What’s more effective and moral:

A parent who uses negative reinforcement to stop his child from acting out, or a parent who attempts to use positive reinforcement (though negative reinforcement will be needed at times)?

A boss who puts restrictions on his employees and adds rules, or a boss who gives bonuses and raises for employees who do more than is required of them?

A teacher who consistently marks down the grades of students for the smallest mishaps, or a teacher who adds points when the student does more than expected of him?

In most cases, though negative reinforcement is needed to “motivate” those who just don’t care, positive reinforcement works far better. When people realize they can get a deal for doing something, they’ll almost always do that “something.” So when it comes to health care, under a capitalistic system, doesn’t it make far more sense to offer substantial tax breaks to employers who offer health care for full time employees?

Doesn’t it make far more sense to offer even bigger tax breaks to those who give health insurance to part-time employees? Doesn’t it make sense to offer tax breaks to people who pay for their own insurance (which, by the way, contributes to the economy)? Doesn’t it make more sense to offer even bigger tax breaks for those who add supplemental insurance? Doesn’t it make more sense to offer a tax break to employers who pay double the minimum wage for their employees (and make sure the tax break supplements the money lost on payroll)?

Tax breaks (based on incentives) do a few things:

1) Encourage business owners to offer certain services and wages to their employees because in the long run it allows the employers to save money.

2) Keeps the cost of goods low because there is no increase cost to the business owner. Though he is paying more for wages and additional services, he’s not having to pay anything additional in taxes, meaning his product can remain at a relatively low cost (because keep in mind, business taxes are always passed on to the consumer).

3) Lower the amount of money needed for government services. People making $13 an hour at McDonald’s in a society where such wages earn a tax break for employers (thus, no raise in cost of production), don’t need to be on welfare, don’t need medicade, and don’t need additional government services. They’re (ideally) on health care, they’re making enough money, etc.

4) It frees up tax money to go to projects that the government should be funding, such as schools, roads, military, etc.

5) It shrinks the government and puts more responsibility on the individual. In all circumstances of life, whether it be the child in the nuclear family, the employer in the community, or any other community based event, the more independent a person is, the better. A big government inherently shrinks independence, which means people are never responsible, which hurts the nation. When the government is smaller, more responsibility is expected out of the individual. If the individual – after being given a fair opportunity – can’t hack it, tough. It’s his own fault.

Tax hikes do a few things:

1) Increase the cost of goods – business owners will always pass the taxes onto consumers, making any government aid to the consumer superfluous and inadequate. For instance, we’re hiking the minimum wage up to $7.65 an hour. By hiking the minimum wage AND business taxes, that #1 value meal that used to be $5 can easily increase up to $6 or even $7 – meaning the person making that hamburger for you would have to work one hour to earn that meal. Considering it used to be Americans had to work on average 10-20 minutes in order to earn a value meal at a fast food joint, we can see how negative reinforcement (you MUST do this) hurts the country when it comes to wages and taxes.

2) Increase the government, which subsequently lowers the chance for liberty. People begin to rely on the government, which is never good because it means people simply aren’t responsible. No government can last when the people aren’t responsible. Either it takes away all of their liberty (North Korea) or collapses (Soviet Union).

3) Tax hikes create a horrible cycle. Increased taxes lead to increased goods, which leads to a higher standard of living, which increases the poverty level, which requires more government services, which requires more taxes, which leads to increased goods, which leads to a higher standard of living, which increases the poverty level, which requires more government services, which requires more taxes…

Now, there are times where it is absolutely necessary to raise taxes. In a time of declared war, for instance, the government must raise taxes. Sometimes in a national emergency due to a natural disaster or some type of loss where the government must step in and needs the immediate funding, the government must raise taxes. Imagine if Iran attacked the United States today and the Congress declared war on Iran, with the goal being the total surrender of Iran (I know, not realistic given the current government, but humor me). Most Americans would willingly endure a tax hike in order to pay for the war effort. Though lowered taxes eventually bring more money to the government, such a process can take 5-10 years; war funding is needed immediately. Thus, tax hikes can be necessary in certain situations.

Likewise, cutting taxes can be a horrible idea in certain circumstances. Cutting taxes during a war, for instance, can bankrupt a nation. Or, cutting taxes without subsequently cutting the budgets of government programs will likewise hurt the economy. The “Compassionate Conservatism” of the Bush administration is a perfect example of this. You simply cannot cut taxes and continue to remain at the status quo for government budgets.

Rather, if you cut taxes, they should be incentive based so you can justify cutting the budgets on government programs. It’s justifiable because, due to the incentives, less people will need the government programs, thus the programs don’t need the increased budgets. This prevents deficit spending without sacrificing the country’s populace or increasing poverty.

There will always be the need for taxes and penalties. An employer that refuses to pay a livable wage for his employees must be punished. In an ideal world, the employees would simply leave the employer and go elsewhere, but as the late 19th century adequately displayed, if multiple employers get rid of a minimal living wage, then the unskilled employee is in trouble. Thus, it’s best to have penalties in place for those who are greedy.

But those should always be exceptions, not rules. We don’t hand out monthly bills of $300 to everyone who drives because we assume they’re all speeding. Instead, we penalize those who are caught doing so. Taxes should be used in a similar fashion. There should be a low amount with incentives, but when someone violates certain rules and regulations, that person should endure a tax hike as punishment. It should never be across the board.

It’s so simple that I sometimes wonder why politicians can’t figure it out. Maybe it’s because they’ve spent so much time trying to get elected that they’ve forgone studying basic economics or life in general.

I went over three modern sayings in a previous post that are popular to say, but just don’t make any sense. After writing it, a few more have come to mind.

1)   “What someone does in his/her personal life doesn’t affect me.”

To a certain extent, such libertine sentiment is true. What type of food a person chooses to eat doesn’t affect me. What kind of drapes a person puts up in his home doesn’t affect me. But often times so-called private actions can lead to public consequences, which does affect me.

This whole privacy matter generally deals with privacy in the bedroom. For instance, how many liberal protestors who advocate homosexual rights based on “My personal life isn’t the government’s business,” but quickly turn around and want to place limits on how big my “carbon footprint” is, or dictate if I can smoke or not, or even dictate how much electricity I can use? There’s a double-standard – they’re willing to let the government intervene on those issues, but not on sexual issues.

Regardless, what goes on in the bedroom can affect me by affecting society. What we do is often reflected upon our children. As I pointed out in a previous post, sexual immorality tends to go hand-in-hand with other forms of immorality. Thus, if one is engaging in sexually immoral acts in the bedroom, then one is more apt to perform immoral acts in public.

