Sunday, September 7, 2008

Why I Will Not Vote For McCain

Up front, I am a Republican. But first and foremost, I am a Christian, a Conservative and a Constitutionalist. I believe in the power of the individual, that God gives each man opportunity to make it in this world. Because of this, I believe that every hindrance ought to be removed in this quest except for that which naturally exists. Also, because I believe in the power of the individual, I believe in the power of life. I am strongly pro-life and believe that if adult life is to be taken, whether it be in execution for a crime, the so-called “right to die” or even in war, great lengths ought to be taken to be as sure as possible that this death is noble. In the first election that I was able to vote in, I was in the Army and did not get my absentee ballot in time. I would have voted for Bob Dole. In both the 2000 and the 2004 election, I voted for Bush. I wanted a stronger conservative in the White House and even thought that McCain might be the man in 2000, so I voted for him in the Michigan primary. In 2004, I had some misgivings about the War in Iraq. I still believed in it fundamentally, but I believe it was being badly mismanaged. I finally reached a point last year where I switched some fundamental beliefs on government.

As I wrote above, I am first and foremost a Christian. I do not look to government to save my soul. If you are looking for government to bail you out or to give you a handout, I say to you with all due respect, this is not the government's responsibility. We continue to sell more and more of our soul to the government when government takes away our opportunity to rise above our circumstances and excel. We have replaced our personal responsibility with dependence on big government. As a conservative, I believe in small government and this includes the military. What was originally meant to defend our great land is now being used to police the world and for nation building. As a Constitutionalist I believe that the only powers federal government is to have are those laid out in the Constitution. I also believe that the only war that the United States should be involved in is the war that has been declared by Congress. It is apparent to me that our military is engaged in an illegal and unjustifiable war and being used to build the nation of Iraq. Our boys need to come home now.

The most important issue this election cycle in the economy. Our country is in dire straits when it comes to the rising price of oil, the devaluing of the dollar and our infrastructure. We cannot afford to bail our Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. They should fail and the government should leave them alone. The system is correcting itself, but we continue to screw with the system. The free market works..if we let it. We also cannot afford to continue this illegal and unconstitutional war. If we bring our troops home, it will be the first step among many to stop overextending ourselves and overspending ourselves and it will help strengthen the dollar.

McCain does not seem to understand that this economy is not good, particularly here in Ohio. We are spending money we do not have to support a war that we should not be in while our infrastructure continues to suffer. McCain may be a “fiscal conservative,” but he is not a Constitutional Conservative. He believes in deficit spending, particularly on his own “100 Year War.” He supports the role of the military in illegal wars. True conservatives understand that the military is an extension of the government and should have one role: to defend our country...not to invade other ones.

McCain is also in support of giving rights to illegal immigrants. In what has to be one of the most egregious platforms in American politics, McCain wants to build the nation of Iraq in the name of a strong national defense while allowing illegal immigrants to pour across the borders of this country unchecked.

There are other options besides McCain and Obama. Bob Barr is a former Republican who left the party for the very reasons that I wrote above and is now running as the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States. While I remain a Republican and do not endorse all of the platforms of the Libertarian Party, I believe there are bigger issues at stake beside party loyalty and that is why I am endorsing him as my choice for the next President. If you do not want more change, but rather a return to our conservative and Constitutional roots, then Bob Barr is your man. We want more than change; we want liberty!

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Playing Devil's Advocate Here...

Friday, August 8, 2008

Canton, Ohio Is Among America's Fastest-Dying Cities; Should I Move?

America's Fastest-Dying Cities

By Joshua Zumbrun, Forbes.com

Aug 5th, 2008

ARTICLE TOOLS:

Email article

Printable view

IM article

Save to del.icio.us

Bookmark

Another rough decade for the Rust Belt.

The turmoil of the mortgage market granted a temporary reprieve from hearing about the woes of America's Rust Belt. That doesn't mean things are better. Despite a decade of national prosperity, the former manufacturing backbone of the U.S. is in rougher shape than ever, still searching for some way to replace its long-stilled smokestacks.

Where's it worst? Ohio, according to our analysis, which racked up four of the 10 cities on our list: Youngstown, Canton, Dayton and Cleveland. The runner-up is Michigan, with two cities--Detroit and Flint--making the ranking.

These, and four other metropolitan statistical areas, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, face fleeing populations, painful waves of unemployment and barely growing economies. By our measure, they've struggled the worst of any areas in the nation in the 21st century. And they face even bleaker futures.

In Pictures: America’s Fastest-Dying Cities

It wasn't always this way. Despite years of economic decline, in the first years of the new century the employment situation did not look so bad--3% to 4% unemployment was the norm, along the lines of metropolitan areas elsewhere in the country. The rest of the decade was not so kind. Thanks to a crushing downturn for automakers like General Motors and Ford, Detroit and Flint, Mich., have seen unemployment approach 10%.

Another brutal statistic all the cities share is a diminishing population. So far this decade, 115,000 people have left Cleveland, for other climes. Smaller changes in other regions can be just as painful. Nearly 30,000 people have left Youngstown, Ohio, and they aren't being replaced by either new babies or new immigrants.

Still, the cities we found to be struggling don't vary widely by age, and this factor had little influence in the rankings. The oldest city in our top 10, Scranton, Penn., had 45% of its population over 45; the youngest, Flint had 38% over 45.

The worst news is, of course, economic. When we looked at the most recent gross domestic product estimates for 155 metropolitan statistical areas estimated to have $10 billion or more GDP in 2005--economies about the size of Asheville, N.C., or Tallahassee, Fla.--the news was predictably terrible for the Rust Belt.

In the fall of 2007, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) published its GDP estimates from 2001 to 2005. Nearly every city in the country grew during this period (New Orleans, devastated from Hurricane Katrina, was the notable exception), but the struggling cities on our list grew more sluggishly. None of them grew more than 1.9% a year, versus a nationwide average of 2.7%. Canton, Ohio, managed to grow its economy just 0.7% annually. Flint was worse still at 0.4%.

None of these cities now face the huge declines in real estate prices seen by Phoenix, Miami or Las Vegas, where the Case-Shiller Home Price Index shows nearly 30% declines from a year ago. Detroit is off only about 15%, Cleveland only 8%. Don't call it a bright spot. Prices never went up in the first place.

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

"Something Big Is Happening..."

Statement: "Something Big is Happening"

9 July 2008

Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.

Madam Speaker, I have, for the past 35 years, expressed my grave concern for the future of America . The course we have taken over the past century has threatened our liberties, security and prosperity. In spite of these long-held concerns, I have days--growing more frequent all the time--when I'm convinced the time is now upon us that some Big Events are about to occur. These fast-approaching events will not go unnoticed. They will affect all of us. They will not be limited to just some areas of our country. The world economy and political system will share in the chaos about to be unleashed.

Though the world has long suffered from the senselessness of wars that should have been avoided, my greatest fear is that the course on which we find ourselves will bring even greater conflict and economic suffering to the innocent people of the world--unless we quickly change our ways.

America , with her traditions of free markets and property rights, led the way toward great wealth and progress throughout the world as well as at home. Since we have lost our confidence in the principles of liberty, self reliance, hard work and frugality, and instead took on empire building, financed through inflation and debt, all this has changed. This is indeed frightening and an historic event.

The problem we face is not new in history. Authoritarianism has been around a long time. For centuries, inflation and debt have been used by tyrants to hold power, promote aggression, and provide “bread and circuses” for the people. The notion that a country can afford “guns and butter” with no significant penalty existed even before the 1960s when it became a popular slogan. It was then, though, we were told the Vietnam War and the massive expansion of the welfare state were not problems. The seventies proved that assumption wrong.

Today things are different from even ancient times or the 1970s. There is something to the argument that we are now a global economy. The world has more people and is more integrated due to modern technology, communications, and travel. If modern technology had been used to promote the ideas of liberty, free markets, sound money and trade, it would have ushered in a new golden age--a globalism we could accept.

