Democracy in Action

In a previous post I discussed the lack of thinking about issues surrounding politics in my generation.  Well, I was driving around town yesterday and noticed some road work taking place.  Apparently as part of some continuing state construction (we have multiple major projects ongoing) a need was seen to dress up all the intersections in the downtown area.  Road crews are using a criss-cross mesh that they are pressing into existing asphalt pavement, sort of like pressing a cookie cutter mold into rolled out batter, to make a brick pattern across both lanes from curb to curb.  This pattern is then painted red and white to look like a brick crossing.  This project had me thinking, since the issue of the flag removal based on the seperation clause was fresh on my mind, about a statement made on the evening news.  During a second broadcast (because now the same group has filed suit demanding the removal of a statue constructed showing a soldier kneeling by a cross which is obviously a grave marker similar to the thousands the exist currently at Arlington National Cemetary) a editorial spot indicated that more and more flags and the like are taken into consideration due to public outcry.

So, here are the questions that ran through my head.  Is it the job of elected political leaders to address and act on every instance of public outcry?  Is it the case that we live in a democracy, where elected officials must do as the majority of people (or at least when a decent sized group makes a lot of noise) dictate?

These are questions that really need some serious consideration.  I'm looking forward to some good comments to dialouge on this more; but in short my answers to those questions are simply, no and no.

It bears noting that there was no public outcry for the fake brick crossings in the downtown area, and yet the project moved forward.  There was also no public vote to find out what the majority of citizens thought of the expenditure of their tax dollars to fund the project.  Let me be quick to say that I have no idea how much the project costs and am not making any judgment on whether it was "the right thing to do" or not.  I'd just like to have a real productive discussion on how our system of government is set up, what the expectations of our elected officials should be, and on what basis they should make all policy decisions.

Any takers?

Boggling the Mind

I've been worried for some time that the American public in general and my generation in particular has become increasingly ignorant of critical thinking in terms of politics, law, government and the like.  Verification of this premise has been upheld time and again as articles in the local paper and from various news agencies continue to report a complete lack of understanding and reveal an overwhelming lack of serious thought about such serious issues.  A case in point arose this week in a nearby community.  I will leave the details out as the important issue is the fundamental ideas underpinning this and many other events of outrage ocurring on a daily basis nationwide.  The crux of the matter was a symbol of Christianity removed from a public place by a city coucil board due to a lawsuit filed and the accompanying fears that a legal defense would be too costly on an already depleated town budget based solely on "the seperation clause".

I put that last phrase in quotes because it was a direct quote from the news report I heard as I was working on some other things that caused me to jump out of my seat and exclaim to my wife "the what clause!?!"  I assumed what was being referenced was the statement regarding seperation of church and state that appeared in a personal letter that is in no way binding in any document recognized in the establishment of this nation.  My questions naturally were why didn't anyone question what was meant by "the seperation clause", why didn't the office receiving this filing to sue the township reject it out of hand and what must our nation be coming to when actions such as these are allowed to be passed off as legitimate practice.  I discovered that my assumption was correct and that there are a lot of other questions that need to be asked when any issue like this arises in public discourse.

Question #1: It is true that Thomas Jefferson wrote the letter which contains the phrase "seperation of church and state", however he also penned the pramble to the Constitution (the Declaration of Independence) among whose opening lines are "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  What view other than the Judeo-Christian one would provide for a statement such as that?  What other belief system used to establish a new government would believe that there is an undeniable truth common to all men that would hold that each and every human person was created by a Creator and endowed by that Creator with intrinsic worth (rights that no other person can give or take away)?

Question #2: What is the problem with holding firm and unwavering to the fundamental principles by which this nation was founded and at the same time allowing all other differing belief systems to live and engage in public life unmolested?  I just don't understand why the fact that non-Christian persons live in this country requires an abolition and outright rejection of the very principles that made this nation possible.  There is no disconnect whatsoever between a nation saying "We are based fundamentally and solely on Christian principles and biblical truth and will make every decision relative to the operation and function of this state in which you live based on those principles; since part of those principles call for the love of all men you may live among us without fear."

Question #3: Is there any other fight more directly linked to the protection of freedom than this one?  I realize we have troops stationed all over the world and many are in harms way even as I write this post, but this is my point.  They are fighting for what this nation was established upon, and if that foundation is being eroded while they are overseas fighting to what are they coming home?  From a more pragmatic point of view, if those who would reject any Judeo-Christian influence or thinking from even the decision-making processes of the government and legal systems with what do they propose to replace it that would make us more free?  Secularism?  Naturalism?  Materialism?  Communism?  AnyOtherIsm?

Finally it is worth observing that nothing is less tolerated today than the intolerant Judeo-Christian religion.  "Seperation of church and state" and "freedom of religion" are pillars of intolerance to the very principles that provide the underlying foundation on which the pillars are built.  In time, those who stand confident on such pillars will issue up a celebratory cry that finally there is freedom from the shackles of religious intolerance that has plagued the nation since it's inception, only to find out that their cries of success had drowned out the noise of the cracking of the foundation on which they stood.

We will no doubt hear more cases; all different in the specifics, but all the same in fundamentals.  I have used the imagery of pillars and foundations; the framework of the nation supported by ideas and ideals well known and unconfused at inception but now clouded and sullied by bad thinking and modern misconceptions.  It is not very different than walking out to the end of a branch while setting fire to the trunk.  In the meantime perhaps someone can bring some meaningful answers to my questions.