The connection to public corruption, however, is almost irrelevant. Though it may not be the government’s business what goes on in the bedroom or in a person’s personal life, as a human being I have an obligation to point out immorality when I see it. I have an obligation to point out what is wrong (in a loving way) in the way someone is acting. By being human, a person’s personal life is my business.

2)   “As long as it doesn’t hurt someone, who cares?”

This is generally the follow-up response from the above modern saying. Again, there is some truth to it. If a person’s immoral actions don’t affect me, in some instances it is wise to stay out of it. If two people are arguing and it’s not my quarrel, sometimes it is best just to avoid it.

However, those are the exceptions and not the rule. When immorality is involved, someone is always getting hurt. Whether it be a direct victim, the family and friends of the perpetrator, or the perpetrator himself, someone is going to be harmed by immorality.

In the case of drug use, watching their loved one drown away in drug use could hurt the family and friends. The person using drugs is likewise hurt by his own choices. Finally, society is harmed because it takes away a potentially productive member of society and could even encourage this person to engage in theft and robbery in order to sustain the addition.

The fact is, all immorality hurts somebody. Even in the case of consensual relations between adults of the same gender – by violating the law of nature they hurt themselves in some way, or at least hurt society by degrading sex into something that is purely for pleasure and nothing else (the same goes for those who engage in promiscuity).

So when immorality presents itself in someone’s life, even if it appears to be private, it is hurting someone, even if that “someone” is the person being immoral. If you love someone, you won’t let that person hurt himself. Only a misguided understanding of love would allow such a thing.

3)   “You need to tolerate those different than you.”

If by “tolerate” we mean “put up with,” then yes, there are certain people that we simply have to put up with. We need to put up with those of different economic persuasions. We need to put up with certain beliefs. But none of this means we have to ‘accept’ anything. For instance, from a Facebook group page discussing homosexuality, we read:

Isn’t America supposed to be home of the brave and land of the free? Free means accepting others, whether [they are] bi or gay.

So I have to accept those who are different than me? Would this same person accept a Nazi who was hell-bent on killing Jews? Should we ‘accept’ the Ku Klux Klan? Or how about this; why doesn’t the person accept my belief that homosexuality is immoral? Why must I disregard my belief and accept this person’s belief?

And that’s the inherent problem with tolerance. We simply can’t accept certain individuals into society. I don’t accept pedophiles and neither do most other people. I don’t accept murderers and neither do most other people.

Likewise, I can tolerate a belief (such as Islam) without having to accept it. I can engage that belief in debate, I can show it to be wrong, I can explain why I don’t accept it, but I can allow it to exist in the public realm. None of this means I have to accept it.
Can you think of some more modern sayings?

There’s a big grassroots movement right now against California’s Proposition 8 (banning homosexual marriages) called “NoH8.” 

I find this group very interesting. For one, I’m assuming that their end goal is to change California’s constitution. But what bothers me is the automatic assumption that if you’re against homosexual marriage or against the homosexual lifestyle, you somehow hate homosexuals. This baffles me. 

I’m hate promiscuity – as are many other Americans (including homosexuals). Does this mean I hate people who are promiscuous? I hate alcoholism. Does this mean I hate alcoholics? I hate drugs. Does this mean I hate drug addicts? Just because I hate the action does not mean I hate the person involved in the action. The reason for this is that what we do does not always define who we are. 

So I can disagree with a lifestyle choice and think that choice is wrong, but still not hate the person who made the choice. 

Unfortunately, however, the hope of civil discourse is thin. If you disagree with a lifestyle, then you are automatically branded as a “hater.” I can’t disagree with homosexual marriages without likewise being called a hater. Thus, any hope of a “civil discourse” on the matter is impossible; any opposing views are pushed into the same category as “racism” and other social taboos and subsequently shut out. It’s the attitude of, “Let’s discuss this…unless you disagree with me.” 

Thus, the whole “No H8″ rhetoric is disingenuous. Being against homosexual marriage is not the same at hating homosexuals.

I generally avoid celebrity gossip because I just don’t care. There are bigger things in this world to deal with than what celebrity is doing what. However, as I was flipping through the channels I came across a story about how some Heidi Montag (apparently on some MTV show) is going to pose for Playboy. Now, usually this isn’t a shocker…except that this is apparently the same Heidi Montag that claims to be a Christian and a positive role model for young children (and wants to be like Mother Theresa…the “modern version” [look at the 57 second mark]). 

Now, a few things after watching the video:

* Their claims of being Christians are, I hope, intentionally false. I hope it’s just a ploy.

* How many Christians might actually be duped into supporting these two nut-jobs simply because they claim Christ? 

* Christians are called to be modest; posing for Playboy simply isn’t modest (neither is prancing around in a bikini on stage…sorry Carrie Prejean)

* Christians are supposed to be self-sacrificial, not Hollywood elitists who want to be pampered 

My guess is that this is all one big joke. They’re claiming Christianity as a marketing ploy. If they aren’t…then whatever church they’re going to need to exercise some proper church discipline. 

Looking that stuff up wasted about 20 minutes of my life that I’ll never get back…what an empty culture.

When asked what the biggest hurdle to the Middle East peace process was, Jimmy Carter said it was the Jewish settlements in the West Bank. I have to ask – did Carter fall down and hit his head somewhere between 1980 and the present day? 

Let’s look at a few facts:

* The biggest obstacle is most likely the fact that Hamas – the biggest governmental party for the Palestinians – does not recognize Israel as a legitimate nation

* It is the express intent of such terrorist organizations to “drive the Jews into the sea,” not back to the pre-1967 borders

* Like it or not, Israel won those lands in a battle against 6 different Arab nations. They didn’t take it from the nation of Palestine, because such a nation did not exist. Rather, those lands were owned by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. There was no Palestinian government (or solidarity movement). It is the equivalent of saying the US needs to return the Southwestern portion of the United states to Mexico, or make it its own nation, even though we won that land in a war

* All land is taken from someone. The land of Israel is no different. It is currently owned by the Jews. Before that, the British. Before that, the Ottoman Empire. Before that, the Muslim armies under Saladin. Before that, the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. Before that, the French. Before that, the Muslim armies. Before that, the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire. Before that, the Roman Empire. Before that, the Jews. And the list goes on and on. Multiple nations have staked claim in Israel. To say that it belongs to the Palestinians – a bedouin people who decided to settle there – is quite absurd. 

