Blogging Buddy...

At a Civil War reenactment last weekend, I met in person someone who has been following my blog almost from the beginning.  We haven't always agreed on everything, but who does?

Nice to meet you, Rebecca McClurg!

Ho! For the Kansas Plains

"Huzzah for the prairies wide and free; Ho! For the Kansas plains;
Where men shall live in liberty, Free from a tyrant’s chains.
We will ask no page in story, Prouder than the spotless glory,
Of a land that gives her might To the battle of the right.

"Huzzah for the prairies wide and free; Ho! For the Kansas plains;
Where men shall live in liberty; Free from a tyrant’s chains.

"We spurn at the power and break the rod, Wreaking in guilt and crime;
We bow the knee to none but God, Maker and King of time:
And the brave will round us rally, From the mountain and the valley,
Till the skies with freedom ring, And the world shall hear us sing.

"Huzzah for the prairies wide and free; Ho! For the Kansas plains;
Where men shall live in liberty; Free from a tyrant’s chains.

"O sweet is the charm of rock and tree; Bright are the flowing rills,
Where we have roam’d in youthful glee, Over the eastern hills:
But we turn from all their beauty, To the call of truth and duty,
And we give our chainless might, To the battle of the right.

"Huzzah for the prairies wide and free; Ho! For the Kansas plains;
Where men shall live in liberty; Free from a tyrant’s chains.

"Tho’ far from the soil of Pilgrim fame, On the Atlantic shore,
Here we will build a noble name, Proud as our fathers wore.
And the far off Rocky mountains, With their flashing lakes and fountains,
Shall behold our glory spring, While the world shall hear us sing.

"Huzzah for the prairies wide and free; Ho! For the Kansas plains;
Where men shall live in liberty; Free from a tyrant’s chains."

~James G. Clark

Playing Chicken, Playing House

Speaking for myself, I find the concept of homosexuality to be absurd and disturbing.  I am of the opinion that it is a route taken by those who have certain relationship problems/emotion-development abnormalities that arise from environment.  An environment that develops and encourages this abnormality will necessarily change abnormality to a seeming "normality" over time.   We've seen that happen over the past 60 years, and very little has been done to correct it.

Let me say this, it is not normal.  It is unobserved in nature, pseudo-scientific, ephemeral observations to the contrary notwithstanding.  It is pointless, non-productive, and, frankly, disgusting.

Now, as for homosexual unions being called marriage, the idea is preposterous.  Marriage is a specific institution, long defined by the Bible and affirmed by a cultural lineage from which I, for one, descend.

Children play "house."  Do they really run a household while playing house?  Of course not.  It is not really a house, and they are not truly fulfilling any supposed role in the course of the role-playing game.   The concept of the household is just pretend, not to be taken seriously by adults who understand what a household is and how it is run, no matter how well the children imitate the adults.  The game is usually over after a few minutes.

(Unless you've got the industrious kid who invents invisible currency or improvises barter and starts a business in the next room selling canned goods and toy cars, which wouldn't be successful, of course; there is no government in the game to make it so.  <--- Comic relief.)

The same situation occurs when homosexuals pretend to be married.  They all groan and whine about us not accepting them, the government won't legitimize them, and so on.  We throw them pacifiers with, "Well, I don't care what you do in private," which is true for me... unless I have to talk to one.  You see, I'm both a Christian and a normally functioning individual.  I have a normal understanding of life and a normal perspective on its ins and outs - culturally, emotionally, and historically speaking. 

I don't want to have anything to do with homosexuals.  Convince me why I should, if you think I am wrong.  Why would I want to have a conversation with a person who thinks those kinds of thoughts?  I don't even want to write about it.  I believe they have a right to engage in whatever sinful activities they wish, but I will continue to warn them, the wages of sin is death. 

Having the right doesn't mean it is right, and because something is wrong doesn't mean we should disallow them.  God will be the Judge, He sees and knows all of our hearts better than we ourselves do. 

I differ from many Christians in that I don't want the government to influence culture, even for the better; that is the place of the church, and transferring authority from the church to the government is not a scripture-endorsed policy.  I will fight tooth and nail for what is right in the Eyes of God, but I will do everything in my power to ensure the government is not involved in the process.

By adjusting the government to enforce my morality (instead of limiting it to constitutional powers only), I endanger my rights to my own life by legitimizing that illegitimate authority, and I weaken the power granted by God to the church and its individual members.  Government banning gay marriage is not a conservative position. Getting government out of the institution of marriage and returning its regulation to the church is the only consistent stance we can take, in my opinion.

