Christianity In America?

Listen to the MP3

As I point out in my forthcoming book, Preserving Democracy, one of the things that surprised Alexis de Tocqueville, when he came to what was then the new country of America, was religion. As he wrote in his classic, Democracy in America, “Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention;” As de Tocqueville noted, it was not just that Christianity played an important role in peoples’ lives, it played a key, though not direct, role in the political life of the country as well.

“Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but nevertheless is must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of free institutions.”

In the system of checks and balances set up by our founding fathers one of the checks was religion, not as a part of the government, but as an important force apart from the government. This way it could serve as a checks on government, lest government get too large and itself infringe on liberty. As John Adams put it, “Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate for any other.”

Given this it should be of no surprise that those who push the hardest for the removal of religion from public discourse, also tend to push equally hard for a larger role for government. By definition a larger government means less liberty, but in the upside down world we live in they often cast their attack on, and suppression of, religious belief in the terms of freedom.

This sort of inverted thinking is once again on display in the Obama administration’s decision to rescind the federal regulation that protects people’s “freedom of conscience.” The regulation prevents health care professionals who are morally opposed to abortions from being forced to participate in them.

It is interesting that those who so loudly proclaim themselves to be pro-choice are so quick to deny choice to anyone who does not agree with them, and to do so in the name of freedom. The reaction of some supporters of the administration’s actions was that health care professionals “should perform the duty needed to the best of the patients interest or change profession.”

Of course this suits them very well. They would love to get rid of doctors and nurses that point out inconvenient facts, such that the fetus is not just a lump of tissue, but a genetically distinct human that is by any normal definition of life, alive. Or facts such as in the case of some late term abortions a living human does not need to be aborted as it could live on its own. Such facts do put a damper on the party line. Once only those who supported abortion remained, then they could say, “but doctors and nurses don’t have any objection to abortion, why do you?”

If freedom of conscience is forbidden here, how about other more controversial areas? One state already allows euthanasia. If the supreme court were to suddenly find a right to die in some hitherto unchecked penumbras of the Constitution, would all doctors and nurses be required to kill their patients when they requested it? If not, why not?

We have seen this principle in other areas. In Massachusetts, the Catholic Charities of Boston was one of the nation’s oldest adoption agencies and specialized in finding homes for children who were hard to place. But they were forced to close by the state. Why? Because in the new age of enlightenment, the idea that the best way to raise children was for them to have a father and a mother in a loving committed relationship, could no longer be allowed. This outdated notion has been officially declared to be discrimination against same-sex couples.

The more these new ideas of rights and freedom are imposed on America, the less free people will become, and the freedom to choose certain professions will be eliminated for Christians of conscience. Medicine is clearly threatened by this change. It is not hard to see that teachers will not be far behind as they will increasingly be forced to push same-sex relationships as an equal option for children. Anything less would be discriminatory.

Even professions one might not expect will be affected. For example, in New Mexico a Christian photographer found herself before the New Mexico Human Rights Division when she declined to photograph a commitment ceremony for a same sex couple. As a result she facing a possible injunction forbidding her from ever again refusing such a ceremony, in addition to thousands of dollars in legal fees.

The real danger with so many of the radical secularists is that they don’t just have opinions they express and argue for, they tend to cast everything in terms of rights. As such, to disagree with their opinion is to infringe on some right and is therefore automatically discriminatory. Since it is discriminatory, the power of the state can and should be used to suppress it. Throughout history, people have always been free to do what the ruling power agreed with. Unless we are vigilant, that will be the only freedom we have left in America.

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.

The Wager?

With the stimulus plan behind him, Obama is moving forward. All the claims of the pundits that Obama really was not a radical but just another centrist Democrat, have certainly been shown to be wrong. Between all the things hidden in stimulus plan such as demise of welfare reform, and the transfer medical decisions from your doctor to a government agency, (Quiz: Did you know these two items were in there?) and now the further changes proposed in his new budget, it is clear that Obama is even more radical than even many of his critics feared.