Instead, the wealth and freedom we now enjoy are shrinking and rest upon a fragile philosophic infrastructure. It is not unlike the levies and bridges in our own country that our system of war and welfare has caused us to ignore.

I'm fearful that my concerns have been legitimate and may even be worse than I first thought. They are now at our doorstep. Time is short for making a course correction before this grand experiment in liberty goes into deep hibernation.

There are reasons to believe this coming crisis is different and bigger than the world has ever experienced. Instead of using globalism in a positive fashion, it's been used to globalize all of the mistakes of the politicians, bureaucrats and central bankers.

Being an unchallenged sole superpower was never accepted by us with a sense of humility and respect. Our arrogance and aggressiveness have been used to promote a world empire backed by the most powerful army of history. This type of globalist intervention creates problems for all citizens of the world and fails to contribute to the well-being of the world's populations. Just think how our personal liberties have been trashed here at home in the last decade.

The financial crisis, still in its early stages, is apparent to everyone: gasoline prices over $4 a gallon; skyrocketing education and medical-care costs; the collapse of the housing bubble; the bursting of the NASDAQ bubble; stock markets plunging; unemployment rising; massive underemployment; excessive government debt; and unmanageable personal debt. Little doubt exists as to whether we'll get stagflation. The question that will soon be asked is: When will the stagflation become an inflationary depression?

There are various reasons that the world economy has been globalized and the problems we face are worldwide. We cannot understand what we're facing without understanding fiat money and the long-developing dollar bubble.

There were several stages. From the inception of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 to 1933, the Central Bank established itself as the official dollar manager. By 1933, Americans could no longer own gold, thus removing restraint on the Federal Reserve to inflate for war and welfare.

By 1945, further restraints were removed by creating the Bretton-Woods Monetary System making the dollar the reserve currency of the world. This system lasted up until 1971. During the period between 1945 and 1971, some restraints on the Fed remained in place. Foreigners, but not Americans, could convert dollars to gold at $35 an ounce. Due to the excessive dollars being created, that system came to an end in 1971.

It's the post Bretton-Woods system that was responsible for globalizing inflation and markets and for generating a gigantic worldwide dollar bubble. That bubble is now bursting, and we're seeing what it's like to suffer the consequences of the many previous economic errors.

Ironically in these past 35 years, we have benefited from this very flawed system. Because the world accepted dollars as if they were gold, we only had to counterfeit more dollars, spend them overseas (indirectly encouraging our jobs to go overseas as well) and enjoy unearned prosperity. Those who took our dollars and gave us goods and services were only too anxious to loan those dollars back to us. This allowed us to export our inflation and delay the consequences we now are starting to see.

But it was never destined to last, and now we have to pay the piper. Our huge foreign debt must be paid or liquidated. Our entitlements are coming due just as the world has become more reluctant to hold dollars. The consequence of that decision is price inflation in this country--and that's what we are witnessing today. Already price inflation overseas is even higher than here at home as a consequence of foreign central banks' willingness to monetize our debt.

Printing dollars over long periods of time may not immediately push prices up--yet in time it always does. Now we're seeing catch-up for past inflating of the monetary supply. As bad as it is today with $4 a gallon gasoline, this is just the beginning. It's a gross distraction to hound away at “drill, drill, drill” as a solution to the dollar crisis and high gasoline prices. Its okay to let the market increase supplies and drill, but that issue is a gross distraction from the sins of deficits and Federal Reserve monetary shenanigans.

This bubble is different and bigger for another reason. The central banks of the world secretly collude to centrally plan the world economy. I'm convinced that agreements among central banks to “monetize” U.S. debt these past 15 years have existed, although secretly and out of the reach of any oversight of anyone--especially the U.S. Congress that doesn't care, or just flat doesn't understand. As this “gift” to us comes to an end, our problems worsen. The central banks and the various governments are very powerful, but eventually the markets overwhelm when the people who get stuck holding the bag (of bad dollars) catch on and spend the dollars into the economy with emotional zeal, thus igniting inflationary fever.

This time--since there are so many dollars and so many countries involved--the Fed has been able to “paper” over every approaching crisis for the past 15 years, especially with Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, which has allowed the bubble to become history's greatest.

The mistakes made with excessive credit at artificially low rates are huge, and the market is demanding a correction. This involves excessive debt, misdirected investments, over-investments, and all the other problems caused by the government when spending the money they should never have had. Foreign militarism, welfare handouts and $80 trillion entitlement promises are all coming to an end. We don't have the money or the wealth-creating capacity to catch up and care for all the needs that now exist because we rejected the market economy, sound money, self reliance and the principles of liberty.

Since the correction of all this misallocation of resources is necessary and must come, one can look for some good that may come as this “Big Event” unfolds.

There are two choices that people can make. The one choice that is unavailable to us is to limp along with the status quo and prop up the system with more debt, inflation and lies. That won't happen.

One of the two choices, and the one chosen so often by government in the past is that of rejecting the principles of liberty and resorting to even bigger and more authoritarian government. Some argue that giving dictatorial powers to the President, just as we have allowed him to run the American empire, is what we should do. That's the great danger, and in this post-911 atmosphere, too many Americans are seeking safety over freedom. We have already lost too many of our personal liberties already. Real fear of economic collapse could prompt central planners to act to such a degree that the New Deal of the 30's might look like Jefferson 's Declaration of Independence.

The more the government is allowed to do in taking over and running the economy, the deeper the depression gets and the longer it lasts. That was the story of the 30s and the early 40s, and the same mistakes are likely to be made again if we do not wake up.

But the good news is that it need not be so bad if we do the right thing. I saw “Something Big” happening in the past 18 months on the campaign trail. I was encouraged that we are capable of waking up and doing the right thing. I have literally met thousands of high school and college kids who are quite willing to accept the challenge and responsibility of a free society and reject the cradle-to-grave welfare that is promised them by so many do-good politicians.

If more hear the message of liberty, more will join in this effort. The failure of our foreign policy, welfare system, and monetary policies and virtually all government solutions are so readily apparent, it doesn't take that much convincing. But the positive message of how freedom works and why it's possible is what is urgently needed.

One of the best parts of accepting self reliance in a free society is that true personal satisfaction with one's own life can be achieved. This doesn't happen when the government assumes the role of guardian, parent or provider, because it eliminates a sense of pride. But the real problem is the government can't provide the safety and economic security that it claims. The so called good that government claims it can deliver is always achieved at the expense of someone else's freedom. It's a failed system and the young people know it.

Restoring a free society doesn't eliminate the need to get our house in order and to pay for the extravagant spending. But the pain would not be long-lasting if we did the right things, and best of all the empire would have to end for financial reasons. Our wars would stop, the attack on civil liberties would cease, and prosperity would return. The choices are clear: it shouldn't be difficult, but the big event now unfolding gives us a great opportunity to reverse the tide and resume the truly great American Revolution started in 1776. Opportunity knocks in spite of the urgency and the dangers we face.

Let's make “Something Big Is Happening” be the discovery that freedom works and is popular and the big economic and political event we're witnessing is a blessing in disguise.

