Securing a More Stable Future

Reactions to yesterday’s Supreme Court Decision run the gamut. I’ve seen celebration, surprise, relief, anger, fear, animosity, apathy, ignorant bliss, worry, and sorrow. I join the camp of those who disagree with the decision. I understand it is a serious matter, and yet I also am not provoked to anger or fear over the outcome. Neither reaction would change anything. It is almost like we think we are accomplishing our civic responsibility by sounding off on our social mediums such as Facebook or Twitter our particular view on the matter.

I must admit, I turned first to Facebook after hearing the news to see what was being said. But I realized, that it didn’t really matter what I or anyone else was saying, because most of us were not in places of influence to where it made any difference what we said.

It would seem that our perilous times would drive us into our history. We would begin to dig into our heritage and rediscover our civic responsibly to this Republic. I have always admired the Founding Fathers and enjoyed the colonial era of history, but I now have an even greater appreciation of their sacrifice and the people of this nation that lived in those formative years.

Regardless of your political persuasion, I think we can agree that we need men and women with the character and resolve of our founding generation. We all recognize the economic crisis. We all should know that what we have been doing isn’t working.

Some are focused on social security and Medicare needs. Others are concerned about job security. Others are concerned about their investments. Still others are worried about their health insurance premiums. Then you have the matters of liberty, the national debt, the failing businesses, the unsustainability of the government programs, or the state of education in this nation. No matter our particular concern, we all have to unite together, just as they did in the early days when the states had to put aside their fears and unite under one Constitution so that they could secure a more stable future.

They lived for us, and yet we live for ourselves. We don’t live to preserve their sacrifice, or to ensure the freedom of our future generations. Most of us are concerned first and foremost for ourselves and our own generation. We have to think beyond our own needs and the needs of our own generation. It may be necessary to give up temporary comforts, for the future security of a now fledgling nation. It may be necessary to provide for ourselves, regardless of the entitlements available to us, just so that the nation doesn’t incur more debt.

There is a poignant scene in The Pursuit of Happiness with Will Smith. Will’s character approaches a government agency service window with cash and coins in hand to pay back every cent that was given to him while he was in need. What if we thought like this? What if, we the people, took responsibility for our local and national debt?

We have to start thinking about the problems differently. The solutions are simple, but we get too impressed by the complexity of the problem to see them clearly. The same principles that create a happy healthy family, creates a happy health business, and a happy healthy school, and a happy healthy government. It’s all very simple. We have just lost our way so severely that we apply elaborate and expensive band aides to cover the symptoms without ever touching the root issue.

We also have the tendency to declare the whole nation a sinking ship, forgetting we are on board. We then look for ways to provide a life jacket for ourselves, having given up on the ship itself. Or we believe, for spiritual or financial reasons, we will be immune to the sinking of the ship so we figure we might as well sit back and let it sink, because it won’t ultimately affect us. 

Sadly, few see themselves as having any role to play that could make any difference. As long as we think like that, we won’t make a bit of difference. But we will be just as responsible as those who are sacrificing and working to right the ship.

The reality is that every American has a role to play. Not everyone will be in a prominent role directly affecting their city, state, or national officials, but a vital role just the same. It comes in the form of being educated and educating others about our foundational history. It comes from voting. It comes from getting or staying out of debt. It comes from loving our neighbor, our spouse, and our children. It comes from serving our city. It comes from not taking what we don’t need. It comes from giving more than we take. It comes from not wasting what we have. It comes from honest business practices, both as an employer and employee, as a consumer, and as a producer. It comes from keeping our word and honoring our elders.

We cannot take these things too seriously. This is what makes a nation great. Not doing these things is what fills our jails, bogs down our courts, and increases regulations. This is why the Founders lamented that children must receive a good moral education in order to secure this Republic. They, for the most part, did not mandate this by law, but they did promote it in their speeches and writings meticulously preserved for posterity.

America, it is time to wake up. It is time to preserve the sacrifice of our ancestors and secure the stability of our future generations. We can keep or lose this Republic. We will either be the source of the blame or the source of the victory. The choice is ours. I choose victory, for I will not give up on this great Republic. 

Theocracy v. Democracy -- What Do Christians Want?

Proponents of America’s Christian heritage are often confused with being desirous of a theocracy rather than a democracy.  Instantly troubling thoughts of Constantine’s intertwined papal and political authority emerge.   Americans, for the most part, place a high value on freedom.  We do not want any institution to set itself up to be a controlling agent, most especially any institution with a high moral standard.

The church has not been a strong presence in American society for decades. It’s most boisterous contributions have been associated with moral issues such as homosexuality or abortion.  The Church has become defined by what it stands against, rather than who it loves. This is changing as a new Church is emerging, one who loves and serves without strings attached.

There was a day when Alexis De Tocqueville wrote that the churches in America were our greatest and firmest support.  He found the strength of our democratic Republic rested in the churches.  They aided in the self-governance of a nation by equipping the people to govern themselves.  In so doing, the government had no need to encroach on the morality of the people for the good of the people for they practiced self-control. 

