Chuck Colson

During the seemingly endless build-up to the Iowa caucuses, there was one consistent refrain repeated over and over. It’s like the big lie — the more you keep repeating it, the more people are going to believe it, but it remains a lie.

The lie was simply this: that the political parties have to choose between social issues and economic issues. This year, the media and the party machines are telling us ad nauseam that the only issue that matters is the economy.

So any candidate who wants to win the White House should just shut up about things like marriage, the sanctity of life, religious liberty, and those other annoying issues that distract us from focusing on jobs and the economy.

But that’s crazy! Doesn’t anybody get the connection between the social issues and economics issues

One candidate who does, Rick Santorum had the courage to link the two in a recent Iowa town hall meeting. (And before I go on, please, folks, I’m not endorsing him or anyone. I never do.)

Here’s what Senator Santorum said:

“Yes, [the election is] about growth and the economy, [but] it’s also about what is at the core of our country . . . faith and family. You can’t have a strong economy, you can’t have limited government if the family is breaking down and we don’t live good, moral, and decent lives.”

Precisely right. And what does he get for his remarks? Backhanded compliments for his showing in Iowa and a stern warning from, among others, the conservative National Review:

Here’s what the National Review wrote online: “In a general election…where the focus is almost certainly going to be on economic issues, it is questionable whether Santorum’s relentless focus on social issues will play well with independent voters, especially in the crucial suburbs.”

Hogwash. If the nation’s current economic crisis has taught us anything, it’s that a healthy economy cannot thrive in the midst of moral breakdown. Ethical failures on Wall Street, Main Street, and Capitol Hill put us into this mess we’re in today, as I’ve said many times before.

But how about some facts? I’ll have the citations for you at BreakPoint.org: Take incarceration rates: something Santorum has alluded to and I’ve seen with my own eyes: “Young men who grow up in homes without fathers are twice as likely to end up in jail as those who come from traditional two-parent families.” And “70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes.”

How about education? 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. And children from low-income, two-parent families outperform students from high-income, single-parent homes.

I could go on and on.

Do you think that crime rates, incarceration, low educational achievement, out of wedlock births, affect the economy and government spending? Of course they do, and the statistics prove this!

If you want a healthy, thriving economy you’ve got to have a strong moral societal foundation. And any so-called “conservatives” who think otherwise are simply deluding themselves; the two issues simply can’t be separated.
As Christians, we can’t buy into the lie that we can separate economic prosperity from moral behavior. And we can’t be afraid to hold the candidates’ feet to the fire on this, either.

HT: Break Point (read full article)

Ken Connor

4/30/2010 – Ken Connor -
“Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.” Alexis de Tocqueville

In his treatise, The Christian Manifesto, published in 1981, Francis Schaeffer suggests that the gradual shift away from a Judeo-Christian (or at least a Creationist) worldview towards a materialistic view of reality has broad sociological and governmental implications for western society. His is an interesting thesis to ponder in light of a recent article in USA Today discussing religion and the Millennial Generation.

The article cites a recent survey conducted by Lifeway Christian Resources, which reveals that Millennials (defined as Americans born approximately between 1980 and 1995) are distancing themselves from traditional religious forms in favor of a personally-defined, nebulous kind of “spirituality.” These individuals are less likely to pray, they don’t read the Bible, and they don’t go to church. Among the 65% who identify themselves as Christian, “many are either mushy Christians or Christians in name only. . . . Most are just indifferent.” Theological indifference may seem like no big deal in an age where moral relativism and the cult of the individual reign, but it’s worth considering Schaeffer’s argument that – whether we realize it or not – our understanding of religion and its role in society has a direct impact on our politics.

As the Founding Fathers laid the foundations for the unprecedented political experiment known as the United States of America, this relationship was foremost in their minds. The Judeo-Christian understanding of man as a fallen and sinful creature is reflected in James Madison’s famous observation that “if men were angels, government wouldn’t be necessary.” The recognition of our innate dignity as creatures created in God’s own image is reflected in the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights. America’s political tradition rests squarely upon this conception of human nature: We are fallen, yet still bear the mark of our divine inheritance. Our Constitution, consequently, addresses the human need for a robust rule of law while respecting the liberty and dignity of the individual. As Schaeffer rightly observed, a society’s predominant worldview shapes its form/freedom balance: It shapes the form of government the citizens adopt and the freedoms they enjoy.

The problem is, fewer and fewer Americans recognize this fact, either because we are unwilling or unable to conceive of a reality in which we are not in ultimate control. If anything, we regard the move from religion to “spirituality” as one more step up the ladder of progress – a natural evolution from the silly superstitions of our ancestors to a more enlightened understanding of reality in which everyone is his own god. Ideas, however, have consequences, and the consequences of denying God may well prove detrimental to the future of the American experiment.

When we decide as a society that God doesn’t exist, all we are left with to account for what we are and why we exist is the idea that we are nothing more than an accident of nature. This denial of purpose and design in Creation goes hand in hand with a denial of absolute Truth and, subsequently, the embrace of moral relativism. Such a view of man and of the nature of truth is completely at odds with the Founders’ views.

A view of man that denies our divine origins gives us little reason to respect our fellow men or to strive for virtue and justice in society. Furthermore, it threatens our human dignity and undercuts our claim to those “unalienable rights” we so cherish as Americans. As each of us withdraws deeper and deeper into our own individually-crafted bubbles of “spirituality,” we are finding ourselves less and less able to reach even a basic societal consensus on questions of justice and morality. The result? We end up with a legal system that defends the due process rights of convicted felons and would-be terrorists while denying those same rights to the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly.

The one entity that does not object to a God-less society, however, is government – which may explain why the promotion of atheism has been central to some of the world’s most brutal totalitarian regimes. A government seeking absolute authority over its citizens, after all, is not well served by competition with God. When we refuse to embrace both the blessings and the responsibilities of our divine inheritance, the power-hungry politicians and entrenched bureaucrats that manage the modern welfare state are more than happy to step in and do it for us – for a price that often comes in the form of higher taxes, less liberty, and less protection for the weak and vulnerable.

As our own government senses its power and authority growing stronger in direct proportion to our increasing religious apathy, social irresponsibility, and historical ignorance, we can be sure that it will do what it can to prevent the American people from reversing the tide. The Obama Administration’s response to the Tea Party movement is a perfect example.

Americans must decide the future they want for their country. If we wish to preserve the unique tradition begun by our Founders, we must rediscover the importance of religion and put God back in the foreground of our social and political consciousness.

Posted by express permission of the author.

Ken Connor founded the Center for a Just Society in 2005 with Colin Stewart and Genevieve Wood. He serves as the organization’s Chairman and one of its principal spokesmen.

Like yourself, I am a non-combat veteran of the US Armed Forces. I served four years active duty in the United States Army. I served honorably as a “cold warrior” in a tactical intelligence unit near the East German Border in the FRG as an intelligence analyst and Russian translator.

I’ve not only listened to the news recently, I’ve focused on what you’ve said, the import (literal and colloquial) of the words, and listened to it in context. Though proud to state what I believe, at times forcefully, I am not prone to histrionics, and believe in giving the benefit of the doubt; I insist on the whole story, and I recognize that at times reasonable minds may differ.

Yet, while each of us fails in our own respective areas of human fallibility, your sins of semantic gilding require a bold, uneuphemized apology; I dare say, too, that your withdrawal from the election and your resignation from your current position would be the minimal steps sufficiently weighty to put substance behind the form of such an apology.

You may recall in your time in service that language which summarizes awards and commendations, to the effect that by doing such-and-such the recipient thereof has brought great credit to herself or himself, her or his unit, and the United States Army (or Navy, Marine Corps Air Force).

You, sir, by your rodentine patter, have earned the antithesis of those hallowed accolades, and have brought great shame not only on yourself, but on your fellow servicemen and women (in particular those who’ve actually faced the stark terror of combat, or the heart-wrenching rejection of the ungrateful public in the Vietnam era), the United State military, your family, your friends, your supporters, the great state of Connecticut, and attorneys general throughout the United States.

Worse, by your past deceit and your continued gnawing recalcitrance, you shame and mock the quasi-sacred electoral process itself, which is vivified each generation by those men and women of true valor whose blood nourishes the roots of the tree of American liberty.

Consider seriously, sir, the sardonic burlesque show into which your campaign and career will incongruously transmogrify should you not withdraw and resign, respectively; note well–your current office, and that which you seek, each bears with it the ironic epithet of “Honorable.” That, sir, you are not.

Most sincerely,
Thaddeus Wojcik

Dennis Prager

by Dennis Prager | 4/27/2010

Opponents of the popular expression of conservative opposition to big government, the tea party, regularly note that tea partiers are overwhelmingly white. This is intended to disqualify the tea parties from serious moral consideration.

But there are two other facts that are far more troubling: The first is the observation itself. The fact that the Left believes that the preponderance of whites among tea partiers invalidates the tea party movement tells us much more about the Left than it does about the tea partiers.

It confirms that the Left really does see the world through the prism of race, gender and class rather than through the moral prism of right and wrong.

One of the more dangerous features of the Left has been its replacement of moral categories of right and wrong, and good and evil with three other categories: black and white (race), male and female (gender) and rich and poor (class).

Therefore the Left pays attention to the skin color — and gender (not just “whites” but “white males”) — of the tea partiers rather than to their ideas.

One would hope that all people would assess ideas by their moral rightness or wrongness, not by the race, gender or class of those who hold them. But in the world of the Left, people are taught not to assess ideas but to identify the race, class and gender of those who espouse those ideas. This helps explain the widespread use of ad hominem attacks by the Left: Rather than argue against their opponents’ ideas, the Left usually dismisses those making the argument disagreed with as “racist,” “intolerant,” “bigoted,” “sexist,” “homophobic” and/or “xenophobic.”

You’re against race-based affirmative action? No need to argue the issue because you’re a racist. You’re a tea partier against ever-expanding government? No need to argue the issue because you’re a racist.

As a Leftist rule of thumb — once again rendering intellectual debate unnecessary and impossible — white is wrong or bad, and non-white is right and good; male is wrong and bad, and female is right and good; and the rich are wrong and bad, and the poor right and good. For the record, there is one additional division on the Left — strong and weak — to which the same rule applies: The strong are wrong and bad, and the weak are right and good. That is a major reason for Leftist support of the Palestinians (weak) against the Israelis (strong), for example.

This is why, to cite another example, men are dismissed when they oppose abortion. The idea is far less significant than the sex of the advocate. As for women who oppose abortion on demand, they are either not authentically female or simply traitors to their sex. Just as the Left depicts blacks who oppose race-based affirmative action as not authentic blacks or are traitors to their race.

In this morally inverted world, the virtual absence of blacks from tea party rallies cannot possibly reflect anything negative on the black and minority absence, only on the white tea partiers.

But in a more rational and morally clear world, where people judge ideas by their legitimacy rather than by the race of those who held them, people would be as likely to ask why blacks and ethnic minorities are virtually absent at tea parties just as they now ask why whites predominate. They would want to know if this racial imbalance said anything about black and minority views or necessarily reflected negatively on the whites attending those rallies.

And if they did ask such un-PC questions, they might draw rather different conclusions than the Left’s. First, they would know that the near-absence of blacks and Hispanics no more implied racism on the part of tea partiers than the near-absence of blacks and Hispanics in the New York Philharmonic implies racism on the art of that orchestra.

Second, they might even, Heaven forbid, conclude that it does not reflect well on the political outlook of blacks and Hispanics that they so overwhelmingly identify with ever-larger government. Leftist big-government policies have been disastrous for black America just as they were in the countries that most Hispanics emigrated from. But like the gambling addict who keeps gambling the more he loses, those addicted to government entitlements keep increasing the size of the government even as their situation worsens.

Finally, if one eschews the “racism” explanation and asks real questions, one might also conclude that America generally, and conservatives specifically, have failed to communicate America’s distinct values — E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust, and Liberty (which includes small government) — to blacks and Hispanics.

Unfortunately, however, no real exploration of almost any important issue in American life is possible as long as the Left focuses on the race, gender and class of those who hold differing positions. And that will not happen. For when the Left stops attacking people and starts arguing positions, we will see what the Left most fears: blacks and Hispanics at tea parties.

HT: Townhall.com

With bus ads in Chicago and in San Francisco and Seattle, CatholicVote.org is encouraging Americans to rethink how they celebrate Earth Day, and how to go about building a culture that respects the environment. This April 22nd will mark the 40th anniversary of Earth Day.

“Our goal is to use Earth Day to get Americans to think more deeply about what it means to truly respect the Earth and creation,” said Brian Burch, President of CatholicVote.org Education Fund.

“Prevailing environmental attitudes too often view humans as the enemy of nature. We believe the human person is God’s greatest creation, and the Earth’s greatest resource. Building up a culture of life is the single most important way to build a culture that respects the environment.”

“Respect for the God’s creation has a long history in Catholic teaching, long before it became popular with our secular culture,” said Burch.

HT: LifeSiteNews.com

Your life, freedom, prosperity, and health are worth some hard choices.

Catholic Online | by Jennifer Hartline | 2/20/2010

Freedom is in the decisions you make, the things you purposely choose and the exercise of your will. Stop playing the victim and be the woman of integrity God made you to be.

One of the women Tiger Woods had an affair with has retained an attorney. I watched this attorney on TV explaining profusely why this poor woman was so victimized by Tiger, how much damage he did to her life and her career, and why Tiger must own up to his wrongful treatment of her and offer a very humble apology. Only then can talk of monetary damages proceed.

It was the victim routine again. “The Victim” should be a Broadway production by now. Everyone is a victim nowadays, but I find it especially irksome when women play the victim-card for themselves or each other, as the liberal feminist attorney did for her client. It’s always the big, bad man being mean to the poor little woman. And then she cries, “How could you treat me this way?” I’ll tell you how – you let him.

Ladies, I’m going to do you one better than your liberal feminists sisters will do and tell you that freedom isn’t free. It costs something and requires conscious effort to protect. And the responsibility is yours. Stop blaming men for treating you badly and kick up some dust on your way out.

Here’s the thing: the empowerment you seek, the freedom you crave – it’s all in your mind – literally. It’s in the decisions you make, the choices you purposely choose and the exercise of your will. It is forfeited in the careless choices you make and the bad decisions you won’t turn from. It is lost in the mistakes you refuse to learn from and correct. It is restored when you decide to stop playing the victim and become the woman of integrity God made you to be.

It’s all up to you. It always has been. Are there men who treat women terribly? Absolutely, and I’m not releasing those men from their guilt. But why is it that here in Land of the Free there are so many women – bright, educated, accomplished women – who allow it? They would rather cry victim, suffer terribly and unnecessarily at the hands of a complete jerk than use their heads, make a truly empowered decision and walk away. Somehow it’s better to seek revenge in a courtroom after the fact than to use the power of their minds and stay out of trouble in the first place.

It really is all in your mind and your will. It isn’t easy, but so what? Isn’t your life, your freedom, your prosperity, your health, your body, your heart worth some hard choices? Who’s calling the shots anyway? You are.

I learned that lesson the hard way. Before I met my husband, I dated a man who was very charming and extravagant. Gary was quite successful at his job and had a fancy car and loved to dine at restaurants all the time. He brought me flowers unexpectedly, and would shower me with love notes and surprises. He was very romantic and I found it all quite irresistible. He was also a very troubled man, having grown up in a profoundly abusive home. Under the surface, he seethed with rage, and when it bubbled up, it was frightening. He would become verbally abusive, demeaning, cruel, and he would lose all control of his temper. He did not physically strike me, but he would delight in beating me emotionally.

Those scary scenes were always followed by great remorse and affection, and thus our relationship went on like this for nearly two years. He shared with me the horrific stories of the abuse he endured as a child, and my heart broke with compassion and love for this wounded man. We’d pray together for healing, and even went together to seek counseling for his rage. I thought that because I loved him, I could and should help him get well. I saw all his good qualities – there were many – and thought how unfair it was that this man was basically ruined by his cruel parents.

Someone needed to stand by him, and it was going to be me. Yet, my own heart was never comfortable with the thought of spending my life with him, and fear gnawed at me constantly. In my soul, I knew the relationship was wrong for me, but I was in love with him and I didn’t want to abandon him.

The blow-ups of rage became more frequent, our fights became more intense, and I was disintegrating into a victim mindset. I thought I’d be heartbroken for life without him, yet my soul was telling me I’d be a battered woman for life if I didn’t end the relationship now.

I’ve heard God’s voice with unmistakable clarity only a few times in my life, and one night on the floor in my apartment, sobbing, He asked me quite simply, “Is this what you want?” I whipped my head around to see who had come into my room because the voice was audible in my ears. I heard God’s voice. Again, I heard Him: “Do you really want to give your heart to a man who will hurt you?” Suddenly, my tears dried, my mind cleared and I heard myself say out loud, “No.”

Then came His answer to me. “Then make your choice.”

It was my choice and God would let me make it and He would let me have whatever I chose, be it good or bad. I was not a victim, I was a willing participant and it was high time I made a better decision for my life. The responsibility was mine and I had no one to blame but me. As much as I thought I loved Gary, I could not change him or fix him or heal him. I could only stay and surrender my freedom to a man who would continue to hurt me. Gary stopped beating me with his anger the instant I stopped letting him.

I released him to the Lord, moved away and cleansed my mind and heart with God’s truth. Less than a year later, I met my wonderful husband and with great joy I gave my heart to a loving man who will never hurt me or our children, and God is as happy as I am that I made such an excellent choice. My life could have been very, very different. I shudder now to think of it. I thank God every day for His grace that saved me.

Ladies, the choices are ours to make. The Lord longs for us to protect our hearts and our freedom by using the good sense He gave us to make good decisions. I believe He weeps when we choose badly and then refuse to take responsibility for our choices. The power we need to live full, happy and free lives rests in the decisions we make. This woman who believes Tiger Woods has wronged and damaged her must start by looking in the mirror. There she will find the person who is responsible for her unhappiness, and the person who can change her life starting right now.

God’s abundant grace is there, waiting to be poured out on those who will choose well. Decide carefully, choose well, and you will live well. “Preserve sound judgment and discernment, do not let them out of your sight; they will be life for you, an ornament to grace your neck. Then you will go on your way in safety, and your foot will not stumble; when you lie down, you will not be afraid; when you lie down, your sleep will be sweet.” Proverbs 3:21-24

—————–
Jennifer Hartline is a lifelong Catholic, an Army wife and mother of four precious children. (One in heaven.) She is a contributing writer for Catholic Online on topics of Catholic faith, family, Life, and politics. She is also a serious chocoholic. Visit her at My Chocolate Heart.
—————–

HT: Catholic Online

We were invited to dinner with friends and extended family. Wonderful company. Good food. Stimulating intellects. All was well…until the conversation brushed up against two “untouchables” in a Southern home: religion and politics. As the exchange heated and civility gave way to raw emotion, a timid family Democrat pleaded for tolerance, entreated both sides to lay down their verbal firearms, and then abandoned the dinner table in search of safe harbor and warm, fuzzy house cats.

Relishing the beef tenderloin, I pondered the assets and liabilities of a tolerant society. Someone can think, say, or do anything, and others cannot question his thoughts, statements, or actions; but then, he cannot question anyone else’s, either. The upside ends there.

By definition, tolerance renders us impotent. Requiring passivity, it negates action. An ordered, lawful, moral, and virtuous life — as an individual, city, state, or nation — necessitates constant and intentional effort, often offending lesser angels of our personal or societal nature. In a letter to Mercy Warren in April 1776, John Adams wrote: “Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private [virtue], and public virtue is the only foundation of republics.” Study of our human nature confirms that left unbridled, it does not tend toward order or virtue. Human nature gravitates to chaos. Rather than right a troubled world, tolerance allows it to turn upside-down. At some point, we must choose, and fight boldly for, the principles that govern us.

Tolerance requires that we ignore “the law of non-contradiction.” The online Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) explains that “opposite assertions cannot be true at the same time” and suggests that Aristotle believed that “the principle of non-contradiction [is] a principle of scientific inquiry, reasoning, and communication that we cannot do without.” In a world of social and political tolerance, we do not inquire, we do not reason, we do not communicate…we do not respect…we tolerate.

Until both parties put aside agendas and assent to truth, legislative and political process based on tolerance of each other’s beliefs is futile and laughable…or at least it would be, were the consequences not so serious.

The result is a wasteland of abandoned principles.

Tolerance is the pry bar by which the modern liberal moves boundaries.

Robert H. Bork, in his introduction of Slouching Towards Gomorrah (1997), cites the Durkheim Constant: “Emile Durkheim, a founder of sociology, posited that there is a limit to the amount of deviant behavior any community can ‘afford to recognize.’” As behavior worsens, the community adjusts standards so that conduct once thought reprehensible is gradually thought to be normal. However, Mr. Bork conjectures that the limits to deviant behavior have expanded in both directions, so that what was deviant is now considered normal, and what was moral is thought puritanical or extremist and therefore irrelevant. Modern liberalism makes every effort to redefine or blur (whichever is more expedient) both boundaries of the acceptable norm and label opponents as “intolerant.”

The controversy over the definition of marriage serves as an example of expansion of both boundaries. On the one hand, homosexuality was viewed as deviant behavior in the first two thirds of the 20th century. By the end, national politics encouraged the acceptance of gay lifestyles. On the other hand, a normal marriage has always brought to mind one man and one woman. Now progressives claim that the definition is too narrow and should include gay unions. To think otherwise in their view discloses intolerance and a homophobic prejudice.

In the name of polite statesmanship, conservatives have allowed the infringements and withdrawn traditional discernment and thereby relinquished boundaries on both sides of that vague line of normalcy. Mr. Bork summarizes: “So unrelenting is the assault on our sensibilities that many of us grow numb, finding resignation to be the rational, adaptive response to an environment that is increasingly polluted and apparently beyond our control.”

The liberal says that “ignorance leads to intolerance.” In fact, tolerance leads to ignorance. Bork recounts the liberal’s dilemma, quoting W.H. Auden: “Emancipated from traditional beliefs of a closed society … he [the liberal] has found no source or principle of direction to replace them … liberalism is at a loss to know how to handle him, for the only thing liberalism knows to offer is more [liberalism] … and that is his trouble.” With no mental exercise of discernment, rationale, or principle required, tolerance dulls the intellect and implies that we should deny our natural sensibilities while we renounce our discernments. Tolerance presumes that we ignore our capacity to determine and act upon right from wrong, truth from falsehood, or good from evil. Tolerance denies intelligence.

When we allow tolerance to trump principles, we become the allegorical crab in the stewpot. The chef slips the crab into a large pot of water at room temperature. Every few minutes he turns up the heat a few degrees, until the crab, roused from his stupor too late, acquiesces to the inevitable boil and winds up supper for those who would benefit from his stupidity.

Respect is the missing virtue. Respect requires us to move beyond transgressions and differences, accept the author of poor belief and action, and in the process, initiate change. Tolerance identifies the person and belief as one and the same. Respect recognizes their differences and embraces the person when his belief or action may be wrong. Tolerance is a very bland substitute for respect, and people despair to see our nation settle for the lesser.

Should our sensibilities stop at every discussion of ideology and consider all equal and worthy of embrace, even when they are not? As our country was established on Judeo-Christian principles, can the system allow for juxtaposed value systems and still be effective? Do we abandon virtues citing moral failures? Can we no longer discern right from wrong?

We scratch our heads and wonder, “How did we get to this point?” Perhaps we would be wise to recognize that borders, boundaries, and limitations, whether literal or figurative, geographical, political, or moral, serve to protect us and ensure a valuable legacy. In the words of the celebrated poet Robert Frost from Mending Wall, “Something there is that doesn’t love a wall that wants it down.” Perhaps the neighbor better understood the pending consequences of vanishing boundaries with his reply:

“Good fences make good neighbors.”

. . . more