 I don't want a government "in the bedroom" or the kitchen or living room, or anywhere else that I am making a decision about how I spend my time and with whom, just so long as they protect my and everyone's right to live my life as I see fit.

And I see fit to live my life for God, failings though I may have; I see fit to live my life with a sense of reason, lapses though there may be; I see fit to live my life respectful of others, wrong though they may sometimes be; I see fit to live peaceably, malicious as the world may be at times.

And finally, friends, I close with the question at the heart of this post. I ask you, what on earth does this subject have to do with chicken sandwiches?

Romney's Quest for Power

The most solid argument I've heard for biting the bullet and voting for Romney is that we can hold him accountable.  Yep, we can hold his feet to the fire and make him do what we want.

Right.  I think the situation needs to be clarified, and some perspective needs to be given to this picture. 

You are voting for a man with whom you fundamentally disagree.  You are already losing.
You are voting to oust another man with whom you fundamentally disagree.  Obviously, you lost there, too.
If the majority of Americans cannot hold the current President accountable for the lies, deceit, illegal activity, and complete reversal on several, major issues, what makes you think electing a man who has already shown such tendencies will be any different? 

What are you going to do, make him pinky-swear?  Cross his heart?

Republicans will vote for Romney for a second term to keep the Democratic nominee out in 2016, I guarantee it.  Neo-conservatives and neo-liberals will laugh all the way to the White House forever if we don't grow a spine and figure out who we are as Americans.  In what do we believe? 

Romney has reversed his position on a lot of things, but one thing in particular sticks in my craw, and I don't even know what a craw is.  He has changed his mind on abortion.  Killing babies is not the kind of thing about which one changes his mind.  You either support it, or you oppose it.  There is no "changed my mind" about it, UNLESS he changed his ideals, principles, and beliefs to suit those who will grant him power.  Power!  The quest for power is what drives him?  Power is what motivates him?  Neither a godly nor a secular desire to improve the lives of his fellow Americans causes him to seek the Presidency; rather it is the raw, carnal desire for power.

When you hold a politician's feet to the fire, you are the only one who gets burned.  You must either accept or reject the man, you cannot do both, and it is nigh unto insanity to believe otherwise.

That is a frightening proposition; and that, my friends, is why I will never support Mitt Romney for President. 

If You Build It, He Will Say You Didn't

You cannot believe your own ears.  It's a fact, they're unreliable - well, that is, whenever the Presidentoid Obama makes a statement, something happens along the way.  From his lips to your ears to your brain, there is a disconnect from what he is saying to what you understand him to mean.

When I first heard about this, my jaw dropped.  I knew he was a communist, but I didn't know he would come out of the closet like that.  You see, to say, "If you have a business, you didn't build that, someone else made that happen," is to espouse a very basic, essentially communist ideal.  You are not your own, it took a village to make you, and you must give back.

BUT, he didn't say it.  At least, he says he didn't say it.  He says he meant that we have to stand behind business owners in order to bring prosperity.

It's sort of a mix of Eastern-mystic surrealist notions and communist party propaganda.  It's not really there, but if it is, the government should take it.  And by "government," I mean me.

And it is with that same logic and reasoning that I may say with impunity, "Obama is not the President."  And by that I mean we have to stand behind him to make him a President, because otherwise he is just an effeminate, spindly-limbed, fuzzy-headed ragamuffin. 

But I didn't really say that.  You didn't read that.  This was all an illusion... a vast, right-wing illusion...

Separation of Church and State: Why America and Calvin Don't Mix

Danbury Baptist Association's letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 7, 1801.

"Sir, — Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Magistracy in the United States; And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.

Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty — That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals — That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men — should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States, is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial affect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator."

Now, opposing this, protestant leader John Calvin was of a particularly odd persuasion that government retains the power and responsibility to enforce church doctrine.  Not only is this heresy and antithetical to all that is the New Testament, it defies the very nature of government and usurps the purpose and authority of the church.