* Israel often takes harsh actions against the Palestinians because the Palestinians are known for blowing Israelis up

* Even if we say the terrorism is a response to what Israel has done, does that make it right? Israel targets military targets surrounded by civilians, which inevitably leads to collateral damage. The Palestinians target civilian targets – the death of Israeli citizens aren’t collateral damage, they are the targets

* The Israelis have shown they wanted peace and want a co-existence with the Palestinians. The Palestinians have shown they want peace by the eradication of the Jewish government

Regardless of one’s religion or views of Biblical eschatology, from a purely rational point of view, Israel is in the right. Israeli settlements may hinder the peace process, but they are a far cry from the biggest obstacle. Every time Israel has done something to move toward peace, it has been met with rocket launches and bombs…and silence from those who want “peace” in Israel. Carter, Obama, Clinton…all of them are silent when rockets fall in Israel or busses are blown up. But the moment those Jews build a house on land they won in a war, well that’s just the biggest obstacle to peace. 

A nation with leaders such as these, leaders who are blind and don’t understand the first thing about justice, is a nation that will not survive, nor does it have a right to survive.

Today I was thinking about modern sayings and how they really don’t make a lot of sense. We hear them all the time, either as bumper stickers or responses to common problems, but when put under analysis, these sayings are actually illogical.

1)   “Violence doesn’t solve anything/Violence isn’t the answer.”

Is it true that violence doesn’t solve anything? This attempts to bring up the sentiment that it’s good for people to work out their differences in a civilized manner. Certainly if all parties involved in a dispute are civilized, then violence makes little to no sense; violence between civilized persons would only seek to exacerbate the problem rather than solve it.

If, however, one person is civilized and the other person is uncivilized or unwilling to work out the differences, sometimes violence is the answer. If you witness a man beating up and robbing an old lady and you can’t reason with him, violence is the answer. Violence (physically apprehending the perpetrator would be a minimal use of violence, but violence nonetheless) does actually solve this problem. Violence solves the problem of the man beating up the old lady.

If we didn’t believe violence was ever the answer then we wouldn’t have police. Even the most ardent leftists in our country want police (the same cannot be said for the ardent on the right, who are Anarchists, but they are few and far between). But if violence is “never the answer” or “doesn’t solve anything,” then why have police? They have to use violence in order to apprehend an uncooperative suspect.

A better saying would be, “Violence should be the last resort.” This still shows that violence is never preferable, but is sometimes necessary in order to get the job done.

2)   “That’s true for you, but not for me.”

If this saying merely applied to certain temporal existences, then there’d be no problem. For instance, the statement, “I am currently in France” might be true for John, but not true for Jane, who is currently in New York. Or, “I currently have on a red shirt” might be true for one person, but not for another. Unfortunately, this saying is applied to ethics.

This saying itself is meant to promote the ethic of tolerance. When applied to temporal states, the statement is logical. When applied to abstracts, such as ethics, the statement is self-contradictory. “It might be true for you, but not for others” implies, “don’t shove your beliefs on others.” But if one thing is true for me and not for you, what if the original statement (“It’s true for you, but not for me”) isn’t true for me? Do I still have to adhere to it? If, however, that statement is universal, doesn’t that mean that there is at least one absolute moral, thus negating the sentiment inherent within that statement?

Is it true for me that murdering is wrong, but not true for someone else? Does our judicial system work on the idea that morality is subjective to the person or culture, or does it (at its very base level) work on the idea that there is an absolute morality? It was, in the very least, founded on the belief that morality was absolute and that even if you disagreed with the moral sentiment of the culture, you still had to submit to it.

Regardless, the saying is illogical as it contradicts itself. It’s a popular saying, but an illogical one nonetheless.

3)   “Going to war for peace is like having sex for virginity.”

This one always leaves me scratching my head. War and peace exist temporally, that is to say neither is permanent and can come and go. Virginity is a default setting and a one-time thing; once gone it can never return. No amount of surgery or psychotherapy can make someone a virgin again. War and peace, however, can come in and out of existence.

The sentiment behind the saying is that because war is the antithesis of peace, it subsequently cannot bring about peace. While we should always do everything we can to avoid war, sometimes war is unavoidable in order to secure peace.

Examples from history would include:

• WWII – the Allied involvement in the war brought about peace for Europe (albeit temporary)

• The Civil War opened up the road for peace for black slaves; though they had to wait (and in many instances, still wait) for peace, without the Civil War such peace was not a guarantee.

• Caesar’s invasion of Gaul – the Celts from Gaul had continually raided the northern Italian peninsula, destroying farms and life. Caesar’s invasion brought about peace in Gaul and stopped the tribal warring as well as the invasions into Rome.

War, sadly enough, can produce peace because it takes two opposing sides and eradicates one of them. When one side is gone, the other continues on peacefully (for a while). War, therefore, can produce peace, whereas once I have sex, I have no hope of being a virgin again.

Of course, war is not the ultimate solution. War is always a temporary fix and cannot provide an eternal peace.

These are just common statements that are popular to say and accepted as undisputed truth, but are really silly. They’re illogical and don’t even align with the facts of history. They show a lot of bravado and might sound deep, but once someone actually applies some depth to the statements, they’re shown to be empty.

We now come to the 7 Vices, which have become virtues in the modern day. These are the things that traditionally have been viewed as the seven major categories for sin; though there are multiple sins, they can generally fit within one of these seven categories (and all fall under pride).

1)   Extravagance/ Lust – this is the sin of pursuing money and things at any cost; it likewise deals with excessive sexual encounters. Though money is good when used properly and sex is wonderful when done between a man and a wife, when money is used improperly or sex is taken away from its purpose, both become evil. It is wrong to pursue wealth because it violates the virtues. It is wrong to give into lust because it shows a lack of self-control and love for the other person. It shows a love for the person lusting, but shows a lack of love toward God and the object of lust, which violates the chief of the virtues.

How has extravagance/lust become a virtue? We have people who are building multi-million dollar homes for their own sake, to simply say they have it. We have people who are engaging in sexual activities for their own reputations. The “American Dream” is now owning a huge mansion and not having to work. People generally use their money for themselves, owning multiple planes, etc. How clearly we remember the CEO’s of the American automakers flying in on their private jets to their Congressional meetings saying their companies lacked money. Those who don’t buy goods, who don’t spend their money, who refuse to fall in debt are often looked upon as “unpatriotic” because they’re failing to keep up the American economy.

