OPINION-Why Ted Cruz Will Not Be Leading the Next Generation

Ted Cruz is a TEA Party sensation and someone who holds many of my same values. His charisma and charm are undoubtedly effective, but he is polarizing to many of the young generation by his followers and his talking points. Please don’t get me wrong, I love Ted Cruz, but he doesn’t represent where the majority of millennials stand on the issues.
Humor me before you click away. Historically young people do play and will play an important role in the national political scene. Young people are the future and liberals know this, so they focus on them. One factor that contributed to Ronald Reagan’s landslide victory in 1980 was the historic crossover of young people voting Republican. My mom was one of those young people. Before that point, she was a registered Maryland Democrat. How did Reagan cause that to happen? It wasn’t his youthfulness, since he was the oldest person to ever be elected U.S. President.

The Situation

Before I answer that question, we must understand where my generation is coming from. The vast majority of young people graduating college are liberal, mainly because our college campuses are used as indoctrination camps for liberal thinking. But what this system has done is created the perspective that there are only two legitimate platforms. One being liberalism, the other libertarianism. In a secular setting the vast majority of young people view the TEA Party as Bible-belt Christianity which has no place for our new generation. Our education system and liberal media have indoctrinated the upcoming generation into believing that social conservatives are not scientific and are crazy Bible thumping teabaggers.

Young people overall view it as narrow-minded and bigoted to think that marriage is between one man and one woman, or that illegal drugs should be illegal. These social issues have been championed with Biblical arguments that have only caused the millennial generation to dismiss those points as mute.

Whether you agree with this or not, that is the reality. People dismiss the Bible. By using only Biblical talking points, Social Conservatives have done nothing but hurt themselves in the political arena. While conservative Catholics have done wonders in protecting the sanctity of life, the marriage battle waged by many Evangelicals has done nothing but gain bad press for conservatives. Keep in mind where the young people stand will be where the next generation will stand.

My analysis of the situation is that Republicanism has veered away from libertarianism something Reagan said was the heart of his philosophy. As he stated in 1975 in Reason magazine, “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” Conservatives now have made their talking points about social issues. We have the same people running for office saying they will fight the gay agenda and save babies but at the end of the day continue to accomplish little to nothing. Instead, they keep up appearances and let our debt soar higher and higher. This is crony conservativism, and this is what my generation has had enough of. People who use God as a personal tool to get elected and then don’t fight for half of what they claim to support. Trust me, Ted Cruz does not fit this image I just painted, but his talking points are no different than this crowd of people. This is why he cannot, in the eyes of the up and coming leaders and voters, be the person to inspire young people.


View on YouTube

Can We Bridge the Gap?

There is always hope. The Republican Party needs a facelift if they want to get the attention of young people. I am not suggesting they need to change their values, but only find extra-biblical talking points to prove their point. This concept has been taught as the idea of “Thinking Biblically, speaking Secularly.” If we want to prove to young people that, for example God’s word is true then it shouldn’t be hard to find reasons from hard facts to show that what God said is true. More importantly Social Conservatives need to understand that forcing religious beliefs upon the majority is tyranny very similar to what our founding fathers decided to fight against. It is one thing to tell people what you believe, it another thing to use the government to require that everyone follow your belief.

I know for many this is a hard pill to swallow. As a follower of Jesus, I believe the Bible is true word for word and can give us guidance. What I also believe is that there are examples in our culture that show what God said is true and can be proven with facts. One example is the recent backlash against pornography. A very prominent organization out there called Fight the New Drug uses secular reasoning why pornography is terrible and there are many Christians behind the movement. Their efforts are being aided by Hollywood surprisingly, with voices like Russell Brand and movies like Don Jon which speak out against the use of porn. It is things like this that help bring about change and open people up to the gospel. This is what social conservatives need to emphasize, realizing that is how we can take back our country.