Click Here for the Full Article.

This link will take you to Helium.com where I am a regular writer. 

"A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

When Benjamin Franklin emerged from the The Constitutional Convention that convened from May 25 to September 17, 1787 to address the problems facing the post Revolutionary War America he was asked by a passerby what was the outcome of the assembly. Franklin responded, “it’s a Republic, if you can keep it.”

The great American government created by those men in 1787 was not anything akin to the current or past governments of the world. It was not just a democracy, it was a republic, and there in lies an important distinction.

The best source on the meaning of the Constitution and the authority on the government created by the Founders is a collection of essays written in 1787 to the average American, posted in the newspapers of the day. These essays were written under the pseudonym of Publius by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.

The essays were written in explanatory defense of the newly drafted Constitution because a group of people, known as anti-Federalist, opposed the creation of a centralized government were giving speeches and writing articles which caused the Federalists to compose and publish the essays in defense of the Constitution. The Constitution required ratification by the States. Therefore the Federalists essays were an apologetic, a defense for this Constitutional Republic form of Government. Today these documents are compiled into one book entitled The Federalist Papers.

It is very clear in the Federalist Papers that the American government was designed not to mirror the Democracy of the Greeks. They had great concern that such a government would be detrimental to America. Moreover, they discuss with brevity the various nations using the term “Republic” or “Democracy” with ill regard to the actual meaning of the terms. They illustrate that no government exists which accurately exemplifies what they have in mind to create for America. While the Greeks were a pattern of democracy and England a form of a representative government, neither nation truly modeled a real Republic.

For the rest of this article follow this link to Helium by clicking HERE.

John Locke's Theistic Foundation

Before I leave the subject of John Locke’s political philosophy I must address the foundation for his philosophy. Many consider him a man of the Enlightenment who was fully secular in thinking. These same people and writers of history text books claim him to be a Deist; one who believes God created the world and left it to its own devices having no interest in it or its inhabitant’s current existence. Most do not want to entertain another view on this as he was highly influential in the forming of the American Republic. Still many are simply not knowledgeable concerning the actual underpinnings of his philosophy and have accepted popular thought on the subject.

Locke’s Second Treatise of Government was instrumental and encapsulated into the formation of the Declaration of Independence and later the Constitution. In fact, a signer of the Declaration of the Independence, Richard Henry Lee is quoted as saying that that the Declaration itself was “copied from Locke's Treatise on Government.” Joseph Carrig, Ph.D. who specializes in American political theory and government and is well versed in John Locke wrote in the introduction to the Barnes and Nobel Library edition. He writes emphatically, “The Second Treatise should be read by the citizens of any liberal democracy as a reminder of the principles upon which their government is based and the reason for which they believe it is preferable to any other.” John Locke refers to Scripture 157 times in this work. In his previous work the First Treatise he cites Scripture over a thousand times! He also frequently cites theologian Richard Hooker in his Second Treatise. To quote Locke from the Second Treatise:

• “[T]he Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions must . . . be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God.”
• “[L]aws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made.”
• “[B]ut this I am sure, they [the governing authorities] owe subjection to the laws of God and Nature. Nobody, no power can exempt them from the obligations of the eternal law.”
• “Men being the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker.”

To summarize the Second Treatise, Locke’s political philosophy is simply that God with His moral/natural law, known by reason, is sovereign over government and over man. And that man sets up a government to protect his freedom to life and liberty which is jointly termed property. The government’s job is to protect this property by means in which the people under that government give their consent. Moreover, consent can only be given for those things that a person can rightfully give up to the government by their power of personal choice. Because God is sovereign over man, man cannot consent to a tyrant or dictatorship. For no man can rule man absolutely. Thus all tyranny and dictatorships are usurpations of the inalienable rights of man.

Locke addresses what it means for those who forfeit their rights by breaking the laws of nature and entering into what he terms a state of war with a person or people. He opines that those who enter this state of war are subject then to the enforcement of the law put in place by consent of the governed which could lead to their imprisonment and loss of freedom. Even still, he argues that they must be treated fairly and justly and that their punishment cannot carry over to their family and future generations. He also elaborates on what constitutes a just war between nations and what the parameters ought to be for the conquered nation that adheres to their value as fellow humans with respect to their rights and liberties.

Locke eloquently illustrates the ideals of a government by the people and for the people under the sovereignty of an infinitely wise God who made us as free people with respect to our fallen nature and need for limited government.

Is Freedom Free?

The best things in life usually cost the most. The highest costs are typically non-monetary for no one can put a value on the greatest treasures of life. One of those inestimable treasures of mankind is our freedom. History depicts the reality of the costs of freedom and we must not take for granted the reality that freedom is not free.

There is a saying in economic circles that “there is no such thing as a free lunch.” The idea is that even if you are partaking of a free lunch, someone, somewhere, paid for it. Either your friend or co-worker paid for it, or the restaurant paid for it, or someone else somewhere down the line.

(Click Here to Read More of My Article at Helium.com)