Category: Politics Page 10 of 19

R.C. Sproul on Abortion, Voting and Christianity

On October 30, 2008

In Christian Culture, Culture, Politics, Theology

“I’m reminded of the work of William Wilberforce in England. You may recall that in debate after debate after debate, and in election after election after election, Wilberforce was soundly and roundly defeated when he sought the abolition of slavery in the British Commonwealth. But if ever there was an exercise in perseverance, it was by Wilberforce. Wilberforce refused to give up. He simply would not walk away from being the conscience of the English nation. And he publicly testified that slavery was wrong and he promised to oppose it as long as he had breath in his body. And finally in the providence of God, Parliament woke up and abolished this unethical practice that was a plague on the English speaking world.

We’ve gone through the same plague in the history of America, and thanks be to God slavery has finally been abolished in America. But I believe that slavery is the second most serious ethical issue that our country has ever faced. From my perspective the number one ethical issue that this nation has ever faced is the issue of abortion. Abortion is not a matter of private choice–not for the Christian who understands anything about the sanctity of life. The first century church made it very clear in their day, explicitly stating that abortion is murder.

I’ve written over 70 books. The book that had the shortest shelf life of all of my books was my book on the case against abortion. I talked to pastor after pastor and sought to understand why they weren’t using this material (for which we also made a video series). They told me, “Well, we agree with it but we can’t do it in our church.” And I said, “Why?” They responded: “It will split the congregation.” And I said, “So be it!” A million and a half unborn babies are slaughtered wantonly in the United States of America every year in the name of women’s rights. If I know anything about the character of God after forty years of study, I know that God hates abortion. And I could never vote for a candidate who supported abortion–even if I agreed with that candidate on every other policy position. If he supported abortion I would not vote for him and I urge you to do the same.

I know that abortion is not the number one issue in this campaign because it has become acceptable. Just like slavery became acceptable. But it cannot be acceptable to ethical people. The people of God have to rise up and say ‘NO’! We are not asking the state to be the church but we must say to the state, “Please be the state. God ordained you to protect, maintain, and preserve the sanctity of life, and you are not doing it.” So that has to be on your mind when you walk into that voting booth.”

Taken from this article: http://www.ligonier.org/blog/2008/10/pr … -text.html

R.C. Sproul on the Redistribution of Wealth, Voting and Christianity

By David Westerfield

On October 30, 2008

In Business, Christian Culture, Culture, Economics, Politics, Theology

“We have an income tax structure today that is inherently unjust. We almost never hear anybody discuss this injustice. But when God set up a system of taxation, He did things differently. God said I’m going to impose a tax on my people and it’s going to be ten percent from everybody: The rich man and the poor man are not going to pay the same amount. The rich man’s going to pay much more than the poor man, but they’re both going to pay the same percentage. They’re both going to have the same responsibility. That way the rich man can’t use his power to exploit the poor man, saying, “I’m going to pay five percent, but you’re going to pay fifty percent.” The rich weren’t allowed to do that. Nor were the poor allowed to say, “We’re going to pay five percent and the rich are going to pay fifty percent because they can afford it.” What that is ladies and gentlemen is the politics of envy that legalizes theft. Anytime you vote a tax on somebody else that is not a tax on yourself, you’re stealing from your brother. And though the whole world does it and though it’s common practice in the United States of America, a Christian shouldn’t be caught dead voting to fill his own pocketbook at the expense of someone else. Isn’t that plain? Isn’t that clear? And until we get some kind of flat tax, we’re going to have a politicized economy, we’re going to have class warfare, and we’re going to have the whole nation’s rule being determined by the rush for economic advantage at the polls. Don’t do it. Even if that means sacrificing some benefit you might receive from the federal government. Don’t ask other people at the point of a gun to give you from their pockets what you don’t have. That’s sin.

It is, of course, the American way. But we Christians should not be involved in that sort of thing. Rather we should be voting for what is right, what is ethical. And our consciences on that score need to be informed by the Word of God, not by our wallets. And so I plead with you: When you enter the voting booth, don’t leave your Christianity in the parking lot. And be bold to speak on these issues, even if it means somebody picks up a rock and throws it in your head. Because it is through tribulation that we enter the Kingdom of God. I pray for you, beloved, and for our nation in these days to come.”

Taken from this excellent article: http://www.ligonier.org/blog/2008/10/pr … -text.html

Hannity Makes Case Against Obama Based Merely on His Experience

By David Westerfield

On October 27, 2008

In Politics, Video

2001 Obama Redistribution of Wealth Commentary

By David Westerfield

On October 27, 2008

In Politics, Video

So what do you think he’s going to do? Has he changed from these radical economic positions? I doubt it.