The Case For Liberty

On that note, taking back our country is not going to be easy. I believe that if we truly want to unite Americans in the cause of conservatism, we must embrace libertarianism. What is libertarianism? Sharon Harris, President of Advocates for Self-Government defines libertarianism like this, “Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life and uses his property – as long as he simply respects the equal right of others to do the same.” This is what conservatives need realize is the core of a secular approach to their viewpoints. A conservative government should promote the protection of Life, Liberty, and Property and the principles of limited government. Anything beyond that definition will give grounds to allow the government to impose itself in areas, where depending on the party in power, will mean we will be subject to whims of their philosophies. Conservativism and libertarianism work in harmony to produce a society that will embrace Christian values but make sense of those values for the non-Christians. Liberty must be at the core of our beliefs and if we disagree with those who believe in it more strongly, you must realize those people are who will be with all the way on almost everything else. The idea of liberty is what united a large enough group to declare war against the greatest superpower in the world at that point. It is a powerful principle and liberty must be protected at all cost.

We must recognize that our government must limit its authority only to handle protecting Life, Liberty, and Property and to uphold contracts. We cannot try and legislate our religious beliefs to keep people from doing things that do not harm other citizens. These principles and ideas are essential to establishing the functional government that Fredrick Bastiat wrote about in The Law.

The biggest reason we are in this current cultural situation is because the church as an institution has not been the light to society it needs to be. Politics is a reflection of culture. We cannot use the government to replace what the church was supposed to do. Society should help society, and I believe that the Church should take care of society, not the government.

As a young person I see so much inconsistency in the Social Conservative movement. The media will show no mercy to us, so as conservatives we must be above reproach in our rhetoric and thinking. The vast majority of conservative young people are moving towards libertarianism simply because they see that it is what is consistent with our founding principles even when it’s not convenient. This is what will reboot the Reagan Revolution.

The Strategy

Where do we go from here to truly create the Reagan Revolution? The plan is simple. Conservatives need to change their rhetoric. The element of persuasion requires us to speak to people where they are at. We must use tangible evidence and stories to move this generation, and we must speak their language. If you strongly believe that the government needs to be involved in marriage, then you need to show there are psychological and social problems that involve gay marriage. Quoting the Bible is not going to convince this generation. They want proof, not just words that mean nothing to them. Maybe the answer is that the government should stay out of marriage? This is what is gaining popularity with young conservatives. Remember the Apostle Paul on Mars Hill quoted the philosophers of the Greeks when speaking to the people of Athens. He did not berate them with Jewish Scriptures, he met them where there were at with the truth. This is how you convince and win people over. You get down on their level and guide them to truth.

Most important, conservatives need to embrace liberty and not push against it. As Ronald Reagan himself said, libertarianism is the heart of what he believed. We cannot dismiss the founding principles of our nation because we don’t like the viewpoints of other people. If we do not embrace liberty, we will be the party of exclusion and will never have relevance with the young American voter. We must also understand that libertarianism is how a secularist makes sense of conservative Christian values.

Lastly, the church must be the social light it once was. Instead of embracing social change is should be the influence of it. The church has surrendered culture and in our form of government, the church is a crucial institution. Without it, our society falls apart. We need to actually follow our conservative narrative and promote the protection of Life, Liberty, and Property and the principles of limited government.

So what about Ted Cruz? He is a great statesman and speaker, but again his talking points represent mainly the evangelical voter and he does not use the element of libertarianism to reach out to new groups of people. Republicans talk about how we need another Reagan Revolution. If we truly want to see another sweep across this country of conservatives taking back our nation, we must win the young people. The key is changing our messaging and embracing more libertarianism.

Definition: http://www.theadvocates.org/libertarianism-101/definitions-of-libertarianism/

Partial Success!

Please realize the the courts forbid my parents to reveal details of this case. I do know this, the final orders now allow the possibility of homeschooling. Thank you so much for your prayers. I believe the efforts of the people here is what changed the judge’s final order. However, the judge is still requiring us to move to Houston. Please still pray for that issue which was not been resolved.

All I can say is that by the Grace of God and you, the people, kept a total violation of authority from happening. I know that results are not 100 percent amazing, but you spoke out and the judge heard and began to fear. These are the moments we need to have more often in our form of government. The people need speak up for what is right. We the people are the only force that ultimately keeps the government in check. Benjamin Franklin when asked by a American what form of government they gave the people, he responded. “A republic, if you can keep it.”

I am so grateful for each and everyone of you who wrote and called in. Without your efforts we could have been another victim that slipped through cracks. It only takes one unjust judgement for a system to be corrupt. Please continue to pray for the forced move. I wish I could reveal more information about why I believe it is wrong, but the family code forbids it in Texas. Please know that the battle is still not over, but the tides have turned. I know it may sound cliche, but thank you so much. You are the reason that this judge thought twice about her actions.

Thank you so much

In Christ Alone,

Andrew

My Life Purpose Statement

As time progresses I seek to find what is my purpose on this planet. As I study the scriptures and allow myself to be discipled by Christ, I learn more and more about my life purpose. My life purpose is to do the things I cannot not do. That means I am purposing to go about the things God made me to do so well that I cannot resist to do them. That includes serving and loving all those that I come in contact with all the days of my life.

It is my duty to hold nothing back in my service to my wife, friends, and even strangers. My talents are those of a leader. I will purpose to seek God to create in me a clean heart and help to lead others to Christ. The theme of my life I believe is to seek justice, love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.  These are the things that will help to obtain balance in the Lord.

When it is all said and done I want to look back on the days of my life whether it be tomorrow or 60 years from now and say I did what was right in the eyes of the Lord no matter what the consequences were or the price. To endure is to overcome and to overcome in Christ is to win something I could never have had otherwise. I have endured and am enduring many trials right now and anticipate a life full of them, but I will not be moved to deny the faith. I will choose to cling onto Christ just like Job of the Bible.

As most young men I feel the need and desire for a wife. God has taught me so much in the area of marriage. All I can say is that with Christ in me, He has given me the ability to love my future wife like Him. I know I am not perfect, but I can say that whoever God intends her to be I am willing to give all of me. I will love, protect, serve, and lay down my life for her, to breathe life into her so that she is lifted up and not me.

The probably most foundational point of my life purpose is the daily reminder I need is to realize life is not about me but about me showing the love of Christ to others. These are the things that my heart believes or I will lead my heart to embrace with the Grace of God.

Good Men Are Doing Nothing – Homeschooling Threatened in Texas – Urgent Action Required

Image

My name is Andrew Koch and I am 17 years old. I have been homeschooled all my life.  I have lived in five states and have traveled the country. I love life and I love the gifts God has given me. Homeschooling is probably one of the greatest gifts in my life. It enabled me to go and learn various skills at a young age and test my abilities. I came from a somewhat Christian environment.  In 2011, my father filed for divorce.
Please sign this petition as well as write the judge. https://www.change.org/petitions/judge-sheri-y-dean-of-the-309th-district-family-court-harris-county-to-allow-maurya-koch-to-live-in-san-antonio-texas-and-homeschool

My world was crushed. I could not imagine life without a dad. It didn’t matter what I thought because it didn’t change reality. God had a bigger plan. The Hon. Sheri Y. Dean allowed us to move in temporary orders to the San Antonio, Texas area. We have been living here for two years and have found support with incredible friends and a loving church  that have sustained us during this time. My family will unanimously tell you that San Antonio is our new home and we would never want to leave.

This past week about a month after the final hearing, Judge Dean made her decision. She has decided regardless of what the children and my mother think that my siblings should be placed into public school and and be forced to move back to Houston. She has taken away our constitutional rights by making a decision in this way. My three younger siblings Nathaniel, Benjamin, and Christiana are crushed by this judge’s choices for them. I am right now fighting her decision in whatever way God leads me.

I am pleading with any of you reading that you will consider writing this judge and telling her that she has dealt treacherously with my mom who never did anything to deserve this treatment. She never petitioned for a divorce it was all forced upon her. You can reach Judge Sheri Y. Dean at this email address sheri_dean@justex.net . Please address this issue as the the divorce case between David and Maurya Koch. You need to write before June 12, 2013 before the judge’s decision is signed.

Please write her and respectfully tell her that this is a free country and in this country we still believe in a person’s right to the pursuit of happiness. Again the this is Judge Sheri Y. Dean from Harris County District Court. If you are from Harris County please add that in your letter.  Please stand up for homeschooling rights and personal liberty in Texas.

