[Once again, please check into “The Coral Ridge (half) Hour” today (Orlando, 5 p.m., Ch. 55.1) The message will be about the Christian roots of the United States. Also, for some other great teaching on having a Christian worldview, check out Coral Ridge Ministries’ www.Crossexamine.com and their broadcast (in Orlando, Mondays, 7 –7-30 pm, Ch.55.2 (?)]
A Sunday Funny - From MickeysFunnies.com
After church one Sunday morning, a mother commented, "The choir was awful this morning."
The father commented, "The sermon was too long."
Their 7-year-old daughter added, "You've got to admit it was a pretty good show for a dollar."
The Essence of Fidelity
Marriage and loyalty still matter.
by John Hayward
05/19/2011 (from HumanEventsDaily@email.humanevents.com)
The news this week is dominated by two cases of sexual impropriety involving famous and powerful men. There are many differences between Arnold Schwarzenegger and ex-IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn, not least of which is the difference between the former’s consensual affair, and the charges of sexual assault filed against the latter. One notable similarity is that both are married, and each has four children with his wife.
The French press has been mocking Americans for caring about that sort of thing, all the way back to the Bill Clinton impeachment saga. Why make such a big deal about minor complications like marriage? Our cultural and political elites have made much progress toward overcoming these awkward hang-ups. Actress Cameron Diaz, for example, recently dismissed marriage as a “dying institution,” and thinks “we have to make our own rules,” rather than living our lives “in relationships based off old traditions that don’t suit our world any longer.”
Meanwhile, the President of the United States unilaterally decided the Defense of Marriage Act – passed into law, as fate would have it, by President Bill Clinton – is a dead letter that he doesn’t want to enforce any more. If you want to soak in those old traditions about marriage involving exactly one man and one woman, you can run back to your little church and do so, but less uptight Americans will be following Cameron Diaz’s advice and making their own rules.
It’s funny how so many Americans refuse to follow these exciting new cultural directives, and cling to their old marriage superstitions. There’s a certain flavor of shame that attaches to a man who betrays his wife, or a wife who betrays her husband. It has resisted all attempts to blend it with other flavors, or dilute it out of existence. It is often suggested that modern science and economic power have erased the original rationales for monogamous relationships. They’re not strictly necessary for procreation any more. Men and women no longer find themselves huddled in frontier cabins, sharing the arduous chores required to maintain a decent life.
And yet… men and women still need each other, and for most of us, the enduring emotional needs of a loyal relationship cannot be replaced by the momentary fulfillment of random desire. When we learn of someone who doesn’t feel that way, but still pretends to observe the traditions of marriage, we recoil in disgust. Trust is not easily given to a man who betrays his wife and children. We are wise to feel that way. It was always foolish to think the importance of marriage would be diminished by the removal of biological necessity and physical hardships. They were not the factors which made marriage indispensable, after all. Even a rich and powerful man, with all the science of the twenty-first century at his disposal, is still left in spiritual poverty when he discards the vows he made to his wife.
We need marriage because a society of free men and women depends on trust, and marriage is the essence of fidelity. It does not degrade the value of other relationships, or people who choose to remain single, to note that something special occurs when a man and woman promise their eternal devotion to each other. That union kindles the flame of commitment, which spreads from marriage, to family, and onward to illuminate communities and nations. There really is no substitute, no matter how hard various ideologies work to manufacture one.
The power of this relationship is sanctified by religious traditions, but it was not artificially created by them. Marriage is not an illusion sold by priests and rabbis. If you could somehow populate an island with completely innocent, newborn children, and leave them to their own devices for a generation or two, you would return one day to find husbands and wives working together to raise their children… or you would find savagery and devastation. Marriage is a core component of civilization, not an accidental byproduct. This is a truth that requires a great deal of careful conditioning to obscure.
We’re baffled and disgusted to learn about the tawdry misadventures of a popular figure like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Tiger Woods. We are also saddened, because we know their betrayal has taken something special from their wives and children, and no cash value can be assigned to the loss. The rest of us lose a highly visible example of wonderful and admirable trust. The world needs more examples of fidelity.
[bold emphasis MINE]
John Hayward is a staff writer for HUMAN EVENTS, and author of the recently published Doctor Zero: Year One. Follow him on Twitter: Doc_0. Contact him by email at jhayward@eaglepub
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Friday, May 20, 2011
#81 - Ah, Yes, HIgh Gas Prices? Must Be Those Corporations!
[(1)Be sure to check out "The Coral Ridge (Half) Hour" this Sunday.(10 am and 5 pm on Sundays)Should be an especially eye-opening message and video excerpt); (2) Check this blog site on Sunday as well for a "Sunday Special."]