And get this …

Intolerant Tolerance – Obama Campaign Labels Interviewer “Unprofessional”

By David Westerfield

On October 25, 2008

In Politics, Video

My question is … Then why in the world is a majority of the media free to pound on McCain and Palin in their “unprofessional,” hard-question interviews, that I haven’t heard McCain or Palin complain about doing? McCain went on The View! Come on, Biden. Can’t you handle the questions? You see, the problem is never with the Obama campaign, from their point of view at least, it’s always the other person’s or groups fault. In this case, the Obama campaign deems the questions ridiculous and won’t answer them, when it’s clear they are not trick questions, just straight to the point. And now, in response, they will silence the press from digging in and conducting what I see as a hard-hitting interview. Relativism, in all its forms, is ethically and morally bankrupt and simply cannot sustain its own assertions. This is just one more example of that. Modern liberalism touts freedom of speech and rights and blah blah blah all day long … and then keeps the free press from doing an interview. Amazing.

An Obama spokesperson issued this statement about the interview:

“There’s nothing wrong with tough questions, but reporters have the very important job of sharing the truth with the public — not misleading the American people with false information. Senator Biden handled the interview well; however, the anchor was completely unprofessional. Senator Biden’s wife is not running for elected office, and there are many other stations in the Orlando television market that would gladly conduct a respectful and factual interview with her.”

“This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election.”

On the “Bush is Pro-Life and Abortions Have Still Continued” Argument

By David Westerfield

On October 23, 2008

In Christian Culture, Culture, Politics

This line of thought keeps rearing its head on several different fronts, and I’m hearing it more and more from evangelicals who are in favor of Obama. I’m assuming this is supposed to lead me to the conclusion that, “Therefore, as an evangelical, I can now vote for Obama, seeing as how Bush has gotten nothing done on this front.” My question is, “And Obama will, given his radical pro-abortion decisions in the recent past, and his own commitment to sign the Freedom of Choice Act?” This is quite a bit of ambulance-chasing-trial-lawyer-style rationalization to me on the abortion issue, not taking into account the severely immoral nature of what is actually taking place when someone has an abortion, as well as Obama’s own radical positions on the subject, based not only on his words, but his votes while in Illinois. Some seem content to ignore that factual, documented information though.

You see, changing legislation that was ruled by the Supreme Court over 30 years ago is a little more difficult than merely getting a President elected who is pro-life. The President is just one piece of the puzzle; a big piece yes, but not the whole thing, as this argument seems to not take into account.

You have a society who democratically elects officials, and the culture itself needs its mind changed on this issue (and yes the attitudes of many pro-lifers in using ad hominems to try and convince their opponents is appalling and won’t change anyone’s mind). The culture needs to see abortion not as a rights issue but as a right and wrong issue. Rights talk on all kinds of issues is ruining the moral civility of this land.

You also need congressional officials that are decidedly pro-life, who are elected by the people. You also must have court cases that go through the normal court proceedings and get into the hands of the Supreme Court who can then make a decision on the matter.

Then we have Supreme Court justices, some of whom are retiring from their positions in the next few years, two of whom have already been replaced by two conservative justices during Bush’s Presidency.

So here we have the President, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the will of the people that must work together to change the laws on abortion. And to be honest, if people will actually stop for two seconds and look at what Bush has actually done in the past eight years on this issue, they will see he has done a fair amount of work by 1) as mentioned, appointing two conservative justices who are pro-life, and 2) simply not signing bills into law (like the Freedom of Choice Act) that would further expand abortion rights way beyond what they currently are, like a certain Barack Obama will do “first thing” if he is elected (his own words).

There are one and possibly even two Supreme Court slots that will be opening up within the next few years. Who do you think will get appointed if Obama is President, given his record? There is a lot at stake in the next few years on this issue: either a continued back-sliding toward even greater numbers of abortions and other “rights,” or progress made in trying to reverse this cultural slide toward a cesspool of immorality beyond what we can imagine. However, by the time these things are approved, our society will have become greatly calloused to them, just as we are for the most part to abortion. Lord, please have mercy on us.

So please don’t tell me Bush has done nothing on this front. That’s just not true. And yes, electing a pro-life President does matter. However, that’s not all we’re concerned about in the fight against pro-abortion legislation. One man in power for four or eight years can’t change the course of law or people’s minds on the matter necessarily. There are many components to our government and society. It literally will take an act of Congress, and not only that, but an act of the entire government and the society working together, in concert, to get these laws changed.