Thoughts on Parent Led, Home Based Discipleship

Last Thursday, Friday and Saturday my wife and I attended the 26th annual North Carolina Home Education Conference.  We currently have four children, the oldest of which will be 7 this year.  We have schooled him at home for the last two years and have committed to home educate all our children.  The conference this year was as informative and productive as ever and we were able to pick up all our curriculum materials for the year and hear some great presentations along the way.  I was able to listen to two talks given by Dr. Brian Ray, who has eight children (7 daughters and one son) and works for the National Home Education Research Institute in Salem, Oregon.  His talks were great, in that they allowed me to think all over again the fundamental reasons why my wife and I decided to home educate our children and some of the philosophical issues that are at the crux of any discussion on the education of children in this country.  I feel compelled to put these ideas in writing and lay out a rudamentary argument for home education, as well as present some of the challenging positions and get to the heart of the matter.

Very briefly, statistics show that on average home educated students perform above average in comparison with public school students.  Research results done by Dr. Ray can be found here (Research Facts on Homeschooling) but some of the statistics that immediately impress are as follows:

The home-educated typically score 15 to 30 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests. (The public school average is the 50th percentile; scores range from 1 to 99.)

Homeschool students score above average on achievement tests regardless of their parents’ level of formal education or their family’s household income.

Home-educated students typically score above average on the SAT and ACT tests that colleges consider for admissions.

(All these above italicized results copied directly from Dr. Ray's site as linked to above.  Please visit the link or http://www.nheri.org/ for more content)

Beside just the statistical justification for the effectiveness of home education, there is also a fundamental philosophical thread woven throughout the issue of children's education.  Throughout one of Dr. Ray's talks (entitled Academic Elite Angst Over Home Education: Attacking Homeschooling Without Basis) I was struck by the common theme in the myriad quotes that were presented in peer-reviewed papers of those in acedemia who shape education policy.  That theme is authority and responsibility.  In question form, it would be presented as: "Who is responsible for educating children?"  Now this might seem like a simple question, but many different areas of thought are brought in.  It is clear from the discussion presented here that those who strongly advocate public education feel that those who have spent their lives at University in the education field, developing curriculum and textbooks, and are directly involved in setting educational standards (or the Academic Elite as Dr. Ray described) have the responsibility to educate children by the authority vested in them by the state.  This position begs the questions; Where are the parents of the children in this discussion, and Who gave the state the authority to make the Academic Elite responsible?

Removal of the parents from the decision-making process for their own children's education is a serious mistake in fundamental thinking.  It is true that for decades, the feeling has been growing until now the default position by many parents is "I don't have a degree in education, so I don't know how to teach my children," or "I can teach my children how to tie their shoes, but i've got to leave the bookwork to the professionals."  That attitude didn't arise overnight.  It has become commonplace today, to the point that even before children are born the assumption is they will have to go to someone else for their education.  Social issues behind this attitude are many, but again the main problem is that parents do not feel qualified, and attempt to either remove themselves or allow themselves to be removed from a position of responsibility and authority with regard to their children's education.  Now, of course the two word question arises, "So what?"

As it turns out, the "So what" question is a critical one.  Children are human beings, born to parents.  What document, provision, stipulation, law, code or ruling puts the state in charge of those people?  Quite simply there is none.  There is no document in this country that states that municipal, state or national agencies have the authority or responibility to dictate to parents what they must do with their children (except in cases of neglect or abuse).  So-called Academic Elites do not stand on a position of authority, but on one of philosophical force.  The underlying position is one of an egalitarianism of ideas and an elitism of people.  Put another way, they feel that all ideas are equally true but that one person (or group of people) decide which idea is best and which everyone else should adopt.  That position is fundamentally flawed, not only because all ideas are obviously not equally true because the law of non-contradiction holds, but also because we don't live in a nation founded on the principle of might makes right.

What the nation was founded on was a philosophy of an elitism of ideas and an egalitarianism of people.  Put another way, one idea is true (namely the Judeo-Christian or Biblical Christian position) and all people are created equal.  In his Civil Authority and the Bible, Harold O.J. Brown states the following:

"When we speak of church and state, it is important to recognize that as far as institutions go, the earliest and primary human social institution, or rather social structure, is the family...Examples of simple governmental institutions do exist in the Hebrew Scriptures, but the duties of the individual toward civil government are not spelled out as they are, at least in principle, in the New Testament.  Perhaps the explanation is the fact that from the age of the patriarchs to the Exile, authority remained primarily personal and familial.  In the early chapters of the Bible, family, society, and congregation are interwoven.  Religious leaders are civil leaders: Moses himself is the prime example.  Both the family and the church antedate the state."

Not that last line carefully one more time.  Both the family and the church antedate the state.  The family was established by God before the state, authority for children was given by God to parents for their children, prior to the establishment of institutions.  We see clearly from scripture that people and interpersonal relationships preceed institutions, governments and the like.  This point is expounded further by Herbert W. Titus in his God's Revelation: Foundation for the Common Law where he states:

"Rightfully understood, Genesis 1:28 along with Genesis 1:26 is a grant of authority, not a conveyance of title...The grant of authority in Genesis 1:28 is not to humankind in general, but to humankind through the family unit...In short, God selected the family as the primary economic unit of society-not the individual, not the state, not the corporation, and not the church.  The common law was designed to foster and protect the family, not only through rules protecting private-property ownership and facilitating its voluntary transfer but also through criminal sanctions prohibiting adultery, fornication, sodomy and bigamy.  Since the Darwinian revolution, however, this understanding of common law has deteriorated."