Saturday, July 5, 2008

The Horror of a Different Jesus (2 Cor. 11.4)

Frm the ministry of Dr. Sam Storms:

The Horror of a Different Jesus
(2 Corinthians 11:4)
Our pluralistic, consumer driven society is all about choices, options, and diversity. If you don't like what you see, be patient; another version, an updated edition, a new and improved alternative will soon appear.
This is often the case in certain expressions of contemporary "Christianity" (so-called). Don't like the Jesus of evangelical, orthodox biblical faith? No problem. There are plenty of other Jesus's to choose from. There's the liberal Jesus, the liberation Jesus, the Christ of the cults, and the Christ of Islam. There's the entirely human but not so divine Jesus or, if you prefer, the entirely divine and hardly human Christ. Or perhaps you relish a more home grown Jesus, one that is fashioned after the desires of your own heart. Messianic pretender? Philosophical sage? How about the Jesus of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code? Or the Jesus of The Gospel of Judas? This is a presidential election year, so cast your vote: the Democratic Jesus or the Republican version? Too political? That's o.k. He can be as revolutionary, politically incorrect, and non-conformist as you need him to be. After all, when it comes to Jesus, to each his own!
Actually, no. Any other Jesus, different from the one proclaimed by the apostle Paul, is an impostor. To deviate from the apostolic gospel concerning the person and work of Jesus is to expose your soul to eternal peril. There is only one Jesus, only one Spirit, only one gospel that can save; hence, the horror of a different Jesus!
The particular way in which the cunning and deceit of the Corinthian intruders was manifest concerned their portrayal of Jesus and the gospel of eternal life through faith in him. At its most basic level, Paul suggests that these false apostles were proclaiming a "Jesus" different from the one he had preached. This ought to forever disabuse us from the idea that if a person refers to "Jesus" or professes faith in "Jesus" or declares that "Jesus" is the object of his/her devotion that such settles the deal. He or she is, simply by mentioning "Jesus", a Christian. No!
One must provide content to the name. One must push the limits of theological analysis and ask, "Which Jesus?" Is it the Jesus proclaimed by Paul? But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's listen to the apostle's warning:
"I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough" (2 Cor. 11:2-4).
There is a standard against which all claims about "Jesus" must be measured. It's the standard, the message, the gospel of Jesus that "we proclaimed" (v. 4a), said Paul. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your desires or my preferences or the sort of "Jesus" we think is especially needed in our day or whatever "Jesus" would appeal more readily to the religiously disaffected, sexually permissive, culturally diverse, post-denominational world in which we live (or however else you may want to describe it). There is only one Jesus. It is the Jesus Paul "proclaimed".
The only "Jesus" that matters is the one "who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" (Rom. 1:3-4). The "Jesus" Paul preached is "God over all, blessed forever" (Rom. 9:5), "who, though he was in the form of God . . . humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross" (Phil. 2:5,8), and thereby became for us who believe "wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption" (1 Cor. 1:30).
The only "Jesus" who counts is the one "whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith" (Rom. 3:25). There is hope and life only in the "Jesus" who "redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us" (Gal. 3:13). The "Jesus" Paul proclaimed is the one by whom "all things were created" and in whom "all things hold together" (Col. 1:16,17), the one in whom "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Col. 2:9).
Paul knows no other "Jesus" than the one who said, "If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell" (Mt. 5:29). This is the "Jesus" who boldly proclaimed that "whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me" (Mt. 10:37), and insisted that "if anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (Mt. 16:24).
When any alleged "Jesus" is received as something less than the all-sufficient and all-satisfying savior from sin and death, he is not the "Jesus" Paul proclaimed. Is the "Jesus" you received the single, solitary basis for the forgiveness of your sins? Is the "Jesus" you received the one whose death satisfied the Father's wrath by providing a penal, substitutionary sacrifice for your transgressions? Is the "Jesus" you believed the one who rose physically from the dead and will return personally to consummate his eternal kingdom? Any other "Jesus", says Paul, is a theological fiction, a religious cul-de-sac that will lead you in circles but never open up the pathway to heaven and eternal life.
D. A. Carson is certainly right to ask: "Is it a biblical Jesus who promises us nothing but health, prosperity, wisdom, and joy? Is it a biblical Jesus who guarantees heaven and says nothing of hell? Is it a biblical Jesus who promises eternal life but says nothing about entailed righteousness? Is it a biblical Jesus who needs to have his saving work supplemented by our merits, ceremonies, and sacrifices if we are to be redeemed?" (90).
Receiving "another" Jesus also entails the receiving of a "different spirit" (v. 4b). If it isn't the same "Jesus" Paul preached then clearly the "spirit" they received when they heard and embraced this "different" Jesus is itself not the Spirit of God. And if the "Jesus" they believed and the "Spirit" they received are not the ones Paul preached then clearly the "gospel" they have embraced is false and damning!
What does "spirit" mean? Is this a demonic being, an attitude, an influence, a principle, or, as Ralph Martin has argued, "the effects of Christian living seen in outward deportment" (336)? And what does "receive" mean? Is Paul suggesting that those who received the wrong Christ also received and are now inhabited or indwelt by a demonic spirit? Or does he simply mean they have become tolerant of another "spirit" in their midst and have given heed to its presence and power? It's possible that Paul is simply saying that the Corinthians were tolerating the activity and influence of false teachers who were themselves energized by demonic spirits.
Others say the "spirit" is "different" in the sense of it being a worldly spirit (1 Cor. 2:12) or a spirit of bondage (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 2:4; 4:24) or of fear (Rom. 8:15) or of timidity (2 Tim. 1:7) rather than a spirit of freedom and joy and power that is the fruit of the one Holy Spirit operative in our hearts.
It seems to me that the combination of Jesus, Spirit, and gospel here in v. 4 points to the Jesus who is preached and the Holy Spirit who empowers, which together constitute the true gospel of saving grace. We should also note that the word "received" is used elsewhere by Paul for our receiving the Spirit at the moment of conversion (Rom. 8:15; 1 Cor. 2:12; Gal. 3:2). The Spirit whom they initially received, therefore, is the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9; Phil. 1:19).
The idea appears to be that if they embrace the wrong Christ they also expose themselves to the influence of a "spirit" other than the Holy Spirit whom they received when they were converted. This isn't to say that they are now demonized, but simply that they have come to tolerate in their midst and have exposed themselves to the power of a spiritual presence that is deceptive and misleading and ultimately destructive.
Thus, not to hold fast to the one and true "Jesus" whom Paul proclaimed and the one and true "Spirit" whom they had received is to embrace a "gospel" that is different from the one Paul preached, and therefore deserving of the divine anathema (see Gal. 1:6-9). Hafemann is on target in saying that "Paul's opponents promised more of the Spirit (i.e., health, wealth, and ecstatic experiences) to those who would keep more of the law (i.e., adding the stipulations of the old covenant to those of the new). For, in their view, Jesus suffered in order that we might not have to do so ourselves" (428).
One frightening feature of contemporary Christianity is the ease with which professing believers embrace or at least endorse so-called "gospels" that are anything but good news (though they make it sound as such). Whether it be the "gospel" of self-esteem or the "gospel" of personal peace or the "gospel" of perpetual health or the "gospel" of financial prosperity or the "gospel" of the power of positive thinking, otherwise well-meaning Christians abandon spiritual discernment, ignore the biblical text, and fall prey to religious hucksters and purveyors of false hope. As Carson has so ably put it,
"Provided there is fluent talk of Jesus, gospel truth, Christian living, and spiritual experience, combined with effective, self-confident leadership, we seldom ask if it is the same Jesus as the one presented in the Scriptures, of if the gospel being presented squares with the apostolic gospel" (89).
In the final analysis, of course, there isn't "another" Jesus. There's only one. What they have done is to believe false things about the true Christ and his Spirit. They no doubt have in mind the first century Jewish prophet who claimed to be the Messiah. But they predicate of him falsehoods and deny those essential truths about his relation to the Father, his mission, his life, death, resurrection, and soon return. The intruders in Corinth, not unlike the false teachers and preachers of our day, probably used all the right terms ("Jesus", "Spirit", "gospel"), but gave each of them a different and deadly definition.
Take heed, dear friend. There is nothing to celebrate about Christological diversity. There is no good news in a variety of views on the person and work of Christ. There is only one Jesus, God incarnate, sin-bearing savior, whose one Holy Spirit awakens us to his beauty and sufficiency and once-for-all sacrifice for sin. This is the gospel we receive by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. There is no happiness or hope in a different Jesus, but only the horror of an eternity separated from him.
Sam

Sunday, June 22, 2008

Can McCain claim the Ron Paul votes?