Calvin says in his Institutes of the Christian Religion - Book IV: Of Civil Government,

"[Civil government's] object is not merely, like those things, to enable men to breathe, eat, drink, and be warmed (though it certainly included all these, while it enables them to live together); this, I say, is not its only object, but it is, that no idolatry, no blasphemy against the name of God, no calumnies against his truth, nor other offences to religion, break out and be disseminated among the people; that the public quiet be not disturbed, that every man's property be kept secure, that men may carry on innocent commerce with each other, that honesty and modesty be cultivated; in short, that a public form of religion may exist among Christians, and humanity among men. Let no one be surprised that I now attribute the task of constituting religion aright to human polity, though I seem above to have placed it beyond the will of man, since I no more than formerly allow men at pleasure to enact laws concerning religion and the worship of God, when I approve of civil order which is directed to this end - viz. to prevent the true religion, which is contained in the law of God, from being with impunity openly violated and polluted by public blasphemy."

First of all, I find it disturbing that Calvin grants the "enabling" of men to breathe, eat, drink and be warmed to the charge of civil government.  This is my first "red flag" that his idea of civil government is one of overarching power. 

Gerald Ford said it best when he noted, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take away everything you have."

Is it consistent (for a real world example) with the American political structure that the civil government, be it federal, state or local, be charged with providing food, shelter, and air?

It may be that Calvin means government's duty is to facilitate life, which it may be said government naturally does by safeguarding the individual's natural right and ability to eat, drink and breathe, etc.  However, I suspect Calvin's idea of government extends beyond facilitating civilization and basic liberties.  When he goes on to say outright that it is the object of government to prevent blasphemy of his religion, I am wholly offended. 

Now, his religion is an offshoot of Christianity, as it relies heavily on controlling the masses by force, something quite antithetical to the Gospel, which softly yet firmly beckons men, by means of reason and appeals to conscience, toward the Light of God's Word. (See Acts 17:2; 18:4; 18:19; 24:25.)

As much as it is the obligation of the prosecution to bring forth evidence of wrongdoing by the defendant, so it is the obligation of a man promoting doctrine to show its validity in Scripture - I challenge the man to step forward and show where it may be found in the words or deeds of Christ, His disciples, or anything at all in the Bible which may prove it a sound doctrine that civil government should punish those who blaspheme Christ or malign his followers.

Surely, one would have to go to the Old Testament to dig out a verse that may fit such a description, but it is without question that an adulteress, who could have been put to death in the Old Testament, was spared judicial corporal punishment by Jesus Christ!  So, if we are to look for an example of what Christ would desire from any institution, be it church, family, or state, we must look to the New Testament for that example.  We would be in error to assume the Old Testament punitive laws are currently applicable.

I end this, I hope not too abruptly, by noting what horrors come from Calvin's idea of civil government.  Michael Servetus, a man who actually advanced medical science with his research into the human circulatory system, was burned at the stake by the civil government of Geneva for heresy.

Calvin wanted him beheaded, but he was instead burned at the stake for "denying the Trinity and infant baptism."

Calvin made this chilling remark following Servetus' execution,

"Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man's authority; it is God who speaks, and clear it is what law he will have kept in the church, even to the end of the world. Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity, if not to show us that due honor is not paid him, so long as we set not his service above every human consideration, so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory."

I rebuke, in no uncertain terms, this heinous doctrine.  It is purely evil and opposes the concept of Grace that Christians are charged to adamantly promote among mankind.

I, myself, am as dubious concerning the doctrine of infant baptism as Servetus; as for denying the Trinity, it is the opinion of many that Servetus' stance on the doctrine was misunderstood and not anti-Trinitarian at all.  In my cursory investigation of his belief on the matter, I cannot find fault with his assessment of the Trinity, and I must conclude that any quibbling would be totally relegated to semantics. 

Therefore, to think that I, if not found guilty of "heresy," would be executed for vocally opposing execution of religious prisoners is terrifying.  I could be killed over semantics?

I appeal to reason; I appeal to your conscience.

Posts

I've pulled one post for editing, and will resurrect some forgotten drafts.  This will take a while, but I won't forget.  First things first.

Americans

Juan, a well-studied, legal immigrant to the U.S. from Mexico, asked me to explain why people from the United States call themselves "Americans," when "America" can be anywhere in North America or South America.  He said Mexicans can be called Americans, too.

I agreed; in a sense, yes, you could call anyone in the New World an "American." 

So he asked again, why are United States citizens "Americans?"

I said, "Well... what do you call people from Canada?"  "Um, Canadians," he replied.  I asked, "What do you call people from Los Estados Unidos de Mexico?"  He responded, "Mexicans."  "And people from Cuba?"  "Cubans."