The movement of which my family is a part is commonly referred to as homeschooling.  Dr. Ray, however turned a phrase that I found much more apt and descriptive of the choice my wife and I have made: Parent-Led, Home-Based Discipleship.  We base our position on our children's education on the same foundation as in all other choices in our lives, on the Word of God.  God established the family as the primary human institution and we should fight to preserve the family, not promote the removal of parents from making decisions relative to their own children.

Before closing, let me be quick to say that I am not anti-education, anti-public school, or anti-academia.  I'm not arguing that education is bad, or that a good parent will choose to prevent their children from receiving an education.  I believe we are to love God with all our mind and that parents have to be good stewards in developing the minds of their children and help them become good thinkers.  My central point is on what I believe to be the hinge on which the argument swings; namely that the authority and responsibility for children's education belongs to the parents, not to the state.  Parents may choose public schools, private schools, parochial schools, charter schools, usage of any available voucher system, homeschool or other.

Sociologically, children function better with the active involvement and support of their family.  Research statistics show that homeschool children, on average, perform above average in academic measures.  Philosophically an elitism of ideas and an egalitarianism of people is the only tenable and non-contradictory position.  Biblically, the family is the primary human institution and Parent-Led, Home-Based Discipleship should always be preserved and supported as parents do their best under God to train up their children in the way they should go.

As a final aside, let me say how proud I am of the state of North Carolina for supporting home education, and the North Carolinians for Home Education organization for their encouragement, support and recognition of home educators in our state.

A ger Of An Issue - or - A Suggested Christian Approach to Immigration at the Southern US Border

Immigration in general, and the newly passed state law in Arizona in particular, has raised a great deal of debate (and I use the term as loosely as possible for most media outlets) surrounding the United States and immigration.  I've been thinking about this issue for a long time (over a year to date) and I would respectfully submit my thoughts and a proposal.  One word of note to begin, and that is that my address is specifically pointed to followers of Christ.  My hope in all my thinking is to bring together the biblical consideration that followers of Christ should give to any topic, some ancillary but related issues and contemporary cultural ideas that tend to cloud the issue.  With that as a backdrop, I begin with what I believe to be the requisite initial definition.

A Christian position on immigration must be based on biblical truth.  A quick perusal of just the Old Testament reveals a good portion of scripture dealing with the issue, and it is incumbent upon us as believers who understand the Bible as the inspired Word of God to investigate the terms so we can have a well founded understanding of what is intended and not just force a personal interpretation on the text.  gwr is the hebrew root for the words used in the Old Testament to speak on the topic.  Here I am going to include a significant excerpt of John T. Willis' translation, edited by Botterweck and Ringgren from the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament by William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company of Grand Rapids, Michigan, pages 439 to 449.  Any mistakes, typographical or otherwise are mine.

"Hebrew lexicography reckons with several roots of gwr.  In connection with an investigation of the root gwr I, 'to tarry as a sojourner,' the important question is whether gwr II=subordinate form of grh, 'to attack, strive,' and gwr III=subordinate form of ygr, 'to be afraid,' are independent homonymous roots, or whether possibly an original connection can be established between these roots, so that the various meanings represent special meanings of the same root...

...gwr I occurs in the qal 81 times...the subst. ger occurs 92 times...meghurim means 'sojourning' and occurs 11 times...

...In the OT, the ger occupies an intermediate position between a native ('ezrach) and a foreigner (nokhri').  He lives among people who are not his blood relatives, and thus he lacks the protection and the privileges which usually come from blood relationship and place of birth.    His status and privileges are dependent on the hospitality that has played an important role in the ancient Near East ever since ancient time.  In the early period of Israel, the legal position of the ger is comparable with that of the metics of Greece...However, under the sign of religious integration, the concept develops more and more toward the proselyte, the non-Israelite who becomes an adherent of the Yahweh faith...

...The reasons why someone becomes a ger, separates himself from his clan and his home, and places himself under the legal protection of another man or group of men, are varied.  The most frequent reason given in the OT is famine...Military encounters can also force people to lead the life of a ger...In addition, individual distress or bloodguilt can cause a person to seek protection and help among foreigners as a ger...

...As a rule, of course, the protected citizen could acquire no property, and thus was left to the legal protection of the fully enfranchised citizen...

...when the ger is mentioned in connection with the treatment of the quality of sacrifice in Lev. 22:17-33, and when Nu. 15 in supplements to the regulations concerning sacrifice (Nu. 15:14, 15 [twice], 16, 26, 29, 30) explicitly states that the ger has the same rights as the native, and that the expiatory power of the sin-offering is also given to the ger who lives in the midst of the whole community of the Israelites, again it is quite clear that in late strata of P (the Pentateuch) the ger is the fully integrated proselyte.  Therefore, in this portion of P one should regard all laws as also applicable to the ger, even if he is not explicitly mentioned.  And this means that the ger has his place in the community as a proselyte by circumcision and mode of life...

