The Conservative Problem

Liberals/Progressives believe conservatives are the problem in our nation. Naturally. I mean who could fail to see the link between traditional family values and the explosions of teen sex, forcible rape, pornography, STDs, unwanted pregnancy, and abortions? Who could possibly deny the obvious causation between “thou shalt not lie, steal, lust, murder, and envy” and the tripling of the violent crime rate in the past 50 years? And who among us would dispute the fact that Sunday school attendance in Bible-believing churches obviously causes depression, isolation, anger, suicide, bullying, drug use, alcohol abuse, school shootings, and every other kind of anti-social behavior among our youth?

Of course I’m being facetious. But it requires these kinds of bizarre mental contortions to imagine that paying women to have children out of wedlock isn’t going to increase the percentage of children born out of wedlock, or that removing the most serious consequence for teen sex (by killing the resulting child) isn’t going to encourage our children to behave like animals in heat and result in a mountain of dead babies. It requires this kind of denial to imagine that any policy that is 180 degrees opposed to God’s instruction in the Bible is going to be anything other than a staggering failure—because what’s in the Bible works. And heaven forbid we would ever implement a program of following up on such policies to see what the results actually are. That might mean having to cancel all of these government programs, and then we couldn’t feel good about wanting so desperately to deliver the less fortunate from their basic human responsibilities.

Ultimately it comes down to this: which side is trying to obey God’s instruction, and which side is trying to get rid of God’s instruction? Which side has the greater percentage of healthy kids and strong marriages? Which side has all the STDs? Which side is successful? Which side continues to fail?

Excuses, Excuses....

I was in a personnel seminar a few years ago where the moderator, who was black, suggested that we should all stand up and go to the corners of the room, then return to the middle. She said this was because white people hold more social power than blacks, and that this movement was to symbolize that we whites were "giving up" our power so we could all be equal. I refused to do it, explaining, "One of my sons is black. We got him when he was taken from his mother by Child Protective Services. She was a mess--drug addict, never employed, sometimes homeless--but she was never without excuses for her condition." Later the moderator asked me how I intended to keep my son from suffering from racism throughout his life. I said, "Well, first and foremost I'm going to make darned sure he's never put into a group where the moderator tells him someone else must give up something before he can succeed."

"If I admit I am responsible, I may have to admit that I have been irresponsible." -- Stephen Covey

The Congressman's Mistake

I recently heard a couple of guys on the radio discussing whether or not a known terrorist should be allowed to speak at a university. One guy, a former congressman, said he should be allowed to speak because we have freedom of speech in this country. The other said the terrorist should be prevented from speaking to the impressionable young minds.

This disagreement arises from a common misconception in the United States: that we are great because of our freedom. I submit that this is not the case. The United States grew to greatness because of our virtue, not our freedom. Freedom without virtue is anarchy, and will eventually bring about oppression from those who yield to the basic human desire to control one's neighbors. Virtue without freedom, however, will eventually bring freedom for all.

This is why we, with maximum freedoms, have murdered 50 million babies, why we find our teens behaving like animals, why we have an infinite amount of graphic pornography on the Internet, and why our entertainment industry is dedicated to the corruption of our children. It is also why we are beginning to see a clamping down on some of our freedoms. Expect that trend to continue as long as we deny God.

"I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers - and it was not there . . . in her fertile fields and boundless forests and it was not there . . . in her rich mines and her vast world commerce - and it was not there . . . in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution - and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great." – Unknown (formerly attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville).

I fear America has ceased to be good.

Why Liberalism is Unchristian, Part III

Not only do Democrats have a habit of being generous with other people’s money, turns out they are also more stingy with their own. In fact, repeated studies have found that both Republicans and Conservatives are more generous than Democrats and Liberals respectively in donations of time or money to charitable causes. This makes sense because Christians tend to give away a lot of money--their own money--and a wide majority of Christians are Conservatives. Apparently Liberals are largely content to allow the government to provide their share of giving.

In other words, this notion that there is anything remotely Christian or generous about being a Democrat is a myth.

