Flag of Our Fathers: Why National Anthem Protests Shouldn’t be Controversial


fist08-05-2008b_001When I wrote my last piece on Colin Kaepernick’s protest, my thought at the time was, “Maybe I’m coming to this a bit late. But, I guess I’ll say something.”

Here we are, weeks later, and the protests of the US National Anthem are still occurring, and it’s still very controversial. It’s a bit surprising, but also quite sad, that this is controversial. Since tons has been said on this issue, I just want to convey a few thoughts:

First – Protesting the flag is not the same as protesting the military. When a flag and national anthem come to stand for military power and military power alone – that to question or protest the flag/anthem is taken as a direct assault on the military – then the line separating patriotism from nationalism has been crossed. The United States stands for far more than its military, so a failure to stand during a National Anthem wouldn’t necessitate a protest against the military.

Second – Protesting the flag/anthem isn’t even a protest against the United States as a whole. Someone can greatly appreciate and value the US, but also have some major issues with it. It’s like loving an alcoholic; you will love that person for reasons other than the alcoholism, but you’ll also “protest” certain parts of that person’s life that could enable that person’s alcoholism, or even do something that would get that person’s attention. That’s similar to what these protests are attempting to accomplish. We have a problem in our nation with how black people, especially black men, are treated in general and by authorities. That doesn’t make the US an evil place, or a horrible place, but it does mean we have a problem and we need to fix that problem. That certain elements of society want to deny and act like this problem isn’t there is why the protest is occurring, to cause a conversation on the treatment of minorities in this nation.

Third – There’s implicit racism in condemning these protests. The argument goes, “If ya’ll want to protest how you think you’re treated, then do it peacefully.” When there’s a riot, we tell minorities to be peaceful. When they protest peacefully en masse through nonviolence, we tell them not to be disruptive (such as blocking highways). When they then perform a silent protest during the National Anthem, we tell them that’s disrespectful and they ought to be forced to stand for patriotic displays (we’ll get to that). So then how are they to protest? The implicit message is, “You have nothing worth protesting over,” or, to be blunt, “You’re treated fine, get over it, and get used to it.” It delegitimizes the experience of millions of African Americans and other minority groups in the US. We assume that because we – as white people – have had a great experience in this nation that all others have had the same great experience.

Fourth – No one should be forced to make patriotic displays, because that’s not patriotism, that’s nationalism. A true patriot of the US will value free speech more than they value a song or piece of cloth. To want to take away someone’s free speech – even under the argument of “it’s a private industry so they can force people to do what they want” (they can’t, that’s called slavery and is illegal) – is the antithesis of America. What’s more insulting to those who died to protect our freedoms than failing to show proper reverence during a song is failing to show proper reverence towards the freedom we were granted by their deaths.

Fifth – Speaking of people who have died to secure our freedoms, those people are more than just the military and those who died in foreign wars. We forget, especially those of us who are white, that many civil rights activists were murdered attempting to secure justice in an unjust world. Their sacrifices, which made national news and swayed public opinion, helped secure your freedoms today as much as any military endeavor in which we’ve engaged. I add the emphasis because this is a point that is hardly ever made; people died to try and beget equality in this nation. When we ignore their sacrifices and attempt to further an entrench a system they died fighting against, we dishonor their memory. I’m a white male, but oppression is a cancer and it spreads and destroys. If oppression is not fought, if it is not combatted, then it will eventually spread to harm other people as well. Thus, even as a white male, I’m indebted to civil rights activists who fought an oppression that had limited liberty. In my debt, I am in no place to then question their children and their children’s children when they speak of the continued oppression they must suffer through; rather, I must pay my debt and continue the fight against that oppression.

Sixth – These are our friends and fellow Americans who are hurting. These are not strangers. Many white people who have black friends still don’t hear what their black friends go through, because they [black friends] are sick of being doubted and questioned. But make no mistake, African Americans go through a lot in this world, not just with the police. They’re followed in department stores, they’re treated differently when they want to purchase something, they have a harder time finding promotions or getting a good job, and the list goes on. There are statistics to back up every single one of these claims, but more than that, there are personal stories from people we know who can back up these claims. When the reality of the US today is only slightly better than the reality of the US 40-60 years ago, maybe that’s why protesting the anthem is a good thing.