...The Israelites are commanded to treat the protected citizen kindly (Dt. 10:19; cf. Ex. 22:20 [21]; 23:9), because they know what it is to be a ger (nephesh hagger, 'the soul [heart] of a stranger'), they have the responsibility of extending the law of loving their neighbor as themselves (Lev. 19:18) to the ger...The idea that man simply lives the life of a ger here on earth if of special significance.  Thus, the psalmist knows that he is only a ger, 'guest' and a toshabh, 'sojourner', before Yahweh, like all his fathers...Yahweh alone is owner of the land, and thus they can only be hereditary tenants of his possesion...The distress of earthly existence leads to the recognition that God must support and help man like a patron, or else man will be lost."

End extended excerpt

There are several ideas that come to the front of my thinking.  First, the biblical understanding of the sojourner was that there was a significant impetous occuring in someone's native land that would drive them away (drought, famine, military action, bloodguilt, etc.).  The implication here is that people are not just milling about for no reason, wandering to and fro, but rather something is driving them to leave the protection and privilages afforded him in his native land.  They are placing themselves at the mercy of their hosts.  Second, there was an expectation of assimilation into the culture and the beliefs, the term proselyte is used.  The implication here is that all the laws of the land are expected to be followed and although the guest is protected and allowed to live securely, obtain private possessions, hire others to work for him, etc. there is the understanding of full assimilation into the culture.  Third, respectful treatment is required by the native in the land.  It is critically important to remember the position of mankind as a "hereditary tenant" of God's possession; such that caring for visitors is as part of good stewardship.

Now to bring in the related legal issues.  I'll be brief here because this portion could be an entire post on its own.  Governments and laws are established by God and are limited in power by God.  As Harold O.J. Brown says in his article Civil Authority and the Bible, "The first of these limits if quite clearly expressed in Scripture and is universally accepted by Christians and, to some extent, even respected by the civil laws of secular states: We may not do that which God's law prohibits, even when the secular authority commands it (Dan. 3:4-6), and we must do what God's law requires, even when secular (or religious) authorities prohibit it (Dan. 6:7-12; Acts 4:18; 5:28)."  Further, R.C. Sproul in his article The Biblical View of Submission of Constituted Authority states, "The apostles were driven to continue their ministry by an overarching ethical imperative.  What words they couched in a gossamer veil of the rhetorical in Acts 4, the proclaimed "without horns" in chapter 5: "We ought to obey God rather than men" (v. 29).  This ethical imperative, resting on an obligatory oughtness, is structured in a comparative form.  The operative word in the comparison is 'rather.'  It is not a universal license for revolt against all human authority...The 'rather' comes into play only when there is a conflict between the lesser and the greater magistrate.  The principle is always and ever prior obligation to the higher authority...The'governing authorities' can also be rendered 'higher powers.'  The powers or authorites (exousia) in view are not restricted to the supreme office of king or emporer but are applied to anyone who is in authority over us.  In 1 Peter 2:13 reference is made to the king who is supreme, but in this text no single class of magistrates is compared with another.  Our obligation is submission to all who hold magisterial authority over us.  There are encompassed by the word higher (hoperechon)."

And now to my recommendation, which is based on a more complete study of the full texts of the documents refrenced above and others and which I hope will be seen to be a balanced biblical approach for followers of Christ.  It seems to me that we need to incorporate the ideas of treating visitors well (as we understand even ourselves to be only caretakers of God's property), proselytizing and submitting to authority.  It would not be biblical or Godly to say everyone should just stay out and leave us alone because this is OUR country.  It would also not seem to be biblical or Godly to ignore the status of the soul of whoever comes in and out of the nation.  It would also not be biblical or Godly to say ignore the law and let everyone come in without a second thought.  My position, after careful consideration, which I consider to be a balanced biblical view of the issue, is that Christians in this country should endeavor to minister in the border areas where those to our South are entering the country.  At first thought, the ministry would be some combination of providing food, clothing, shelter for those wishing to enter the US while also explaining the current laws relative to immigration, helping to complete and submit the proper documentation for legal entry into the country, begin offering some basic English language to aide in assimilation into US culture, sharing the gospel and possibly even help in placement for employment and/or location once the legal documents for lawful entry have been received.

This seems to me to be a proper Christian respone to the issue.  It remains true to helping those in need and treating all people with dignity and respect because they are created in God's image, to be true to the biblical principle of submitting to authority where it does not conflict with God's law, and to make disciples of all nations.  It also seems to me to be a very difficult and potentially dangerous road to take, but that should be seen as possibly the best evidence for its being a legitimate solution for Christians.  Those who are called to being on the front lines would most certainly be in physical danger, but would have a wide open mission field of not only those who genuinely seek refuge from a situation that is forcing them to flee the provision and protection of their own native land and put themselves at the mercy of another but also to those who would attempt to smuggle drugs into the US.  It would also be another opportunity for all Christians across the nation to contribute to mission work right here in the United States.

How Should We Then Insure

I must admit that my heart has been heavy the last few days.  I spent the two days before the House vote on the health care bill reading the reconcilliation and amendments package.  I spent the two days after the vote continuing to read and gaining as much clarity as I could to what has now been voted into law.  Yesterday and today I have been reading through my favorite blogs and listening to a variety of talk shows and reading the local paper for how people are reacting to the legislation and I find myself torn on how to respond.  I see that both sides of the argument have some legitimate concerns (where the people expressing their views on the legislation are legitimate in their arguments).

On the one side, people are concerned about how difficult it is for individuals to purchase health insurance for themselves or their families;  how it is difficult for small businesses to offer company-wide health plans for their employees because they cannot buy into the larger market plans; how pre-existing conditions and the current state of rising health care costs are a major area of concern for the general public.

