When Americans believed in Truth, they used to say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That is to say, just because a plan of action has a noble purpose doesn’t necessarily guarantee a noble outcome, kinda like the plan to save homeowners from the horrors of foreclosure. While appearing as a noble goal upon first glance, after a deeper look at the policy is taken, whether due to miscalculation or corruption we find that the only people truly benefiting from his attempts are powerful bankers.
To clarify before making my point, having a banking system is healthy, but investment lending and consumptive lending are two completely different things. While investment lending lends money for the purpose of potentially increasing the income of the borrower either through business or education, consumptive lending does not potentially increase the wealth of the borrower. Borrowing money to go to school should result in a higher income for the borrower, after which he or she should be more financially secure than before. On the other hand, consumptive lending for televisions has no effect upon the borrower’s income, while allowing him to buy something he couldn’t otherwise afford. (more…)
When I was a 19 year-old non-Christian, I argued that if the Bible was true, sin was God’s fault. At the time, it made sense to me that sin was a result of biochemical survival, in which an entire being’s existence is predicated upon—in theory—selfishness. Without the drive to eat and procreate and amass wealth for safety, the concept of sin seemed meaningless, and I was well aware that Adam and Eve had been eating in the Garden of Eden.
Of course, what eating implies is that the capability for sin already existed before Adam and Eve had eaten the forbidden fruit, since satiation and perfect circumstances prevented the need for selfishness. But when God expelled us from the Garden, that is when our real problems began, making the present-day human evils more His fault than anyone else’s. As a young socialist keen on the idea of crime reduction through government subsistence for all—an idea I now firmly reject—it seemed sensible enough to conclude that God had built us to fail, as though God should have built us differently so that sin wouldn’t have had to exist. (more…)
Editor’s note: This article was written for a brother in Christ who’d brought this important topic up earlier. Here’s to you, buddy.
Oftentimes, those opposing an establishment of a so-called religiously-affiliated morality in government will argue that people who adopt and promote Christlike standards are the same kind of Pharisees who not only failed to meet God’s standards, but who ultimately killed Jesus. Sometimes they’ll argue this point because they wish to engage in sinful behavior, and other times because they don’t believe enforcing religious morality is conducive to liberty, but the argument is always the same: people should keep their religious beliefs out of the legal system.
Either way, both parties agree on one point, which is the danger presented by a unified church/government structure like the historic Papacy or yesteryear’s Anglican church. But whether or not the state formally declares a separation of church and state, there are only two realistic theological declarations a state can make regarding this issue. The first is that God does exist and our entire existence is therefore predicated upon Him and His law. The second is that He does not exist and our entire existence is futile, directionless, and entirely encapsulated in three concepts: pleasure, pain, and death. It would be incredibly misleading to have a government which declares the sovereignty of God but does not enforce any of His principles, or a government which refuses to acknowledge His existence and yet takes stances only a theist can take. (more…)
No American is actually a constitutionalist.
Although the kind of rights guaranteed by the federal government are hailed by both parties as essential, the truth is that they are absolutely impractical on a local level, almost everyone disagrees on their universal application, and both parties violate the constitution’s broad stance on many issues. Conservatives, for instance, will say that freedom of speech is intended to protect political and religious speech, while Liberals say that freedom of speech is also intended for dirty language and suggestive themes on daytime television, but not “hate” speech. Both parties prosecute pedophiles for baiting children with words on the internet, you can’t yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater or divulge your intent to kill someone, The FCC exists, it is illegal to disclose classified information, and we currently do not allow people to advertise for Christian roommates. And even though most agree that infringement is absolutely necessary in the first five of these, these cases are all still unconstitutional infringements upon the first amendment. (more…)