What’s The Truth Behind Oil Subsidies
(AskHeritage.com; May, 2011 – The Heritage Foundation)
It’s easy to take shots at oil companies, especially when gas prices are rising over $4 per gallon. Playing the role of David against an enormous corporate Goliath is a great way to score political points, so it’s no wonder that President Barack Obama and liberals in Congress have issued a clarion call for the end to oil subsidies as a way of wreaking revenge against those they say are responsible for the high cost of energy. The truth, though, isn’t as simple as the good-versus evil fable the left would have you believe.
On Wednesday, five Democratic U.S. senators sent a letter to the CEOs of the country’s five largest oil companies declaring, ”[I]f we are truly serious about cutting our deficit, it is imperative that we start by getting rid of wasteful and ineffective corporate subsidies that have outlived their usefulness.”
The left’s anti-subsidy rhetoric is right on. Ending all energy subsidies, including those for oil and gas, would be good for American taxpayers and consumers. But if those senators were truly serious about cutting the deficit, they wouldn’t stop at just cutting subsidies for oil companies. They would also call for the elimination of subsidies for the president’s pet projects such as renewable fuels, electric vehicles, wind and solar. Throw in clean coal and natural gas, too. That would be the right move for the American taxpayers. But good policy isn’t their goal – vilifying an industry is their end game.
There’s another problem with the left’s crusade against the oil industry. The Heritage Foundation’s Nicolas Loris and Curtis Dubay explain that the broad calls for an end to oil subsidies is really code for targeted tax hikes against companies they don’t like:
"The President overreaches on what truly is a subsidy for oil and ignores the fact that the government does far more to hurt oil production than help it. He singles out the oil industry, which already faces a higher marginal tax rate at 41 percent compared to 26 percent for the rest of businesses in Standard & Poor’s 500."
To make matters worse, the tax hikes on the oil and gas industry proposed in the president’s fiscal year 2012 budget would increase the price of oil and gas for American consumers, according to the Congressional Research Service. Loris and Dubay conclude:
Ending all energy subsidies, including those for oil and gas, would be good for American taxpayers and consumers. However, Congress should not punish the oil and gas industry with targeted tax hikes, nor should it reward other parts of the energy industry favored by the Administration.
There’s much the president and Congress could do if they truly wanted to give Americans a break at the gas pump. For starters, they could provide access to our country’s domestic energy reserves, roll back regulatory burdens on companies and lift the de facto moratorium on offshore drilling permits. Attacking the oil industry might satisfy the left’s bloodlust against corporate America, and it might play well in press conferences. But targeted tax hikes against industries one might not like is not an answer to the high price of gas. It might feel good in the short run, but it’s not a long-term solution to America’s energy problems.
[bold and italics emphases mine]
What’s The Truth Behind Oil Subsidies
(AskHeritage.com; May, 2011 – The Heritage Foundation)
It’s easy to take shots at oil companies, especially when gas prices are rising over $4 per gallon. Playing the role of David against an enormous corporate Goliath is a great way to score political points, so it’s no wonder that President Barack Obama and liberals in Congress have issued a clarion call for the end to oil subsidies as a way of wreaking revenge against those they say are responsible for the high cost of energy. The truth, though, isn’t as simple as the good-versus evil fable the left would have you believe.
On Wednesday, five Democratic U.S. senators sent a letter to the CEOs of the country’s five largest oil companies declaring, ”[I]f we are truly serious about cutting our deficit, it is imperative that we start by getting rid of wasteful and ineffective corporate subsidies that have outlived their usefulness.”
The left’s anti-subsidy rhetoric is right on. Ending all energy subsidies, including those for oil and gas, would be good for American taxpayers and consumers. But if those senators were truly serious about cutting the deficit, they wouldn’t stop at just cutting subsidies for oil companies. They would also call for the elimination of subsidies for the president’s pet projects such as renewable fuels, electric vehicles, wind and solar. Throw in clean coal and natural gas, too. That would be the right move for the American taxpayers. But good policy isn’t their goal – vilifying an industry is their end game.
There’s another problem with the left’s crusade against the oil industry. The Heritage Foundation’s Nicolas Loris and Curtis Dubay explain that the broad calls for an end to oil subsidies is really code for targeted tax hikes against companies they don’t like:
"The President overreaches on what truly is a subsidy for oil and ignores the fact that the government does far more to hurt oil production than help it. He singles out the oil industry, which already faces a higher marginal tax rate at 41 percent compared to 26 percent for the rest of businesses in Standard & Poor’s 500."
To make matters worse, the tax hikes on the oil and gas industry proposed in the president’s fiscal year 2012 budget would increase the price of oil and gas for American consumers, according to the Congressional Research Service. Loris and Dubay conclude:
Ending all energy subsidies, including those for oil and gas, would be good for American taxpayers and consumers. However, Congress should not punish the oil and gas industry with targeted tax hikes, nor should it reward other parts of the energy industry favored by the Administration.
There’s much the president and Congress could do if they truly wanted to give Americans a break at the gas pump. For starters, they could provide access to our country’s domestic energy reserves, roll back regulatory burdens on companies and lift the de facto moratorium on offshore drilling permits. Attacking the oil industry might satisfy the left’s bloodlust against corporate America, and it might play well in press conferences. But targeted tax hikes against industries one might not like is not an answer to the high price of gas. It might feel good in the short run, but it’s not a long-term solution to America’s energy problems.
[bold and italics emphases mine]
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
#80 - We Got Him! - Bin Laden, Just War, and the War on Terror
[You know that I have great respect for Chuck Colson*s Christian commentary on the news. You will find his comments on the killing of Osama Bin Laden. However, this time, I found a comment attached to his posting that I found to be an interesting counterpoint. It makes this for a rather long blog but I think you*ll find the counterargument interesting.]
By: Chuck Colson| Breakpoint.com; May 3, 2011
… When I heard the news, my heart was filled with pride in my country. This is an enormous victory, and can be a major turning point in the war against terrorism. But not just in the obvious way: Yes, Al Qaeda has been dealt a tremendous blow -- practically and symbolically.
But the real turning point could be in how we conduct this war hereafter. As I have said on BreakPoint previously, maintaining 100,000 troops in Afghanistan no longer meets the just war criteria. Our goal in Afghanistan seems to have morphed from destroying the Taliban to nation-building -- transforming Afghanistan into a pro-Western, pro-democratic society. Our chances of succeeding in transforming a society that has resisted change for nearly two millennia are just north of zero, which is why I believe that our efforts in Afghanistan are no longer just. That’s because Christian just war doctrine demands that war be waged only when a reasonable probability of success exists.
The just war doctrine also does not say that the United States has the moral right or duty to go into other countries and force them to conform to our strategic plan. Yet that’s what we’re doing in Afghanistan. Oh sure, our invasion of Afghanistan was a just response to the terror attacks of 9/11, aided and abetted by the Taliban. But we’re well past that. The brave men and women of our armed forces went in and threw the Taliban out. And we still could keep the Taliban terrorist movement under control with covert forces, but we don’t need 100,000 troops on the ground to do that.
The success of the operation against bin Laden proves that targeted, behind-the-scenes operations based on solid intelligence give us the best chance to eliminate the terrorists. It’s like using a rifle instead of a shotgun. It is not only a more just and appropriate response to terrorism, but it could save billions upon billions of dollars -- 100 billion this year alone -- at a time when our nation is teetering on the edge of fiscal insolvency. The president deserves enormous credit for what he’s done. I should also mention that just two weeks ago, I hailed the President’s decision not to try Al Qaeda mastermind Kahlid Sheikh Muhammad in New York City -- and to instead try him instead at Guantanamo. Of course, we now know that the information about Bin Laden’s whereabouts came from detainees at Guantanamo. I can’t help but wonder if that was one reason for the administration’s decision to try Muhammad there.
But again, this is a time to celebrate America’s victory over bin Laden. And it’s also a time to see a just way forward in the war on terror, which can save billions of dollars and untold lives.
FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION
No Confidence: Afghanistan and Christians;Chuck Colson | BreakPoint | February 22, 2011
Obama's Wars, America's Problem;Chuck Colson | BreakPoint | September 29, 2011
Osama bin Laden Operation Ended with Coded Message "Geronimo-E-KIA"; Jake Tapper, ABC News | May 02, 2011
Sorry Chuck, you're wrong on this one
Chuck Colson,
I respect you tremendously, and quote your application of worldview to current events frequently. You are one of the most potent moral thinkers of today. But no one is 100% perfect, and in today’s Breakpoint, you are just plain wrong.
You say, “Our goal in Afghanistan seems to have morphed from destroying the Taliban to nation-building,” – well, yes. We removed the evil, old system, and have some moral responsibility to help them rebuild with something better. Similar to the US occupation of Germany and rebuilding of Europe after WWII. We had learned after WWI that leaving a vacuum allows the worst elements to walk in. Just as we found that leaving Afghanistan after the Soviets left, opened the door to takeover by the most extreme elements in the Taliban.
“Christian just war doctrine demands that war be waged only when a reasonable probability of success exists.” How can you be so pessimistic, when Afghanistan has conducted 2 national elections (albeit flawed). We are not going to “transform Afghanistan into a pro-Western, pro-democratic society.” But we can support the reform elements and give them the protection and training to achieve their own version of a developing free country. Remember, the lack of any history or social understanding of freedom was the argument against transforming Japan and Korea after WWII. It will take time, and yes money and sacrifice, but the goal is very realistic.
“The success of the operation against bin Laden proves that targeted, behind-the-scenes operations based on solid intelligence give us the best chance to eliminate the terrorists.” This is the most wrong statement of the entire commentary. The intelligence to root out bin Laden was gained through aggressive military action within Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.
Osama was found by tracking down his personal courier, which was extremely difficult because of the security precautions they enacted. The pseudonym “Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti” was provided by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (captured in Pakistan in 2003), and Abu Faraj al-Libbi (captured in Pakistan in 2005). It took more traditional sleuthing to get al-Kuwaiti’s real name, according to the NY Times. That meant putting more operatives on the ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan to track him, yielding a partial name. A file released by WikiLeaks suggests that the courier’s identity was provided to the US by another key source, the al-Qaida facilitator Hassan Ghul, who was captured in Iraq in 2004 and interrogated by the CIA.
In fact, Osama was holed up in his compound (and largely ineffective in leading further terrorism) because of the on-going military operations partnering with counter-terrorism efforts. Plus the “targeted” operation was from a base in Afghanistan which would not exist without our presence there. We cannot gain intelligence without the larger effort, and without our active military partnership with the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.
The fact is, that without the heartbreaking sacrifice of so many US Soldiers and Marines, the people of Afghanistan would be enslaved by the worst kind of terrorists. And freeing the enslaved is one of the most Christian (and “Just War Doctrine”) goals I can think of.
Respectfully, Norman Wolfe, Denver, Colorado
Some sources I used to develop the above information:
http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2011/05/03/inconvenient-facts-about-the-takedown-of-osama-bin-laden/#comment-8556
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/world/asia/02reconstruct-capture-osama-bin-laden.html?hp
Posted By: YnotNOW on May 03, 2011 4:26 PM
By: Chuck Colson| Breakpoint.com; May 3, 2011
… When I heard the news, my heart was filled with pride in my country. This is an enormous victory, and can be a major turning point in the war against terrorism. But not just in the obvious way: Yes, Al Qaeda has been dealt a tremendous blow -- practically and symbolically.
But the real turning point could be in how we conduct this war hereafter. As I have said on BreakPoint previously, maintaining 100,000 troops in Afghanistan no longer meets the just war criteria. Our goal in Afghanistan seems to have morphed from destroying the Taliban to nation-building -- transforming Afghanistan into a pro-Western, pro-democratic society. Our chances of succeeding in transforming a society that has resisted change for nearly two millennia are just north of zero, which is why I believe that our efforts in Afghanistan are no longer just. That’s because Christian just war doctrine demands that war be waged only when a reasonable probability of success exists.
The just war doctrine also does not say that the United States has the moral right or duty to go into other countries and force them to conform to our strategic plan. Yet that’s what we’re doing in Afghanistan. Oh sure, our invasion of Afghanistan was a just response to the terror attacks of 9/11, aided and abetted by the Taliban. But we’re well past that. The brave men and women of our armed forces went in and threw the Taliban out. And we still could keep the Taliban terrorist movement under control with covert forces, but we don’t need 100,000 troops on the ground to do that.
The success of the operation against bin Laden proves that targeted, behind-the-scenes operations based on solid intelligence give us the best chance to eliminate the terrorists. It’s like using a rifle instead of a shotgun. It is not only a more just and appropriate response to terrorism, but it could save billions upon billions of dollars -- 100 billion this year alone -- at a time when our nation is teetering on the edge of fiscal insolvency. The president deserves enormous credit for what he’s done. I should also mention that just two weeks ago, I hailed the President’s decision not to try Al Qaeda mastermind Kahlid Sheikh Muhammad in New York City -- and to instead try him instead at Guantanamo. Of course, we now know that the information about Bin Laden’s whereabouts came from detainees at Guantanamo. I can’t help but wonder if that was one reason for the administration’s decision to try Muhammad there.
But again, this is a time to celebrate America’s victory over bin Laden. And it’s also a time to see a just way forward in the war on terror, which can save billions of dollars and untold lives.
FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION
No Confidence: Afghanistan and Christians;Chuck Colson | BreakPoint | February 22, 2011
Obama's Wars, America's Problem;Chuck Colson | BreakPoint | September 29, 2011
Osama bin Laden Operation Ended with Coded Message "Geronimo-E-KIA"; Jake Tapper, ABC News | May 02, 2011
Sorry Chuck, you're wrong on this one
Chuck Colson,
I respect you tremendously, and quote your application of worldview to current events frequently. You are one of the most potent moral thinkers of today. But no one is 100% perfect, and in today’s Breakpoint, you are just plain wrong.
You say, “Our goal in Afghanistan seems to have morphed from destroying the Taliban to nation-building,” – well, yes. We removed the evil, old system, and have some moral responsibility to help them rebuild with something better. Similar to the US occupation of Germany and rebuilding of Europe after WWII. We had learned after WWI that leaving a vacuum allows the worst elements to walk in. Just as we found that leaving Afghanistan after the Soviets left, opened the door to takeover by the most extreme elements in the Taliban.
“Christian just war doctrine demands that war be waged only when a reasonable probability of success exists.” How can you be so pessimistic, when Afghanistan has conducted 2 national elections (albeit flawed). We are not going to “transform Afghanistan into a pro-Western, pro-democratic society.” But we can support the reform elements and give them the protection and training to achieve their own version of a developing free country. Remember, the lack of any history or social understanding of freedom was the argument against transforming Japan and Korea after WWII. It will take time, and yes money and sacrifice, but the goal is very realistic.
“The success of the operation against bin Laden proves that targeted, behind-the-scenes operations based on solid intelligence give us the best chance to eliminate the terrorists.” This is the most wrong statement of the entire commentary. The intelligence to root out bin Laden was gained through aggressive military action within Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.
Osama was found by tracking down his personal courier, which was extremely difficult because of the security precautions they enacted. The pseudonym “Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti” was provided by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (captured in Pakistan in 2003), and Abu Faraj al-Libbi (captured in Pakistan in 2005). It took more traditional sleuthing to get al-Kuwaiti’s real name, according to the NY Times. That meant putting more operatives on the ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan to track him, yielding a partial name. A file released by WikiLeaks suggests that the courier’s identity was provided to the US by another key source, the al-Qaida facilitator Hassan Ghul, who was captured in Iraq in 2004 and interrogated by the CIA.
In fact, Osama was holed up in his compound (and largely ineffective in leading further terrorism) because of the on-going military operations partnering with counter-terrorism efforts. Plus the “targeted” operation was from a base in Afghanistan which would not exist without our presence there. We cannot gain intelligence without the larger effort, and without our active military partnership with the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.
The fact is, that without the heartbreaking sacrifice of so many US Soldiers and Marines, the people of Afghanistan would be enslaved by the worst kind of terrorists. And freeing the enslaved is one of the most Christian (and “Just War Doctrine”) goals I can think of.
Respectfully, Norman Wolfe, Denver, Colorado
Some sources I used to develop the above information:
http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2011/05/03/inconvenient-facts-about-the-takedown-of-osama-bin-laden/#comment-8556
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/world/asia/02reconstruct-capture-osama-bin-laden.html?hp
Posted By: YnotNOW on May 03, 2011 4:26 PM
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
#79 - William and Kate: Dismissing "Archaic " Concepts?
You’ve probably been bombarded with more information about Friday’s royal wedding than you can digest. I know I have. But I wonder if in all that you’ve heard, you’ve come across 2 particular things that has left me deeply saddened .
First of all, did you know that they have been living together for most of the seven years since they first met. Unfortunately, we live in a time when this no longer shocks people but is actually accepted as normal by most people. Do you know that if this had been the case with Williams mother when she was married about 30 years ago that she and Prince Charles would not have been able to marry? You see, back in those “good old days,” the bride marrying the future King had to be a virgin, which at 19 Diana Spencer was. But today, that no longer is necessary because we live in a more “progressive” and not so “Puritanical” time. Yes, mankind has made so much “progress” in such a short time, has it not?
Then, just the other day, it was revealed that, like Princess Diana, Kate Middleton will not be required to say that she will “love, honor, and obey” her husband but instead, will say something like “love, honor, and RESPECT” her husband, because as one reporter said, to obey is such an archaic concept. Such a comment shows the general Biblical ignorance among English speaking people these days. Of course, it reflects the mistaken understanding of the wife being subject to the whims of her husband much as a slave would be to it’s master. People who think that don’t bother to look carefully at such passages as Ephesians 5:21-25.
First of all, verse 22 - that speaks to wives - is proceeded by verse 21 (not by coincidence) that calls ALL of us to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” In verse 22, it says wives should submit to their husbands “as to the Lord.” “It should be noted that all [the Apostle, the writer of the epistle] Paul says is written in the context of Christian marriage. He is not implying that women are inferior to men or that all women should be subject to men. The subjection, moreover, is voluntary, not forced. The Christian wife who promises to obey does so because her vow is ‘as to the Lord.” (from The Bible Expositor’s Commentary, Vol 2, p. 75) Finally, it is also overlooked that in later on in verse 25, it says “Husbands, love your wives, just Christ loves the Church and gave himself up for her …” In other words, though the husband is called to take the lead in the marriage relationship, he is called to love his wife as completely and unselfishly as Christ does, even to giving up his life for her as Christ did for His Church. The complete calling given to the husband makes it impossible for him to take advantage of his wife’s submission by placing the highest standard of love upon him.
It’s a shame that so many “modern” women tend not to understand and appreciate the true meaning of the word “obey” in a marriage. If they did, they would then know that rather than being an “archaic” concept the word “obey” points to a God-ordained definition of the marriage relationship that was meant to fully bless those who lived by its precepts.
And if they do not already, let us pray that William and Kate will one day soon each come to have a true personal relationship with Christ, without which not even an earthly King or a Queen has any hope of spending eternity with the true King of Kings.
