Sunday, May 03, 2009

A GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE

I'm going to do something I never do when in the pulpit. I'm going to wax eloquent about politics. But the eloquence is not mine and I'm not going to tell who said it [to minimize any prejudice] or whether I agree with it or not until the next post. I want to hear what you think about it. A couple of things first....

One__ I know the Lord is Sovereign over all nations, No question. His purposes will be accomplished. But I am asking us to discuss our responsible part in it all.

Two__ As believers we are citizens of another country and must never get more involved in the politics of America than we are involved in the gospel of the Kingdom. America is not the Kingdom of God and America is not a Christian nation since there is only one of those [1 Peter 2:9] and that's the one God is building made up of every believer out of every nation on earth who has responded to the true gospel of Christ. But, that said, we are to live responsibly as citizens in both I think.

Three__I don't know whether or not this will fly as a good conversational piece, but I thought it worth a try seeing the dire straits we're in politically these days. The author is a bit cynical perhaps and that may be something someone will wish to address. But whatever we say, let's speak of our citizenship here, but speak with our spirit reflecting our citizenship there. Thanks.

QUOTE FROM____________?

"The framers of the Constitution may have been brilliant but they weren't perfect.

They lived in another age__lawyers, merchants, and gentlemen farmers__amateur politicians all. For their time the concepts they introduced were radical, but they were not unrestrained. The preamble may have been orchestrated for "We the People," but the fine print kept the common fingers off the piano keys.

The founders were men of property, in an age when only men who owned property could vote. The concept of common sufferage, to say nothing of women voting, was alien to them, something they would have rebelled against as vigorously as they fought the British Empire. Campaigning for public office was an act of personal dishonor.

They could not conceive of their experiment falling into the hands of full-time politicians steered by armies of consultants, forming committees to suck millions in "donations" from those seeking favor from government: permanent officeholders who would wield the levers of power with the partisan ruthlessness of warlords.

A Congress routinely hijacking essential national legislation just to load it with amendments like tumors, hauling pork back to their districts to solidify their death grip on power. This would have been as foreign to them as E.T. When Lincoln sat in Congress for his single term, beginning in 1847, he considered himself lucky to have a desk with a drawer in it for his private papers and the privilege to borrow a book from time to time from the Library of Congress.

Only the insane of the eighteenth century could foresee that a bleak two lines added to the Constitution a century after it's creation, authorizing the collection of a federal income tax, could result in a seventy-year rampage by government to mentally rape its own citizens with millions of pages of totally unintelligible tax laws, rules, regulations, and forms.

Today we have special federal tax courts because the law is so convoluted that ordinary federal judges are presumed too ignorant and unschooled to understand the complexities of laws and forms that every citizen down to the village janitor is required to understand, to obey, and to sign under penalty of perjury and threat of imprisonment.

Nor could it be possible in the Age of Reason to foresee a Social Security system that if run by a private business would result in their arrest, prosecution, and conviction for operating a Ponzi scheme. In the real world, taking invested funds in the form of Social Security taxes, paying current claims, and skimming the rest for other purposes is called embezzlement. When government does it, it is simply called politics. In either case the arithmetic is always the same. When the scheme goes belly-up, its operators, if they're smart, will be in Brazil, or, in the case of Congress, retired, which is the political equivalent of being in Brazil.

With all of this, the people in what is touted as the greatest democracy on the planet have no effective recourse. They cannot act directly to fix any of the obvious open sores or seeping wounds in their own government, because the founders didn't trust them with the only effective medicine, the power to amend their own Constitution. That is reserved for the serpent its creators never saw.

Short of revolution, something Jefferson urged take place at least every twenty years, the average citizen is left to pound sand by casting a largely empty vote to replace the devil-in-office with the devil-in-waiting and hope that the caustic nature of power to corrupt can somehow be neutralized.

Praying for the devil to grow a halo, we all plod on, one foot in front of the other, trusting that somehow we will not follow the Soviet Union over the national cliff."

Paul B.

UPDATE 5/7/09

There is a frequent commenter on Wade's blog [And sometimes here] who goes by the name of "Thy Peace" but should be called "Perry Mason." That person has a knack of putting information together and assisting in understanding of issues by putting that information out to the public. So you could say that that person also is a bit of an Internet detective.

"Thy Peace" found my source for this post and my love of fiction books has been found out. It is Steve Martini author of "Shadow of Power, who in that book" [chapter 8 pages 125-127] makes the interesting comment that is the basis for this post. [Even fictional books sometimes has profound insights.] Martini is a former lawyer, advocate for the abused, and has experience in civil and federal courts.