On the other side, people are concerned about how liberty is being usurped by the legal requirement that individuals must purchase a product from a private entity; how small businesses are being required to provide company health plans under threat of fine or penalty; how the experience of history shows wide ranging social plans administered by the government have all ended up bankrupt and the economic factors suggest the plan is doomed to failure before it begins.

As one who has done his best to read and understand the bill as it currently stands, I believe in many areas there is not enough information to adequately argue one way or the other.  A few examples:

1) The contention has been made that if individuals like their current coverage they can keep it.  Opponents say the bill will make it impossible for individuals to afford to keep their current coverage whether they like it or not.  In the text of the bill, all health care coverage carried by individuals and offered by employers must be Qualified Health Benefit Plans (QHBP)s.  Specific coverage offered by a QHBP is to be stipulated by the Secretary who is appointed by the President upon passage.  So, really at this moment no one knows what even constitutes a QHBP.  Until that is determined, making any kind of determination about current plans must be held in abeyance.

2) The contention has been made that health care costs will decrease as a result of the enactment of the legislation, while opponents charge the bill will drive health care costs up and bankrupt the nation.  In the text of the bill, the rates and methods of determining the rates for health care plans, like the make-up of a QHBP is to be determined by the Secretary upon passage of the legislation.  So, again at this moment no one really knows whether nationwide health care costs will go up or down.

I realize that everyone can make an assumption as to what these unknowns might be and then project outcomes, but at this point it is simply unknown.  More important to me is the emotion that is present on both sides and what the Christian response should be (where responses will be honoring and glorifying to God).

I'm going to throw out some questions that have crossed my mind in the last few days and maybe some of you others who have read the legislation or are also seeking to give some really good answers can help me out.  I already know how i've answered these questions, but i'd like some additional input.

1) Is this whole health care and insurance topic a bi-product of the affluence of our society?

2) Is there a point at which a man can tell another man he must help his neighbor?  Does loving one's neighbor as oneself apply just to the follower of Christ or to everyone?  Does the United States' embrace of a secularized mindset have any bearing on this question, i.e. is the Church the only group who ought to love their neighbor as themselves?

3) Where do personal responsibility and accountability to God cross with the ideas of "general welfare"?  What I mean by this, is the founders of the nation continually used the phrase "by the dictates of his own conscience" for the governance of an individual's behavior, does that concept still stand today?

4) When we speak of insurance, at what point are we beginning to point people to the government or an agent instead of to Almighty God?  Put another way, when do we as a nation begin to see our days here on earth and those can provide temporally for our needs as those in whom we put our faith?

5) Is there a way for believers in Christ to be set apart as unique in this environment so that we will be seen as different and be curious as to how they can change to be more like us (which is to say more like Christ)?  In other words, what opportunities for witness and evangelism are available in this tumultuous time?

I appreciate any thoughts as I believe the issues are deeper than just the 90 seconds they are typically given on news and talk shows.  Thanks in advance for Godly wisdom and input. 

A Ship at Sea

I heard two reports on the radio on my way into work today that caught my ear.  I read a bit more on one of those reports in the local newspaper.  Both deal primarily with the issue of ethical behavior, and both are concerned with members of the United States government.  Links to both reports are found below:

Charles Rangel Ethics Probe

Sexual Harassment Allegations

My intent here is not to speak specifically to the details of either of these pending issues and investigations, but rather to express some more general concern about ethics and ethical behavior.  By way of completeness, links are below to both the House and Senate committees on ethics:

House Ethics Committee

Senate Ethics Committee

Before lighting into a discussion, it is usually helpful to define the terms.
ethic - the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group.
ethics - a system of moral principles.
ethical - pertaining to or dealing with or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.

So, when we hear radio reports, or read news articles on ethical behavior or possible ethical violations or incidents being turned over for review to members of an ethics committee; what we need to ask ourselves is what set of moral principles are assumed to govern the particular group.  The importance here is absolutely critical.  How the deciding body, committee, group, or individual determines ethical behavior is based on the ethic that is espoused by the body, committee, group or individual.  Put another way, what moral principles are assumed as the basis upon which to confer a decision of ethical behavior.  We can further parse the question down to the most basic and fundamental question: What is the standard of morality assumed by the body, committee, group or individual?  One could also get at the same foundational assumptions by asking what worldview is adopted by the body, committee, group or individual.

This is the focus of my concern.  If an ethic is a body of moral principles or values, then what is the underlying concept of morality?  In this case, we are concerned with the United States government and what the underlying system of morality is used to make decisions regarding right and wrong conduct.  A detailed view of the current ethical system, and the moral basis for that system, begins with a look at the Ethics Manual for the Senate Special Committee (accessible by the Senate link above).  

Decisions are made not solely dependent on laws currently on the books.  The committe recognized that there could not be a law or provision included to stave off any and every conceivable breach of conduct.  It is worded thusly on page 12 in the Preface: "...the Federal statutes and Senate Rules to which most of this manual's discussion is devoted, are but a part of a wider body of ethical standards related to service in the Senate."  And is further described in Appendix E on page 433: "The phrase 'improper conduct' as used by S. Res. 338 can be given meaning by reference by generally accepted standards of conduct, the letter and spirit of laws and Rules, and by reference to past cases where the Senate has disciplined its Members for conduct that was deemed improper, regardless of whether it violated any law or Senate rule or regulation." 