Or what about lust? How many politicians have had illicit affairs? What’s more is that the media seemingly expects such affairs to occur. Infidelity is not only expected to occur within marriages, in some situations it’s encouraged. If not within marriage, certainly outside of marriage lust is encouraged. We encourage our teenagers to have sex. If anyone is sixteen-years-old and a virgin, we baffle at such an idea. Once the person is eighteen, we begin to mock him or her for being a virgin. To be a virgin, to not give into lust, is to be weird. Chastity is a vice in our culture.

To take this further, anyone who points out that lust is wrong is not only laughed at, but hated in our society. If you point out that homosexuality is wrong because it’s two men or two women allowing their lust to get the best of them, then you are intolerant. If you tell a young man and young woman not to engage in a one-night stand, then you’re “forcing your values on other people.” To promote chastity or purity is to go against the “American virtue of lust.”

2)   Gluttony – this is the sin of eating too much or leaving too much left over. I’ve worked in restaurants or around food for as long as I can remember. One commonality is that whenever there is too much food left over, it tends to get thrown away. We’re talking pans full of food. Rather than take that food to people who need it, it simply gets thrown out. Alternatively, I’ve watched people come in and eat meal upon meal for themselves. They’re grossly overweight and will eat and continue to eat. This shows a love for food, a love that they cannot control. If we are controlled by anything other than love, then we are sinning. Likewise, in our excess, we withhold food from the poor.

How has gluttony become a virtue? I need only point to American television to prove my point. We make contests out of eating. We have such a high standard of living that we actually have to go on diets and abstain from food.

But gluttony has become a virtue in many ways. To the girl who orders a lot of food, but only eats a little and thus wastes it, we applaud her for staying skinny. Or to the millionaire who spends thousands of dollars on food, but gets nothing for the hungry in his city or around the world, we think, “I wish I could eat like him.” We’re always in pursuit of food that is better, tastier, fatter, etc. It’s not wrong to like good food, but in America we take it further. We make a lot of it and waste a lot of it.

3)   Greed – this is different from extravagance in that this is all about hording your money and being cut throat in making sure no one makes as much as you do. One doesn’t have to be rich to be greedy. We can hoard what we have, we can covet what other people have, and in so doing we become greedy. We are holding onto material things that will not last and ultimately are not our own.

How has greed become a virtue? It’s expected for a CEO to lay off employees while not cutting his bonuses or for a singer to charge absurd amounts of money to get into his concert. As per the line from the movie Wall Street, “Greed is good.” There’s a reason that the Harvard Business School cut out “business ethics” from its curriculum; one cannot be ethical and greedy, and under pragmatic Capitalism (as opposed to a virtue based Capitalism) one has to embrace greed in order to be successful.

We teach our children to do whatever they can to get money. “Get rich or die trying” is a motto that is instilled into them. To teach the importance of being content, of being happy with what you have, is a vice in our culture. In fact, I remember growing up being told in school that we should never be happy with what we have, because that leads to us becoming complacent and therefore lazy. We must be greedy in order to be good within American society.

4)   Acedia/Slothfulness – this is the sin of simply not caring, being apathetic, and being lazy. It’s the overall attitude of, “I’ll do it tomorrow” or, “I just don’t care right now.” It’s the idea of seeing a problem that you can fix or at least help fix, but opting not to do a thing about it because you’d rather sit around and do something “more fun.” People who lament having to work hard to get what they want or who look at problems and say, “I don’t care enough to get involved” often find themselves under this sin.

How has acedia/slothfulness become a virtue? Sadly, this is a common “virtue” in American society. Though it is certainly possible to overwork and thus neglect your family and friends (violating the primary virtue of love), most Americans suffer from working hard enough. We envy those who get to sleep all day. For most Americans, after working just eight hours with minimal physical force, we’re ready to take a nap.

In American society, a hard worker simply isn’t valued. Other people on a job hate hard workers because if someone is working hard, then everyone has to work hard. It’s acceptable to only put a half-effort into the job.

Likewise, Americans just don’t care about the world. Sure, we put up signs and wear T-shirts that remind us of Darfur, but how many “aware” students have actually done anything to help with the crisis in Sudan? How many, if given the opportunity, would help? A lot of people in my generation lament the social conditions that the poor have to live in within America, but how many will go to homeless shelters and help out? Not very many. Why is this? Because it’s acceptable to be lazy in America; in fact, if you’re a hard worker, you’re just not valued.

5)   Wrath – this is extreme anger that often leads to acting outside of the judicial system (vigilante justice) or the strong desire for personal vengeance. It’s immediately reacting to a perceived wrong with absolute anger. Though one can certainly lose one’s cool, wrath causes one to sit on the anger and think it over and over. It forces one to desire not only justice, but the means to carry out that justice, with or without the law. It is pure hatred.

How has wrath become a virtue? Of all the vices, this one does remain a vice for the most part. However, there are elements of wrath that have been accepted as a virtue. For instance, the idea that we can take the law into our own hands and change the law has entered the mind of many American judges. When they try to create laws from the bench, they are engaging in a sort of wrath (disdain for the judicial process) by ignoring the fact that they are only to interpret the law, not create it.

On a more common level, most people in the “ghetto-culture” believe that “street justice” is superior to governmental justice. They are encouraged to take their vengeance out upon any perceived perpetrators. To wait for the law or to remain calm is considered a vice.

6)   Envy – this is the sin of wanting what another person has and also wanting that person to be deprived of that same object or lifestyle. This is must broader than greed, which generally deals with money. This can apply to a lifestyle, to wanting the wife and family of another person while having that person deprived of those people. It’s wanting fame and recognition that is due to someone else, but having that person denied that recognition. It’s wanting what doesn’t belong to you, what you haven’t earned.

How has envy become a virtue? Envy is a virtue in modern America in that we’re told to look at certain role models and work toward what they have. It’s not wrong to have role models; it is wrong to make those role models the rich, the famous, and the well off and wish to not only have what they have, but do better than them. It’s like a basketball star who says, “Not only will I have what Michael Jordan had, but I’ll be so good people will forget about him.” Such statements of bravado are encouraged within our culture.

The Democrats wanted what the Republicans had and wanted the Republicans to be deprived. Now the tables are reversed. No one has thought to accuse either side of envy and that both sides are utterly wrong in their motives and approaches to politics. The reason we’ve never thought of it that way is because envy is just a part of our culture; it’s good to have envy because it’s seen as a “motivator.”

7)   Pride – this is the ultimate vice. Just as love for God and love for humanity is the chief of all virtues, pride is the chief of all vices. Pride is self-love. It is placing yourself over everyone else. It puts the person at the center of the person’s universe. Every act of vice above begins with pride because pride is the beginning of all sin. Adam and Eve tasted of the fruit because of pride; they wanted to be like God. Judas betrayed Christ out of pride; he puts his desire for wealth before Christ’s desire for humanity. Pride, no matter how small, is pure evil and will lead to other sins.