Ben Adler Sun Jun 22, 7:41 AM ET

With iconoclast Ron Paul having ended his quixotic bid for the Republican presidential nomination — his platform had called for, among other things, ending the Iraq War, repealing the PATRIOT Act, returning to the gold standard and eliminating taxes on tips — his many dedicated supporters are up for grabs.

Even excluding his support in caucus states, Paul received a few more than a million votes in the Republican primary, finished second in five states including Pennsylvania and Oregon and continued to draw votes well after he’d effectively withdrawn from the race. His campaign also tapped into the potent new vein of online fundraising, punctuated by the so-called “money bomb” day when his supporters, unaided by his campaign, managed to pump $5 million into his coffers in 24 hours.

It’s a support base that could make the difference in a close election, and while there’s no guarantee that his supporters will turn out at the polls for GOP standard-bearer John McCain, one thing seems clear: Despite their overlapping anti-Iraq war positions, Barack Obama will not make major inroads among them.

Paul’s campaign says he is unlikely to endorse anyone. Absent that endorsement, many of his campaign officials expect Paul’s votes will splinter — and the names of Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin come up at least as frequently as does Obama's.

“I would be very surprised to see many people going for Barack Obama,” said Jesse Benton, Paul’s campaign spokesman. “Barr will pick up some, but the majority will go Republican or stay home.”

“Obama’s probably getting the least support from Ron Paul supporters,” said Marianne Stebbins, Paul’s state coordinator in Minnesota. “Fewer will vote for Obama than Bob Barr. There will be some because the war is such a big issue, but they can also vote for Barr.”

Paul's unique mix of views, which included privatizing social security, allowing states to legalize medicinal marijuana, opposition to abortion rights, enhanced border security and opposition to environmental regulation attracted a rabid following of supporters to his campaign. Their activity online — one popular conservative blog banned pro-Paul comments after being inundated with them — and their campaign donations delivered Paul from obscurity to the top tier of Republican candidates. He raised $17.75 million in the last quarter of 2007 — the most money of any Republican.

The organizing success led to strong finishes in many primaries, particularly among younger voters. In Iowa, for instance, he attracted just 10 percent of the vote overall, but took 21 percent of the vote among caucusgoers younger than 30.

While it had little impact on his base of political support, Paul found himself the subject of widespread criticism when racist remarks published in the 1990s in the Ron Paul Political Report, a newsletter he’s distributed for decades, came to light in January. Unsigned articles — which Paul denies having written or even read and says he disagrees with, but some of which had personal details that corresponded to his — in the newsletter bearing his name attacked blacks, gays and pro-Israel groups. One article claimed that "order was only restored [after the 1992 Los Angeles riots] when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

“I don’t see Ron Paul supporters voting for Obama,” said David Hart, Paul’s Montana state coordinator. “They recognize Obama’s positions are diametrically opposed to things we believe in.”

For some Paul supporters, the only way they can see supporting McCain is if the presumptive GOP nominee reverses his core positions on foreign and economic policy.

“Unless McCain does make changes in his platform,” including abandoning his support for the Iraq War and renouncing deficit spending, “I don’t think [Paul supporters] will be voting for him,” said Hart, who hopes to attend the Republican Convention as a delegate for the state. “They will more likely be voting for the Constitution Party or Bob Barr.”

“It wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of the disaffected Republicans would cast their vote for Bob Barr because he’s much more conservative than John McCain,” said Jeff Greenspan, Paul’s Nevada state coordinator.

Although Paul is often called a libertarian, his supporters seem to be significantly more conservative than most libertarian-leaning voters, who were nearly split between Bush and Kerry in 2004.

Paul “tapped into anti-war, socially conservative voters,” explained Brink Lindsey, vice president for research at the libertarian CATO Institute.

“A lot of [Paul supporters] are going to vote a straight Republican ticket,” said Jean McIver. “A number will vote Republican for everything but the president.”

Others, though, will vote for McCain as the lesser of the two evils with a chance of taking the White House. “A lot of [Paul supporters] are in a quandary over McCain,” said Jean McIver, Paul’s Texas coordinator. “Some will vote for McCain because they don’t want Obama to win.”

Paul’s campaign officials also complain that his supporters have felt shunned by the Republican Party, particularly at state party conventions where they have often come out in large numbers. In Nevada, the state party attempted a rule change that Paul supporters say was intended to tamp down the large number of them running for positions at party delegates. In states where the primary is non-binding, such as Montana, Paul's grassroots activists who have been elected to attend the RNC still may cast their ballots for him.

And Paul is holding his own rally in Minneapolis during the convention.

“A lot depends on how Republicans treat people who come to support Ron Paul,” said Benton.

The McCain campaign says they will reach out to Paul’s voters on a personal level and that they will win them over. “Unlike Barack Obama, John McCain does not believe that government is the answer to every problem,” said McCain spokesman Joe Pounder. “At the end of the day, Ron Paul supporters will find that their positions align more often with John McCain.”

But the Obama camp also hopes to pull in some of Paul’s voters by appealing to the same discontent with mainstream Republicans that drew them to Paul. “We think disenchanted Republicans and independents will choose Barack Obama over John McCain for the same reason they chose Ron Paul over John McCain ... a war that has made us less secure, a debt that will burden our children and grandchildren and degraded our Constitution, and instead of change, John McCain offers more of the same,” said Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan.

But some Paul supporters are concerned not only that Obama does not share their domestic positions, but also that he is not anti-war enough.

“Obama’s voted for continued funding of the war,” said Debbie Hopper, Paul’s Missouri coordinator. “His foreign policy isn’t noninterventionist, as we believe it should be.”

“He’s very much into supporting the war effort even though he says he’ll withdraw,” said Hart of Montana.

Left-leaning independent candidate Ralph Nader — whose views on activist government domestically are diametrically opposed to Paul’s — has attempted to get in on the potential Paul-supporters vote bonanza. Nader issued an appeal to Paul’s voters immediately after Paul dropped out, saying, “there is a clear choice for those who want to support a candidate who will stand up against the war and stand up for personal liberties and privacy.”

But Nader’s plea seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Not one of the Paul activists interviewed for this article mentioned Nader.

“I sure haven’t heard anybody talking about him,” said Hopper.

Sunday, June 8, 2008

Ron Paul Will NOT Endorse John McCain

05.31.2008 1:19 am

Paul exhorts 1,500 Mo supporters to hold fast, fight for liberty

By Jo Mannies

Email this

Share this

Print this

BRANSON — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, who continues to be a thorn in the side of his party and presumptive nominee John McCain, said Friday night that he won’t endorse McCain or campaign for him.

“I can’t support anybody who supports the war,” Paul said, in a brief interview while he signed hundreds of copies of his book brought to Friday night’s “Freedom Rally” by some of his supporters.

Paul reaffirmed, however, that he won’t conduct a third-party candidacy.

About 1,500 turned out Friday night to hear Paul for an hour at the Tri-Lakes Center. (The estimate came from the building manager; yours truly counted at least 1,000.)

“We need to lead the Republican Party kicking and screaming back to its senses,” he said, in remarks that prompted repeated standing ovations.

Many of those ovations came as Paul laid out his key views:

End the war in Iraq;

Repeal the Patriot Act;

Get rid of the federal income tax;

Eliminate the Federal Reserve Bank;

Get the U.S. out of the UN;

Get the U.S. out of the World Bank, the IMF and other international bodies;

Slash federal spending;

Paul blasted the Bush administration for the way it has attacked terrorism. The U.S. either gives money to countries, or attacks them, he said. The U.S. rarely just talks to nations, Paul added.