The following link gives a detailed development of the history and enforcement of ethical standards in congress:
Enforcement of Ethical Standards in Congress
James Madison and Alexander Hamilton are cited as forerunning founders speaking to the issue of Congress self-governing and internally policing its behavior and conduct.  Specifically, Federalist Paper No. 57 is referenced.  Let's look at Federalist Paper No. 57 in more detail.  James Madison (the so-called 'Father of the Constitution') authored this paper as one in a succession of 22 consecutive publications on the topic of how to combine "stability and energy in government, with the inviolable attention due to liberty and to the republican form."  Particularly he speaks in the essay at hand to the proposition that representatives will accurately reflect the will of the people.  Madison says, "If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society?  I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and, above all, the vigilant and manly spirit that actuates the people of America - a spirit that nourishes freedom, and in turn is nourished by it.  If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be able to tolerate anything but liberty."  What a telling statement.  Without a law that every person in the entire nation recognizes and is obliged to live by, then liberty is lost.  What is this law that is applicable to every citizen in America to which everyone is obliged to adhere?  What is this spirit that is vigilant and that nourishes freedom?  Let's look at what Madison believed and based these statements.

In his 'Memorial and Remonstrance', Madison says, "Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governer of the Universe:  And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the general authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign."  In other words, before any man or woman can be bound by right conduct there must be allegiance pledged to a morality, a moral system, a moral law that is transcendent over himself/herself, the society and the government.  A moral system outside himself/herself but to which he/she is obliged to adhere.  A brief study of the life and history of James Madison makes clear he saw this Universal Sovereign as the God of the Bible, as revealed in the Old and New Testament.  In other words, God established an absolute moral order to which all are bound, and on which ethical decisions must be based that is transcendent over man.  That is the basis on which decisions on ethical behavior are to be based, and that is how this country was founded.

The fact that this nation was based on an understanding of a natural law that was established by God that every human being was obliged to follow is indisputable.  This does not mean that every citizen of America has to be Christian.  The founders were clear in their upholding the position of liberty and that each man must act in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience.  However, the nation was founded and the government based on the understanding of a natural law established by God to which every person was obliged to adhere.  That is the moral system by which ethical standards in this nation are to be based.

Now, one might argue that those ideas are antiquated, out of date, and due to the advances in science and technology the United States has moved away from those principles, "evolved" if you will to a new understanding.  I might be inclined to agree that due to a secularization of American thought, a privatization of moral values and the onslought of the belief in the relativism of truth that seems to have pervaded our entire culture that a growing number of people, and perhaps even the majority of the leaders of this nation might not hold to the original concept of what binds ethical decisions.  If this is the case, however, our situation is dire.  If the non-theist, the naturalist, the materialist view of ethics is adopted then tyranny, not liberty is the inevitable result.  If we are all here by some cosmic accident, if there is no good reason why we are here as opposed to not being here, if there is no ultimate purpose or meaning in life, if there is nothing that transcends natural processes, if our thoughts, feelings, reasoning, and moral positions are nothing more than the product of DNA then all decisionsa are arbitrary and capricious and we are reduced to a system of might makes right.  If there is no absolute moral law to which all are obliged to adhere, then what is unethical consists entirely on what is currently socially acceptible or more broadly whatever anyone can get away with without being caught.  A Represenative or Senator, or citizen in this nation for that matter, would not be acting unethically to lie, cheat, steal, bribe, backstab, or use whatever means inside or outside any law to do whatever they wanted, their problem would be simply that they got caught doing something that those in charge had arbitrarily decided might harm someone else (using only their definition of harm, as others may not think that same action harmful).

C.S. Lewis wrote an illustration once of a ship at sea.  He said that there are three things the ship had to be concerned with: how to keep the ship from sinking, how to keep from bumping into other ships, and why it was out there in the first place.  Our country was founded by understanding why we are out here in the first place, then determining how to keep from sinking and finally moved on to how to keep from bumping into other ships.  They were right.  We are moving dangerously close to the untenable position of declaring there is no reason for us to out here, that it ultimately doesn't matter whether we sink or sail, and then attempt to come up with some legimate reasons and procedures for avoiding other ships.

Cultural Shift, Majority Rule or Might Makes Right?

In reading the local paper this morning, I came across the following headline: "Cultural shift driving change in military's gay policy."  This was an associated press story, and the link to the entire article (dated February 3, 2010) is provided below, along with a previous piece dated February 2, 2010):

AP Article - Change in Military's Gay Policy

AP Article - Signs of Cultural Shift

My intention here is not to deal with the merit of men or women who have adopted and espouse a homosexual lifestyle actively serving in the military, whether under "Don't ask, Don't tell" or otherwise.  Rather, my concern is more to how we are making decisions in this nation on important moral, ethical and lifestyle issues in our contemporary culture.

Even up to the near recent past, homosexuality as a lifestyle was considered wrong.  Morally wrong as a lifestyle because it was considered sinful, and hurtful to the individual and to the society at large.  This feeling was largely based on the stance on such issues from a Biblical framework.  Biblically the behavior, lifestyle and/or practice is never condoned and is in every case condemned as abhorrent and profane.  The position was clear, the behavior was morally wrong.

In the two articles, however, the idea of right and wrong is absent from the text.  In its place are peppered phrases like, "attitudes and circumstances have changed", "gays and lesbians have been given comprehensive legal status as a protected class", "59 percent of Americans favor allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military", and "the US census has for the first time begun tabulating information about gay couples who live together."  It begs the question, "What does this have to do with whether homosexuality is right or wrong?"