How has pride become a virtue? We’re told to “look out for #1.” In America, it’s an acceptable stance to put ourselves first.

I read a story about how a woman left her husband and children to be with another woman. Multiple people called her “courageous”. Why is this? Because we are a people of pride we think it “courageous” that she put herself before her family. We tell people to give into the desires of their hearts. This is telling people to be prideful and to act prideful.

We raise our children to be concerned with their “self-esteem.” Teachers must refrain from certain actions because it could hurt a child’s “self-esteem.” Of course, most of the time the truth is that low self-esteem is just good common sense. But we live in a prideful culture, so my previous statement will rub many people the wrong way. Why? Because it points out we shouldn’t be prideful. We should value ourselves, value who we are, value what we can contribute, and put ourselves first, because to modern Americans that is virtuous.

This is the culture we live in. We live in a culture that has turned virtue into vice and vice into virtue. So what can be done?

Before explaining the Christian virtues (completing the 7 Virtues), I’d like to point out that my friend Quincy Jones makes an accurate observation on my last post. When I say that prudence is similar to patience, a better word to use would be “wisdom.” Prudence indicates wisdom – which includes patience – but using wisdom to determine the best course of action. This is a far better term to use.

My other friend, Nelson Fonseca, pointed out that all of these virtues are likewise found in the fruits of the Spirit. This is something I wanted to address in my next segment, which will demonstrate how all humans can live under the four classical virtues and some can live under the three Christian virtues, but it takes the Holy Spirit to perfect our lives. Until we are in a relationship with Christ, who then sends the Spirit upon us, we will struggle with the virtues.

Likewise, as if to accentuate my point that our culture has taken the virtues and turned them into vices, Fox News ran an interview with Eve Mauro who spoke about how she lost her virginity around the age of 18 because “…All my friends had lost theirs, so I had to keep up my rep.” In order to keep up her reputation, she had to violate all four of the virtues in giving her virginity away to some random dance instructor. Had she lived a virtuous life then her reputation with her friends would have been dismal.

With that said…

The 3 Christian Virtues

1) Faith – there are multiple modern understandings of what “faith” means, but they’re all wrong. In the New Testament usage it can mean “proof” as in forensic evidence, or trust and loyalty (for an excellent article on the issue of faith, pointed out to me by my friend Michael Rudy, go to Tektonics). Regardless, faith as a Christian virtue means to completely trust in God. It is virtuous to consistently trust God for all things in life.

Why is faith good? The best example is of Christ submitting to the Father and trusting Him, even unto the point of death. Christ trusted the Father in all things. This “trust” doesn’t take a leap as some would like to believe. There is a rational foundation for faith. At the same time, not everything has to be explained before we’ll trust God. We can have an acceptable measure of certainty based on limited evidence and still trust Him. This is what Christ did throughout His entire life on earth.

Is having faith scriptural? There are numerous passages that deal with having faith (that is, trusting in the Lord). So many, it’s impossible to list them all here. The overall theme of Scripture is that we are to trust in God in everything we do. Psalm 118:8 even says, “It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man.” This doesn’t mean we can’t trust others, but that the virtue of faith will always rely on God before relying on others.

To take this further, we cannot fulfill any of the other virtues (except for the last one mentioned in this post) unless we have faith in God. We must have faith that He will renew our hearts so that we can live virtuous lives. Without faith in Him, the four classical virtues seem empty and abstract, things that we might be able to fulfill. Once we trust Him, He empowers us to live virtuous lives for Him.

How has faith become a vice? Faith has become a vice in many ways. For one, to trust in God and lean not on our own understanding flies on the face of modern psychology in that it eradicates our ‘self-esteem.’ To believe in God is one thing. To pray to God is one thing. To have trust in Him that He will guide your steps, well that’s just crazy to the modern thinker.

To trust in God means that we must let go of ourselves, but the ego of humanity is the most prized possession we have. We like to better ourselves. We like to “re-invent” ourselves. We have this idea that no one can tell us what to do. To place our trust in God, to have faith in Him, goes beyond the modern mind.

2)   Hope – This is another term that people look at and wonder, “How is this a virtue?” The modern understanding for “hope” is looking forward to something that may or may not happen. But the connotation for the Greek word (elpis) means something more along the lines of looking forward to something in anticipation and with confidence. In other words, Biblical hope is one where we know what is coming and we look forward to it.

Thus, the virtue of hope means that we have certainty in what is to come from God. Similar to trusting in God (faith), we remain certain that He will never let us down, that He has a plan, and that He is guiding us toward a certain direction. We remain certain of the truthfulness of future promised events. We remain certain of our salvation. We remain certain of the truth.

Why is hope good? It is difficult to say that God hopes in Himself mainly because what is to come for us has already come for Him (since He is eternal). At the same time, in the life of Christ we see Him hoping on the Father – thus, the mystery of God hoping in Himself. Christ hoped for His resurrection, that is, He anticipated something and expected it to actually occur.

Is hope Scriptural? Hope is scriptural; without hope, we couldn’t have faith (Hebrews 11:1). Without the expectation of what is to come, we have nothing to place our trust in. We cannot live virtuous lives if we have no expectation of future justice for doing the right things. That is not to say we perform good deeds for the reward, but merely that due to the concept of justice and God’s promises that if we display His love through virtuous living, He will reward us.

We are to have an expectation of things to come; in this expectation, we live as though these things have already come, thus we live virtuously.

How has hope become a vice? I love the quote from the movie The Shawshank Redemption, when Red says, “Hope is a dangerous thing.” Though the point of the movie is that hope is a good thing, the best of things, our society has seemingly bought into the idea that hope is dangerous.

There is so much cynicism in the modern world. An excellent book on the cynicism that exists is Dick Keyes book Seeing Through Cynicism (I also wrote an article on how Nihilism has entered our culture). The point is, in a society that lacks hope cynicism takes over.

In a cynical society, those who hope are often laughed at and looked at as naïve. To have hope is to lack cynicism, which according to the cynic, means you are easily duped and not enlightened. To have an expectation of goodness at some point in the future and to consequently live as though this hope has already been fulfilled is a foreign concept to the modern thinker. The modern thinker wants to hope, wants a better future, wants to believe, but deep down mocks those that actually have hope.

3) Love/Charity – I choose to use these two words because English doesn’t really have an equivalent of agape, which is the final virtue. Not only is agape the final virtue, it is the most important of all the virtues (1 Corinthians 13:13). But why is it the greatest of them all? Because if we are to live any of the other virtues, we must first love God and love our neighbor (Matthew 22:36-39). All of the virtues rest on the fact that we first love God and then love our fellow humans.

After all, if we love neither then why bother to live a moral life? If we don’t love God, then why live a moral life that demonstrates our love for Him? If we don’t love our fellow human, why live a moral life that helps humanity? In order to live a virtuous life, we must love God first and love humanity second.

The biggest mistake that people can make is to say that virtues are an obligation and leave it there. To some extent, the virtues are an obligation; but just as a father is obligated to love his child, the obligation is not a burdensome one. It comes naturally. Why? Because just as a father naturally loves his child, so should we naturally love God. When we love the Father because of the Son’s victorious work in our lives through the Holy Spirit, a virtuous life is to naturally follow. If you claim Christ, but your life isn’t one of virtue, than either the Spirit is not within you (meaning you are not a Christian) or you do not love God as much as you think you do. The proof that we love God is displayed in how we live our lives.

Why is love/charity good? Agape is the highest good because it summarizes the nature of God (1 John 4:8). This means that God is self-sacrificial (the mere act of creation was a sacrifice: God plus nothing equals God while God plus something equals less than God). When one loves self-sacrificially, when one engages in true charity where the action is done out of love for the other person, then one is engaging in the highest good. All the actions of God can in some way be traced back to either His love for Himself or His love for us. In all that He does, He does in love. Love is the beginning of virtue.

Is love/charity scriptural? Absolutely! As seen previously, the two greatest commandments are to love God with all our entire being and to love our neighbors like we love ourselves. This means that we are to sacrifice to both God and our fellow man. Until we can do either of these, we cannot live a virtuous life. The virtuous life begins out of love for God and humanity; if love for either is lacking then one can never hope to live a virtuous life.

How has charity/love become a vice? In watching a show on yachts yesterday, a billionaire said, “You know, you make all this money and then buy a multi-million dollar yacht, it’s a status symbol. What else are you going to spend your money on?” One could say, “to help the poor,” but why? That’s sacrificial and gains nothing for the rich man.

The modern concept of “love” is generally eros, that is, self-interested or pleasurable. We “love” someone and therefore have sex with the person. We “love” people in Africa and therefore help them in order to get in our karma points. Think of the concept of karma, which drives much of modern thinking; you perform good deeds for the purpose of receiving something in return. Christianity teaches that you perform good deeds purely out of love (though it is okay to hope for, that is anticipate, a good reward – but this reward is a side item, a consequence, and not an end). Such an idea of self-sacrificial love is hardly honored in the modern mindset.

We love our possessions, we love our egos, we love ourselves, and we do “good things” so long as those good things benefit us or give us a good name. True agape is hated in our culture because it requires one to give up what is most precious to that person; himself.

The only way to ever achieve a virtuous life is through Jesus Christ. Though one can reach for the virtues without Christ, one simply cannot obtain them without Him. It is only through the power of the Holy Spirit that we are able to accomplish this. Which means that when Christians fail to live virtuously we send off a bad image. We set a bad example. We show ourselves to be no different from the world. As Christians, we should ascribe to these 7 Virtues and seek to live them every moment of every day. We will fail, but this is no excuse to give up.

Lately, conservative voices have been talking about how we’ve lost our “societal values” in the West. President Obama, alternatively, has announced how America has no right to promote its values overseas. What I’m struggling with on both sides, however, is the idea of using the word “values.”

The word “value” carries within it almost a subjective application; it is what one finds important for one’s own life. “Values” are what we as individuals, families, and communities hold to, but these are subject to change. We view “values” in terms of their usefulness; do they aid in achieving the end(s) that we want? We place different “values” on different objects; what is valuable to one may not be valuable to another. Thus, the very word “values” tends to lend itself toward a subjective stance.

This might be because “virtue” is almost an archaic word in the English language. We’ve made the two synonymous, but this is hardly the case. In Latin (where we get the two terms), “values” comes from the word valere, which can mean to be in good health or to be strong. The word for “virtue” is virtus, which means to be of strong character, or to have worth. In other words, to be “virtuous” in Latin means to be of worth. To have “values” simply means to adhere to the virtus.

Inherent within both claims is an objective and subjective claim. Virtue is the objective standard to which all humans are to strive. All humans are to attempt to be virtuous and lead lives in accordance with virtue. When our lives match up with virtue, then we are displaying our values, or the subjective aspect of our lives. How we apply the virtues will depend on the culture we are in. Thus, virtues are the objective and absolute source of morality whereas values are the manifestations of those realities within our personal lives.

So when we focus solely on “values” without an objective or absolute standard, we really remove the purpose of values. What this has led to, unfortunately, is a value-based society with hardly any virtues. If anything, we have taken the 4 Classical virtues and 3 Christian virtues and turned them into vices. These 7 virtues, three of which anyone can follow, are both truthful, and Scripturally supported.

If we want to redeem our culture then we must return to these seven virtues (or at least the 4 Classical virtues). Though there are more virtues than the 7, the 7 are the main virtues and in some way all other virtues are tied back to these 7. But what are they, why they are good, what is their scriptural support, and how are they now vices?

4 Classic Greek Virtues

1)   Temperance – this is another word for self-control. One cannot ascribe to any virtues unless one has self-control. If a person cannot control himself, if he cannot curb his appetite for certain lusts, if he cannot say “no” to a thing, then he simply cannot live a life of virtue. To engage in a life of temperance means to be self-restrictive on what one desires. Certain things are okay in moderation, but when we “do whatever makes us feel good,” then we are tossed back and forth by our passions.

Why is self-control good? God is the standard of all goodness. In order to determine if something is good, we must see if it matches the actions of God. Thus, does God engage in temperance? At face value, such a question seems absurd – why would God need to engage in self-control when He doesn’t sin? But that’s exactly the point. If God wanted to, He could wipe us from the face of the earth. He could do whatever He wanted to as it is within His right, but He chooses not to. He is patient with us (Numbers 14:18). In other words, God restricts Himself from acting on certain things. Thus, self-control is good.

Is self-control scriptural? There are quite a few verses that deal with the issue of self-control. Proverbs 25:28 even states, “A man without self-control is like a city broken into and left without walls.” This indicates that what I wrote earlier – about self-control being chief among the classical virtues – is also Biblically true. Without self-control, a person will do whatever his passions dictate he do (c.f. 1 Corinthians 7:5).