We really must feel the weight of how depraved abortion is and not stand for it as a fundamental human right anymore. What else will become a right if something as depraved and grotesque as abortion is just a norm in our society? This will simply lead to moral anarchy. We have approved, by law, the blatant murdering of our sons and daughters. If that doesn’t offend you, I don’t know what will. It is the shedding of innocent blood. It is detestable. However, many seem content to just ignore it, not think about it … or in the case of this argument, rationalize and explain it away.

In my estimation, this argument is a cop-out from dealing with the actual issue, putting it on the back burner in the place of other issues that we think are more important. To read a good commentary on this whole subject, check out Mohler’s piece he wrote recently: http://www.almohler.com/blog_read.php?id=2630 .

Whoever Wins The Election Should Be Served With Excellence

By David Westerfield

On October 20, 2008

In Culture, Politics, Theology

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.” – Romans 13:1-7

In 15 days, a new President will be elected and as a result, about half of the country will be disappointed with the results, one way or the other. Things are favoring Obama at the moment and so it appears he will be our next President, though of course, you really never can tell what the results will be until people actually start pulling the lever. The pollsters can say whatever they want right now. Many elections in the past have proved that point.

Regardless, whoever the next President is should be served with excellence, from whatever political vantage point you are coming from as a believer in Jesus. I do not endorse Obama because of his policies on abortion, economics, social issues, and a host of other things. However, as a believer who submits to the verses as cited above, if Obama is President, he should be served with excellence by those he oversees as the Commander in Chief. To not serve him with excellence, but instead serve him merely out of duty with bitterness in your heart, is to rebel against God’s authority which is then ultimately a personal issue between you and the God of the universe, (which all rebelling, in any form, is exactly that).

Many self-professed conservative Christians will be tempted to rebel and revolt in either small ways (within their hearts through a form of bitterness or grumbling) or in bigger ways (through external, unlawful means). But to do so is ultimately to rebel against our Creator. For whoever is President did not get there by luck or chance, but only got there because God would have it so in His permissive will and over-arching plan. Just as Jesus said to Pilate before He was crucified for us who believe, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above,” (John 19:11) so also no President or leader in any position over us is able to make it to that office unless the Lord would have it so. Nothing catches God by surprise and nothing is apart from His will.

Even more than that, even if things were to get terribly ugly in this country and people become so polarized so as to rebel in a violent way, as John Hendryx from Monergism.com has been keen to point out in an interview he did a number of years ago, the Gospel is not chained because of a political regime that is in power over us. In fact, the Lord uses those things we see as hindrances many times as the very instrument He will use to bring the Gospel to those who are wrath-bound. Just ask the Christians in China. The Communist government there sought to squelch Christianity by humiliating believers through forcing them to go door-to-door and collect residents trash. What wound up happening was the exact opposite of what was intended: the Christians began spreading Christianity by going door-to-door, and now the Gospel is spreading like a wild-fire throughout the country. God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise (1 Corinthians 1-2). And is that not a perfect picture of that?

Now I do not believe things will get to the point of Chinese communist oppression with Obama in power (though the Fairness Doctrine is definitely a start down that road) and conservatives who think so need to get out more and have a few conversations with the opposing political side. I’m simply making the point that even if our candidate of choice doesn’t make it (whoever that may be), as believers, we should know and remember first and foremost, that no governing authority can squelch God’s power to save and change people.

That does not mean that we should be uninvolved in the political process and not support our perspective for what we believe is best for the country, for a democracy doesn’t work unless the people are involved. But it does mean that even if things do not go the way we envision or think they should go, we should know that it is all within God’s sovereign, ordained plan and power to have it so.

Therefore, we should trust Him that He knows what He is doing in decreeing whoever the President will be. So if Obama is voted into power in 15 days, conservative Christians should submit to God and serve “President” Obama with excellence, to the glory of God, as the One who has instituted him as a leader over us. And if McCain is voted into power, liberal Christians should submit to God and serve “President” McCain with excellence, to the glory of God, as the One who has set him up as a leader over us. And we all, as believers in Jesus, should live in unity under the all-encompassing power of the Gospel to save the lost. Is that not our ultimate hope in every way to begin with, even moreso than a political regime that is temporal and fading as soon as it is instituted?