When the ambition of Obama and the Democrats to radically reshape the country is combined with a supportive media, and a public that really has no idea of the ramifications of what is happening, it is pretty clear that they will get what they want.

The results of these changes are also pretty clear. What Obama and the Democrats are doing at the national level is basically what has already been done in some of the states that Democrats dominate. There is a very good reason people have been fleeing blue states for the red. Liberals claim this is because of the weather in the northeast, but if it were just the weather, then how can they explain the people who are fleeing states like California? California is not normally noted for its bad weather, but is a prime example of the fiscal chaos that the liberal expansion of government brings.

Democrats defend their program by pointing to European countries. There is a problem here as well. People in Europe have a lower standard of living, and up to now have been falling further and further behind the United States. One of the reasons Europe is not even worse off is because they have been able to sell goods and services to the United States, which is often referred to as the engine that drives the world’s economy. Yet now Obama and the Democrats want to transform the country from being the engine into being just another one of the cars.

Ultimately the massive spending will have to be paid for. Frankly if it were not so serious, it would be funny that the democrats who complain so much about deficits under Bush, now see the solution in deficits hitherto unimaginably large. There will only be two ways to pay for this; either massively increased taxes, or allow inflation to inflate the debt away. Either way will be devastating to the economy and the standard of living. Liberals claim they will do this by taxing “the rich.” But the rich simply do not have that much money.

The real question however is not whether or not these programs will work. They won’t, and based on the stock market, it is pretty clear what investors think is coming as each new announcement by the administration brings even further drops in the market. Last time I pointed out how when the Republicans won control of Congress in 1994, the market began the solid growth that became the norm in late 1990s. Since the Democrats won back control of Congress in 2006, the market has now lost 50% of its value. Eventually as Obama’s programs go into effect and the standard of living begins to drop, it will become increasingly clear to the general public as well.

So the real question is not whether these programs will work, rather the real question is will we be able to reverse them? For example, once government is in total control of health care and the inevitable rationing begins, as it must, it will not simply be a matter of realizing the mistake and transferring medicine back to the private sector. Private sector medicine will have been destroyed. There will be nothing to transfer it back to. Sure in theory government could recreate a private sector, but where has government ever been able to do that, not to mention willing?

Obama and the Democrats are placing a huge bet on their ideology and against the history and experience that shows that it has always failed. Unfortunately they are wagering with the prosperity of the country. Hopefully, people will realize what they are doing before it is too late.

Does Your Church Want the Bible?

Listen to the MP3

A few Sundays ago at church, my Bible study class was about to begin when a woman came to the door and asked, “What class is this?”    I told her I was teaching about the Bible.    Her immediate response was, “Oh, no,  I don’t want that.” She instantly realized that the words had not come out as she intended, as this was not the class she was trying to fine, and it made for a somewhat amusing moment.

While amusing, it is somewhat of a metaphor for a deeper problem in the church.  While this woman’s comments were misstatement,  for far too many Christians this is their attitude.  Not directly for sure, and if you ask them they would probably say that the Bible is important.  But however important they may think it is, their  knowledge of it is limited to what they have picked up from the pastor’s sermons.

Some pastors inadvertently encourage these Bible-optional Christians by constantly changing the versions they cite passages from. In fact I have seen some pastors who quote from several different versions each sermon.   Whatever the benefit,  the effect is that it makes it virtually impossible to follow the pastors sermon in your own Bible.  The trend towards topical sermons,  in which the Bible becomes little more than a smorgasbord of proof texts  does not help either.    And after all the verses will be on the power point slides on in the bulletin.

The bottom line is that fewer and fewer people see any need to bring a Bible to church.  Bible study itself is likewise down played either intentionally or unintentionally.  At a church I attended a while back the only time the pastor ever mentioned  any Bible class was to mention his own.   Except for children  and teens  for many churches  bible study is just not all that important.