Those are my thoughts on this issue. There’s no reason to get upset over someone kneeling or not participating in singing the national anthem. Ultimately, we’d do better to have a conversation over what our friends are facing rather than condemn them for not conforming in a way we like.

The Walsh Awakens: Matt Walsh Stares into the Trump and the Trump Stares Back


trump sewer.jpg

Matt Walsh stares into the abyss, only to find Donald Trump staring back

Friedrich Nietzsche is one of my favorite philosophers. Not because I agree with him – I find his views to be quite dangerous – but because he’s so absurd, so willing to take his thoughts to their conclusions, and there’s that perverse part of me that enjoys watching a crazy man shout in the streets. Nietzsche is to philosophy what Gary Busey is to television; both have staying power even though no one really knows why, both pump out Tweets (or “sayings” for Nietzsche, but they were Tweets before Twitter) that look deep, but are just asinine, yet I’ll be damned if it’s not the most entertaining thing you’ll see.

Which brings me to a very famous and oft misunderstood quote by Nietzsche:

“He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster.

And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.”

The point being, the longer you fight against a thing, the more likely you are to become that thing (or like it) or realize you already are like that thing. We sometimes hate something not because we’re actually opposed to it, but because it exposes us for what we are.

And the mentioning of Gary Busey brings me to another point…Donald Trump. Trump, much like Ron Burgundy, is kind of a big deal, especially if you ask him. He’s the bull and the United States is his china shop. What ought to worry most people is that Donald Trump, as of January 2016, has a legitimate chance to become the next president of the United States. One conservative who is worried, shockingly enough, is shock jock Blaze columnist Matt Walsh.

Walsh is baffled (BAFFLED!) that evangelical Christians could possibly support Donald Trump as president. Walsh appropriately points out that Trump is the antithesis of Christian values. I happen to agree with Walsh here as Trump’s positions do contradict everything within Christianity. Of course, that’s not what Walsh meant. Walsh, instead, points to Trump’s personal life and the fact that he’s apparently not “God-fearing” as the reason he’s anti-Trump. In other words, Walsh’s problems are with the guy’s behavior and not his beliefs, and that’s a problem.

It’s inconsistent for Walsh to actually take a stand against Trump because the two are almost eye-to-eye on the policy level. Donald Trump wants to deport all illegal immigrants and ban them from entering the country, just as Matt Walsh wants to deport all illegal immigrants. Donald Trump wants to stop the refugees from entering the country, just like Matt Walsh wants to stop them.  Donald Trump wants to stop political correctness by speaking “truth,” which, as you guessed, Matt Walsh wants to stop political correctness by speaking “truth.” Donald Trump likes a low minimum wage, as does Matt Walsh. Both agree that we don’t have a police abuse problem in America, and that African Americans aren’t suffering from it, but rather that the African American community is the problem (of course, without putting it in those terms).

And the list really does go on. I tried to find one major area of major disagreement and I came up with nothing. If you take the person of Donald Trump out of the equation and just look at the issues, then Donald Trump is the ideal candidate for Matt Walsh. So why isn’t Walsh wanting to #TrumpTheVote? Because he doesn’t like Trump as a person and he can’t understand why people, evangelical Christians, his readers, like Trump so much.

What Matt Walsh doesn’t realize, or perhaps he realizes and fears, is that Donald J. Trump is the personification of Matt Walsh’s – and by extension the far right’s – beliefs, and they don’t like what they see. After all, he accurately calls Trump “Godless,” and even an atheist would have to agree that Trump is pretty godless. Or, to quote Matt Walsh,

I know this will not resonate with atheists, but for us God-fearing folk it is extraordinarily obvious and irrefutable that we ought to only vote for other God-fearing folk. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” I think it goes without saying that if the governed ought to be moral and religious, certainly the governors ought to be the same, and arguably more so.