The Financial Collapse, Net Neutrality and Political/Economic Theory

By David Westerfield

On October 14, 2008

In Business, Economics, Politics, Technology

I’m a conservative and a strong believer in free markets because it stokes competition, which benefits the consumer in the way of lower prices for goods and services, and ultimately creates a greater level of wealth for the majority in a society. I believe corporations should be free to compete and prosper with as little government intervention as possible. I am not for Obama’s economic plan of redistributing wealth like Robinhood, taking from the rich and giving their money to the rest of us (who are in relation to their bags of money, poor). What I’m talking about here economically is not taxes or income redistribution, but checks and balances within an economy to ensure that those on top don’t make decisions that injure the lives of thousands of people. How is that best achieved in light of man’s sinfulness and tendency toward greed?

As we’ve seen in recent weeks and building up over the past decade, unregulated free markets without proper checks and balances can spin out of control and cause entire corporations and even some sectors of the economy to collapse (or face the prospect of it) and hurt thousands or possibly millions of people in its devastating wake.

So what is the proper approach? Totally unfettered, unregulated free markets? Fully regulated markets? Or free markets with minimal but necessary regulation so as to keep corruption from occurring, with the people’s interests in mind?

I’m not proposing I know any one air tight argument. I’m simply throwing these ideas out there as a way to ponder the prospect that free markets, without checks and balances, is a risky deal for an economy and it can actually become a national security issue. Think Enron, WorldCom, and recently Lehman Brothers, Countrywide, and a host of other giant companies that have failed, where thousands of employees lost jobs due to corruption and bad, unethical, immoral choices, and millions of people financially injured as a result. And with a bad economy, you don’t have capital to keep the country safe from those who are bent on harming us.

Just as we need checks and balances in the political sphere (the very way in which our country was established), so also in the corporate sphere, this seems to be something that may need to be required. Free market capitalism, as great as it has been has a down side: sinners run it. Sinners become greedy for money, for power, ruthless, self-centered, envious, etc. With that fundamental principle in mind, based on a proper assessment of the history of what sinners are capable of when in power, our founding fathers framed the Constitution and arranged the government in such a way that it checks itself against error and corruption in order to preserve freedom.

Could it be we need something similar within the economy? Not checks on how rich people get, but more about the business decisions that are made. I’m simply proposing the idea, I’m not set on it. But people are getting hurt out there by fat cats sitting pretty, obtaining a lot of cash through greed and immoral decisions at the expense of a majority of people down on the totem pole. That’s just straight up immoral.

Now too much regulation is a bad thing. That’s where the former USSR comes in. That is where the government owns companies and tells them what they should and shouldn’t be doing in every way. That is one of the most inefficient ways to run goods and services for a society, and ultimately the system crumbles apart altogether, or stays like Cuba.

But no regulation at all? That’s what pure free marketers want. Yet a totally unregulated market can actually allow businesses to become the very oppressive, greedy, reckless entities many of these same people oppose in a government because of human sinfulness. Corporations are now the size of small governments, economically speaking. There is a lot of room for the same excess and error on the same scale as that of a corrupt government in some cases. Granted, less issues arise than other economic systems, but the potential is there for really big problems to affect a large majority of people. And not only is there potential, there has been a real situation where this very thing has actually happened.

Historically, what framers of economic theory in the past would have seen corporations growing to the size of many governments? There are factors we must take into account that those in the past couldn’t even have foreseen. Am I talking about the government running companies? No. Again, checks and balances. How does that work? I don’t really know to be honest, I’m just brainstorming more than anything. But if we are to believe that man is dreadfully sinful, to be consistent, it seems we should apply that same understanding to capitalism, should we not? Should we keep our government in check while not keeping our economy in check? I don’t know, just an idea.

So where’s the line drawn between unregulated and fully regulated markets? Honestly, I’m thinking it’s kind of a gray area more and more, though I have been pretty adamant about pure, 100% free markets until recently. And I also believe that it may depend on the sector of the economy and not just an all or nothing kind of thing. I’m still formulating my thoughts on this and nothing is very cohesive yet as to my opinion only because these are recent thoughts I’ve had in light of this economic crisis. But events over the past decade, particularly recently, have really made me question pure capitalism without any government regulation or oversight.

There has been another issue that has come to light in my mind that further shows where the government may be needed to step in: network neutrality.

As a worker in the IT world, as with people in other lines of work, I know things that workers outside of my field do not know. I have an inside look I guess you could say. I see and understand things that others find an enigma, just as I find Greek and Hebrew to be an enigma and rely on scholars and theologians to help me understand what Scripture, in the original text, is saying. (Not saying I’m the equivalent of a scholar in the IT field). I would never presume that I know or fully comprehend the Greek language unless I had studied it to some degree or another. I’m not boasting, or saying I’m great because I know IT and others don’t, so don’t take me the wrong way. Nor am I saying I know everything pertaining to my field, for I only know an inkling. I’m making a point to say that sometimes others talk as if they are in the same line of work as someone else when in reality they have no idea what they are talking about.