As Josh McDowell  pointed out in his book The Last Christian Generation, even with teens active in Youth Groups,   Church is often seen more as  a place for fun activities than learning about God.   Thus many of our children are like the seeds sown on stony ground “They sprouted at once because the soil wasn’t deep.  But  when the sun came up, they were scorched.  Since they did not have any roots, they dried up. ” (Mt 13:5-6)  As children and teens they spout quickly in church, but when they leave home and enter the hot sun of the world they dry up quickly.    To see this one only has to consider the stat cited by Thom Rainer of Lifeway that  “70% of 18 to 22 year olds drop out of the church. Many of them are crying for deeper biblical teaching and preaching.” 

One of the most frustrating aspects about this is that it is so unnecessary.  It is not that we need massive changes to address the problem.  Rather what is needed a series of small changes aimed at emphasizing the importance of the word of God, the need to read it, and the need to study it. 

This changes can be as simple as asking people who brought their bibles to open them to that passage for the sermon.   It does not mean that you have to make people who did not bring a Bible feed out of place our unwelcome,  but there is nothing wrong with encouraging people to bring a Bible to Church.

Churches should also make it clear that that the study of God’s word is an important priority, whether this is done on Sunday morning in traditional Sunday school,  at other times at the church,  in small groups at people’s homes, or preferably all three,  people should find it easy to find and join a class.  For far too many adult Bible study is an afterthought.  Something done mainly out of tradition than any real commitment.  Simply clearly listing the classes  the subjects or age groups, and where they meet on a board should be a minimum.  But including them in the bulletin at regular intervals is a nice reminder and particularly helpful  for those new to the church, and for classes that do not meet on Sunday morning.

These are hardly revolutionary or difficult changes.  There are of course many other things that could be done.  But sadly much of the church is not even doing this.   And it shows. 

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.

Contrasting Change

 

As the market continues it falls back to levels not seen since the late 1990s, an often overlooked fact is that markets are forward looking indicators. They are not so much an indicator of how bad things have been, or even how bad things are. Markets are an indicator of what traders as a collective whole think the future will bring.

For example, by the time Clinton took office in 1993, the recession following the first gulf war was over and the economy was growing at a healthy 4% through all of 1992, which might strike some as odd, for Clinton campaigned at the time on how this was the worst economy in 50 years. The markets were positive during Clinton’s first year continuing a moderate growth that had started in Feb 1991 in the 2900s rising to the 3900s by the end of 1993

By then the effects of the Clinton tax increases and his “Stimulus package” were becoming clear, at least to those that read the economic tea leaves. The market spent 1994 up and down, but mostly down. In Late November it was down below 3700. By the end of the year it was clear that the economy was slowing and in fact the first two quarters of 1995 show the growth in GDP dropped to 1.1% and 0.7% respectively. Yet despite this the stock market started to grow. Not only did it grow, it started growing much faster than it has from 1991-1993. Markets were beginning to see the economic expansion that marked the late 1990s and they wanted in.

What changed in late 1994 that markets were reacting to? In November 1994 Republicans won control of Congress for the first time in over 40 years . Between the Contract with America and the promise of tax cuts, the markets were betting on strong growth in the economy, a bet that paid off.

Today we face serious economic problems. The markets topped out at over 14000 in October 2007. A year later the market had slipped to under 11,000 when the financial crisis broke and the markets plunged to below 8500, recovering to 9500 by election day. Unlike what happened in late 1994 and early 1995 as the Republicans laid out there programs, as Obama has laid out his economic plans, and passed his stimulus package, the markets have had a vastly different reaction.

Whereas following the election of the Republican Congress the markets began to price in future profits, as Obama is rolling out his economic program, the markets are pricing in future losses. Obama promised us change we could count on. We may be able to count on it, but the markets don’t seem to want to bet on it.

A Review of Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great – Summary

The following is an outline of my review of Christopher Hitchens’, “God is not Great”

Part I – Chapter One
The definition of Atheism. Do “the faithful” commit more crimes? Are atheist dogmatic?

Part II – Chapter One
the “four irreducible objections to religious faith.”  Religion and sex

Part III – Chapter One.
Do believers claim to know everything?  “essential knowledge”

Part IV – Chapter One
Are we evil, or just partly rational?  What is ‘reason.’ Worldviews.  Reason and the existence of God.