The Bush administration seems to focus on bombing countries “incapable of attacking us,” he said, using Iraq as Exhibit A.

Referring to former Iraq leader Saddam Hussein, Paul said, “As bad as he was, he wasn’t a threat to us.”

Paul accused the administration of using terrorists and the war as an excuse to eliminate personal rights.

“…We don’t need secret courts and secret prisons,” he said. “…They say we’re being attacked because we’re free and rich. Their thinking seems to be ‘if we’re less free, they won’t attack us…’ “

Paul also called for a return to habeas corpus (The guaranteed right for a person to go before a judge when charged with a crime.)

Several hundred of the Paul supporters in Branson are to be delegates Saturday morning at the state Republican Party’s once-every-four-years convention.

The delegates and alternates had a private meeting with Paul and his state leaders late Friday night, presumably to discuss how to proceed. About half of the pro-Paul delegates have been challenged by state GOP leaders, so it’s up to the convention to decide if any of them get seated.

In his address, Paul blamed the rise in gasoline prices and the shipping of jobs overseas, in part, to monetary problems that have weakened the U.S. dollar.

“We owe $13 trillion to foreigners,” he said.

He blasted what he called a “flawed monetary system, a flawed economic system…a flawed foreign policy that has to be changed.”

Before the rally, state Treasurer Sarah Steelman stopped by to talk to Paul supporters milling in the lobby as they waited for the doors to open to the auditorium where the rally was held.

Steelman, a Republican running for governor, said later that she did so to appeal for their votes.

Monday, June 2, 2008

From the Korean Penisula: Understanding God in Reformed Theology

Understanding God in Reformed Theology

Special Contribution
By Babu G. Ranganathan

God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

How do we as Christians reconcile the freedom of man's will with God's sovereign and unmerited grace in salvation? Many Christians will give God all the credit and glory for the payment of their sins at Calvary but when it comes to believing in Christ they give themselves either all or some of the credit and glory. This issue, therefore, needs serious Biblical examining.

The will is only as free as its nature. For example, God has free will but He cannot choose to do evil since it is contrary to His nature. The Scripture says in Hebrews 6:18 that it is impossible for God to lie. God cannot even want to do evil. In 1 John 1:5 we read that "God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all."

Fallen man has free will but he cannot choose God on God's terms. Men by nature are certainly free to choose God on man's terms, but in order for an individual to choose God on God's terms, as revealed in the Christian Gospel, that individual must first receive a new nature, a new heart - he must be born again, otherwise he will not, even cannot, want God on God's terms.

The Apostle Paul said to Timothy that he was persuaded that Timothy had "unfeigned" faith (2 Timothy 1:5). The word "unfeigned" means "genuine." Thus, it is not simply enough to have faith in Christ for salvation, but Scripture teaches that faith must be genuine. Only genuine faith in Christ will save. Our motives for believing must be right. Tell me whose free will has the ability to control one's motives. The natural man cannot ever have spiritual motives that are Godward. He must be born again in order to have such motives.

The Bible teaches that the carnal mind is enmity with God and cannot even be subject to God (Romans 8:7). Before a person is born again that is all that he has - a carnal mind which is only free to think, will, and desire carnal things including carnal religion. God must choose to save a person and give him new birth before such a person can ever desire God on God's terms.

Romans 11:5-6 teaches that election (God's choosing those who would be saved) is by grace, that is it is not based on our works. God didn't choose those who would be saved because they would choose Him, but, rather, we who are saved chose God because He chose us by His grace in Christ before the foundation of the world.

Doesn't Romans 8:29 teach that God chose those whom He foreknew would choose Him? That is not what the verse teaches. The verse does not say "whom God foreknew would choose Him ..." The verse says "Those God foreknew He also predestined ..." What the verse is saying, in context, is that those whom God knew intimately and personally even before they were born God predestined to be saved. The word "know" or "knew" here has an intimate connotation. Just as God said to Jeremiah in the Old Testament "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" (Jeremiah 1:5). Yes, God does know everything, but that is not what is meant by the word "know" or "knew" here in Romans 8:29.

If God's choosing us was based upon our choosing Him then we have something to glory in, but we don't have anything to glory in because Romans 11 teaches that God elected (chose us) for salvation by His grace. Election was unconditional. God's choosing us to be saved was not based on any condition in us or from us. The Biblical fact is if we are truly saved then we chose God because He chose us. That is what makes the doctrine of election precious. Of course, God knew that we who are saved would choose Him but He only knew that because He had already chosen us (predestined us) to choose Him!

In the context of Scripture God's foreknowledge has to do with His design and plan, not just that He knows beforehand what will happen. The Book of Acts says that Christ was crucified according to the "determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23). Thus, God's foreknowledge was the primary cause of Christ's crucifixion because the Father planned and designed for His Son to be crucified.

Jesus says in John 6:37 "All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me; and him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out." And we read in Acts 13:48 "For as many as were ordained (predestined) to eternal life believed." Only those chosen in Christ by God the Father will ever truly and genuinely believe and trust in Christ for salvation.

He died for His sheep, not only for His sheep in Israel, but for His gentile sheep in every tribe and nation of the world. It's in that sense He died for the world. Those whom He died for cannot go to hell otherwise they would be paying a double price. If He truly died and paid for someone's sins then how can that someone go to hell and pay a debt that was already paid on his behalf.

A co-signer to a loan is legally responsible for paying the debt of the person whom he legally stands in the place of in case the borrower defaults in his payment. Once the co-signer pays the bank can no longer go after the borrower!

In Romans 5 we read that just as the First Adam represented the whole human race when he fell and, therefore, we all fell in him and inherited a sinful nature, so, too, the Second Adam (Christ) represented those whom He died for and all whom He represented will be saved!

How, then, can fallen man be accountable or responsible to give God genuine faith when the ability is not there? Just as a bankrupt borrower is still morally obligated to pay his debt even though he cannot do so fallen man is under moral obligation to believe in Christ genuinely and spiritually as his Lord and Savior on God's terms even though he is spiritually bankrupt and unable to offer God such faith.

God truly does desire to save all men but His sovereign (or effectual) desire and will is to save only those whom He chose in Christ by His unmerited and undeserved grace before the foundation of the world.

Then why preach the Gospel? Because God not only ordains (predestines) the ends but He also ordains (predestines) the means by which He accomplishes those ends. God has ordained the means of the preaching of the Gospel to save His elect, and He works in our hearts to will and to do of His good pleasure to accomplish His ordained ends. God is glorified by both the means and the ends He ordains.

Reformed author A.W. Pink makes an instructive point. Scripture says that no one was able to take the life of Jesus until it was His time. Then why did Joseph and Mary have to take the baby Jesus and flee to Egypt to save the Child's life from Herod? Ah, but this was God's appointed (ordained) means for preserving the life of His Son.

Scripture shows that God can have contrasting wills: one will that is non-sovereign (or non-effectual) and another will that is sovereign (or effectual) towards the same object. However, God cannot have two contrasting sovereign wills towards the same object.

For example, God says in Scripture that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked but that the wicked turn from his way and live (Ezekiel 33:11), but we also know from Scripture concerning God that His counsel will stand and that He will do all His pleasure (or purpose) and that He works all things after the counsel of His Own will (Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11). Thus, from one perspective God does not desire (or will) the death of the wicked and this must be His non-sovereign (or non-effectual) will or otherwise the wicked would not have died in their sins, but we also know from other Scriptures that God wills or ordains the death of the wicked that He may be glorified in exercising His righteous power and judgment against evil and sin. This, then, is His sovereign (or effectual) will.