God has a plan still and it is our job to find it out. God can use these letters to change the heart of the judge or simply warn her of the spiritual and political ramifications of her judgement.

Again here is the email

sheri_dean@justex.net

You can use this template.

It has come to my attention that in the Divorce case between David and Maurya Koch you have denied Maurya Koch’s constitutional right to homeschool and you have told the family they must move back to Houston. Maurya Koch has committed no crime and yet is being treated as if she has. It will be harmful and unfair to the children to uproot them and force them to go to a school system they have never been in or want to be in. It has already crushed the children and Maurya Koch. Please change your decision for the sake of the children.

if you live in Harris County  tell her that you will not vote for her re-election and will encourage others to do the same, if she chooses not to change her decision

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. ~Edmond Burke

Please pray for my father and his eternal state and pray for my mother that she will have the strength to endure this time.

Please rise up!

The Cover Up

Today people live in a society that redefines things. It redefines what an unborn child is, where life begins, and where life ends. When a culture begins to redefine life it becomes easier and easier to change what society thinks life is. The question not often asked is how does life end? Brain death is a term that has come to use in 1968 when an Ad Hoc committee from Harvard medical school decided to reinterpret 5,000 years of the accepted view on death. (Congress, 1987, p. 59) They concluded that what they called an “irreversible coma” which included a heartbeat and no brain activity was an acceptable definition of death. This consequently led to the invention of organ donation.  It took many years for these two medical concepts to take root. Both are still debated by members of the medical community to this day. But now these theories are considered facts and have faced little to no questioning from their inception to now.


Definitions of Brain Death

Basing ones definition of death on what can still be questioned as theory is dangerous. The medical community has not been one to always get their facts right. Remember for hundreds of years doctors thought all disease was caused by bad blood, so they “bled” patients often to their death to cleanse them of bad blood (Bloodletting). The medical community today also condones the slaughter of millions of unborn children. Remember when people redefine truth it loses its value and consequently it can be interpreted incorrectly. While the medical community has done much good it is so easy to let things be influenced by conjecture and opinion in the scientific world. That is why it is very important people question medical practices especially when they concern human definitions of death.

The medical definition of brain death is “An irreversible form of unconsciousness characterized by a complete loss of brain function while the heart continues to beat”. (Medical) the endorsement of this definition of death was not honored by most governments until the 1980s. The initial belief is radical because from the beginning of time man has defined life by the existence of a heartbeat. The Bible teaches that life is then blood (Leviticus 17:11) therefore a biblically thinking Christian should believe life is defined by the existence of a heartbeat. While some may say that the Bible is not a proper resource it has been proven accurate in its commands and accounts about cleanliness and disease before modern scientific men even knew what bacteria was. The evidence must be weighed carefully. While the Bible is not the only resource used against organ donation, it is important to bring up because of organ donations growing acceptance among Christians. Brain death has paved the way for organ donation and if the evidence for brain death is lacking then medical practices like organ donation could have caused damage that is not repairable.

The Evidence

With a situation like this concerning life and death it is absolutely crucial to get the science right because the damage is usually not repairable. There is countless evidence that shows us that brain death cannot be the definite indicator as to a person’s demise. Recorded evidence of reversible brain death exists from the US National Library of Medicine with medical professionals in the case realizing brain death is not always death because of treatment with induced hypothermia (Government, 2011). Dr. Paul Byrne has dedicated most of his life addressing the issue of organ donation and brain death. He is a Certified Neonatologist and Pediatrician. He has done over twenty years of research into the topic of brain death. He has worked on case after case where patients especially infants after being declared brain dead were not denied life support and went on to live and carry on normal lives. He went to say this with this knowledge, “Death can be determined when there is no breathing, no heartbeat, no response and the body becomes cold. Before 1968 physicians did not hurry the final declaration of death in order not to declare someone dead before true death. Then the desire to transplant hearts and other vital organs prompted the invention of ‘brain death’” (Byrne, 2012, para.21) Dr. Byrne is not the only one in the medical community with this outlook. Other medical men such as Dr. Sean O’Reilly, Dr. Paul Quay, and Dr. David Evans agree. There are many medical professionals that question brain death.  With all this controversy why is it taught as an accepted definition of death?

Dr. David Evans a retired physician, in response to an article about the topic of brain death wrote this, “Your explicit recognition that brain death is a recent invention for transplant purposes is most welcome and should do much to expose the fallacies and fudgings associated with this supposed new form of death, which have been hidden from public and professional view for far too long” (Evans, 2002, para.1). Doctors that support the establishment of brain death are forced to admit that the evidence for brain death is small and practically non-existent. Dr. Evans points out that the public is not aware of how little the scientific method was used to come to the conclusion of brain death. The public is not aware that a ground breaking phenomenal decision was made by a handful of men in a committee. Why is there a movement to ignore the legitimate concerns about validity of brain death? The answer lies with the result of brain death.

The Harvesting

With brain deaths creation it has enabled the launch of organ donation. Lives have been saved by people being willing to donate their organs to replace faulty ones in others. Remember the definition of brain death is that a human can be dead with a beating heart. If brain death was not legitimate then that means the entire time we have tried to save lives we have been taking them instead. Today organ donation has been placed upon people and anyone who questions its legitimacy has to be put in their place. To question its legitimacy means genocide. It is a brutal thought, but most of these same doctors support the slaughter of innocent children in the womb. Remember if we make it easy to redefine life anything can go. It is not farfetched to say if a culture will kill its children it will kill its old and it’s dying.

If the unborn are not safe then who says that the near death are not in similar danger. The truth can be so ugly that every bone in one’s body wants to believe a lie, but that does not change reality. Dr. Paul Byrne has concluded that organ donation kills. Others join him in the realization that bad science has led to a fatal reality. When a declared brain dead patient has his organs harvested he usually has all the signs of a living person. A brain dead patient can have a pulse, normal steady body temperature, and all bodily functions. Common sense would declare this person alive. No truly dead person can urinate, have a heartbeat, and fully functioning organs.  Dr. Paul Byrne has studied the process of harvesting organs. He said this “Vital organs (from the Latin vita, meaning life) include the heart, liver, lungs, kidneys and pancreas. In order to be suitable for transplant, they need to be removed from the donor before respiration and circulation cease. Otherwise, these organs are not suitable, since damage to the organs occurs within a brief time after circulation of blood with oxygen stops. Removing vital organs from a living person prior to cessation of circulation and respiration will cause the donor’s death” (Vital, 2008, para.4). The basis of organ donation is the existence of brain death. So if brain death can be a proven myth then organ donation is proven murder. Lives are at stake. The medical community knows this and that is why any questioning of this practice will be met with staunch resistance from the medical community supporting this practice.

The operation the medical community uses to harvest organs has some appalling facts that come with it. Since the vital organs like the heart must be active in order to be donated, when the doctors go to “dissect” the brain dead patients the blood pressure rises and the nerves of the patient begin to send neurons in hypertension (Medscape 2003). This is not a sign of a dead person. The truth, people are having their functioning organs ripped out of their body and they can feel every second of it (Organ removal). There are countless cases of times when patients have woken up just before their organs were harvested (Harvester/TOAD, 2013). This gives cause to believe brain death is not always dead. In Europe some organ harvesters use an anesthetic while at the same time claim that brain dead patients feel no pain. (WSJ, 2012, web)  This is makes no sense. In the United States no anesthetic is used but a paralyzing drug is used to insure that the body does not squirm or move during the operation. Dr. Byrne addresses the issue with this statement in an interview “That is why during the excision of vital organs, doctors find the need to use anesthesia and paralyzing drugs to control muscle spasms, blood pressure and heart rate changes, and other bodily protective mechanisms common in living patients” (CF, 2008, para.18). Genocide is all a person is left to think.

The Action to be taken

How can genocide like this happen without outcry? Remember this same medical community endorses the killing of innocent children in the millions. When people redefine truth it loses its value. What drives many away from this topic is the realization that an organ they received or an organ a loved one gave resulted in murder by the scalpel of a doctor. The pain is real and can be unbearable, but the fact remains. In 2005 the American people watched Terri Schiavo starve to death because she was considered a vegetable and in a brain dead state. Therefore she should be taken off of life support was the ruling of the judge. People do not value life because we have allowed redefinition. When we do not hold on to an absolute definition of life we can allow atrocities like organ donation, euthanasia happens publicly and unquestioned by people.

What can the people do to address organ donation? The issue is so delicate because of the emotional trauma it would cause those who have had loved ones donate or receive organs. The best thing to do is to educate all people about the real facts of organ donation to allow them to realize what happens when you sign on to donate your organs. The coercion to donate your organs is terrible considering what really happens when you donate your organs. It is best to present facts and allow people to come to their own conclusions based off of true science. Not emotional stories that attempt to justify killing one for their organs to save another, these stories lack scientific data and evidence as to what happens when someone is declared brain dead.

Conclusion

Science and medicine cannot be thrown out the window to accommodate the desire to believe organ donation is a good thing. A real doctor will consider the facts and make a judgment. A wise doctor will not opt to change 5,000 years of the definition of death to accommodate the rationalization of ripping vital organs out of living people. No matter how unpopular it maybe. People who stand against the system are hated because they challenge the powers that be. While it is not always appropriate to challenge the medical authority, it is appropriate to do so when there is medical authority on both sides of the topic with one screaming foul play. Is popularity and acceptance more important than speaking out against the taking of lives in the name of saving lives? The answer is no, and it will always be no. Augustine of Hippo said “Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it” (Augustine, 2013, web). Truth may not always be popular but it will remain the truth regardless of what others do to cover up and hide it from the masses.

 

 

 

 

 

References

(Congress) Congress. (1987). Life-sustaining Technologies and the Elderly. Collingdale, PA: Diane Publishing Co.  Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=rAz4nl35KkIC&pg=PA59&dq=irreversible+coma+Harvard&as_brr=1&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=92.151&f=false

(Medical) Farlex. (2000). Brain Death. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. Retrieved From http://www.medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/brain+death

(Government, 2011) US National Library of Medicine. 2011. Reversible brain death after cardiopulmonary arrest and induced hypothermia.. NLM  Publication number 1538-42. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21494112

(Bloodletting) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting

(Leviticus 17:11) Leviticus 17:11. For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. King James Version (KJV)

(Byrne, 2012, para. 21) Byrne, Dr. Paul. (February 16, 2012). Why are Pastoral Care Workers ignorant of the realities of “brain death”?. May 1, 2013. From http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/byrne/120216

(Evans) US National Library of Medicine. 2011. Brain death: Brain death is a recent invention. NLM  Publication number 1538-42. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124114/

 (Vital, 2008, para.4) Engel, Randy. (2008). Vital Organ Transplantation
and “Brain Death”. Catholic Family News. Vol. 1, (Issue 1.) unknown   Retrieved from  http://www.cfnews.org/ByrneInterview.htm

(Medscape 2003) Smith, Susan L.  MN, PhD. (Mar 28, 2003). Organ and Tissue Donation and Recovery. Retrieved March 1, 2013, from http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/451208_10

(Organ removal) Life Guardian Foundation. (Unknown). Facts about being an Organ Donor pamphlet. Retrieved February 20, 2013, from http://www.truthaboutorgandonation.com/files/pdfs/Facts_About_Being_An_Organ_Donor.pdf

(Harvester/TOAD, 2013) Byrne, Paul A.  M.D. (February 16, 2012). Why are Pastoral Care Workers ignorant of the realities of “brain death”?. February 19, 2013, from http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/byrne/120216

http://www.truthaboutorgandonation.com/Survivors.html

(WSJ) Teresi, Dick. (April 4, 2012). What You Lose When You Sign That Donor Card. February 19, 2013, from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204603004577269910906351598.html

(CF, 2008, para.18) Engel, Randy. (2008). Vital Organ Transplantation
and “Brain Death”. Catholic Family News. Vol. 1, (Issue 1.) unknown Retrieved from http://www.cfnews.org/ByrneInterview.htm

(Augustine) “Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it  from http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/126110-right-is-right-even-if-no-one-is-doing-it

Real Change

Real Change

The word government strikes thoughts of disgust, patriotism, and bureaucracy. More specifically the words American government strikes these emotions. Ronald Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help’” (Kurtzman). Today in the United States we have people all over the spectrum on their views on government’s role. Let’s ask some questions about what our American government should be and how Christian conservatives should think about their government. Is it good thing, or a bad thing? What is government’s role? What are we as Christians obligated to do in government? These are questions that need to be dealt with to establish a foundation to build a sound view of government.