He's a good fiction writer too if you like the genre as much as I do. [If you do you might try Lee Child, James Grippando, Robert Crais, among others.] You certainly have to spend a lot of time in airports and on planes as do I to have the time I'm sure. Way to go Thy Peace. ;)

24 comments:

Aussie John said...

Paul,

Who would have ever thought a dentist would be so sensitive to the dangers of unrestrained power.

The very same corrupting influence is being inflicted upon God's Family today.

The emperor is in an extreme state of undress, and the frog doesn't seem to feel the water heating up.

Paul Burleson said...

Aussie John,

I'm convinced you're on to something. The modern Church does reflect the culture in more ways than one.

Bobby Brown said...

I am much more optimistic than this fellow. Things change as time goes on and not always for the worst. The fact that people who do not have property, African Americans and of course ladies can vote is a good thing. All were radically liberal in their time but have proven to be good for our Nation. I also think Social Security has been a good thing. I remember the soup lines before we had it and I have seen many elderly people blessed with a better life because of it. Of course our government has its problems and we Christians can and should do our part to correct them when we can but I have been around the globe a few times and I promise there is no place like the good old USA. I think it was Winston Churchill who once said "we have the worst legal system in the world until you consider the alternatives". Yes and we have the worst country in the world until you consider the alternatives. While we consider the negatives about our land we should also think on the good things as well.

Aussie John said...

Paul,

I agree, and I'm sure you will, with much of what Bobby says, and indeed, his quote from Winston.

One of the matters of great concern to me,in this country, is that, on the one hand, the emperor (leadership) don't know they are naked, and on the other the frogs (the led) don't know the temperature has risen considerably.

When leaders think that the trust that they have received from their constituents is the authority to make non-emergency decisions without consultation with the constituents (through the local represenatives), then democracy is being threatened.

It was the same Winston Churchill who said, "Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely".

When the Emperor disregards the fact that the clothes, which should cover his nakedness, are a sacred trust, not a right because he is great,or worthy, there is grave danger.

When the frogs,because of the slow degree of change, don't recognise the temperature is getting too high, they perish in their ignorance.

Put the two ingredients together and the situation can be explosive.

I'll get off my soapbox!

Aussie John said...

Paul,
As I signed off my most recent comment the following new book came into view on another site. Published in the USA called, "Preserving Democracy",Elgin L Hushbeck, Jr.,author.

How to restore traditional American values to American government.

Comments from the publisher, Energion Publications:
"An ever increasing government threatens both freedom and a financial collapse.
* Judges are acting more like kings themselves than interpreters of the law
* Redisticting, voter fraud, campaign finance controls, and an uninformed electorate threaten the integrity of elections.
* The values that made America the greatest country in the world are being supplanted.
* Government's attempts to make people's lives better often have the opposite effect

What is causing this decay? What can we do?"

Sounds an interesting read.

Paul Burleson said...

Readers,

Bobby and Aussie John are doing exactly what I hoped we'd do. Join in with your thoughts.

Chris Ryan said...

Sorry, Blogger had me kicked off for a few days.

I agree that the founders probably never saw coming what we have now. The vast buerocracies, unintelligable law, and political posturing would be completely foreign to their vision of government.

However, I say that with the qoute Aussie John supplied in mind: "The values that made America the greatest country in the world are being supplanted." I actually think that that statement is false.

See, too often "freedom" goes by another name: greed. If we are truly honest, it was greed that made this country. Our wars are the simplist way to see this. People didn't like paying taxes to England so they had a war. People didn't like their "freedom to have slaves" trampled upon (because cheap labor is better), so we had a war. We continue to have wars to this day about "freedom" that continually are masked as greed (say, for oil). Even economic advancements offer proof: people didn't like ekking out a living on the farm, so they started factories and paid pennies to the workers so that they could make millions.

The supreme value of a capitalist society is not hard work. Hard work is an means to an end. The end is always greed. Now, the means of hard work is no longer necessary. Rather, our greed can be satisfied with unemployment checks, welfare, food stamps, and social security (p.s. whoever said social security was good must not be a member of my generation who are going to make pennies on the dollar for what we invest). Thus, the values that made this country great are not supplanted: how best they are exercised has changed.

And I must ask: were those values ever Biblical? And if not, why should I bemoan the failure of a society that is based on principles foreign to God? I'm no communist, but I have to ask myself the question: if America fails, what is that to me? In any situation, political or economic, God will provide.

Perhaps here I am too caught up with Paul's caveat that we owe our allegiance first to the Kingdom. I agree that we can be responsible citizens of both the American empire and the Kingdom of God, but only where the two are not in competition. But they compete in both the ecomony (greed v mercy) and the politics (coersion v love). I can't overlook that.

Sorry for a novel, but I happen to be opinionated on this issue (if you couldn't tell).

Paul Burleson said...

