of woman’s freedom, voluntary motherhood is motherhood in its highest and holiest form. It is motherhood – unchained motherhood ready to obey its own urge to remake the world.

Voluntary motherhood implies a new morality – a vigorous, constructive, liberated morality. That morality will, first of all, prevent the submergence of womanhood into motherhood. It will set its face against the conversion of women into mechanical maternity and toward the creation of a new race.

Here Sanger concludes her book on women’s rights with a call toward her dystopian vision – ” a new . . vigorous, constructive, liberated morality” that keeps women from being baby-making machines and instead creates “a new race.” This new morality casts off the restraints of old morals (like caring for the weak, helping the poor, and raising up the next generation) in favor of something else – “women’s freedom.”

Her vision takes her even into the world of international politics and war, according to her 1917 Birth Control Review article, “Women and War“:

The great horde of the unwanted [unwanted children] has proved to be a spineless mass which did not have the courage to control its own destiny. Had woman had knowledge of birth control and brought into the world only such offspring as she desired and was physically and spiritually prepared to receive, society would have been far too individualistic to tolerate wholesale massacre for the benefit of money kings. Under such an order, the child would have been considered a priceless gift to the community. Manhood would have been too valuable to be sacrificed on battlefields. Motherhood would have been revered, and the mother’s voice raised to forbid the slaughter of her offspring would have been heeded.

So now Sanger blames World War I on unwanted children, arguing that, because children are plentiful (“the great horde of the unwanted”), lives become expendable (“manhood would have been too valuable to be sacrificed on battlefields”).  In essence, killing children before they are born prevents killing adults twenty years after they are born. This is the mass murderer accusing the serial killer. Sanger posits that child-murder saves untold casualties of war.

Then she goes on to say that we should kill unborn children in order to better value them (“Under such an order, the child would have been considered a priceless gift”). Since when does murder=value? Is it not the exact opposite of value? Is it not hatred for the unborn?

Again, Sanger’s argument falls apart at the words.

Conclusion
According to Margaret Sanger, one of the biggest reasons for the American Birth Control League, which would become Planned Parenthood, was eugenics and social engineering. She specifically targeted the hurting, the unstable, and the idiotic as those who ought not have children. She took it even further, desiring that the government empower women to create a new social order through selective childbearing, as if it were up to individuals to choose who ought and ought not to live.

HT: Little Catholic Bubble

Killing the Unborn is Sine Qua Non of the US Government?

Sine qua non – Latin, “essential element”

In the midst of a giganto-huge federal deficit, an ongoing war in the Middle East, and a domestic depression that is costing an untold number of jobs, the President and the Democratic-majority Senate want to shut down the US government over . . . abortion.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) notes that, “The vast majority of Americans, whether they’re pro-life or not, don’t want their tax dollars to be used to take the lives of unborn children.” Apparently, President Obama and our Democratic Senators don’t care, and prefer to rather shut down the government than listen to the majority of their constituents. The President in particular has promises like these to keep.

Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser responds in this MSNBC article:

The President has singled out Planned Parenthood, a significant financial and political supporter for special attention and protection. It is extraordinary that the President sees federal funding for the nation’s number one abortion provider as more important than paychecks for federal workers and funding for our military. When is the question going to be asked of President Obama and Senator [Democratic Majority Leader] Harry Reid, ‘Why is it reasonable to shut down the government in order to protect Planned Parenthood?’ 

That’s such an excellent question, I’ll just reword it: Since when did killing unborn children become the sine qua non of the US government? Our President and Senators are willing to let their own workers to unpaid so that abortive mothers can kill their own children?

Of course, if you’ve followed the President’s and the Democratic Senators’ respective positions on these issues, none of this is a surprise.

To Cut the Deficit You Have to Cut Spending

But most Americans somehow don’t agree.

%d bloggers like this: