The Fairness Doctrine began as a matter of general policy at the Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.) in 1949 and was applied on a case-by-case basis through 1967. The doctrine (policy) at the time was intended to have licensed broadcasters air "...controversial matters of public interest...", and to provide "contrasting views..." of those matters for public consumption.
Essentially, if a radio or television broadcaster had, for example, a show featuring a clearly 'right' or 'left' opinion about politics, they were then required to afford an opportunity for an opposing point of view to be aired.
For nearly twenty years, licensed broadcasters were able to self-police the policy and went largely unchallenged for violations. Of course there were only a few radio and television stations to be monitored and broadcast speech was clearly kinder and far less abrasive and challenging than it is today. Then, in 1969, as airwaves became busier with more stations and opinions for the public to consider, the doctrine met it's first big challenge.
Billy James Hargis was discussing a book on his daily Christian Crusade radio broadcast in Red Lion, Pennsylvania. The book, written by journalist Fred Cook and titled Goldwater: Extremist of the Right was taken to task by Hargis and personal attacks against Fred Cook ensued. Cook sued and in an 8-0 Supreme Court decision, was awarded free airtime on Hargis' show to respond to the attacks. Who in 1969 could have known how broadcasting would grow?
By 1984, several significant court cases were launched and won in the name of "fairness" and broadcasters were increasingly burdened to be careful in providing alternative points of view and opinion. In fact, the doctrine became so oppressive that airing a point of view about politics or religion for example was avoided altogether. That is, until Ronald Reagan had something to say in the mid 1980's.
Under the direction of chairman Mark Fowler, the F.C.C. began repealing parts of the Fairness Doctrine in the early 80's and in 1985 announced that the policy violated the first amendment. With the advent of teletext and a mass-media approach to news and opinion, Reagan vetoed legislation to keep the doctrine alive and in 1987, closed the book on an old idea that just couldn't work any longer. Just like Church, or the public square, or a particular radio news show, if you didn't like what was being said (within the realm of decency of course), switch it off or walk away.
So why does all this history matter anyway?
As recently as two weeks ago, Democrats Jeff Bingaman (NM), and Nancy Pelosi (San Francisco, CA) have voiced publicly their support for re-institution of the "doctrine". Supported by other powerful leaders in the Democratic party like Richard Durbin (IL) and Harry Reid (NV), it seems that Democrats by and large support "fainess" in all media calling for equal time on radio and TV shows, in newspapers and in Internet blogs, discussions, and reports.
What this essentially means is that if you like Rush Limbaugh (I don't particularly), you will be forced to listen as he makes room for Democrats on his daily radio show. Shawn Hannity cannot espouse Christian values in political discussion without allowing for an atheist point of view in the same regard. Christian radio like Dobson's Focus on the Family will be forced to allow the promotion of non-Christian thoughts and ideas on each show!
What will happen when (not 'if') your local pastor is told not to preach on monogamous marriage only between "one man and one woman" without allowing opposing views in the pulpit? What happens when any preaching or public denial against homosexuality is met with a charge of "hate speech" unless equal time is afforded? These are not a stretch of the imagination. This is the reality of current proposals for the re-institution of fairness in the public square.
Let us consider what the Bible has to say and how such legislation might cause harm, in particular, to Christians. In I Timothy 5:14 Paul says young women should "marry, bear children" and "guide the house". Oh, ohh... can't teach that any more without allowing for feminist and lesbian points of view.
Unfortunately, the standard of lifelong, traditional marriage as the foundation of family life in our nation is under attack. So says a recent article on the Focus on the Family Website. Under proposed legislation, this article could not exist for you to read without opposing opinion.
We need go little further to state the terribly obvious; the words and teachings of Paul in the Christian Bible will no longer be attacked because we will no longer be allowed to teach them to the millions who learn about Christianity over the airwaves and in our Churches. The very words of Jesus Himself will necessarily be restricted as "hate speech" for the same reasons.
Our voices in politics and the Christian perspective will be shouted down in the public square as government mandates for equal time force us to teach the opposition's views immediately next to our own!
The "Fairness Doctrine" under the guise of such labels as the "Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005" or MORA, for example, has been fiercely debated and proposed for several years. Efforts to 'slip' legislation into larger bills and proposals however have, up until now, been successfully thwarted. But...
The looming possibility of a Democratic "Super Majority" (control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency) from this election makes it essential for sleeping Christians to awaken and meet a great challenge; defeating such a possibility permanently.
Call or email your Congress-person and Senator. Use websites such as The Heritage Foundation or Focus on the Family to inform yourselves and your friends of the obvious threat to our right to religious and personal freedom.
Write to http://speaker.house.gov/contact/ and tell Nancy Pelosi what a bad idea this is. But above all, do something!
Remaining silent is not an option as we, individuals and families that operate from a core worldview, are pressed ever further into a corner from which we may not be allowed to leave.
Of course, that's just what I think. What about you?
Friday, October 31, 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008
How Can I Vote For Palin When The Bible Says "No" To Women In Leadership?
Since being tapped by John McCain to be his pick for vice-president, Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) has been railed against for being the wrong gender for the job. Not the least among the arguments that would disqualify her has been the contention that, as a woman who has a family and is still in the process of raising her children (one of whom has Downs Syndrome), she cannot possibly hold down the requirements of such an exigent position. Perhaps so. Perhaps not. Recently though, I was challenged with an outgrowth of this thinking that takes it a step further.
In a recent casual conversation about religion, politics, family matters and such, a dear friend says her husband wonders "...how can evangelicals vote for Palin since their own Bible won't allow a woman to Pastor a Church."
Specifically citing the Southern Baptist 'rules' about women in ministry, he apparently finds it at least antithetical, if not hypocritical, for Evangelicals to embrace Palin as a potential leader for our country of millions, http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/435468.aspx but not good enough to lead a local church of only a few dozen. It's a fair question if you're looking at Christianity from an outside, possibly agnostic point of view, so let's tackle it from a Biblical perspective.
First, do Southern Baptists really say that women cannot pastor a Church? Here is what was put on record just a few years ago:
Well then, it seems on the surface that the Southern Baptists (vis-a-vis, Evangelicals in general) do in fact prohibit women from being pastors, but will make allowances for working in the public sector provided their husbands have given their approval in advance.
At least that is their apparent position if you listen only to secular media and some far-right Christian leaders who, with the best of intentions, leave a great deal of credibility off the table in fully explaining what the Bible really says.
Now that we have listened to what the media, religious convention attendees, and a small group of male Church leaders have to say, let's take a close look at what God says in the Bible.
Does the Bible delineate and specify the roles of men and women? Absolutely, and rightly so. God created us so elementally different, that it is a short stretch at worst to assume He had different roles in mind for us in our families and Church life.
I have a favorite saying which goes something like this; 'A single truth, taught to the exclusion of other truths, can become a lie.' There is no more perfect example for this than the often quoted and sorely misrepresented Biblical directive for women to "submit" to their husbands in Ephesians, chapter five.
If non-Christians and lazy Christians who apparently don't read the Bible but rail against and misuse this teaching would simply read and consider the remainder of this chapter, they would see that God lays out a fairly demanding role for men as husbands as well. Then, taking only a cursory view of the first part of chapter six, add the role that is set forth for children, the "whole truth" of a Biblical and Godly plan for the family becomes clearer.
It's a plan which does in fact call for the man to "lead" the household, for women to respect that leadership, and for children to obey the greater knowledge of "both" of their parents, but without the idea that any member needs to become a doormat for the others.
Of course taking any one of the prescribed roles out of context without considering the roles of the other two is going to lead to a lopsided view of what the Bible really says. Men and women are different, and therefore in a Godly, Christian home, they have different responsibilities to meet a common end. One has only to read to see that there is no unfair burden placed on one versus the other unless the intent is to lie by omission as is often the convenient position to take.
Does the Bible allow for women who work outside the home? Of course. Proverbs 31, which famously extols the characteristics of a virtuous (Godly) wife, clearly speaks of a wife and a mother handling financial matters for the household as well as working to provide some of its income. While men (husbands) are charged with providing for their families, women are not excluded in any way from equal, if not in some ways greater, responsibility.
What about women in public office? Consider Deborah of the Old Testament, appointed a Judge over all of Israel. Appointed by men? No; appointed by God Himself. And she was married! Not unlike the Presidency in the United States, this was a position with the authority to call up troops, make decisions of national interest, and guide battle plans in times of war.
While you read Judges, chapter four, to learn more of her fascinating rise to power under God's hand, you will also learn of a little known but powerful woman of the Scriptures called Jael. These were women of the Bible fulfilling their roles as women, yet being raised by God himself to lead in the best interests of the people. With only a little homework, it is not difficult to find many more such stories of women who have held positions of great authority for God's purpose.
Now then, to Church leadership as a pastor. The apostle Paul makes some strikingly anti-woman statements in Ephesians, chapter five and I Corinthians, chapter 14 for example. Or so it would seem. In both cases, Paul is reinforcing God's directives and teaching the listeners who have fallen too far from them.
Remember that in the days of Paul, women did not traditionally have as much education as men, and that without benefit of day care, cars, and the ERA, there was simply no way that a woman could effectively pastor a Church. Yet women, particularly in Corinth, were attempting to wrest control for their own benefit and not for the benefit of the Church as a whole.
For this reason Paul's seemingly stern and sexist instructions to exclude women were a matter of practical common sense. That was then. Today the Church holds, generally, to a position of male leadership purely as a matter of Godly roles and responsibilities.
Paul's again stern language in I Timothy is offensive to many in this age of equality and non-gender deference but; if Godly men and women who choose to run a Christian home and follow Christ as the definitive example in all matters moral, ethical and spiritual hold true to their beliefs, men must lead. The roles set out for each member of a Christian family simply don't allow for a "crossing-over" of responsibilities.
There is no Biblical reason that Sarah Palin cannot succeed, with Gods blessings, as vice-president or even president of the United States. That is a matter between the Palin family and God Himself. There are however, scriptural premises on family, motherhood, fatherhood, and male provision for the home that preclude her in the same breath from becoming a pastor in the Christian Church.
God's order for a Christian home cannot be rewritten for our contemporary pleasure and appeasement. Where the home and the family are rooted in Christian principles, there is no allowance for women (and most men) to lead the Church. There are though, no Biblical restrictions on women serving in those Churches in positions of authority. Nor are there mandates in the Bible prohibiting women from working in, and indeed leading in, the public square.
I will be voting for John McCain this election not because of John McCain alone (and I do believe he is the stronger choice), but because of Sarah Palin as well. Her outspoken values and beliefs are more closely aligned to my own than any other candidate in my lifetime. I and my family welcome the opportunity for a Christian leader in the White House and find no Biblical prohibition which suggests that a woman cannot raise children and run a country at the same time, under God's direction.
Christians and thinking non-Christians must deny the benign arguments of those who take the Scriptures out of context and learn the truth for ourselves. To do otherwise is to abdicate our responsibility to the free will God gave each of us and relegate our place in history to a position just next to a parrot or a mule.
God Bless America!
In a recent casual conversation about religion, politics, family matters and such, a dear friend says her husband wonders "...how can evangelicals vote for Palin since their own Bible won't allow a woman to Pastor a Church."
Specifically citing the Southern Baptist 'rules' about women in ministry, he apparently finds it at least antithetical, if not hypocritical, for Evangelicals to embrace Palin as a potential leader for our country of millions, http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/435468.aspx but not good enough to lead a local church of only a few dozen. It's a fair question if you're looking at Christianity from an outside, possibly agnostic point of view, so let's tackle it from a Biblical perspective.
First, do Southern Baptists really say that women cannot pastor a Church? Here is what was put on record just a few years ago:
June 15, 2000 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org) -- The Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in Orlando, Florida, approved a change in its Baptist Faith and Message statement to strengthen its formal position against female pastors.
Old: "Southern Baptists, by practice as well as conviction, believe leadership is male."
New: "While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture."
New: "While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture."
Apparently they do. On what Biblical Basis? Mike Baker, in an Associated Press article dated 10/2/2008, says this:
"...is based on the Bible verse 1 Timothy 2:12 in which the Apostle Paul says, "I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man." Regarding family life, Southern Baptists cite Ephesians 5:22, "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord."
OK... what about women working outside the home. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, had this to say in a recent interview with the Associated Press:
"We don't go beyond where the New Testament goes. Public office is neither a church nor a marriage." and "...the Southern Baptists' position allows for a wife to work outside the home, so long as her husband agrees — and Todd Palin has long backed his wife's career in public service. "
Well then, it seems on the surface that the Southern Baptists (vis-a-vis, Evangelicals in general) do in fact prohibit women from being pastors, but will make allowances for working in the public sector provided their husbands have given their approval in advance.
At least that is their apparent position if you listen only to secular media and some far-right Christian leaders who, with the best of intentions, leave a great deal of credibility off the table in fully explaining what the Bible really says.
Now that we have listened to what the media, religious convention attendees, and a small group of male Church leaders have to say, let's take a close look at what God says in the Bible.
Does the Bible delineate and specify the roles of men and women? Absolutely, and rightly so. God created us so elementally different, that it is a short stretch at worst to assume He had different roles in mind for us in our families and Church life.
I have a favorite saying which goes something like this; 'A single truth, taught to the exclusion of other truths, can become a lie.' There is no more perfect example for this than the often quoted and sorely misrepresented Biblical directive for women to "submit" to their husbands in Ephesians, chapter five.
If non-Christians and lazy Christians who apparently don't read the Bible but rail against and misuse this teaching would simply read and consider the remainder of this chapter, they would see that God lays out a fairly demanding role for men as husbands as well. Then, taking only a cursory view of the first part of chapter six, add the role that is set forth for children, the "whole truth" of a Biblical and Godly plan for the family becomes clearer.
It's a plan which does in fact call for the man to "lead" the household, for women to respect that leadership, and for children to obey the greater knowledge of "both" of their parents, but without the idea that any member needs to become a doormat for the others.
Of course taking any one of the prescribed roles out of context without considering the roles of the other two is going to lead to a lopsided view of what the Bible really says. Men and women are different, and therefore in a Godly, Christian home, they have different responsibilities to meet a common end. One has only to read to see that there is no unfair burden placed on one versus the other unless the intent is to lie by omission as is often the convenient position to take.
Does the Bible allow for women who work outside the home? Of course. Proverbs 31, which famously extols the characteristics of a virtuous (Godly) wife, clearly speaks of a wife and a mother handling financial matters for the household as well as working to provide some of its income. While men (husbands) are charged with providing for their families, women are not excluded in any way from equal, if not in some ways greater, responsibility.
What about women in public office? Consider Deborah of the Old Testament, appointed a Judge over all of Israel. Appointed by men? No; appointed by God Himself. And she was married! Not unlike the Presidency in the United States, this was a position with the authority to call up troops, make decisions of national interest, and guide battle plans in times of war.
While you read Judges, chapter four, to learn more of her fascinating rise to power under God's hand, you will also learn of a little known but powerful woman of the Scriptures called Jael. These were women of the Bible fulfilling their roles as women, yet being raised by God himself to lead in the best interests of the people. With only a little homework, it is not difficult to find many more such stories of women who have held positions of great authority for God's purpose.
Now then, to Church leadership as a pastor. The apostle Paul makes some strikingly anti-woman statements in Ephesians, chapter five and I Corinthians, chapter 14 for example. Or so it would seem. In both cases, Paul is reinforcing God's directives and teaching the listeners who have fallen too far from them.
Remember that in the days of Paul, women did not traditionally have as much education as men, and that without benefit of day care, cars, and the ERA, there was simply no way that a woman could effectively pastor a Church. Yet women, particularly in Corinth, were attempting to wrest control for their own benefit and not for the benefit of the Church as a whole.
For this reason Paul's seemingly stern and sexist instructions to exclude women were a matter of practical common sense. That was then. Today the Church holds, generally, to a position of male leadership purely as a matter of Godly roles and responsibilities.
Paul's again stern language in I Timothy is offensive to many in this age of equality and non-gender deference but; if Godly men and women who choose to run a Christian home and follow Christ as the definitive example in all matters moral, ethical and spiritual hold true to their beliefs, men must lead. The roles set out for each member of a Christian family simply don't allow for a "crossing-over" of responsibilities.
There is no Biblical reason that Sarah Palin cannot succeed, with Gods blessings, as vice-president or even president of the United States. That is a matter between the Palin family and God Himself. There are however, scriptural premises on family, motherhood, fatherhood, and male provision for the home that preclude her in the same breath from becoming a pastor in the Christian Church.
God's order for a Christian home cannot be rewritten for our contemporary pleasure and appeasement. Where the home and the family are rooted in Christian principles, there is no allowance for women (and most men) to lead the Church. There are though, no Biblical restrictions on women serving in those Churches in positions of authority. Nor are there mandates in the Bible prohibiting women from working in, and indeed leading in, the public square.
I will be voting for John McCain this election not because of John McCain alone (and I do believe he is the stronger choice), but because of Sarah Palin as well. Her outspoken values and beliefs are more closely aligned to my own than any other candidate in my lifetime. I and my family welcome the opportunity for a Christian leader in the White House and find no Biblical prohibition which suggests that a woman cannot raise children and run a country at the same time, under God's direction.
Christians and thinking non-Christians must deny the benign arguments of those who take the Scriptures out of context and learn the truth for ourselves. To do otherwise is to abdicate our responsibility to the free will God gave each of us and relegate our place in history to a position just next to a parrot or a mule.
God Bless America!
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
McCain is Losing (has lost) His Mind!
On top of the $750 Billion bailout that should never have gotten past the house and senate, McCain -- during last night's debate-- alluded to an idea that he has for adding $300 billion more. He is supporting government buyout of a large portion of the "bad paper" (mortgages) that likely caused this whole mess in the first place in order to keep people in homes they can't afford. Senator, that's nuts! Consider what just happened with AIG:
On September 22, Just after receiving an $85 billion "emergency loan" from the federal government to prop up the failing American International Group (AIG), its corporate executives moved ahead with a planned and high-priced retreat to a swanky resort in California. Expensive corporate retreats are not all that uncommon but; I wonder if this bunch of pinheads would have been quite so free-wheeling with the $445,000 price tag if it had been their money? $445,000 tax payer dollars for pedicures and massages, and meals? Who's in charge of this mess anyway! Who was supposed to be looking after the money we loaned these fools? OK, they will be fired. So what? That won't get the money back.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/aig-executives-blow--getting-bailout/
The point of course is not that they spent the loan money so foolishly, it's the fact that they got away with it. Our government clearly has no idea where our money --that they spend-- goes. More to the point; what will happen with the &750 billion? The same thing. No oversight and we won't find out until after the money is long gone that it wasn't spent in the most wise ways.
McCain now proposes $300 billion more to bail out folks who can't manage their money any better than our government manages our tax dollars! This is the blind leading the blind over a 'bridge to nowhere' and we, who try our best every day to make ends meet and pay our mortgages, will wind up picking up the tab for the foolish and the unwise. Senators McCain and Obama, it's bad enough you are using tax dollars to support gay rights and abortion on demand. Adding bail-out's for the foolish is little more than insult to injury.
John McCain is clearly, to me, the better choice to be President of the United States of America. His personal and documented history of courage, forthrightness, and sensible voting habits in the Senate makes him head and shoulders above Senator Obama, but he has two glaring obstacles to face ahead of him; he is a lousy public speaker which does not encourage listeners to follow him, and he is showing a growing propensity for condescending to liberal ideology.
His first obstacle, public exposure, is an easy one; fire his handlers and get some folks in there to help him square away the way he presents his arguments. Enough already with these canned answers designed for maximum appeasement. Bridled and bitted as he is by his speech writers, he is fast losing any chance of winning this race. As for his seeming new take on liberal solutions, no way John!
Let those who buried themselves in reckless and hasty debt "work" it out. Helping them may be a possibility if it is well thought out, but "renegotiating" bad loans at the "reduced market value" of their homes is ridiculous. Help them to pay what they owe, but our tax dollars must not be spent 'bailing out' people who lack common sense! What's next....
Senator McCain, I bought an expensive brand new car which is now upside-down in value after only 6 months. Will you please buy the car from the lender, "renegotiate" it's value in today's market and let me pay only the amount that it is worth on the street? And by the way, can you give (not loan) me some taxpayer dollars to pay for the shortfall. Oh, and one more thing, the price of gas... can I get a little help with...
We have many reasons to get annoyed at or concerned with some of McCain's ideas. However, he must at this point win the Presidency. Getting upset with McCain to the extent that we won't vote for him put's the cart well in front of the horse. Obama's ideas will be significantly more devastating to the economy in the short and long term. Our best approach is in holding McCain's feet to the fire starting today. Calling his office and writing comments about his performance in the debates is a great place to start.
http://www.johnmccain.com/involving/petition3.aspx?guid=426e00c5-9a23-4b2c-8d03-56897e6478d5
Let him know that while we are inclined to support him, we cannot support the idea of bail-outs without oversight. Ask him about the AIG mess and why no one saw the waste of $445,000. Ask him to respond to where the money for mortgage bail-outs will come from. And lastly, ask him how we can rest assured that he won't be "bailing out" bad car loans next!
The idea behind this blog is to mark down some Christian principles for our government today. We, most people, have allowed our government to do it's business without a foundation for ethical management for long enough. If you have not opened a Bible in a while, let me encourage you to begin again. Read passages that apply to real problems in today's America. Here are a few suggestions:
On the "rich" people (like OBama and McCain) whom we love to hate... I Timothy 6:17-19
Are our wealthy leaders inclined to these Scriptural principles and if not, why are we voting for them?
On the choice of a leader.... I Timothy 3:1-7
Are the proven characteristics of a good leader in the Bible not applicable to those who would hold office over us in our public lives? How do the candidates stack up against the Biblical standard set for leaders of the Church?
On the role of Government... Acts 6:1-4
If we replace the Deacons and Disciples in this passage with contemporary government figures, how do they measure up? Do they have the character to lead? Do they have personal standards which allow for wise decisions? What if the seven chosen had names like Frank, Pfleger, Wright, Bernanke, Obama, Pelosi, and Edwards?
On the role of a home-builder today... Luke 14:28
On September 22, Just after receiving an $85 billion "emergency loan" from the federal government to prop up the failing American International Group (AIG), its corporate executives moved ahead with a planned and high-priced retreat to a swanky resort in California. Expensive corporate retreats are not all that uncommon but; I wonder if this bunch of pinheads would have been quite so free-wheeling with the $445,000 price tag if it had been their money? $445,000 tax payer dollars for pedicures and massages, and meals? Who's in charge of this mess anyway! Who was supposed to be looking after the money we loaned these fools? OK, they will be fired. So what? That won't get the money back.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/aig-executives-blow--getting-bailout/
The point of course is not that they spent the loan money so foolishly, it's the fact that they got away with it. Our government clearly has no idea where our money --that they spend-- goes. More to the point; what will happen with the &750 billion? The same thing. No oversight and we won't find out until after the money is long gone that it wasn't spent in the most wise ways.