First of all, did you know that they have been living together for most of the seven years since they first met. Unfortunately, we live in a time when this no longer shocks people but is actually accepted as normal by most people. Do you know that if this had been the case with Williams mother when she was married about 30 years ago that she and Prince Charles would not have been able to marry? You see, back in those “good old days,” the bride marrying the future King had to be a virgin, which at 19 Diana Spencer was. But today, that no longer is necessary because we live in a more “progressive” and not so “Puritanical” time. Yes, mankind has made so much “progress” in such a short time, has it not?
Then, just the other day, it was revealed that, like Princess Diana, Kate Middleton will not be required to say that she will “love, honor, and obey” her husband but instead, will say something like “love, honor, and RESPECT” her husband, because as one reporter said, to obey is such an archaic concept. Such a comment shows the general Biblical ignorance among English speaking people these days. Of course, it reflects the mistaken understanding of the wife being subject to the whims of her husband much as a slave would be to it’s master. People who think that don’t bother to look carefully at such passages as Ephesians 5:21-25.
First of all, verse 22 - that speaks to wives - is proceeded by verse 21 (not by coincidence) that calls ALL of us to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” In verse 22, it says wives should submit to their husbands “as to the Lord.” “It should be noted that all [the Apostle, the writer of the epistle] Paul says is written in the context of Christian marriage. He is not implying that women are inferior to men or that all women should be subject to men. The subjection, moreover, is voluntary, not forced. The Christian wife who promises to obey does so because her vow is ‘as to the Lord.” (from The Bible Expositor’s Commentary, Vol 2, p. 75) Finally, it is also overlooked that in later on in verse 25, it says “Husbands, love your wives, just Christ loves the Church and gave himself up for her …” In other words, though the husband is called to take the lead in the marriage relationship, he is called to love his wife as completely and unselfishly as Christ does, even to giving up his life for her as Christ did for His Church. The complete calling given to the husband makes it impossible for him to take advantage of his wife’s submission by placing the highest standard of love upon him.
It’s a shame that so many “modern” women tend not to understand and appreciate the true meaning of the word “obey” in a marriage. If they did, they would then know that rather than being an “archaic” concept the word “obey” points to a God-ordained definition of the marriage relationship that was meant to fully bless those who lived by its precepts.
And if they do not already, let us pray that William and Kate will one day soon each come to have a true personal relationship with Christ, without which not even an earthly King or a Queen has any hope of spending eternity with the true King of Kings.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
#78 - Apocalypse Now: Wisconsin vs. Big Labor
(In case I do not do a posting on Friday, be sure, as always to watch today’s “Coral Ridge Hour.” (in Orlando, non-cable station 55.1, 5-5:30 pm.) They are in the midst of a 4-part series on the major threats to our nation today. Great perspective as always on seeing our world from a biblical worldview.)
by Michelle Malkin (HumanEvents.com)
02/18/2011
Welcome to the reckoning. We have met the fiscal apocalypse, and it is smack dab in the middle of the heartland. As Wisconsin goes, so goes the nation. Let us pray it does not go the way of the decrepit welfare states of the European Union.
The lowdown: State government workers in the Badger State pay piddling amounts for generous taxpayer-subsidized health benefits. Faced with a $3.6 billion budget hole and a state constitutional ban on running a deficit, new GOP Gov. Scott Walker wants public unions to pony up a little more. He has proposed raising the public employee share of health insurance premiums from less than 5 percent to 12.4 percent. He is also pushing for state workers to cover half of their pension contributions. To spare taxpayers the soaring costs of Byzantine union-negotiated work rules, he would rein in Big Labor's collective bargaining power to cover only wages unless approved at the ballot box.
As the free-market MacIver Institute in Wisconsin points out, the benefits concessions Walker is asking public union workers to make would still maintain their health insurance contribution rates at the second-lowest among Midwest states for family coverage. Moreover, a new analysis by benefits think tank HCTrends shows that the new rate "would also be less than the employee contributions required at 85 percent of large Milwaukee-area employers."
This modest call for shared sacrifice has triggered the wrath of the White House-Big Labor-Michael Moore axis. On Thursday, President Obama lamented the "assault on unions." AFL-CIO and Service Employees International Union bosses dubbed Walker the "Mubarak of the Midwest" while their minions toted posters of Walker's face superimposed on Hitler's. Moore goaded thousands of striking union protesters to "shut down" the "new Cairo" while the state's Democratic legislators bailed on floor debate over the union reform package.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan spurned the opportunity to condemn thousands of Wisconsin public school teachers for lying about being "sick" and shutting down at least eight school districts across the state to attend capitol protests (many of whom dragged their students on a social justice field trip with them). Instead, Duncan defended teachers for "doing probably the most important work in society." Only striking government teachers could win federal praise for NOT doing their jobs.
Yes, the so-called progressives truly believe that bringing American union workers into the 21st century in line with the rest of the workforce is tantamount to dictatorship. Yes, the so-called progressives truly believe that by walking off their jobs and out of their classrooms, they are "putting children first."