We come to the first question, is government a bad or good thing? We should start with what type government we have. The American government is a Constitutional Republic. This simply means that the power of government is given to the people who elect legislators to pass laws. There are many approaches to government. One philosophy is that government is a necessary evil that has to be in place to keep order. Another philosophy is that God ordained natural law and government is one of the foundations that he laid down in natural law. The reality is, our government is founded on biblical principles but is weak in that fact that is in the hands of the people. If society falls, so does our government. The key to understanding our government is we are responsible to entrust each generation with the foundations of freedom, when that is not done we collapse. A beginning of collapse can describe our current state as a nation. The previous generation is not passing on the values necessary for this form of government to succeed.

Seeing the current state of our government leads us to the second question. What is the role of government? Some people believe in big government with the federal government in control of every aspect of our lives. On the opposite side of the spectrum we have a limited government with strong state governments and weak federal government. We have Christians that place themselves in both ideologies. Christians that advocate big government are what one may call “Christian Socialists”. They support laws and ideas that impose Christian beliefs and fundamentals on an entire populace. The problem is that this approach is tyranny and goes against the foundations of our government. It is just as bad as Marxists imposing their philosophy and ideas on entire populace. We have Christians that advocate the form of government the founding fathers created and don’t realize that it is a weak form of government. Why is it weak? The element many forget is that politics is going to be a result of society. If society is in decay along with the people then that will be reflected in the political system.

People do not understand that our form of government is not designed to take care of society. It should not have welfare, bailouts, and government paid items. When true conservative thinkers implement their beliefs, they are not supported by the people now because the society has not been educated by the previous generation but by the enemies of freedom. Our system can only be as stable as society is. So who is in charge of society? The church, the Christian church is responsible for the spiritual and philosophical welfare of people. They have not been faithful in keeping society on the right path. We cannot protect our government if the culture has accepted Marxism and socialism. When conservatives run for offices as they are attempting to bring back the traditional America, they find that they cannot do so. The main reason is liberals have taken society and brainwashed them to view anybody who is conservative as a white Christian racist who hates anybody who is not white Christian. The main issue is that bringing back America does not start with the politics. Politics start with the culture and until we change culture, we cannot change the government.

So now we come to what we as Christians should do. First and foremost, we need Christians engaging culture in every outlet possible. Only then can we attempt to keep our government the way our founding fathers intended it to be. This doesn’t mean we can stop being active in government. The thing Christians need to realize is that we must do both. Jesus says in Matthew 22:21b “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” Jesus was talking about taxes, but this can apply to us in the sense that we are given a responsibility in our government. The Roman government was much more oppressive then ours and the people had no voice. In our country we do. We the people are solely responsible if it this nation perishes or succeeds.  Christians are called to be active in government because of the form of government we have.

We must remember that Christians in politics can only succeed by changing society and government. We must also have Christians in culture, engaging it. We have looked at what our government is supposed to be, what the role of government is, and lastly what Christians should be doing in government. Now I want to leave you with a call, a call for conservatives to realize that to keep the standards and values of this nation. We must change society in order to save our government. We the people are responsible for the fate of this nation. What will be said of a real patriot when all is said and done? Will he have stood against culture and against the regime that wants to destroy his government? Only the individual can begin a movement, spark a revival, or bring “real” change. The only question is, will he?

 

Kurtzman, Daniel “Ronald Reagan Quotes: Funny Quotes by President Ronald Reagan” About.com. About.com 1996. Web. 22 Nov. 2012.

Matthew 22:21b The King James Bible Matthew 22:21 Ed. Benjamin Blayney and Francis Sawyer Parris Oxford: Robert Barker 1611. Print.