That brings me to Donald Trump. I’ve tried to talk sense into Trump fans a thousand different ways and to no avail. It is a mob mentality driving Trump-mania, and mobs are famously difficult to reason with.

There is no use in trying to appeal to them as one group, anyway. Many elements comprise the Trump base, and most of them have values and principles that are completely antithetical to what any real conservative believes. But in the middle of this bizzare [sic] Trumpling potpourri are, apparently, Christians. Perhaps a vast number of them.

Ignoring the idea that not a single president has ever been “God-fearing” (how does one fear God, but not enough to free one’s slaves?), all of this argues against the person of Donald Trump, but not the policies of Donald Trump. But other than the fact that Donald Trump is a disgusting excuse for a human being, what policy differences does he supposedly have with Trump? What values and principles does Trump have that are antithetical to conservatives, but still somehow leads to (allegedly) conservative policy beliefs? How can two antithetical – that is, contradictory – beliefs result in the same policy decisions across the board? It’s one thing to have some overlap (Bernie Sanders, who begins from a non-Christian belief, still holds some policy decisions that overlap old Christian political beliefs), but to have a 1:1 match goes beyond a bit of overlap.

While Communism is the logical conclusion of Capitalism, at their core the two are antithetical, meaning that at a policy level one will have to give way to the other. Christianity and atheism are antithetical beliefs, meaning that if one derives one’s political beliefs from one’s metaphysical beliefs, there will be some differences in the political beliefs. Higher order beliefs will always impact lower order beliefs, meaning anything contradictory at a higher order will lead to contradictory policy beliefs (if consistency exists).

While Matt Walsh serves as a good whipping boy, the fact is there are many evangelical Christians who hold the same policy beliefs as Trump, but are somehow baffled by Trump’s success and abhor him as a person. In essence, they’ve stared into the abyss and found Donald Trump staring back. They’re left with some very unsettling conclusions:

  1. If a godless man such as Donald Trump comes to the same policy beliefs that they, the God-fearing evangelical conservatives have, then perhaps Trump isn’t godless, or perhaps being God-fearing doesn’t really matter in picking the “right” policy. Apparently one can be God-fearing, godless, or anything in between and still come to the correct conclusions in terms of policies
  2. If a godless man such as Donald Trumps holds the same policy beliefs as God-fearing evangelical conservatives, then maybe those policy beliefs don’t actually stem from a Christ-centered belief structure

Either option isn’t fun.

Christians have seemingly ignored the warnings of Francis Schaeffer, who rather than being the cause of the Religious Right (a famous, but absurdly inaccurate belief) actually warned against the rise of the Religious Right. In both A Christian Manifesto and The Great Evangelical Disaster, Schaeffer warns Christians to never become allies with the political process or political parties, to always act as co-belligerents on areas of agreement. Schaeffer was, of course, referencing the issue of abortion, arguing that Christians shouldn’t ally with Republicans in fighting abortion, but should instead stand as co-belligerents on this one issue.

Instead, today we have a form of Christianity that is almost entirely a co-opted wing of the Republican Party. Rather than evangelicals influencing Republicans, the conservatives, or the far right, we have the far right influencing evangelicals (and even some Catholics and Orthodox). Of course, not all conservative evangelicals are enamored with Trump and unlike Matt Walsh, they can stand against Trump with consistency. Dr. Russell Moore has not really argued against the person of Trump, so much as he’s argued against the ideas and policies of Trump, something Matt Walsh and other far right conservatives cannot do without a hint of irony.

Ultimately, to play off the idea of Russell Moore, conservative evangelicals have adopted a golden calf (not that liberal evangelicals are any better). But that golden calf isn’t Donald Trump, it’s the heartless and godless beliefs that are behind Trump. The anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-refugee, pro-nationalistic, pro-authoritarianism beliefs are not Christian and have never been Christian. While Christians have co-opted the world’s beliefs, they’ve done so by damaging the Gospel, not enhancing it. The golden calf in modern America, for conservatives, is conservatism itself. It’s the modern conservatism that comes with an implicit “America First” belief. It’s a political belief that looks to the nation before looking to the world or, more importantly, looking to Christ.