If ever there were proof that public unions no longer work in the public interest, this is it. Big Labor dragoons workers into exclusive representation agreements, forces them to pay compulsory dues that fatten Democratic political coffers and then has the chutzpah to cast itself as an Egyptian-style "freedom" and "human rights" movement.
Meanwhile, union leaders elsewhere are quietly forcing their low-wage members to share the sacrifice in order to preserve teetering health funds. In New York state, Skidmore College campus janitors, dining service workers and other maintenance employees received late notice from the SEIU that 4.15 percent of their gross earnings will now be deducted from their paychecks to cover the cost of the health plan provided through the behemoth 1199 SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund. (If the name sounds familiar, it's because this is one of several privileged SEIU affiliates that has received an Obamacare waiver.)
These workers are forced to join the union in order to preserve their jobs, and unlike non-union workers, they are locked into a single health plan. The SEIU has now decreed that they must pay new fees to include spouses on their plans and has hiked employee co-pays for doctor visits and prescription drugs.
What's necessary for New York union workers is necessary for Wisconsin union workers -- and for the rest of the protected union worker class in bankrupt and near-bankrupt states across America. The "persuasion of power" so ruthlessly and recklessly exercised by the SEIU and its thuggish allies must be broken by the moral courage of fiscal discipline. It's now or never.
Mrs. Malkin is author of Unhinged (Regnery) and "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2009).
Sunday, February 6, 2011
#77 - Sunday Special - Less Than Super
1. (see blog posting #76) Needless to say, please keep the current unrest in Egypt in your daily prayers. PLEASE PRAY THAT, WHILE HUNGERING FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS, THE PEOPLE THERE (AND THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST), THE PEOPLE WILL ALLOW FOR A SMOOTH TRANSITION AND NOT, IN THEIR IMPATIENCE, CAUSE THERE TO BE A POLITICAL VACCUM THAT WOULD BE FILLED BY RADICAL ISLAMIC ELEMENTS.
2. Again, be sure to watch today’s “Coral Ridge Hour.” (in Orlando, non-cable station 55.1, 5-5:30 pm.) Learn why our nation’s unsustainable deficit is fundamentally not an economic problem as it is a moral/spiritual problem. This is the first of a 4-part series on the major threats to our nation today. Great perspective as always on seeing our world from a biblical worldview.
3. Just before the kick-off of today's Superbowl game, they will show a special video celebrating what would have been the 100th birthday of our 40th President, Ronald Reagan. Try to tune in at least 15 minutes before the kick-off. I trust it will be good.
TV Ads and the State of Our CultureBy: Chuck Colson|February 3, 2011
Super Bowl ads on television can be hazardous to your spiritual health.
Ah, yes! We’ve waited a whole year. It’s time to put down that snow shovel, gather ’round the television, and participate in the annual national bonding event known as the Super Bowl. Now, I’m not talking about the game itself, but about something far more important to most Americans: the commercials!
While many of us are still in the icy grip of this recession, pro football’s championship game hardly seems to have noticed. Thirty-second spots—selling everything from corn chips to luxury cars--are going for a cool three million dollars each. That doesn’t even include all the money needed to produce these big-budget sales pitches.
Every year, however, some proposed ads don’t make the cut because they are too “controversial.” You’ll recall that one starring Tim Tebow and his mother last year was almost pulled because of its pro-life message. Thank heavens it aired! But this year, there’s one ad I’m very glad to say you won’t see. It’s an ad that promotes the website of a company called Ashley Madison. This site isn’t offering career help or a new line of women’s clothes. No, Ashley Madison promotes good, old-fashioned adultery. In the ad, a scantily clad woman, played by a porn star, apparently is getting excited by the fact that her husband is cheating on her. The Fox network, rightly, rejected the ad. Ashley Madison responded by claiming that it is evidence of—I kid you not—an unfair bias against porn stars. Folks, you can’t make this stuff up! I hope there is still some kind of bias against porn stars on prime time television.
The fact is, though, that in this morally confused culture, we face constant pressure in our media, in our institutions, and in our daily interactions to do the wrong thing, to cut corners, to indulge in self-gratification, to cheat. For example, a new movie, called No Strings Attached, starts off with the increasingly popular notion that some of us are just too busy to work on relationships, and so having sex with no commitment—no strings attached—is a perfectly acceptable “lifestyle choice.”
And we wonder why the rates of divorce and broken families are soaring, not to mention sexually transmitted diseases. Rightly did the existential philosopher Albert Camus warn, “A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon the world.”
Of course, our “ethically challenged” problems go far beyond our sexual misbehavior. As I’ve said many times, one of the biggest reasons for the economic crisis is that we—Main Street, Wall Street, and Capitol Hill and the people—refused to live within our means.