The more I pondered the topic, the more I began to think that the articles did say something about right or wrong.  Perhaps in our contemporary culture whatever is popular culturally at any given time is the right thing, morally, ethically or otherwise.  Perhaps the comments about attitudes, opinions, and circumstances are the pure determining factor as to good, right and truth.

If this is the case, if what is good, right and true is determined by culture then there are some ramifications that must be acknowledged.  If that is the case, then we in America have chosen to call God a liar, or at least have told Him that He cannot exist.  We will have arrogated to ourselves the responsibility of deciding that which is right and that which is wrong.  Whatever God has called good and right is heretofore irrelevant in our society.  We are choosing to expel God and instead ourselves be the pure measure of all things.  Maybe that's the way we want it, maybe we see this as our culture to do with as we wish, maybe we like having the power to decide for ourselves.

I can only say, beware.  We have seen, and we have been told before how that kind of experiment will turn out.  If God does not exist, then we have no excuse and must live up totally with the cultural outworkings of that kind of ideology.  If popular opinion is the litmus test for right and wrong, if God does not exist and is irrelevant in moral choices and we are nothing more than a mindless, pointless collocation of atoms existing only to pass on genetic information then nature read in tooth and claw is the only way, and what remains is not good or bad, objective right or wrong, but might makes right.  First the majority will rule, and decide how culture will go.  Then a popularly elected body will decide for everyone how things will go.  Eventually one man (or woman) will decide how things will go, and those who sound the victory bell now will hear the death knell of freedom and liberty and cry out for answers as to why it all came to pass.

Is this synical, maybe.  Is this extremist fear, hardly.  We have countless accounts through the years of the dangers of a culture driven by the winds of cultural "attitudes and circumstances".  The founders of this nation were keenly aware of the precipice on which this democratic republic stood, and how a religious backdrop was absolutely necessary for morals and the established government to function.  Not Church control of the government, but a society (public, private, government or otherwise) submitted and obedient to an absolute Governer.

I am not addressing here whether or not homosexual men or women should be allowed to serve in the military.  I do not fear or hate any homosexual man or woman.  What I do know is that if such weighty and important moral and ethical questions are to be left to public opinion, to majority rule, to an ideal of might makes right then our nation is not on the proverbial slippery slope, but has rather stepped off the edge by inverting reality by denying what God has deemed good and right and true and instead arrogating to ourselves that solemn duty.

Which Values are Those?

Typically following a State of the Union address I will listen or watch the address real time and then go back and re-read the speech from the transcript available on the government website.  This year was no different; I listened to President Obama deliver his speech and then revisited the address yesterday afternoon late.  As usual the same set of comments that caught my attention during the real-time delivery jumped out from the written transcript.  It's something different every time and this year it occurred toward the end of the address and centered around the topic of "American values."  Following is the quote from the transcript and a link for the transcript in its entirety:

State of the Union Transcript

"Abroad, America's greatest source of strength has always been our ideals.  The same is true at home.  We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we're all created equal; that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else."

I was fascinated by this paragraph, especially the part about how we find unity in our diversity.  I have posted on this before and how this has always been the ultimate search; namely how to find unity in diversity.  We have universities across this nation looking for knowledge to unite diverse ideas; on our coinage we have the phrase E Pluribus Unum (out of the many, one; or from the many come one); even in ancient Greek the search was for the fifth essence that would unite the other four.  The unity does not exist within the diversity, there is an outside source that provides the unity within the diversity; that unity in diversity comes from a unity in a diversity in the first cause embodied in the community of the Trinity.

As the Declaration of Independence is the preamble to the Constitution then we do see that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with those inalienable rights.  But inalienable means it is contingent only on the Creator, no man gives them and no man or institution may molest them.  Why then the if-then statements that followed:  "if you abide by the law you will be protected by it, if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else."  Whether or not you abide by the laws of the land, life remains inalienable; even if you don't adhere to the values common to the many, liberty remains inalienable.  This is the beauty of the Biblical-Christian or Judeo-Christian worldview on which this country was founded, and on which the Declaration and Constitution were established.  We are created by the Creator with that Imago Dei in the image of God and it transcends actions or behaviors, that is the reason why all are treated equally, not because they agree with us.

"In the end, it's our ideals, our values that built America -- values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe, values that drive our citizens still.  Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers.  Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country.  They take pride in their labor, and are generous in spirit.  These aren't Republican values or Democratic values that they're living by; business values or labor values.  There American values."

And there it was jumping out at me; American values.  And the question arose in my mind, "The American values that the country began with, or contemporary American values?"  Are they in fact the same?  This State of the Union ended as all speeches tend to, with the familiar line: "Thank you.  God bless you.  And God bless the United States of America."  The God of the Bible is eluded to throughout the speech although not explicitly stated.  I'll leave the question open for dialouge and leave with just a few quotes from those signers of the Constitution who established the framework for this nation.  Perhaps we could think seriously for more than a few seconds about their words and if in fact the American values posited and promulgated by the founders of this nation continue to be interwoven with life in contemporary American culture.

"It pleased God to write his law upon the heart of man at first.  And the great lines of duty, however obscured by their original apostasy, are still so visible to afford an opportunity of judging what conduct and practice is or is not agreeable to its dictates.  Such authority hath natural conscience still in man that it renders those...inexcusable in the sight of God (Rom. 1:20-2:14)...The pollution of the heart brings a corrupt bias on the judgment, in the man's own case...whereas in determining the character of others, this bias is less sensibly felt."         John Witherspoon, New Jersey

"...the establishment proposed by this Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion.  To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself; for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them...