Add into all that 50 million murdered babies, the assault on traditional marriage, the depravity masquerading as our entertainment industry, their declaring God off limits in political discourse, and now their lack of actual generosity, and one begins to see the reality of the Democrat party. As one Internet writer put it: “The Republican party may not be the party of God, but the Democrat party is definitely the party of Satan.”

Why Liberalism is Unchristian, Part II

We have pointed out that when Jesus commanded his followers to take care of the poor, the sick, and the needy, he never said, “Take what your neighbor has by force, and give that to the poor,” which is what government welfare does. Nowhere in the Bible is it suggested that we should take from our neighbors to help the poor. That’s not an oversight. If the malady is selfishness, it can’t be cured by force. Forced “charity” only increases interclass resentment and a sense of entitlement. Consider some other consequences of the voluntary vs. forced approaches:

	Jesus’s Way – Voluntary Giving	Liberals’ Way – Taxation
Virtue	Loving Others, Obeying God	None
Motivation of the Donor	Help Those in Need	Avoid Fines, Penalties, Prosecution, and Jail
Attitude of Donor	Concern for recipients	Resentment of bullying government and those receiving entitlements
Instigated by	God	Man
Cause	Choice	Force
Locus of Choice	Internal; Lies with the owner of the money	External; Lies with the holder of political power
Monitored by	The donor or church	Wasteful bureaucracy, if there is any monitoring at all
Additional Benefits	Since aid is given out of a sense of concern, additional help may be given in the form of mentoring, housing, babysitting, and other intangibles	No additional benefits
Use of Resources	Responsible; very efficient	Irresponsible; inefficient
Effectiveness	Very high	Low
Attitude of Recipient	Encourages gratitude because specific donor can be known	Encourages a sense of entitlement because bureaucracy has no face, identity, and rarely any real expectations
Result	Growth and progress in both donor and recipient	Progress is unlikely
Result	Spiritually and socially rewarding; donor more likely to give to the poor; recipient more likely to help others when able	No spiritual reward. Donor less likely to give voluntarily in future and recipient less likely to give when able because “it’s the government’s job”
Result	Decrease in the public’s burden	Increase in public’s burden; Another government entitlement to grow out of control
Result	Relationship	Increased dependence; increased racism; increased classism

This is why the Church, families, and individuals have the God-assigned job of taking care of “the widow and the orphan.” It should not be the government’s job because the government can’t do it well. This is why many people on government aid have no plans to get off of government aid. Anonymous government aid can’t solve the actual problem, which, in our nation, is usually the behavior of the person in need.

Why Liberalism is Unchristian, Part I

This one is for the 38% of Democrats who describe themselves as born-again Christians.

Liberals go to great lengths to make it seem that voting Democrat is something other than a spectacular moral failure. There is a feeling among some Christians that, although the Democrat party promotes child murder and homosexuality, those evils are offset by the belief that Democrats do a better job obeying Christ’s command to help the less fortunate.

According to Matthew 25, Jesus told his followers, "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'” (NIV)

It is very clear that Jesus is saying you take care of them—YOU do it.

But that’s not what Democrats do.

In order for Democrats to have it right, Jesus would have to have said, “Take what your neighbor has by force, and give that to the poor, the sick, etc.”—for that is what Democrats try to do: taxing other people and throwing what the government doesn’t waste to the needy. But Jesus didn’t say that; he didn’t intend to because it doesn’t work nearly as well as what he did say.

I often hear the communal arrangement of the early Christians in Acts cited as proof that government wealth redistribution is Biblical. But again, the giving there was voluntary and not forced through confiscatory taxation. This is made clear when Ananias and Sapphira were about to die for lying to the Holy Spirit, and Peter said in Acts 5:4, “Didn't [the land] belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal?” (NIV)

Forced charity is obviously not charity at all; it is theft with social appeal. Virtue is always voluntary. This is a subtle distinction, but one that makes all the difference.

The Biggest Problem with Liberalism

It doesn’t work.

It should always be stated so clearly: the problem with Liberalism is that it doesn’t work. It is inadequate to help us because it misdiagnoses the human condition, calling people inherently good when we lean instead toward secrecy, sin, and selfishness.