Although God's purpose is in everything He ordains, His heart is not. For example, God ordained evil (although He cannot do evil) but God's heart is not in the evil that He ordains. His purpose, however, is. Nothing can happen (including sin and evil) unless God ordains it because nothing can happen outside of His power and Scripture confirms this abundantly (i.e. Ephesians 1:11, Acts 17:28). Nothing can come into existence or continue in existence apart from God's power. Evil cannot and does not come from God's nature but God can use the evil in the nature of fallen humanity to accomplish His purposes.

How could evil originate by God's sovereign decree or will without God being the author of it? If God withdraws His grace then angel and man can do nothing but sin. Good is only possible by God's grace for God is the only source of good. God was not morally obligated to uphold Adam from morally and spiritually falling. When God's grace was withdrawn and Adam was left to himself then Adam instantly acquired an evil nature which could do nothing but sin. Again, although the evil nature in fallen men and angels exists and is directed by God's power, evil does not in any way originate from God's moral nature or being. In ordaining evil God is not doing evil. As absolute sovereign of the universe God has His rights. There is much mystery here, but the Scriptures unequivocally teach God as being absolutely sovereign over all His creation. God only ordained the existence of evil to serve His purposes not because He delights in evil or because it is a reflection of His nature.

A careful reading of Romans 9:22-23 shows the reason for God ordaining reprobation - so that He may make known the riches of His grace on the vessels of mercy which He ordained beforehand for glory. That reprobation glorifies God's justice is true but the primary reason given in Romans 9:22-23 for reprobation is so that the vessels of mercy may know - appreciate - the riches and depths of God's undeserved grace towards them.

We see again and again in Scripture that from one perspective God has one attitude but from another perspective He has a different attitude towards the same object. From one perspective He loves the same object but from another perspective He hates the same object. He even told us in certain cases to have such contrasting attitudes (i.e. In Scripture Jesus says we are to love our mother and father from one perspective but yet from another perspective He tells us whoever does not hate father and mother for His sake is not worthy to follow Him). God is not being egotistical. Truth demands that the Creator be the Center of our lives!

Of course, God has not given us the right to have every feeling, emotion, and intention that He possess in relation to others (i.e. Scripture teaches that vengeance for personal wrongs committed against us belong to God and not for us to take into our hands).

These are just some brief thoughts on the subject. The reader may find some excellent books in a Christian bookstore giving more in-depth analysis from Scripture. An excellent booklet and introduction to the subject of God's sovereign grace in salvation is "The Five Points of Calvinism" by WJ Seaton which is published by The Banner of Truth Trust. Another excellent, and probably the best book on the subject, is Arthur W. Pink's classic work "The Sovereignty of God" also available through The Banner of Truth Trust.

Are you a Christian? Will you then give God's grace all the credit for your genuine faith in Christ?

*Some other Internet articles by the author are: "Why The Traditional View of Hell Is Not Biblical," "Early Christianity Before The Papacy," "Free Will and Sovereign Grace," "Christ Was Begotten, Not Created," "Artificial Life By Intelligent Design," "Any Life On Mars Came From Earth!," "Creationists Right On Entropy, Evolution," "Are There Natural Limits To Evolution?," "Where Are All The Half-Evolved Dinosaurs?" The most up-to-date versions of these and other articles may be accessed at: Babu G. Ranganathan's Articles.

If you have any views visit the discussion board.

The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, is an experienced Christian writer. Mr. Ranganathan has his B.A. with academic concentrations in Bible and Biology from Bob Jones University. As a religion and science writer he has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The East. The author's articles have been published in various publications including Russia's Pravda and South Korea's The Seoul Times. The author's website may be accessed at: http://www.religionscience.com.

Did Hagee Get A Bad Rap?

May 27, 2008

Joel Mowbray reports: The bum rap against John Hagee

Joel Mowbray first took a look at the recent controversy regarding Pastor John Hagee in a Washington Times column addressing Frank Rich's attack on Hagee. Attacks on Hagee have continued, leading Senator McCain to repudiate Hagee's endorsement. In the attacks, Hagee is postulated as the right-wing analogue of Jeremiah Wright: What Wright is to Obama, Hagee is to McCain. Mowbray now returns to provide perspective on the latest installment of the controversy over Pastor Hagee. Joel writes:

The long knives are out for Rev. John Hagee. The fiercely pro-Israel evangelical leader is being branded a bigot—again—but this time the media have tagged him with the worst possible association: Hitler.

Granted, Hagee himself raised the specter of Hitler in a sermon reportedly from a decade ago that was recently dredged up by a left-wing blogger, in which he said that God sent Hitler and “allowed” the Holocaust to happen “because God said my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel.”

Far from the ugly media-driven perception that Hagee was justifying—or even somehow praising—the Holocaust as Heaven-sent, he was actually trying to answer the question with which countless rabbis and survivors have grappled ever since: How could there be both an all-powerful God and the unimaginable horrors of the Holocaust?

While anyone could rightly be outraged at his theology or even his apparent hubris in purporting to know God’s motives, it cannot be said that he is anti-Semitic. The charge, in fact, is completely counter to what is most beautiful about Rev. Hagee’s ministry, that it has been so dedicated to combating Christian anti-Semitism.

At an intimate, probing one-on-one interview this March at a public gathering in Los Angeles, Hagee talked about how, as a young man, he was profoundly impacted by reading The Anguish of the Jews, by a Roman Catholic Priest named Father Edward H. Flannery. The book chronicles over two thousand years of anti-Semitism, going back to before the time of Jesus. It was, Hagee explained, a dark side of history to which he had not been exposed in all his theological studies.

Hagee was so haunted by the sins committed against Jews in the name of Christianity, he said, that he felt it was his calling to purge anti-Semitism from Christendom. Untold numbers of Christians have felt called by God to do many wonderful things, but it would seem too few have had the same yearning as Hagee. Which is precisely why Hagee for so long has worked to rally other Christians not just to support Israel, but the Jewish people.

What got Hagee in hot water with the Catholic League this spring was his teachings on historical anti-Semitism. The problem for Hagee was that he weaves those lessons with Biblical references from the Book of Revelations that have long been used by some Protestants to bash Catholics.

In the infamous YouTube video clip that helped spawn the Catholic controversy, Hagee used the Biblical term “Great Whore,” which is what those overtly anti-Catholic Protestants have labeled the Catholic Church. Hagee, though, was citing it as the representation of the “apostate church,” which he believes is made up of all Christians who turn their backs on their faith—and he repeatedly preaches that one of the surest ways to do that is to engage in anti-Semitism.

That Hagee never actually called the Catholic Church the “Great Whore” was chalked up as meaningless, since other genuinely bigoted Protestants had used that Biblical term to smear Catholics. While that certainly makes for a nice shortcut, it ignores Hagee’s actual record. He is, no doubt, quite vociferous in his criticisms of the past sins committed by the Catholic Church against Jews.

Curiously overlooked by the media, however, is that he has been arguably even harsher in his condemnations of Martin Luther, the founder of Protestant Christianity whom Hagee cites as the most direct influence on Hitler.

A prominent theme in Hagee’s ministry, from his sermons to his books, is that the Holocaust was not an historical aberration, but rather merely the largest and most lethal manifestation of hatred against Jews. So the reverend devotes what, compared to other Christian ministers, would be seen as inordinate effort to reminding his followers of the Holocaust, as well as the many other disgraceful actions perpetrated against Jews.

Which brings us back to the “Hitler” sermon. Hagee, like millions of other evangelical Christians, believes in an active, all-powerful God. When you preach often about the Holocaust, you had better give your followers an explanation of the Holocaust that fits with a theology revolving around an all-powerful Almighty—not a natural marriage.

The answer Hagee offered his followers in the now-controversial sermon was that it was fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, specifically the Hebrew prophet Jeremiah’s about hunters and fishers. This is hardly a commonplace interpretation, but that’s all it was. Hagee, like countless rabbis and survivors over the years, was simply trying to offer a reason for how the Holocaust could happen in a world with an omnipotent God.

