Half of Catholics voted for Obama last night. Over half of Jewish folks. I haven’t found a stat for Christians yet, but I do know that millions of evangelicals didn’t vote at all, after 30 million failed to do so four years ago. They may as well have voted for Barry.
Everyone on the right is trying to find people to blame. Many are blaming the stupid people that voted for Barry. While the stupid people are always an easy target, I don’t fault them for voting for the guy they believe has their best interests in mind (even when he doesn’t). There are plenty of freeloaders who are perfectly happy not working when they can. There are plenty of women who believe Romney actually wanted to take away their womanly “rights,” whatever those may be. There are plenty of union members who are unemployed because of the Obama economy. But I’m not going to blame them. Instead, I’m going to blame every single Christian, Catholic, and Jew who voted for Obama, when he and his party support positions that are immoral and contrary to the Bible.
While I’m going to play the social issues card today, I’m not going to tell you you’re going to hell for voting for Barry. I don’t get to make that call. What I am going to tell you is that abortion is murder. I’m guessing I wouldn’t find many of you willing to vote for a guy hoping to institute a second holocaust. But yet, millions of Judeo-Christian folks just voted for a guy who supported legislation in Illinois that allowed a doctor to throw a live baby in the trash if he/she survived an attempted abortion. What’s your justification? Women’s rights? Public education? Just wanted to be different? You’ll have some explainin’ to do.
Gay marriage? The Bible’s pretty clear on what constitutes marriage. The Dems? I think we all know where they stand on the subject. Polygamy isn’t legal, why should gay marriage be? What’s your justification for supporting it? Fairness? Rights? At some point you have to decide what side of the line you’re on.
Oftentimes, we leave God when we walk out of church…myself included. We all need to bring Him with us into every area of our lives, including our political lives. John Adams once said that our Constitution was made only for a moral or religious people. Without the independent code of ethics provided by religion, moral decay would destroy this country as a result of the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. That is precisely what is taking place now, and many of the people who are obligated to fight against the decay are actually voting in favor of it.
“But Nash, aren’t you getting just a little bit drama-rama over this?” No, my imaginary friend, I am not. This stuff matters. A lot. I was ticked off last night. And while I was ranting and raving, my wife wisely told me to focus on what mattered. God has a plan, and that plan involves more President Barry. My dad, who has the misfortune of today being his birthday, told me something similar. We’re in the world, not of the world. Four more years of Barry isn’t the worst disaster ever. At the same time, however, we have the responsibility to vote the same way we are to live: as morally as possible. Unfortunately, we all too often fail in doing what we ought. There’s always next time though, God willing.
Before I begin. To all those drivers who made it take 45 minutes for me to travel five miles on the highway this morning, simply because there was a car stranded on the shoulder: you should all strongly consider sterilization. However, I did get to hear two Ke$ha songs during that time. So I have that going for me.
Obviously the title of this post is glaringly obvious. God matters for lots of reasons, and we can all name them. Well, maybe not all of us (I’m looking at you Stephen Hawking). But the specific answer I’m looking for was inadvertently brought up yesterday by, yes you guessed it, liberal talk radio. Specifically, the radio host asked “how do you raise a child to be moral in an immoral and unethical world?” The question didn’t immediately resonate with me, because I know how I teach my kids about what’s right and wrong…I simply point to the Bible. But then I started to listen to the teachings of the callers. The first caller said he tells his 9 year old daughter to “follow her heart” because it is “intrinsically good.” I immediately questioned the wisdom in the such an instruction, because it will inevitably result in his 14 daughter getting knocked up in the back seat of Johnny’s red Trans-Am because JOHNNY LOVES ME AND WE’RE GOING TO BE TOGETHER FOREVER AND THERE’S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT!
The second caller said he just tells his kids to follow the golden rule. When asked what he tells his kids when other people don’t follow the golden rule and seem to prosper by such tomfoolery, the caller said he deals with each situation on a case by case basis…which simply means his response largely depends on how his hemorrhoids are feeling that day. It was at this point that I determined these two fathers were morons. But then, after taking a break to sing along to “Save a horse, ride a cowboy,” I realized it wasn’t moronism, but a total lack of authority for any of The Man’s stupid rules.
While the question presented was “how do you raise a child in an immoral world,” the more precise question, I think, is “how do you teach a child to discern right from wrong when you can’t base your own values on anything solid?” How does a non-believer justify his rules to his children? Stealing is wrong. Why? Because it’s taking somebody else’s stuff without asking. But the government does it…I kid, I kid. Seriously though, how do you answer the question without grounding it in something immovable? I don’t think you can.
There is no answer outside of God. God made us. Therefore he calls the shots. Is this oversimplification? Depends on whether you stayed awake in Theology class (which I did not). Here’s the point though…I’m not sure it’s possible to teach a kid morals or ethics or how to simply not be a jerk without pointing to an ultimate authority. Otherwise, you’re simply passing on your own moral relativism, which only works if you’re G.I Joe, or something (knowing is half the battle).
Oh, and to my wife: I wasn’t really singing along to “save a horse, ride a cowboy.” I find such overt sexual references degrading to women. Which is wrong.
I’ve read a lot lately about Stephen Hawking. You know…the super genius who was on the Simpsons once? Well, he apparently wrote a new book that, he believes, proves the universe began spontaneously, without the assistance of God. I find scientists like Hawking somewhat fascinating because of how hard they try to prove God doesn’t exist, often to the point of becoming condescending and/or angry.
There’s a piece in today’s Wall Street Journal in which Hawking presumably gives us a taste of his new book, by seeking to prove that the universe was created by physics and not God. It’s an interesting read because the first half of the article describes, in great scientific detail, just how astonishingly perfect the world is. In fact, Hawking concludes that if the earth were different in even the smallest way, we wouldn’t be here.
The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences? Luck in the precise form and nature of fundamental physical law is a different kind of luck from the luck we find in environmental factors. It raises the natural question of why it is that way.
Obviously, one argument for “why it is that way” is God. You know, an intelligent Designer. Now, I’m no physicist, but it’s difficult for me to believe anything as perfect as Hawking describes could spontaneously occur (Note: I’m biased). Plus, there’s that problem of something coming from nothing. Per his playbook, Hawking attempts to deal with the problem scientifically:
That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
I find Hawking’s scientific explanation to fail; his “nothing” remains “something.” Hawking argues that the laws of nature, i.e., gravity and quantum physics, got everything moving. This begs the question though: where did the laws of nature come from? Are they infinite? Was gravity created or did it always exist? Hawking doesn’t answer this question (maybe he does in his book). I’m not sure the answer really matters to Hawking though, since the underlying purpose of his piece seems to be the motive of most “science explains all” types: man.
Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation.
“Lords of creation?” Look, I’m not an anti-science guy. In fact, I enjoy science. But I will continue to believe that there is only one reason why science or math or color television make sense…and a lucky explosion isn’t the answer.
Please note: if you are easily offended by discussions about right and wrong and religion and the like, then don’t read this. I’m not attempting to offend with this post, but I’m also not looking to not offend. With that being said, on with the show.
To begin, Anne Rice has announced she’s “quitting” Christianity. While she calls it “Christianity,” she’s actually quitting Catholicism (the two share one important thing in common and some slightly less important differences). Her failure to know the difference isn’t the reason for this post though (although it is somewhat enlightening). It’s because Rice is full of it, and she attempts to blame conservative Christians for her bloated feeling.
Let’s get one thing straight: Anne Rice left Christianity because Christianity doesn’t agree with her social perspectives. See, unlike myself (who was a Christian before I was a political conservative), Rice was a liberal before becoming a “Christian.” This has caused her to go through some inner turmoil, and her politics apparently won. She still “loves God,” but only when doing so doesn’t offend her idea of “right.”
What’s unfortunate about the article is that it attempts to give credence to not only Rice’s personal issues, but also the so-called “disillusionment” allegedly felt by so many Christians. I, in fact, hear some derivation of the following almost every day: “Christians are so cold” or “so insensitive” or “so holier than thou” or “so judgmental.” I don’t actually mind being called insensitive because I’m probably not listening to you anyway. But these allegations being thrown at Christians generally are maddening because they have no basis in fact.
What Rice (and many liberal Christians) ultimately realized is that Christianity/Catholicism isn’t compatible with the “socially acceptable” stuff like abortion, homosexuality, or adultery. Why? Because all three pretty clearly fall into the “sins” category in the Bible. Important caveat though (which so many, like Rice, don’t seem to get to because they’re so busy screaming about judging and not being accepting and stuff): identifying these three things (and others) as “sins” doesn’t automatically “damn” anyone to hell. Why? Because we’re all sinners, and only God knows where we’re going. That being said, Christianity is not about simply accepting people’s diverse life styles, and that, no doubt, is what gave Rice heart burn.