Christianity is a global religion with global ramifications. As a Christian I am called to help all, regardless of the consequences. In the far right there are caveats or complete blocks to who I can help. Donald Trump isn’t a compatible candidate because his personal life is a cesspool of human waste; he’s not a compatible candidate because his beliefs and policies attack the very heart of the Gospel. If your beliefs align with his, even if you hate him, perhaps rather than condemning the darkness of Trump’s heart it’s best to gaze into the abyss of your own. But be warned, the abyss might gaze back.

Why I’m Pro-Life, but Not Conservative: An Issue that Transcends Political Ideology


IMG_0397As we enter a new year, it’s not fun to look back on 2014, a tumultuous year that saw quite a bit of hardships. If we learned anything from 2014, it’s namely that human life is decreasing in value. We saw that a man throwing his hands up and attempting to reason with another human being has no right to life so long as the person being unreasonable has a badge. We learned that being white and carrying a gun in an open carry state will gather police attention, but not kill you, while being black in that same state and carrying a BB gun will result in your death, regardless of age. We learned that Planned Parenthood can celebrate the termination of 327,653 human lives by their own hands. We witnessed that people who are appalled by the previous statistic are likewise willing to defend the use of torture – even against innocent people – by the CIA, are willing to support drone strikes, are willing to support endless warfare, and still support the death penalty even though at least 4% of those on death row are innocent. All the while, people complained about “Obamacare,” helping the homeless, or enacting policies to help eradicate poverty.

Sadly, as I’ve pointed out before, “pro-life” is a bit of a misnomer as a movement. After all, how can one be “pro-life” on matters of abortion, but still advocate the destruction of life outside the womb? The cornerstone of any argument against abortion begins with the idea that humans have intrinsic value by mere fact that they exist; what good does it do us if we support positions that contradict such a viewpoint? More to the issue of being against abortion (with exception to the rarest of cases, such as the life of the mother), what good does it do to cry out about the value of the life in the womb, but then do all we can to disavow that life once born?

In the case of a mother being too poor to take care of the child, or to receive proper pre and post-natal treatment, or to obtain daycare so she can keep working or get a better education, or any of the other lists of things that cause women to consider abortion, what has the conservative side done? What have conservatives done to eliminate the conditions that would make abortion an option? See, the greatest irony is that most modern conservatives aren’t actually conservative. Some might say they’re “classically liberal” because they’re against war (such as Rand Paul), but even then that’s not an appropriate description. Modern conservatives are, in many ways, no different than modern liberals; both ascribe to a form of individualism when it’s convenient for their cases. For liberals, individualism comes into play mostly with the abortion argument, whereas for conservatives it comes into play for just about everything except social issues (but heavily on economic issues).

One can look to classical conservatives coming out of England in the 18th and 19th centuries and see a much different “conservative” than what we see today: They were anti-slavery, anti-segregation, pro-government spending on the poor, pro-social justice, anti-war, pro-civil rights, and so on. They were against government waste, against a large government in cases where a large government isn’t necessary (such as education), and supported local community involvement in instances where the government wasn’t needed. More importantly, they didn’t buy into individualism. They had the audacity to believe that we had ethical obligations to each other and that sometimes those obligations even surpassed our obligations to ourselves. Under such a system the individual doesn’t reign supreme.  Continue reading

Human Dignity vs. Minimum Wage or, Where the Right Goes Wrong


DSC02097Matt Walsh, the male Ann Coulter for the right (and he’s on the same path), is back at it again, creating a straw man and then hacking it to pieces. This time around, he’s picking on Walmart employees that don’t enjoy the wages and treatment, saying they should be thankful to have a job and that if they just worked a bit harder, they’d all get promotions. In this conservative utopia where hard work is always justly rewarded, everyone becomes the manager, everyone works their way up to the top, and everyone becomes rich who deserves to be rich. Sadly, however, Matt Walsh (and conservatives in general) ignore the importance of human dignity within the wage debate (not that liberals do any better; they demonize and dehumanize the rich, whereas the conservatives demonize and dehumanize the poor).

From a purely practical standpoint, basic psychology tells us that if we treat someone as less than human then that person will act as less than human. One wonders why in the Roman Empire there were so precious few slave revolts until one realizes that beating slaves and treating them as less than human led them to believe they were less than human. The same rings true within the American south, where slaves didn’t revolt even when they made up a majority. Typically, when humans are exploited, they begin to think of themselves as “lesser than” and act accordingly. It should serve as no surprise, then, that when you put a minimum investment into a person you get a minimum return.

The better I’m treated, the less I have to worry about bills, the more incentive there is to earn higher pay for working harder, the likelier I am to be a better worker. The promise of an eventual promotion that may or may not come is merely dangling a carrot in front of the horse, getting him to run harder without the promise of ever actually eating the carrot. “If you work hard, then perhaps someday you too could become an executive in this corporation!” This, of course, is assuming that you’re able to keep a roof over your head, pay for electricity and water, and then afford the necessary education to get promoted. More than likely, however, even the hardest working Walmart employee (or any other big retail chain) will find herself stuck within store management, typically after years of hard work.

See, for all the love between Christianity and American conservatives, we would do well to remember that the two are not the same. Modern conservatism, or neo-conservativism is actually Darwinian and materialistic in its outlook on life. Modern conservatism, at least economic conservatism, is nothing more than the bastard child of Ayn Rand, the ugly offspring of objectivism. Within this philosophy the individual reigns supreme, even over the family unit. The essential core is that if a man wants to be rich, he has to be willing to outwork and undercut anyone around him, even if it’s his wife and kids. The end objective of existence is for the individual to realize himself. Such a teaching stands in stark contrast to Christianity, which teaches that the individual is nothing without the community, that a man must sacrifice himself to his family’s needs, and the objective of existence is to become like God.

Thus, the minimum wage debate is an interesting one in which we have conservatives, many of whom want to “take back” a “Christian America,” arguing for pragmatic utilitarianism, one of the most anti-Christian philosophies out there. “I’ll pay you for what I think you’re worth, depending on what you bring me.” Such a thought process inherently views the laborer not as a person, but as a commodity. The laborer is then viewed as nothing more than livestock, produce, or whatever it is the company happens to sell. While the labor itself is a commodity, the laborer is not; he is a human being and worthy of dignity and respect. The Christian view, then, is that the commodity of labor is to be treated fairly to the laborer because he is made in the image of God. Continue reading

Empathy Goes a Long Way or, The One Where Matt Walsh is Wrong (Again)


DSC01434I’ve done quite a bit to avoid writing about Matt Walsh, mostly because I really don’t want to give him the time of day. His posts typically consist of the following pattern:

[Sarcastic strawman of position he’s going to argue against]

[Saying, “Yeah, but that position is just wrong, and you’re stupid if you believe it, let me show you how]

[If you believe x, and I don’t believe x, then you’re a moron. QED]

Go through most of his writings where he’s contra-anything and you’ll see that tends to be his typical pattern. Recently, he wrote about how he thinks white men can have an opinion on any issue and that one cannot be dismissed simply because one is a white man. To be fair, he’s mostly right; being a man, woman, black, white, straight, homosexual or anything does not preclude one from forming an opinion on any issue. After all, if I read that Nigerian terrorists are kidnapping women for simply going to school, I do not need to be from Nigeria nor a woman in order to form the opinion that what these terrorists are doing is wrong. Likewise, on the issue of abortion, I need not be a woman in order to make the argument that killing an innocent human being is wrong, nor do I need to be a woman to make the argument that a fetus is an innocent human being. There are far too many people who simply dismiss an argument by saying, “Well, you aren’t a man/woman/military member/pacifist/etc, therefore you cannot make a valid argument on this issue.” It’s not just liberals that do this either; argue that the war in Iraq was unjustified and someone will might argue that since you’re not a veteran, you can’t have an opinion on the matter.

Had Walsh decided to make a well-reasoned argument, showing that it’s a logical fallacy (poisoning the well, ad hominem, and so on), then good on him. Sadly, of course, you don’t get to his level of popularity without polarizing the issues (which is probably why we at The Christian Watershed will happily hover in our current readership). Thus, instead of saying, “I get where you’re coming from, but here are some good reasons as to why you’re wrong,” we get, “Man, you’re an idiot and it’s stupid and you’re a liberal and I’m right and I’m white so I’m going to mock you and never make an actual point.”

However, Walsh then explains why he’s chosen to write about this specific issue, and it’s in this moment that I realize he’s wrong. He states,  Continue reading

Why Liberty Matters or, the Pursuit of an Ideal is Better than the Pursuit of Nothing


DSC01965One of the more famous quotes from early in the American Revolution was Patrick Henry saying “Give me liberty or give me death!” The less quoted part of his conclusion in his speech, attempting to sway the Virginia house to commit to war against the Empire, was this:

Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

“Give me liberty or give me death” seemed to be the rallying cry for the Virginia militia and eventually Continental Regulars. They were willing to die before having their liberty officially taken away from them. For them, the pursuit of the ideal of liberty was so important that it was worth giving one’s life in that pursuit.

Of course, as is true of anything, in pursuing any ideal there are imperfections. The most glaring imperfections in the aftermath of the Revolutionary War was the prohibition of voting to women, slavery, and the eventual genocide of the Native American people. In pursuing an ideal, that ideal is not always acted out perfectly, but in pursuing the ideal the hope exists that we will move closer and closer to liberty. Our nation has never achieved its mantra of “Liberty and Justice for all,” but it has worked toward that direction. In many instances, that direction came with the threat of life. The slaves who did all they could to escape north before the Civil War, to risk their lives for liberty. The men – both black and white – who fought against slavery in the Civil War thought that liberty was more important than living. And after this all, our nation still inhibited the liberty of our black brothers and sisters by segregating them away from the rest of the population, but even in this there were movers who put their own safety on the line (and gave up their lives) to reach equality in all things, including liberty.

Liberty is important because it goes to who we are as people. A dog is happy on a leash, he is happy in a fenced-in backyard, he is happy when an owner feeds him. A dog only becomes unhappy when abused. A dog, however, is a beast, and men are not dogs, but in many ways are far worse. A man who is kept on a leash, forced to live within a fence, supplied food and water, is a slave. Even if he is treated well, then he is only a well-treated slave. He is treated as lesser than the one who owns him and has no real freedom. Human beings, being rational, need the freedom to think and then act on these thoughts, this requires true liberty. When liberty is taken away, even for seemingly benevolent reasons, it opens the door for oppression to occur. Putting a whip in the master’s hand will allow him to protect you from any wolves that come after you, but it will also allow him to whip you for not obeying him. Liberty is important because it provides a check against human rights abuses by those in authority.

Even today, we struggle with liberty, but the difference between today and previous generations is that today we no longer pursue the ideal of liberty. We pursue the ideals of safety and tolerance, and those two couldn’t be further from liberty. In pursuing safety we happily give up our rights. Consider the latest NSA fiasco and how the NSA has now admitted that they actually do listen in on phone calls without warrants. This is done in the name of “national security” and “fighting terrorism” and so the public remains at ease. Our pursuit of tolerance has ruined liberty because we’ve somehow made “free from being offended” and “tolerance” synonymous. Thus, if a business owner refuses to participate in an activity he doesn’t agree with, that owner is sued and we try to make the government force him to act against his conscience. Why? Because it’s offensive to us that he would have a conscience different from our own.

On the issue of safety, one cannot pursue liberty, but then give precedence to safety. There is no compromise between the two, even if our President thinks one can be found. Either you pursue liberty and allow for safety within the pursuit of liberty (meaning that we can still listen in on phones and the like, but only with a warrant, only with just cause) or we allow for liberty within the pursuit of safety. The former is how strong nations develop, the latter is how tyrants form.

