Webster's Definitive Voter Guide

On October 16, 1758, one of our founding fathers was born. Noah Webster would be made famous, not just in defining words in his dictionary, but in defining a citizen's principles of conduct. See what he says about the public voting responsibility in an excerpt from one of his books below.

"302. Remedy for public evils.—The command of God is, “He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God,” 2 Sam. 23:3. This command prescribes the only effectual remedy for public evils. It is an absurd and impious sentiment, that religious character is not necessary for public officers. So far is this from being true, that it is one of the principal qualifications, for any man making or administering laws.

When the form of government admits men to office by hereditary right, rulers may or may not be good men; the people have no choice, and must submit. But in representative governments, if rulers are bad men, it is generally the fault of the people. The electors may indeed be deceived in regard to the principles of the man they choose; they are sometimes most woefully deceived. But in general, the calamity of having evil counselors, legislators, judges, and ministerial officers, is the fault of the electors. They do not regard the precept, to choose “just men, who will rule in the fear of God.” They choose men, not because they are just men, men of religion and integrity, but soley for the sake of supporting a party. This is a fruitful source of public evils.

But as surely as there is a God in heaven, who exercises a moral government over the affairs of this world, so certainly will the neglect of the divine command, in the choice of rulers, be followed by bad laws and a bad administration; by laws unjust or partial, by corruption, tyranny, impunity of crimes, waste of public money, and a thousand other evils.

Men may devise and adopt new forms of government; they may amend old forms, repair breaches, and punish violators of the constitution; but there is, there can be, no effectual remedy, but obedience to the divine law. "

Noah Webster. Value of the Bible and Excellence of the Christian Religion: For the Use of Families and Schools (1834)

Do the right thing. -AL

A Person's a Person No Matter How Small

These are the words of Dr. Suess' packederm hero, Horton, who saved the people living on a small dust speck from being boiled by the skeptical crowd. Though outnumbered, Horton alone heard the small voices and risked his own life to save theirs.

Unfortunately, this modern parable is lost on the modern day skeptics, they who would trample on the constitutional right to life of our smallest citizens, the unborn aborted children. Unfortunate, still, is that so-called Christians are partnering with a political party whose primary doctrine is to commit infanticide. In an article posted today about "aborting faith", the Family Research Council makes the following report. If you find in this that "you are the man" (2 Samuel 12:7), where you are guilty of this grievace sin of supporting such practices, the time has come for you to repent and receive forgiveness.

In a passionate speech on what it means to be "pro-life," Archbishop Charles Chaput spoke Friday about the disservice done by Christian voters who are abandoning the abortion issue. More churchgoers seem to be twisting faith to fit their politics instead of evaluating candidates through the lens of faith.

Speaking as a private citizen, Chaput talked about the crisis of conscience in this election. "I believe that Senator Obama, whatever his other talents, is the most committed 'abortion-rights' presidential candidate of either major party since the Roe v. Wade abortion decision in 1973. Despite what [others] suggest, the party platform Senator Obama runs on this year is not only aggressively 'pro-choice,' it has also removed any suggestion that killing an unborn child might be a regrettable thing.

To suggest-as some Catholics do-that Senator Obama is this year's 'real' pro-life candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse." For more, please read Professor Robby George's article at http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/.

Do the right thing. -Al

Truth & the VP Debate

OK. I confess. I've been absent from my blog. I hope you will welcome me back, though.

I watched the Vice Presidential candidates, Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. Joe Biden, debate and I have a few comments to post here that I also posted on the Fox News website.

Let me begin with a vocabulary lesson. Assumptive language is a term that should be taught to the rest of the country. It is making statements that sound authoritative, but are not necessarily true. Satan speaks with authority, but Jesus says of him that "there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:44). So, let us not be deceived by stereotypes, by name calling, by mockery, and other pejoratives that are prevalent on network TV. If you are a Christian, you should be concerned about truth. Jesus said about himself, "for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me" (John 18:37).

Both candidates spoke authoritatively, but only one spoke with integrity and that was Gov. Palin. I consider her to be the winner of this debate.

Sen. Biden lied when he stated that Sen. Obama did not say that he would meet with certain people without pre-condition. In fact, Sen. Biden had made this a key point when he was running against Sen. Obama. And this was not the only lie. He also accused Sen. McCain of voting against certain energy bills, etc.

Even if he did not mean to lie, his attack was disingenuous. We must understand that congressmen do not vote for every bill that has a nice name and a flowery ribbon tied to it. It may be that they reject a bill that has a very good purpose, but look closely why they might reject a bill. It could be that other things (entitlements, earmarks, "pork") have been added to the bill making the primary issue in the bill impalatable. For instance: Chicken soup is good for you, but if you add poison to it, the soup becomes impalatable.

Let us, therefore, be as "shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves" (Matt 10:16).
-End of the vocabulary and civic lessons for today.-

I love you. Do the right thing. Blessings. -AL

Should Christians seek a Theocracy?

In June of 2008, Dr. Del Tackett was confronted with the accusation that Christians are guilty of seeking a theocratic government in the United States. Dr. Tackett is the founder of the Focus on the Family Truth Project and maintains a blog at http://DelTackett.com. His blog is dedicated to learning to better articulate the Christian biblical worldview, just as mine does.

Does a biblical Christian worldview call us to seek for, or work toward, a “theocracy?” The word theocracy denotes the rule of God. I remember seeing another definition, however, which was better and stated that it is a form of government where the rulers claim to be ruling on behalf of a set of religious ideas, or as direct agents of a deity.

This last definition helps us to better understand the potential abuses of seeking a theocratic form of government. Those claiming to be acting as God’s agents could be, themselves deceived, while they deceive and rule as an oligarchy. Two thousand years ago, Christ criticized the elitist attitudes of the religious leaders calling them hypocrites and blind guides (Matt 23). The Pharisees claimed that they were shepherds of the flock, but only took care of themselves (Ez 34). So, it is understandable that some may be concerned. Is there any modern example of a theocratic government? How about Iran? Based on this modern example, we can further understand the apprehension of those who fear that the U.S. could become a theocracy.

In reading the documents and letters of our Founders, however, we find that they were generally influenced by a biblical Christian worldview when they developed our republican form of government rather than a theocracy. In addition, a historical study of America’s Christian ethics reveals that the country has been generous, even to its enemies, and generally tolerant to other cultures and religions. So, to claim that a biblical worldview in our government is damaging in some way is to misrepresent the truth.

We are in little danger of becoming a theocracy, but that does not mean that religious notions have no place in defining our politics. Right now, it seems that the reigning religious bent of our government is based on the religion of humanism. (Yes. Humanism is a religion!) And those who do not want Christians to have a voice are those of the religion of humanism, which makes their complaint disingenuous.

I, therefore, propose that the biblical Christian worldview does not call for us to seek for a theocracy as a method of public government. Dr. Tackett and Scripture teaches us that God has given us the sphere of the State for that purpose. For Scripture states:

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God (Rom 13:1).

Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account (Heb 13:17).

Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right 1 Pet 2:13-14).

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me (Mat 28:18).

Blessings.
Al