And that brings me to net neutrality. The fundamental way to explain this is to say that ISP’s (or internet services providers, e.g. Charter, AT&T, Time Warner, Comcast, etc.) are increasingly working to limit what you can and cannot view and what services you can and cannot use for their own profit (i.e. you would pay more to get more services, versus the current model where internet access is open for all services). Now the free market in me wants to say that companies should be allowed to gain from their business dealings, no matter what.

However, what happens when a company seeks to stop certain services from being utilized by a consumer? Well, fine, switch internet providers then, right? But what happens when you don’t have access but to only one provider? And what happens when all of them are doing the same blocking and stifling the use of a potentially great service or protocol that you can’t use now? And even further, what if those services could be used by developers for further innovation and progress in the realm of internet services?

Net neutrality would be law that forces ISP’s to leave the internet network services open, mandating they not interfere with the accessibility of certain protocols and services developed for the internet (that’s about as simple as I can explain it; I would get technical, but that’s outside the scope of what I’m saying). In my view, this would actually promote competition and keep the ISP’s personal interests at bay for the sake of the consumer. A free and unfettered internet (through legislation) would actually promote innovation and competition with other services. Free marketers cry out that this is just smoke and mirrors for government censorship of certain sites, yet it really is the opposite: it’s keeping the internet open from the likes of the medium you access it through, your ISP, and locking down what you can and can’t do. You see, once again, if net neutrality doesn’t pass, instead of the government having control over what you do (the fear of pure free marketers), the corporations do instead. How about the government checking companies to make sure they are not stifling communication and innovation?

I point that out to say that sometimes, in order to preserve freedom, the government may need to step in to keep the people responsible for your access from blocking the very consumers and citizens they are bringing a service to. Am I wrong? Maybe. I’ve only recently started thinking through all of this and wouldn’t mind some input. But sometimes, like in the financial sector and the tech sector (specifically internet access) government regulation can be a good thing and help the citizens. However, at the same time, it can be a bad thing if it’s too much.

So ultimately I’m coming to the idea we may need checks and balances in our economic system to maintain a prosperous and growing economy that keeps executives from making reckless decisions as well as stifling innovation and technological progress.

Total Rage Toward Republicans in Manhattan

By David Westerfield

On October 12, 2008

In Culture, Politics, Video

I’m warning you in advance: there are quite a few middle fingers and maybe a few obscenities screamed out in the background. But I post this to simply show the kind of utopian world liberals demand we all live in. And if you object … well just watch. In posting this, I do not think conservatives are morally better people because we’re all jacked up. Conservatives exhibit Pharisaical attitudes many times, whereas liberals many times (as shown in this video) will exhibit the attitudes of Herod or Nero. Both camps, at their worst, were murderers in the Scriptures.

But I do want to point out, at merely the intellectual level, the blatant contradiction in ideology and practice of the pure liberalism here in Manhattan. I believe this is quite telling about how “unity” is defined between liberals and conservatives. And the quote at the end I think sums it all up: “The leftist idea of unity is, and always has been … the elimination of dissent.” That attitude is clearly displayed here.

Now I know there have always been some conservatives who have exhibited the same kind of behavior toward homosexual people or toward others they disagree with, which is wrong. However, I would submit to you they are in the minority. This is taking a walk through a public section of a major city, not just one small segment. This is the leftist ideology at its essence. Many liberals talk all day long about being sensitive to all kinds of people from differing views. Yet I see very little of that attitude exhibited here.

The Prodigal Sons, Tim Keller, Politics, and the Gospel

By David Westerfield

On September 23, 2008

In Audio, Christian Culture, Culture, Politics, Theology

The Prodigal Sons – Tim Keller (MP3)

I’ve heard this sermon before, but listened to it again because it’s so excellent. I’ll admit: recently I’ve had a wrong tendency to want to blackball one political group over another. Keller reminded me (because I’m so quick to forget) that even deeper than all of that is an attitude of superiority.

In taking a step back from all of the nonsense going back and forth between camps at this time, I realized (once again, because I need constant reminders) that there are many unbelieving conservatives who are the elder brother in the parable. They influence much of what is heard and thought about in the conservative political sphere. This is also true in the liberal sphere.

As believers in the Gospel, we (I) really need to be careful about how much stock we put into what they tell us. Our priority beyond politics is the kingdom of Christ and His Gospel. How quick my own heart is to forget that … yet one more reason why I need to preach the Gospel to my own heart on a continual basis.