On the issue of tolerance, one cannot pursue liberty, but then give precedence to tolerance. I cannot say I support freedom of speech (which includes conscience) and then sue with any speech I disagree with. While it is true that we must protect citizens from the tyranny of other citizens, we must do so within reason. Forcing people to act against their religious beliefs does not protect liberty. The whole irony in the pursuit of tolerance is that it actually leads us to be quite intolerant of those we disagree with. “Tolerance” becomes a code word for, “Those who agree with me.” Traditionally, tolerance was saying, “I disagree with your position, but I’ll fight for your right to believe what you believe.” Now it means, “I disagree with your position and I’ll fight for the government to force you to act against that position.”

Tolerance has become a way for us to say, “It’s okay if you believe this way, but you better not act according to that belief.” That’s not liberty, that’s tyranny. If a Muslim wants to bow to Mecca five times a day and there are those who want to stop him, those who want the government to intervene, then a true lover of liberty would stand guard over the Muslim as he bows so as to protect him, even if he disagrees with Islam. If a Christian man doesn’t want to use his business to support a homosexual union, then a true lover of liberty would respect his decision and either boycott his business or start a competing business that catered to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. Either way, he wouldn’t ask for government intervention to change how someone thinks and acts; again, that’s tyranny (just look at 1984). We used to believe that, “I disagree with you, but I’ll fight for your right to say it.” Now we want to silence our opponents, and this happens between both conservatives and liberals (think of how many people attempted to stop a mosque from being built near Ground Zero, even though the First Amendment protects all religions).

In giving up the ideal of liberty for the ideals of safety and tolerance we have put a time limit on this experiment called America. The America that once was, the one that was highly imperfect, but still pursuing liberty, will simply cease to exist. It only has a few more generations and, in truth, we may already be on the precipice of generations that are more willing to embrace tyranny. How long before the definition of “terrorist” is loosened and other people are included? The pursuit of safety and tolerance leaves open the door to persecution of those we disagree with, or who are labeled “intolerant.”

“But that would never happen here! We have laws that protect citizens from being persecuted by their government!” Yes, a government agency would never become corrupted to the point that it would target those who disagree with the policies of an administration so as to make their lives difficult. That would never happen in the United States, correct? I need not point to the Soviet Union or Hitler’s Germany for examples of what happens when safety and tolerance (eradicating those who disagree with you) are put into place above liberty, I can point to our own history. I can point to the FBI targeting civil rights groups in the 1950s and 60s, or Congress targeting suspecting Communists in the 1950s, or the Executive branch forcing Japanese-Americans into internment camps during WWII, or Nixon wiretapping his political opponents, or the IRS targeting conservative non-profits. There are many other examples within our own history of our government abusing any power it receives  of the examples I listed, only one was actually illegal under the law (the IRS issue is still being investigated).

When you give your master a whip to protect you from those you fear, you inevitably allow the master to whip you. When you allow the oppression of those you disagree with, it doesn’t take long before you disagree with the establishment on something else and you find yourself oppressed. This is not fear speaking, this is a voice from history. We were always told that those who didn’t study history were doomed to repeat it; but the study of history is not enough, we must understand it. We must realize that when liberty is no longer the ideal for a people group, the citizens become slaves, they face oppression, and it eventually results in the collapse of that society. That is the direction for America as it stands, but it is not too late to change our pursuit.

Sowing what we reap or, This isn’t the Government we need right now, but it is the Government we deserve


DSC02086Forty years ago to the week, May 17, 1973, the nation was engulfed in a scandal when it was revealed that President Richard Nixon’s administration had broken into the Watergate Hotel in order to gain an advantage of his Democratic contenders. This week has seen scandal after scandal from our present administration that rival – and in some cases surpasses – the crimes of Nixon. For those looking for a post that bashes President Obama, however, please stop reading now. This post will point out his flaws and how his administration has been complicit in some troubling matters, but ultimately the blame is on us, whether conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat; the society of America (or lack thereof) is to blame for what has occurred.