One rabbi—specifically the one who knows him best, longtime friend Aryeh Scheinberg—believes that Hagee’s theology isn’t loony at all. “Pastor [Hagee] interpreted a Biblical verse in a way not very different from several legitimate Jewish authorities,” Rabbi Scheinberg said Friday at a joint press conference with Hagee in San Antonio on Friday. “Viewing Hitler as acting completely outside of God’s plan is to suggest that God was powerless to stop the Holocaust, a position quite unacceptable to any religious Jew or Christian.”

Scheinberg, who leads a modern Orthodox congregation in Hagee’s hometown and has counted the minister as a friend for almost 30 year, defended his friend by pointing to words written during the Holocaust. “No less an authority than the author of the Eim Habanim Semeichah, Rabbi Yisachar Shlomo Teichtal of blessed memory wrote these words while cowering in a Budapest cellar in the very midst of Hitler’s Holocaust: 'Furthermore, the sole purpose of all the afflictions that smite us in our exile is to arouse us to return to our Holy Land.’”

To be sure, Hagee spoke with a certitude many will understandably find offensive, as the obvious objection is that no man can read the mind of God. Fair enough. But that reasonable theological dispute in no way renders Hagee’s sermon anti-Semitic.

Stripped of context, a sermon claiming that Hitler was sent by God is indeed jarring. McCain heard it and ducked for cover. He’s a politician, and it’s not his job to know the truth; it merely is to know the perception. Not so for the media. In an ideal world, anyway, journalists should be in search of the truth.

In the real world, sadly, most journalists are too busy—and lazy—to meaningfully research Rev. Hagee’s theology and documented teachings. Even given this reality, however, it might seem appropriate that before rushing to reduce 40 years of a man’s career down to a headline-worthy Hitler association, the media ought to spend 40 minutes to see if they’re actually getting the story right.

Friday, May 30, 2008

Why Religion Matters

by Krista Tippett

We can’t compare faith flatly to reason and declare it intellectually inferior. Its territory is the drama of human life, where art is more precise than science....

Some say that religion is the cause of our worst divisions, and a threat to democracy and civilization. The truth is more broadly and deeply rooted in the human psyche and spirit.

The great religious traditions have survived across millennia because they express insights that human beings have repeatedly found to be true. But they are containers for those insights—fashioned and carried forward by human beings, and therefore prone to every passion and frailty of the human condition. Religions become entangled with human identity, and there is nothing more intimate and volatile than that. Our sacred traditions should help us live more thoughtfully, generously, and hopefully with the tensions of our age. But to grasp that, we must look anew at the very nature of faith.

I reject the kind of sweeping prognostication that has become popular in recent years and fueled fear and paranoia: doomsday scenarios of impeding theocracy, phrases like a “clash of civilizations.” I’m drawn to what I call “the vast middle” between the poles of competing religious certainties that have hijacked our cultural discourse. In the vast middle, faith is as much about questions as it is about answers. It is possible to be a believer and a listener at the same time, to be both fervent and searching, to honor the truth of one’s own convictions and the mystery of the convictions of others. The context of most religious virtue is relationship—practical love in families and communities, and care for the suffering and the stranger beyond the bounds of one’s own identity. These qualities of religion should enlarge, not narrow, our public conversation about all of the important issues before us. They should reframe it.

I was born on the night John F. Kennedy was elected president. So I arrived more or less with the ’60s, but too late to experience the underlying hope and whimsy of the times. I came of age to the unraveling of dreams. My earliest public memories, the defining public events of my childhood, are of violence and tragedy attached to admirable faces: John and Robert Kennedy; Martin Luther King, Jr.; young men coming home bloody and broken from Vietnam. I grew up with a strong but deeply conflicted sense of politics as the primary arena of human action—of social power and of human frailty, of light and dark secularized yet of biblical proportions.

In those years Western intellectuals were foretelling and urging the end of religion. As societies grew more technologically advanced and plural, they argued, religion would simply retreat to the private sphere. Perhaps it would disappear altogether. In 1965 Harvard University’s Harvey Cox published his bestseller The Secular City praising the joys of post-religious culture. On April 8, 1966 Time magazine asked on its cover, “Is God Dead?”

For decades religion was not treated seriously by those running governments, writing history, driving industry, and defining the issues. Religion, as Boston University sociologist Peter Berger muses, became something “that was done in private between consenting adults.”

Spiritually, religiously, I was a child of my time. I grew up in Oklahoma, the granddaughter of a Southern Baptist preacher. Through my grandfather I experienced the drama of faith, but my parents had turned their backs on his stern rules for a fallen creation. We went to church on Sunday. Monday through Friday I was raised to win, to perfect myself, and to do so in the American way of accomplishment and accumulation.

I believed then that all of the important and interesting problems in the world were political, and all of the solutions too. And for a while I threw myself body, mind, and spirit at this conviction.

But I changed my mind. There are places in human experience that politics can not analyze or address, and they are among our raw, essential, heartbreaking, and life-giving realities.

In the early 1990s I studied theology to learn whether I could reconcile religious faith with my intelligence and world experience, and whether faith could illuminate life in all its complexity and passion and frailty. I decided that it can. I have found a vast and vivid landscape of others who share this discovery.

The spiritual energy of our time, as I’ve come to understand it, is not a rejection of the rational disciplines by which we’ve ordered our common life for many decades—law, politics, economics, science. It is, rather, a realization that these disciplines have a limited scope. They can’t ask ultimate questions of morality and meaning. We can construct factual accounts and systems from DNA, gross national product, legal code, but they don’t begin to tell us how to order our astonishments, what matters in a life, what matters in a death, how to love, how we can be of service to each other. These are the kinds of questions religion arose to address, and religious traditions are keepers of conversation across generations about them.

In this handful of years since I began to think and speak about faith in a new way, the world has realigned itself once again. Religion has moved from the sidelines to the center of world affairs and American life. Western pundits, policymakers, and citizens have awakened collectively to the fact that religion never went away. Indeed, it remains a force that animates lives and nations and history—for better or for worse. Religious identities and spiritually fueled passions are shaping this post-Cold War century as ideologies defined the last. And nothing could be more unrealistic—or more dangerous—than the prescription that reasonable people should abandon religion for its sins. For every shrill and violent voice that throws itself in front of microphones and cameras in the name of God, there are countless lives of gentleness and good works who will not. We need to see and hear them, as well.

I’ve come to understand religious texts and traditions as keepers of truth more openhearted and realistic than many of the arguments against them and the practices in their orbit. We have to think about truth and knowledge itself differently—the insights and edges of words and ideas, the richness of their forms—to understand the nature of religion and the work of theology, the human attempt to pin God, however fleetingly, down to earth. In many ways, religion comes from the same place in us that art comes from. The language of the human heart is poetry. Music is a language of the spirit. The métier of religious ideas is parable, verse, and story. All of our names for God are metaphor. Our sacred texts burn with that knowledge and dare us to use all of our faculties of intelligence and experience and creativity. But we forget this: our fact- and argument-obsessed culture is deaf to it, blind to it.

“Our theology,” says British author Karen Armstrong, “should be like poetry…. A poet spends a great deal of time listening to his unconscious, and slowly calling up a poem word by word, phrase by phrase, until something beautiful is brought forth into the world that changes people’s perceptions….” This is why we can’t compare faith flatly to reason and declare it intellectually inferior. Its territory is the drama of human life, where art is more precise than science, where ideas are lived and breathed. Our minds can be engaged in this realm as seriously as in the construction of argument or logic, but in a different way. Life and art both test the limits and landscape of argument and logic. We apprehend religious mystery and truth in words and as often, perhaps, beyond them: in the presence of beauty, in acts of kindness, and in silence.