We need to get back to ethical fundamentals in this country—and fast. That’s why I’m very excited about a new, six-part video series we’ve put together called “Doing the Right Thing.” It focuses on restoring ethical decision-making in a society that has been, from the bedroom to the board room, less than ethical.“Doing the Right Thing” features Robert George, Brit Hume, and many other key thinkers on this vital topic, and you’ll want to get a copy for your church or group. It’s going to be released in March. But you can to Colson Center.org today for more information, or to pre-order “Doing the Right Thing.”
When you watch the Super Bowl, count how many ads promote doing the wrong thing, and how many promote doing the right thing. I’m guessing when you do that, you’ll agree with me that we need a re-birth of ethics in this country.
FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION
Ad-Wize, All the Buzz Over Super Bowl/ Tony Fitzgerald | Media Life | January 28, 2011
Fox rejects Super Bowl ad that encourages cheating on your spouse NewsNet5.com| Janurary 25, 2011
Doing the Right Thing: A Six-Part Series on Ethics / The Colson Center for Christian Worldview | www.colsoncenter.org/ethics
2. Again, be sure to watch today’s “Coral Ridge Hour.” (in Orlando, non-cable station 55.1, 5-5:30 pm.) Learn why our nation’s unsustainable deficit is fundamentally not an economic problem as it is a moral/spiritual problem. This is the first of a 4-part series on the major threats to our nation today. Great perspective as always on seeing our world from a biblical worldview.
3. Just before the kick-off of today's Superbowl game, they will show a special video celebrating what would have been the 100th birthday of our 40th President, Ronald Reagan. Try to tune in at least 15 minutes before the kick-off. I trust it will be good.
TV Ads and the State of Our CultureBy: Chuck Colson|February 3, 2011
Super Bowl ads on television can be hazardous to your spiritual health.
Ah, yes! We’ve waited a whole year. It’s time to put down that snow shovel, gather ’round the television, and participate in the annual national bonding event known as the Super Bowl. Now, I’m not talking about the game itself, but about something far more important to most Americans: the commercials!
While many of us are still in the icy grip of this recession, pro football’s championship game hardly seems to have noticed. Thirty-second spots—selling everything from corn chips to luxury cars--are going for a cool three million dollars each. That doesn’t even include all the money needed to produce these big-budget sales pitches.
Every year, however, some proposed ads don’t make the cut because they are too “controversial.” You’ll recall that one starring Tim Tebow and his mother last year was almost pulled because of its pro-life message. Thank heavens it aired! But this year, there’s one ad I’m very glad to say you won’t see. It’s an ad that promotes the website of a company called Ashley Madison. This site isn’t offering career help or a new line of women’s clothes. No, Ashley Madison promotes good, old-fashioned adultery. In the ad, a scantily clad woman, played by a porn star, apparently is getting excited by the fact that her husband is cheating on her. The Fox network, rightly, rejected the ad. Ashley Madison responded by claiming that it is evidence of—I kid you not—an unfair bias against porn stars. Folks, you can’t make this stuff up! I hope there is still some kind of bias against porn stars on prime time television.
The fact is, though, that in this morally confused culture, we face constant pressure in our media, in our institutions, and in our daily interactions to do the wrong thing, to cut corners, to indulge in self-gratification, to cheat. For example, a new movie, called No Strings Attached, starts off with the increasingly popular notion that some of us are just too busy to work on relationships, and so having sex with no commitment—no strings attached—is a perfectly acceptable “lifestyle choice.”
And we wonder why the rates of divorce and broken families are soaring, not to mention sexually transmitted diseases. Rightly did the existential philosopher Albert Camus warn, “A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon the world.”
Of course, our “ethically challenged” problems go far beyond our sexual misbehavior. As I’ve said many times, one of the biggest reasons for the economic crisis is that we—Main Street, Wall Street, and Capitol Hill and the people—refused to live within our means.
We need to get back to ethical fundamentals in this country—and fast. That’s why I’m very excited about a new, six-part video series we’ve put together called “Doing the Right Thing.” It focuses on restoring ethical decision-making in a society that has been, from the bedroom to the board room, less than ethical.“Doing the Right Thing” features Robert George, Brit Hume, and many other key thinkers on this vital topic, and you’ll want to get a copy for your church or group. It’s going to be released in March. But you can to Colson Center.org today for more information, or to pre-order “Doing the Right Thing.”
When you watch the Super Bowl, count how many ads promote doing the wrong thing, and how many promote doing the right thing. I’m guessing when you do that, you’ll agree with me that we need a re-birth of ethics in this country.
FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION
Ad-Wize, All the Buzz Over Super Bowl/ Tony Fitzgerald | Media Life | January 28, 2011
Fox rejects Super Bowl ad that encourages cheating on your spouse NewsNet5.com| Janurary 25, 2011
Doing the Right Thing: A Six-Part Series on Ethics / The Colson Center for Christian Worldview | www.colsoncenter.org/ethics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