There are too many scandals to really mention. The two biggest that have broken lately would be the IRS targeting conservative groups and individuals who spoke out against the government and the Department of Justice tapping the phones of the Associated Press in order to find out who their sources were. The IRS not only targeted conservative groups, but they leaked confidential information about those groups to the media. What is sad is that there is still more to this scandal that we haven’t seen. The man in charge of investigating the actions of the IRS in its targeting, however, may not be the most trustworthy investigator. Eric Holder is embroiled in his own scandal of wire tapping the AP’s phone lines. When asked for documents explaining why the phones were tapped, the AP was provided with 100% redacted documents. Thus, the man in charge of investigating government overreach and corruption is accused of overreaching the limits of the Constitution by tapping the phones of a news agency. It’s like sending a lion to investigate the death of a zebra by another lion. All the while, other major scandals that have cost humans their lives have gone relatively unnoticed.

Perhaps you heard of Angelina Jolie’s double mastectomy. What you probably didn’t hear about was Kermit Gosnell, a trial that has flown relatively under the radar considering the subject material. One reporter did ask President Obama for his thoughts on Gosnell – considering that Obama supports the “right” of abortionists to kill babies born alive after an abortion – but he declined to answer because it was an “ongoing trial” (I think that’s the first time Obama let that impede a response, especially considering his comments about the Crowley/Gates scandal as well as Trayvon Martin’s death). But now? Perhaps someone should ask him again how he feels.

Not to pick solely on President Obama, consider the absolutely unreported scandal that thousands of Christians have died in the Middle East ever since we decided to invade Iraq in 2003. In fact, the most likely scenario is that Christians will become extinct in the Middle East – where Christianity began and has survived for 2,000 years – quicker than polar bears in the Arctic. US foreign policy, starting with George W. Bush, is responsible for the deaths and displacement of thousands of Christians. Bush gave the Iraqi government money, the same government that turned around and persecuted Christians. We simply looked the other way. Obama is giving guns to the Syrian rebels, who in turn have killed and kidnapped Christians. We cannot say, “Well that’s how Islam works,” because Christians have lived under Islamic rule there since the 7th century. Yet, today is the greatest persecution Christians in the Middle East have ever faced, and that’s even if we include the Roman Empire. Even at home, our corruption seems to ruin our freedom.

A Saudi student can’t even walk across campus with rice in a pressure cooker without being investigated by the FBI. When found innocent rather than issue an apology, the FBI tells him to be more careful. No, “Sorry that we’re racist,” rather they justify their bias and blame him. What is more sad is that most people would probably rationalize such an action, they would rationalize the eradication of freedom in the name of security. Of course, the irony is lost on most people; the price to live in a free society is that we must give up our freedom. That is to say, we’re no longer concerned about freedom, but more about security.

Our government is corrupt. While all governments are corrupt to a certain degree – that’s simply the nature of power, since all humans are corrupt to a certain degree – some governments excel at corruption. The US government has always had corruption, but typically it was the type invented in order to make money for a few individuals. The politicians knew that if they threatened individual freedoms that their ruse would collapse and all would be lost. Thus, the corruption was kept to money exchanging hands. Modern corruption, however, is more about seizing power than anything else.

The “corruption” is really a philosophical point of view, one that it is better to control society than let society grow on its own. It is better to control society because through control we can obtain better security; it’s better to give up freedom for the greater good. How did our government get to this place?

We can point to the Democrats or we can point to the Republicans, but we’d be mostly wrong. While each party has contributed in its own way, the fact is that they’ve been allowed to get away with it. A government is only an extension of the society it comes from, thus, the more corrupt the society is, the more corrupt the government will be. For too long, Americans have wallowed in egoism, hedonism, and relativism. We’ve lived by the mantra, “Do what feels right so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else.” But now we feel we can complain when our leaders live by the same mantra we’ve been chanting? We’re all moral relativists when it suits us, but become the most ardent ethical absolutist when we feel threatened. In short, the current government we have is the government we deserve.

We don’t deserve a good government, one that cares for us, one that knows its role and operates within that role appropriately. In order to deserve that kind of government, we would have to be people that had a strong moral foundation. As it is, America lacks a strong moral foundation, or any moral foundation. We are a society without morals; if our society were an individual, that individual would be a sociopath. The government we have is the result of our society chucking morality to the side and living for whatever whim came its way. We’ve made our bed and now we must lay in it.