Krista Tippett is the host of American Public Media’s Speaking of Faith. This article is from Speaking of Faith by Krista Tippett, © 2007 by Krista Tippett. Used by permission of Viking Penguin, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Kn@ppster Calls It...Barr Could Win It All

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Could Bob Barr be our next president?

Yes, he could. Really. Here's how:

If Barr can carry any states -- even one -- in a close election, he might hold "the balance of power" in the Electoral College. It's a long shot, but not an impossibility. He'll obviously play well in Georgia (15 electoral votes). Nevada (five electoral votes), too, especially with Wayne Allyn "King of Vegas" Root on the ballot as his running mate.

I'm not going to do all kinds of weird math for you here, but let's suppose that John McCain and Barack Obama come in very close -- neither with a majority of electoral votes in pocket, and Barr standing there with the difference that makes a majority.

Naturally, heavy Republican pressure will be put on Barr's electors to go "faithless" and cast their votes for McCain. If there's no majority in the Electoral College, the decision gets kicked to Congress to make. Each state's US House delegation gets one vote, and it takes 26 to win. Care to guess which "major" party controls the most House delegations?

Pressure can be exerted in more than one direction, though. And if the (still hypothetical) Barr electors stand firm, they can dictate the result: You can have Bob Barr if you go with us, or you can get Barack Obama from the Hill. John McCain is off the table.

Long shot? Yeah -- but I bet that professional handicapper Wayne Root would give it better odds than the Libertarian Party has ever had before.

Labels: Bob Barr, Election 2008, Election 2008 Libertarian Party, Wayne Allyn Root

Bob Barr Nominated for Libertarian Candidate

Bob Barr nominated for Libertarian Candidate

By Hubert Wiggins
Posted: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

ALBANY,GA. -- Former Republican congressman Bob Barr has been nominated as the Libertarian Part’s presidential candidate. The 59 year old who represented Georgia’s seventh congressional district from 1995 to 2003 is seeking to become the first candidate from a third party to be elected president of the United States.

Darton College political science professor Roger Marietta says that because of his north Georgia roots Barr could potentially garner fifteen percent of the Georgia vote in November. City Commissioner John Howard says that Barr could generate some appeal among voters who are not happy with the Republican and Democratic parties.

Barr won the nomination after six rounds of voting at the Libertarian party’s annual convention that was held in Denver.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Sam Storms and 3:16

Below is a blog post from Sam Storms. Anybody know anything about this conference in Woodstock?

Earlier this year, best-selling author Max Lucado published a book with the unusual title, "3:16", quite obviously based on the famous verse in John's gospel. On November 6-7, 2008, a conference titled "John 3:16" will be held at First Baptist Church, Woodstock, Georgia. The primary focus of this gathering will be to respond to each of the five points of Calvinism. Evidently those in charge of this conference believe that John 3:16 is inconsistent with the so-called doctrines of grace or what is otherwise known as Reformed theology. The presence of the word "world" and John's assertion of God's love for it is thought by many to preclude the distinguishing and sovereign love of God as taught by those who call themselves Calvinists.

I thought it might be helpful to post here what I wrote on John 3:16 in my book, Chosen for Life: The Case for Divine Election (Crossway). I hope it sheds some light on this glorious passage of Scripture.

Often the interpretation of John 3:16 begins with the term world, for it is believed that here lies the key to a proper appreciation of the dimensions of divine love. "Just think," we are told, "of the multitudes of men and women who have, do now, and yet shall swarm across the face of the earth. God loves them all, each and every one. Indeed, God so loves them that he gave his only begotten Son to die for each and every one of them. Oh, how great the love of God must be to embrace within its arms these uncounted multitudes of people."

Is this what John (or Jesus, as recorded by John) had in mind? It is undeniably his purpose to set before us the immeasurable love of God. But are we able to perceive how immeasurable God's love is by measuring how big the world is? I don't think so.

What is the finite sum of mankind when set opposite the infinitude of God? We could as well measure the strength of the blacksmith by declaring him capable of supporting a feather on an outstretched palm! The primary force of this text is certainly to magnify the infinite quality and majesty of God's love. But such an end can never be reached by computing the extent or number of its objects. Do we to any degree heighten the value of Christ's death by ascertaining the quantity of those for whom he died? Of course not! Had he but died for one sinner, the value of his sacrifice would be no less glorious than had he suffered for ten millions of worlds!

Rather, let us pause to consider the contrast which the apostle intends for us to see. John surely desires that we reflect in our hearts upon the immeasurable character of so great a love, and that we do so by placing in contrast, one over against the other - God and the world. What does this reveal? Of what do we think concerning God when he is seen loving the world? And of what do we think concerning the world when it is seen as the object of God's love? Is the contrast this: that God is one and the world many? Is it that his love is magnified because he, as one, has loved the world, comprised of many? Again, certainly not.

This love is infinitely majestic because God, as holy, has loved the world, as sinful! What strikes us is that God who is righteous loves the world which is unrighteous. This text takes root in our hearts because it declares that he who dwells in unapproachable light has deigned to enter the realm of darkness; that he who is just has given himself for the unjust (1 Peter 3:18); that he who is altogether glorious and desirable has suffered endless shame for detestable and repugnant creatures, who apart from his grace respond only with hell-deserving hostility! Thus, as John Murray has said,

"it is what God loved in respect of its character that throws into relief the incomparable and incomprehensible love of God. To find anything else as the governing thought would detract from the emphasis. God loved what is the antithesis of himself; this is its marvel and greatness" ("The Atonement and the Free Offer of the Gospel," in Collected Writings of John Murray [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976], I:79 [emphasis mine]).

When we read John's Gospel (and Epistles), we discover that the "world" is viewed fundamentally neither as the elect nor non-elect but as a collective organism: sinful, estranged, alienated from God, abiding under his wrath and curse. The world is detestable because it is the contradiction of all that is holy, good, righteous, and true. The world, then, is the contradiction of God. It is synonymous with all that is evil and noisome. It is that system of fallen humanity viewed not in terms of its size but as a satanically controlled kingdom hostile to the kingdom of Christ. It is what God loved in respect of its quality therefore, not quantity that sheds such glorious light on this divine attribute. In summary, I can do better than note the explanation of B. B. Warfleld:

"The marvel . . . which the text brings before us is just that marvel above all other marvels in this marvelous world of ours - the marvel of God's love for sinners. And this is the measure by which we are invited to measure the greatness of the love of God. It is not that it is so great that it is able to extend over the whole of a big world: it is so great that it is able to prevail over the Holy God's hatred and abhorrence of sin. For herein is love, that God could love the world - the world that lies in the evil one: that God who is all-holy and just and good, could so love this world that He gave His only begotten Son for it, -- that He might not judge it, but that it might be saved" ("God's Immeasurable Love," in Biblical and Theological Studies, edited by Samuel G. Craig [Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1952], pp. 515-16 [emphasis mine]).

Warfield's definition of the term world needs to be carefully considered:

"It is not here a term of extension so much as a term of intensity. Its primary connotation is ethical, and the point of its employment is not to suggest that the world is so big that it takes a great deal of love to embrace it all, but that the world is so bad that it takes a great kind of love to love it at all, and much more to love it as God has loved it when He gave His son for it. The whole debate as to whether the love here celebrated distributes itself to each and every man that enters into the composition of the world, or terminates on the elect alone chosen out of the world, lies thus outside the immediate scope of the passage and does not supply any key to its interpretation. The passage was not intended to teach, and certainly does not teach, that God loves all men alike and visits each and every one alike with the same manifestations of His love: and as little was it intended to teach or does it teach that His love is confined to a few especially chosen individuals selected out of the world. What it is intended to do is to arouse in our hearts a wondering sense of the marvel and the mystery of the love of God for the sinful world - conceived, here, not quantitatively but qualitatively as, in its very distinguishing characteristic, sinful" (ibid., 516).

I think Warfield is right. Do you agree?

Sam