Chris,

I always appreciate your comments and am challenged by them. This comment is no different. I would say that I have a little bit of a differing take on some of what you said.

For example, I'm not sure that I believe our culture is totally based on values that are foreign to the character of God.

[Though Kingdom principles are based on the full revelation of God as He is in relationships through the Christ Event, while government/culture is based on Natural law. Natural Law does reflect the character of God, however, if I understand things correctly.]

A culture [Our American culture as intended] that recognizes the worth and value of human life is a good thing. [This is why I'm concerned that we may lose it with an abortion policy that denies such worth.]

A cuture [Our American culture as intended] that seeks to punish the guilty and protect the innocent is a good thing. [This is why I'm concerned that our court systems may lose it with unfair sentences that don't match the crimes.. both ways..too little punishment and too much punishment.] I could go on.

As to wars showing greed, I would have to say yes "but." You may have hit on a legitimate issue with some wars..but..there are legitimate protection issues that a government has for it's citizens.

This is NOT a Kingdom thing for me but it is a biblical thing as 1 Peter 2:13-14 and Matt 22:18-21 points out that I, a christian, am to have a relationship of service to my governmental leaders. So I can see why some christians would choose to be pacifists and yet others would choose to serve in the military.

Finally, I'm not sure all we hear today is the total picture on any issue. For example...here is a report I found. [You can check out it's veracity.] But notice that the variation of military losses [One loss is too many] from war years to non-war years is not that great.

And remember, much of the military action since 2000 has been motivated by the need for protection of America from terrorism perhaps. Who knows for sure?

"Military Losses, 1980 thru 2006.


The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from
1980 through 2006:

Year President Deaths Total during presidency

1980 Jimmy Carter 2,392
N/A

1981 Ronald Reagan 2,380
1982 Ronald Reagan 2,319
1983 Ronald Reagan 2,465
1984 Ronald Reagan 1,999
1985 Ronald Reagan 2,252
1986 Ronald Reagan 1,984
1987 Ronald Reagan 1,983
1988 Ronald Reagan 1,819
17,201

1989 George H.W. Bush 1,636
1990 George H.W. Bush 1,507
1991 George H.W. Bush 1,787
1992 George H.W. Bush 1,293
6,223

1993 Bill Clinton 1,213
1994 Bill Clinton 1,075
1995 Bill Clinton 1,040
1996 Bill Clinton 974
1997 Bill Clinton 817
1998 Bill Clinton 827
1999 Bill Clinton 796
2000 Bill Clinton 758
7,500

2001 George W. Bush 891
2002 George W. Bush 999
2003 George W. Bush 1,228
2004 George W. Bush 1,874
2005 George W. Bush 1,942
2006 George W. Bush 1,858
8,792


These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at: http://www.fas.

Then, even the idea of the minority races being used to fight wars is not the full picture. Check this out...[same source]

European descent (white) .......... ......69.12%
Hispanic ............. ......... .......... 12.5%
Black .......... .......... ......... .......12. 3%
Asian ............ ........ ................ 3.7%
Native American ............. ............1.0% &nb sp;

Other ............ ......... ................ 2. 6%

Now... here are the fatalities by

European descent (white) ............74.31%
Hispanic ............ ......... ......... .......10.74%
Black ........... ......... ......... .......... 9.67%
Asian ........... .......... ......... ......... ..1.81%
Native American ........... ......... ...... 1.09%
Other ........... ......... ......... ........ ...0.33%

This thing of war is a serious subject to me as a citizen. It's easier for me to settle any issue I face with the Kingdom standard of "Turning the other cheek" and forgiveness. But that is not a national/government standard for some issues such as 9/11 as I understand it. As I say..I stay perplexed to some degree.

Rodney Sprayberry said...

In 2002, I had the privilege of praying at the opening session Virginia's House of Delegates.

Here is that prayer:

Oh Lord, how majestic is your name in all of the earth.

You have assembled this governing body together. You have entrusted this house with the privilege and burden of leadership.

Therefore it is my prayer that each delegate will govern by the light of absolute truth. Help them, Dear God to stand for what is good and to abhor all that evil.

Remind them that the decisions they make leave legacies of life or death...strength or weakness... freedom or oppression...integrity or corruption...hope or despair.

Bless this body with the wisdom to lead, the ability to do it together, and the awareness of the accounting that will occur concerning the sacred trust of influence.

With respect to the various religious traditions represented, I offer this prayer in the named of Jesus the Christ. Amen


I look at that prayer often and pray a similar one every day for our country.

I do know this...one of the biggest reasons our government is is the pickle it is in is because the church has stopped caring, praying, and being involved.