Likewise, “self-control” is listed as one of the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:23). So all Christians are to attempt to lead lives of self-control, one where they refuse to give into vice and refuse to live a life that isn’t moderate.

How has self-control become a vice? One of the common mantras today is, “If it makes you feel good and doesn’t hurt anyone, just do what makes you happy.” This might work under a society that no longer cares about responsible citizens, but to a society that wants to flourish and do what is right, such a mantra is anathema.

Think of how in modern society if someone is a virgin, even if the person is a teenager, such a person is looked down upon. Anyone who is in his or her twenties or thirties and still a virgin is nothing more than the butt of a joke. These people have exercised self-control and not given into their sexual lusts, but they are mocked for it.

How about the young woman out with her friends who refuses to have more than one alcoholic drink? To them, it’s absurd to drink and not get drunk. We encourage our youth to “sow their wild seeds” and expect that they will do whatever they want; but that is because we have forgotten the virtue of self-control, that it is good and healthy to deny one’s passions if those passions are likewise not virtuous.

2)   Prudence – The virtue of prudence has a different connotation under the Greek virtues than it does under its modern understanding. It does not necessarily mean to be cautious (as the modern English connotation explains the word), but rather to have foresight and clarity on practical issues. One does not necessarily “act in prudence,” but rather uses it to distinguish what is courageous and what is cowardly, or what is good and what is evil. It is the most rational element of the virtues, used to evaluate every situation we find ourselves in and find the best path to take. In order to have prudence, one must have knowledge and once one has knowledge, prudence will follow right along. Thus, those who do not act with prudence generally lack knowledge as well. Prudence dictates that rather than act on instinct or “go with our gut,” we simply take a few deep breaths and evaluate the situation before deciding what to do. 

Why is prudence good? Some could say that God doesn’t need to act in prudence, due to His perfect knowledge. His perfect knowledge, however, does not mean that He isn’t prudent in how He functions. Ephesians 1:7-8 even says specifically that He has given us redemption and forgiveness in part because of His prudence. He has perfect knowledge of all situations and all actions and subsequently prudently acts within His knowledge, knowing which actions will bring about the good.

Is acting prudently Scriptural? Proverbs 8:5 tells the simple (foolish) to grow in prudence. This is because only fools rush into situations without thinking about the consequences, or evaluating the individual situation. There are multiple passages in Scripture that talk about the importance of being prudent and so many that use the prudence of a person as a way to show that person as being good.

Just as with self-control, “prudence” is a fruit of the Spirit under the word of “patience.” Patience doesn’t simply mean “waiting,” but rather not rushing into a situation and evaluating the situation prior to engaging in any action. 

How has prudence become a vice? How often are we told to go with our gut instinct? We’re told by multiple scientists that humans have evolved to simply go with their instincts and so it makes sense to do so.

Or what about marketing slogans and tactics, such as Nike’s “Just Do It” or the whole “buy now!” slogans? We’re told to get things immediately because this will satisfy us. Our entire culture is built off credit cards, with most of those cards being used for televisions, better cars, and other additions that give us better stuff but don’t make us better people.

It is beyond the modern American to think about the right thing to do in a situation before acting in that situation. The running joke among American culture is that guys should keep condoms in their wallet “should they get lucky that night.” That’s not prudence; that’s not finding the good in a situation. That’s simply finding self-preservation in a situation (by not contracting an STD), not by doing what is good (remaining faithful to your future spouse or faithful in celibacy to God). Our culture desperately lacks prudence because prudence is seen as a vice; to be prudent means you’re not acting on your instincts in our culture, and for whatever reason, that’s wrong.

3)   Justice – Justice is the virtue of giving people what is their due and within Christianity is closely related to grace. There is a slight difference between the State justice and individual justice. Under individual justice (which is what we’re dealing with), we deal with people mostly from a selfless point of view. We put others first unless they are committing evil deeds, in which case we put goodness first (and our own preservation). The virtue of justice requires that we help those who can’t help themselves; the crippled, the widows, the poor, and so on. We are capable of helping such people whereas they cannot help themselves, so justice dictates that we help them self-sacrificially. Likewise, when we are determining who is right and wrong in a certain matter, justice looks at who caused the problem to begin with and who the innocent party is in any given situation, if there is an innocent party.  

How is justice good? Quite simply, God is a God of justice. He gives to all what they deserve, but also is endless in His charity. Deuteronomy 32:4 says that justice is part of God’s character. He gives to those what they deserve, but is also willing to offer redemption (charity) to us sinners (1 John 1:9). Justice is good because it is part of the character of God.

Is personal justice scriptural?  Just as with the other virtues, the command to be just is found in multiple passages.  Micah 6:8 says that God requires that all of us walk in justice, to do what is right in all situations and to give to all men what they deserve. This doesn’t mean we take revenge upon people, but when someone is wrong, we go through the legal courts to establish how the person is wrong. More importantly, in our personal lives, we point out when someone is wrong. We don’t let an injustice go unnoticed, even if it costs us.

When Christians recognize that someone is doing something wrong, even if not illegal, we are called to deal with it. This doesn’t mean we get involved in every quarrel we come across, but if it is within our power to stop an evil action, then we are to do so. We should be crying out for human rights and helping the poor and oppressed all the time, for this is part of living a just life.

How has it become a vice? Our modern culture has confused “tolerance” for “justice.” Under the modern view of “justice,” when a wrong act occurs, then everyone involved is wrong. We can look at the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Though both sides have acted incorrectly, if a Palestinian terrorist kills Israeli citizens, justice dictates that he get what he deserves for such an action. The modern thinker, however, sees any retaliation from Israel as an unjust act, which makes little sense.

Or what about modern schools where two students are involved in a fight? Say Patrick was picking on and physically harassing a mentally challenged student and John stepped in to stop Patrick. What if this turned into a fight? Both John and Patrick end up receiving an equal punishment; but justice would dictate that Patrick should be punished for forcing John’s actions and John should be rewarded for standing up for one who could not stand up for himself. But our culture has twisted justice into something it’s not, where there is no “perpetrator” or “victim,” just people involved in an act where both are wrong.

Or what about the charitable aspect of justice? Certainly our culture still practices this. We don’t; we rely on the government to take care of the poor and maybe give a percentage of our salary to help the poor, but we never go out and actually do anything ourselves. We’re fascinated with athletes and movie stars because of the money they make, but care little for those who are barely making it in life. Our sense of justice is severely skewed.

4)   Courage – Courage is an incredible virtue. To have courage, one must contain the previous virtues, but without courage, one cannot enact the previous virtues. Courage/fortitude is the virtue of doing what is right and good no matter what the cost. A soldier shows courage when he goes onto a battlefield to save a friend. A single mother shows courage when she refuses to let her circumstances get her down. Courage is the virtue of doing what is right, no matter the cost, doing it bravely, and doing it without the incentive of a reward (though one might hope that justice will bring about a reward at some point in this life or the next).

How is courage good? Courage is seen most by God on the cross. Jesus Christ, God incarnate came down out of Heaven and put Himself on the cross. He knew that doing the right thing would cost Him great pain, but He chose to do it anyway. He faced the cross bravely, refusing to let His followers fight the temple guards in the garden. He willingly laid His life down for us; Christ is the ultimate example of courage.

Is courage scriptural? Courage is implied in Romans 8:37-39. Paul is telling the Romans to take comfort in God’s love, that is, to have courage. They are to have courage that no matter what trials they face, God will be faithful.

There are numerous examples of people doing the right thin in the Bible regardless of the cost. Daniel’s friends when facing the fire, Daniel himself in the lion’s den, Abraham when told by God to sacrifice Isaac, Stephen when being stoned to death, Ruth in pursuing Boaz, Rahab and hiding the spies, and the list just goes on. There are multiple examples of Biblical characters having courage and we too should have courage. We should do the right thing no matter what the cost.

How has courage become a vice? Our culture doesn’t really display true courage. We like tales of courage and we fulfill our obligatory celebration of those who have died for our freedoms, but very rarely does our culture, as a whole, value courage.

People generally do the right thing only if it is in their interest. We’re so concerned with being accused of “meddling” that we’ll ignore people being assaulted on the street. No one calls the police, no one steps in to intervene; they just let it go.

In fact, to be courageous can get one in trouble. One is a “tattle tale” or a “rat” if one gives up information that is needed to prevent an evil. Very few people are willing to stand up and do what is right because of the cost. To do the right thing could cost a person a job. In fact, if standing up for what is right is also offensive, then as a society we have declared it is more evil to offend people. Thus, rather than have courage and do the right thing, at the fear of offending people our culture backs down.

These are the classical Greek virtues as given by Plato, but as we can tell Scripture also validates these virtues. Part 2 will deal with the Christian virtues.

Many Christians in America have an idea that they want to preserve some type of “Christian America.” They generally point to America’s past as a “Christian nation” and to some Christian golden age in America. 

While such sentiments are nice, they are also misguided and false. I want to look at both the positive points and negative points in trying to return America to a “Christian Nation”:

Positive:

1) It calls for a higher ethical view - when people call America back to be a “Christian nation,” it is a call for better morals. Like it or not, loose morality concerning sexuality does harm a society. It holds a greater potential to break up the nuclear family, which leads to other negative side effects. It lowers self-control as it promotes the idea of, “Get what you want when you want it.” How often are the corrupt in society often linked to dubious sexual deeds? These connections are not a coincidence (though sexual immorality doesn’t always lead to other types of morality); when there is a moral failing in one aspect of life, other parts are to follow.

2) It calls citizens to recognize God’s authority over life. God is real and because He is real we must recognize His commands on our lives. Calling for a Christian nation means we are calling for people to come into a relationship with this very real God. 

3) Such a view does bring hope of one day returning to our Judeo-Christian principles. The view of freedom and rights as absolute and protected by the Creator rather than subjective and given to us by the government is one of these principles. 

4) This causes us to look positively upon the good aspects of our history. Our desire for freedom was good. Our willingness to go to war to stay unified and to free the slaves was good. Our venture into WWII was good. The fact that the system allowed for Africa-Americans and other minority groups to stand up, demand freedom from segregation, and receive it shows the goodness of the American system. We should never forget that America has done a lot of good things. We are a very free and very prosperous nation; anytime we shoot a criticism at the United States, we must remember that we’re doing so while benefiting from her prosperity. Though criticisms are good and needed, we must never forget the positive elements of America that has brought about goodness to the world. 

5) The American people are amazing. Americans are divided most of the time, until attacked, then they’re united. When Americans are united, nothing can stop them. Traditionally, Americans have been individuals, but of a community mind; I’ll do what benefits me AND the community. If the two are in conflict, traditionally, one willingly sacrificed the individual desires for the good of the community. This wasn’t forced upon the person, the person simply did it. The American people are very good people and have always been good people. 

Negative:

1) There has never been, nor will there ever be, a “Christian nation.” Not only can we not create such a nation, even if one existed you wouldn’t want to live in it. One fact that many people ignore is that Christian goals and governmental goals are often biblical, yet at odds with each other. The goal of the government is to protect its citizens and hand out justice. The goal of a Christian is to be at peace with all, be sacrificial, and to live a life of grace to all humans. These two goals are at odds with each other, but both are Biblical goals. It’s not the job of the government to display the love of God, thus a Christian nation simply cannot exist. 

2) Even if we ignore the above, America wasn’t a Christian nation. We killed off the Native Americans. We enslaved African-Americans. We goaded Mexico into war so we could take their land. These are not the actions of Christians. Certainly we all sin, but we don’t all commit genocide. None of this erases the good that Americans have accomplished, but it keeps our heads out of the clouds and reminds us that we do have a dark past. 

3) Our very foundation is against Scripture. Paul tells us in Romans and Peter tells us in his first epistle to submit to our governmental authorities. To drive this point home, Jesus tells us, concerning taxation, to render unto the government what belongs to the government. Thus, revolutions are hard to justify, especially over taxes; yet that’s exactly what we revolted over. So America’s foundation has been against Scripture from the get-go, thus making it difficult to say it’s a “Christian nation.” 

4) Many of our founders weren’t even Christians. Though some were certainly Christ-followers and we will fellowship with them in Heaven, others were Deists. There are references to “God” and “Jesus” in many writings, but for the traditional Deist, “God,” and “Jesus” mean very different things than they do for most Christians. For instance, Thomas Jefferson referred to the man Jesus, but denied His miracles and resurrection. So it is important to look for references to miracles when reading the works of the founders. If miracles are left absent or denied, then the founder is most likely a deist. One cannot be a deist and a Christian, because to be a deist means to deny the divinity and resurrection of Christ. 

America is and always has been a work in progress. We shouldn’t strive to make America a “Christian nation,” because this cannot be done and should not be done. Instead, we should strive to make America a nation of Christians, one that acknowledges our rights come from God, but that there is a disconnect between the government’s role and the role of a Christian.