"So, Juan, everybody has come up with a name for their country that refers to someone or something, yet Americans just want to be people.  Canada and Mexico have their own names, and they want to call themselves by their national names.  Nobody calls themselves 'American' except those in the United States thereof, because nobody wants to call themselves 'Americans' other than we. People from the United States of Mexico call themselves 'Mexicans,' and people from the United States of America call themselves 'Americans.'  We don't really have anything to call ourselves other than 'United-Statsian,' but that is too hard to say."

The Trojan War

I lost a battle in the Trojan War last night.  It was to me what Gettysburg was to Pickett. 

I don't know how it happened, but I know it occurred after I accidentally unplugged my computer.  No big deal there, that's happened before.  Then I turned it back on and got about 500 alerts and warnings saying my hardrive was about to explode or something.  RAM memory was imploding.  Nothing was on my desktop.  "C:" was gone.  Ran my McAfee Total Protection anti-virus scan; it found four viruses and one trojan horse.  It was like watching a mute HAL 9000 in 2001: A Space Odyessy:  "My mind is going, Dylan.  I can feel it.  I can feel it. I can feel it." 

But before it started singing "Daisy," I managed to recover the system that was auto-saved two days prior. In the end, I succeeding restoring everything but personal files, which were great in number and immeasurable in importance to me. 

At least I no longer need to de-fragment my computer, as there are no more fragments.  Of anything.

P.S. Unless you were ever so bored that you actually watched 2001: A Space Odyessy all the way to the end, you will have no idea what I am talking about.  So watch this.

Those UnConservative Libertarians...

"[Libertarians] have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulation low and that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can't go it alone, that there is no such society that I'm aware of where we've had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture." ~Rick Santorum

I've called myself a libertarian before, then I stopped.  You see, libertarianism is an ideology of individual liberty; so extreme is this ideology, it sometimes seems as though people are free to define the word itself as they will. That is, there are "big 'L' Libertarians," who generally belong the Libertarian Party; and there are "small 'l' libertarians," who simply identify with the tenants of libertarianism; and there are those who call themselves libertarians having a wide spectrum of personal opinions on everything under the sun.  Libertarian principles, apparently, extend even to its nomenclature.

I stopped referring to myself as a libertarian, because I felt the term "paleoconservative" (or "old-style conservative," if you will) was much more descriptive of my American opinion of law and society.  As paleoconservatism can be covered under the umbrella of conservatism, I think this term also implies my Christian faith, as conservatives back-in-the-day generally relied on the church to influence society, and society to influence government.  This is the best outcome for a government of, by, and for the people. Government founded on consent of the governed principles can only succeed if the governed are, at least for the most part, motivated and influenced by the church.  The church is God's "embassy" on earth, here to influence the world one individual at a time. (Salvation is not a collective matter.)  As God deals with individuals, and as individuals make up society, and as society creates government, the church must, as part of that society, act as an agent for change in society. 

The church received, neither in law nor scripture, extralegal status as amicus gubernare, having the authority to demand implementation of any sort of code of conduct through legislation or decree. Rather, the church was commanded to demand of individuals (thus society) codes of conduct and morality; in most respects, government is neither here nor there, Biblically speaking.

That said... I'll dissect Richard Santorum's statement piece by piece.

"[Libertarians] have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do."
*GASP* Who do they think they are?  Americans?  Very un-conservative...  *Wonders what Santorum's alternative to this would be*
"Government should keep our taxes down..."
The beasts!  They should be proud to render undo Caesar what is rightfully his! Very un-conservative...

"... and keep our regulation low..."
What is the purpose of government if not to run every area of human activity? I mean, who are these loony liber-utionaries? Very un-conservative.

"... and that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom..."
Hey, you don't know what sort of unmonitored, terrorist activity can be going on under your bed at night.  Liberterrorists could be plotting their next blog post under there.  The fiends.  Very un-conservative. *Wonders what Santorum was thinking when he said that*

"... we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues..."
Conservatives believe government retains the power to appoint American Idol judges.  Libertarians would cause the demise of the entire reality-based television genre if they had their way.  Very un-conservative.

"... you know, people should do whatever they want."
If people did whatever they wanted... then... well... government wouldn't be as powerful. Very un-conservative.

"Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can't go it alone..."
Yeah, we need collective responsibility and ownership of our property.  Your family is my family, your child is my child, your house is my house, your job is my job, your property is my property.  CONSERVATIVES OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

"... that there is no such society that I'm aware of where we've had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture."
*Whispers* Hey... Rick... over here, yes... *leans in* America succeeded.  Yeah, we kinda owned the idea. Our culture was built on it, you know... yeah, so you might wanna... retract that one. Yes.

Those libertarians...