...It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him. The duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.  Before any man can be considered a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governer of the Universe.  And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association; must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the general authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegience to the Universal Sovereign.  We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society, and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance."           James Madison, Virginia

"The depravity which mankind inherited from their first parents, introduced wickedness into the world.  That wickedness rendered human government necessary to restrain the violence and injustice resulting from it.  To facilitate the establishment and administration of government, the human race became, in the course of Providence, divided into seperate and distinct nations.  Every nation instituted a government, with authority and power to protect it against domestic and foreign aggressions.

It is true that one of the postitive ordinances of Moses, to which you allude, did ordain retaliation or, in other words, a tooth for a tooth.  But we are to recollect that it was ordained, not as a rule to regulate the conduct of private individuals toward each other, but as a legal penalty or punishment for certain offences.  Retaliation is also manifest in the punishment prescribed for murder-life for life.  Legal punishments are adjusted and inflicted by the law and magistrate, and not by unauthorized individuals.  These and other positive laws or ordinances established by Divine direction, must of necessity be consistent with the moral law.  It certainly was not the design of the law or ordinance in question, to encourage a spirit of personal or private revenge."         John Jay, New York

"One great Advantage of the Christian Religion is that it brings the great Principle of the Law of Nature and Nations, Love your Neighbor as yourself, and do to others as you would that others should do to you, to the Knowledge, Belief and Veneration of the whole People.

...religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society.

There is no such thing [as morality] without a supposition of God.  There is no right or wrong in the universe without the supposition of a moral government and an intellectual and moral governer.

No other Institution for Education, no kind of political Discipline, could diffuse this kind of necessary Information, so universally among all Ranks and Descriptions of Citizens.  The Duties and Rights of the Man and the Citizen are thus taught from early Infancy to every Creature.  The Sanctions of a future Life are thus added to the Observance of civil and political, as well as domestic and private Duties.  Prudence, Justice, Temperance, and Fortitude, are thus taught to be the means and Conditions of future as well as present Happiness."        John Adams,  Massachusetts

New Year, Same Concern

I purposefully wanted to begin the New Year with a post on a topic that is both controversial but also current and important, namely abortion.  Many strong stands are being taken with regard to the comprehensive Health Care bills and the debate over possibilities and variations on inclusion, funding and scope of abortion in the United States under the new Health Care bill.  For my part, I have not read the House or Senate Bills in their entirety, although not for a lack of trying.  In both cases I attempted to download the document from the government website and read for myself, but the file was so large that it took over 60 seconds for my screen to refresh every time I scrolled down on a page or clicked to a new page.  I simply didn't have the time.  I say that to say that I cannot speak to the specific language in the Bills, so I won't, i'll just tackle the issue of should abotion be funded by taxpayers.

My answer is simply put in a previous post on this site entered on October 5, 2009 entitled "Justifiable Homocide?"  The excerpt is as follows:

"What is the unborn? If that thing growing in the mother's womb is not an individual human being, then kill it and remove it, whether it is for a good reason or not, no justification is needed. If, however, the human fetus is an individual human person differing from a 2-year old child only in size, shape, environment and degree of development then there is absolutely no reason that anyone could give (outside of an immediate fatal condition to the mother such as a tubal or ectopic pregnancy) that would warrant killing that innocent person."

Taxpayer money should not be used to fund abortions because abortion is the killing of an innocent and defenseless human person.  For me, the money involved the number of people in favor of or against the bill, results of poll data, other points in the bill that are important, or the necessity to get something done because the medical system is flawed have nothing to do with whether killing the unborn is right or wrong.  We don't even ask that question much any more.  Is it right to do?  It seems more and more the only questions asked are, "Can it be done?" or "Do a majority of Americans agree with doing it?"  If we go down that road and make decisions based on pure pragmatism, utilitarianism or majority rule then history has already taught us where it all ends.

With respect to governmental role in the matter, I think it far oversteps any bounds ever laid out for the Legislative, Judicial or Executive branches.  I don't even see a need to debate the question of whether the government should be allowed to force anyone in the United States by rule of law to participate in an activity they find morally wrong.  I suppose if it is passed those who have for so long called themselves pro-choice will have to change their position to pro-mandate.  In any case, I am more concerned about what happens when you take this to its logical conclusion.  If we judge what is acceptible by what is passed into law, i.e. it's right because the government says so, then where does that leave all other moral issues.  I was amazed to hear in President Obama's speech (in which he condemned the violence against protesters in Iran) say that the protesters were only trying to exercise their universal right to protest for freedom.  "Universal right".  This used to be an inalienable right, something given by God to all those He created in His image and likeness.  Do we now believe the universe gives us the right of freedom?  What will we say next, that it is a global right?  How about a secular governmental right? 

Whether funding for abortion is actually included in the final Health Care bill that is voted on and if passed sent on to the President for his signature is yet to be seen.  I belive that abortion is wrong.  The unborn are innocent human persons whose lives should be protected just as the lives of toddlers, young men and women, adult men and women and the elderly should be protected.

It is a New Year but this issue and my concern over it remains the same.  I continue to pray that the truth will be clearly seen and that more and more we will work to stop the damage we are doing in destroying so many human lives.