McCain now proposes $300 billion more to bail out folks who can't manage their money any better than our government manages our tax dollars! This is the blind leading the blind over a 'bridge to nowhere' and we, who try our best every day to make ends meet and pay our mortgages, will wind up picking up the tab for the foolish and the unwise. Senators McCain and Obama, it's bad enough you are using tax dollars to support gay rights and abortion on demand. Adding bail-out's for the foolish is little more than insult to injury.
John McCain is clearly, to me, the better choice to be President of the United States of America. His personal and documented history of courage, forthrightness, and sensible voting habits in the Senate makes him head and shoulders above Senator Obama, but he has two glaring obstacles to face ahead of him; he is a lousy public speaker which does not encourage listeners to follow him, and he is showing a growing propensity for condescending to liberal ideology.
His first obstacle, public exposure, is an easy one; fire his handlers and get some folks in there to help him square away the way he presents his arguments. Enough already with these canned answers designed for maximum appeasement. Bridled and bitted as he is by his speech writers, he is fast losing any chance of winning this race. As for his seeming new take on liberal solutions, no way John!
Let those who buried themselves in reckless and hasty debt "work" it out. Helping them may be a possibility if it is well thought out, but "renegotiating" bad loans at the "reduced market value" of their homes is ridiculous. Help them to pay what they owe, but our tax dollars must not be spent 'bailing out' people who lack common sense! What's next....
Senator McCain, I bought an expensive brand new car which is now upside-down in value after only 6 months. Will you please buy the car from the lender, "renegotiate" it's value in today's market and let me pay only the amount that it is worth on the street? And by the way, can you give (not loan) me some taxpayer dollars to pay for the shortfall. Oh, and one more thing, the price of gas... can I get a little help with...
We have many reasons to get annoyed at or concerned with some of McCain's ideas. However, he must at this point win the Presidency. Getting upset with McCain to the extent that we won't vote for him put's the cart well in front of the horse. Obama's ideas will be significantly more devastating to the economy in the short and long term. Our best approach is in holding McCain's feet to the fire starting today. Calling his office and writing comments about his performance in the debates is a great place to start.
http://www.johnmccain.com/involving/petition3.aspx?guid=426e00c5-9a23-4b2c-8d03-56897e6478d5
Let him know that while we are inclined to support him, we cannot support the idea of bail-outs without oversight. Ask him about the AIG mess and why no one saw the waste of $445,000. Ask him to respond to where the money for mortgage bail-outs will come from. And lastly, ask him how we can rest assured that he won't be "bailing out" bad car loans next!
The idea behind this blog is to mark down some Christian principles for our government today. We, most people, have allowed our government to do it's business without a foundation for ethical management for long enough. If you have not opened a Bible in a while, let me encourage you to begin again. Read passages that apply to real problems in today's America. Here are a few suggestions:
On the "rich" people (like OBama and McCain) whom we love to hate... I Timothy 6:17-19
Are our wealthy leaders inclined to these Scriptural principles and if not, why are we voting for them?
On the choice of a leader.... I Timothy 3:1-7
Are the proven characteristics of a good leader in the Bible not applicable to those who would hold office over us in our public lives? How do the candidates stack up against the Biblical standard set for leaders of the Church?
On the role of Government... Acts 6:1-4
If we replace the Deacons and Disciples in this passage with contemporary government figures, how do they measure up? Do they have the character to lead? Do they have personal standards which allow for wise decisions? What if the seven chosen had names like Frank, Pfleger, Wright, Bernanke, Obama, Pelosi, and Edwards?
On the role of a home-builder today... Luke 14:28
The Bible makes no suggestion of a "Bail-out" for this man!
The tenets of the Bible and the tenets of our government could not be more diametrically opposed. We all too often lean to the "likability" of a potential leader without truthful questioning of the platform and world-view from which they will make decisions. Before asking them about hand-out's and bail-out's and programs and spending and so forth, let's ask them about personal belief and allow them to answer honestly. Let's hold them accountable to a standard that has been time tested and proven true. We must use our heads and hearts less, and return to the reliability of the oldest book in the world, the Christian Bible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