Part V – Chapter One
 The core weaknesses of atheism: rational evil.  Eugenics and Social Darwinism.

Part VI – Chapter One
the “Secular injunction” in Philippians 4:8  Truth, Justice, Lovely, Pure, and Virtue.

 Part VII– Chapter Two
Why aren’t believers happy?  Christians who interfere in the lives of others? Charitable giving.

Part VIII – Chapter Two.
Hitchens and Dennis Prager.   Northern Ireland.

Part IX – Chapter Three.
Jews, Muslim and Pork.  Do prohibitions grow out of repressed desire? Being Holy.

Part X – Chapter Four.
Religion and Health.  Conspiracy theories. the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc or false cause.

Part XI – Chapter Four.
Cardinal Alfonso Lopez de Trujillo and condoms, and the politicization of science.

Part XII – Chapter Four.
Religion and Medicine, The fallacy of Hasty Generalization, the Black death. The germ theory of disease. 

Part XIII – Chapter Five
The Metaphysical claims of Religion. Atheist’s demand for proof. Religion vs. the behavioral sciences.

Part XIV – Chapter Five
The secularization of society.  The fallacies of appeal to the people and appeal to misplaced authority. Ockham’s razor.  Do we need God to explain the universe? probable arguments. deductive logic and inductive logic.

Part XV – Chapter Six
Hitchens distorted view of religion. Religion and Superstition.  Miracles, evil, and the problem of evil.

Part XVI – Chapter Six
Arguments from design. Paley. Hitchens argument concerning death and the universe.  Design and purpose.

Part XVII – Chapter Six
Specific arguments for Design.  Myths used to support evolution. evolution is unfalsifiable.

Part XVIII – Chapter Seven
The Old Testament.  Hitchens view of revelation. The Ten Commandments. Slavery. stoning of children for disobedience

Part XIX – Chapter Eight
The New Testament. “if English was good enough for Jesus…”  The flat earth.  Biblical scholarship.  Dating the New Testament.

Part XX – Chapter Eight
Reliability of the Gospels, Liberal Scholarship. Two major Errors of Hitchens.  The “other gospels.”  Virgin birth. Bart Ehrman.

Note:  I skipped chapter Nine as it dealt with the Koran.

Part XXI – Chapter Ten 
Miracles.  Hume. The resurrection. The nature of miracles.  Freewill.  Proof and evidence.

Part XXII – Chapter Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen    
Chapter 10: The lost of belief.  
Chapter 11:  The origin of religion. The Melanesian “cargo cult” Marjoe Gortner. Mormonism. Chapter 12:  The end of religion
Chapter 13: Does religion make people better? Martin Luther King.  Abolition.   

Part XXIII – Chapter Thirteen   
Who is a Christian. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Hitchens refutes the majority of his  own book.

Part XXIV – Chapter Thirteen   
Are atheist immoral? The foundations of morality. Marriage.   

Note:  I skipped Chapter Fourteen as it deals with eastern religions.

Part XXV – Chapter Fifteen
Is Religion Immoral? Presenting a false picture of the world to the innocent and the credulous. doctrine of blood sacrifice. Atonement.  Anti-Semitism. Corporate Guilt.

Part XXVI – Chapter Fifteen
Atonement. religious laws that are impossible to obey.

Part XXVII – Chapter Sixteen
Is religion child abuse. Abortion.  Evolution myths. Eugenics. Circumcision.

Part XXVIII – Chapter Seventeen
Atheists and the evils of the 20^th century.  The definition of religion. “the totalitarian mind-set.”

Part XXIX – Chapter Seventeen
Hitchens attempts to link 20^th century evils to religion. Christians who risked their lives to save others.  Fascism and Christianity.

Part XXX – Chapter Seventeen
The problem with focusing on the evil in others.  

Part XXXI – Chapter Eighteen
The Resistance of the Rational.  Galileo. Socrates. Gibbon. The Fall of Rome.

Part XXXII – Chapter Nineteen
A New Enlightenment.  Lessing. Faith and Reason. Worldviews.

« Previous Page — Next Page »