We (the church) have traded "our birthright for a bowl of stew"

If we cared about the elderly there would be no percieved need for so much Social Security

If we cared about babies (and unwed mothers) there would be no percieved need for Planned Parenthood or Roe v Wade

If we cared about the poor, there would be no percieved need for so much welfare

If we cared about justice there would no percieved need for so much litigation

If we cared about education, then it might not be as inefficient as it is.

I am not trying to sound inflamatory but...Jefferson may have been on to something when he suggested a revolution every 20-30 years or so.

Talcott Parsons was an social scientist. He focused on systems theory. Alot of what he said was convoluted and confusing but I think he got one thing right.

He said...

Social systems (organizations, social structure, governments etc) usually begin well. His definition of well; functionally efficient and effective as a tool of people.

These tools are used by humans to fulfill various roles and purposes in a society.

Over time, the purpose of the system gets lost and sometimes even mutates. It becomes inefficient and self promoting. In essence it takes on a life of it's own.

When it was first created...it was designed to serve people. In time people begin to serve it.

Where he is unclear is whether or not such a system can be revitalized by any other way that getting dismantled and rebuilt.

He seems to imply that these social systems follow life cycles and that once a system reaches this point it is dying.

The question in my mind is this:

Once a social system burns out...what rises from the ashes?

Paul Burleson said...

Rodney,

Your statement here..."Talcott Parsons was an social scientist. He focused on systems theory. Alot of what he said was convoluted and confusing but I think he got one thing right.

He said...

Social systems (organizations, social structure, governments etc) usually begin well. His definition of well; functionally efficient and effective as a tool of people.

These tools are used by humans to fulfill various roles and purposes in a society.

Over time, the purpose of the system gets lost and sometimes even mutates. It becomes inefficient and self promoting. In essence it takes on a life of it's own.

When it was first created...it was designed to serve people. In time people begin to serve it.

Where he is unclear is whether or not such a system can be revitalized by any other way that getting dismantled and rebuilt.

He seems to imply that these social systems follow life cycles and that once a system reaches this point it is dying".........could be said of the Institutional Church as well in my thinking.

I have a friend [retired now] who, while pastoring a large church on the East coast, used the month of September EVERY YEAR as a time for the congregation to pray and seek God on what progreams to use for the next year. They dissolved ALL programs and prayed, discussed and decided what programs were needed for reaching, growing and developing people.

He believed that programs often lived so long that local churches began to use people to grow programs instead of using programs to grow people.

Sounds like what Talcott Parsons was ssying about governments in your quote. Interesting.

Rodney Sprayberry said...

It was not just governments but "social systems/ organizations of various sizes"

I once quote this to a friend of mine in relation to the SBC. He commented...the conservative resurgence did revive/renew the SBC. Though I think some of the battles in the CR were needed...I just think the the SBC structure/system did not change at all...even though some of the players may have.

Some have argued that though churches goes through life cycles they can be "renewed or revived"

A Parsonian theorist...with some theological bias (smile) might say...

True systemic renewal only occurs after the system dies (or becomes dismantled) and is rebuilt/reborn/resurrected.

Suddenly I hear the words of Jesus...

If anyone will come after me they must take up a cross and die...

Unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies...

I am the ressurection and the life...

Paul Burleson said...

Excellent point.

Chris Ryan said...

Paul,

I agree with you that not all things that America has valued have been antithetical to biblical values. But let me take up, briefly, a few of the issues which you raised.

Firstly, whether or not American heritage has been life affirming. I cannot argue with you that abortion is biblically wrong. However, I would contend that America has never had a policy which values life as an end. It has always valued life as a means. People were valued for what they could contribute, not for being people. In a capitalist, greed-based society, people are a means of producing wealth. Nothing more. That is hardly the type of life-affirmation I find in the biblical text. And thus abortion has taken off because human life is more expendable in our current society than it was in the agrarian soceity of our recent past. The means is no longer necessary for achieving the true end.

Also, I agree that proper respect for the guilt and innocence of citizens should be respected by the courts. The guilty should be punished in accordance with the crime; the innocent should be permitted their freedom. But we cannot help but stack the laws in favor of the ruling class. Again, in courts greed in central. Those who have exercised it are those who can afford to be above justice. Those who the greedy have oppressed are those who are most systematically descriminated against by our courts.

Even our understandings of life and justice have been flavored by the overarching principle of greed. If even these sacred values have been so tainted, will anything else really stand? I highly doubt it.

Somewhat switching notes, I go to the wars of protection which you brought up. Certainly the state has some role in the protection of its citizens. And because government is not a theocracy it can engage in such evils as war to that end. But I don't buy that there has been a full-scale war launched by the US that was primarily for the means of protection, even the one against terrorism. There are far better ways to protect this country from terrorists than by invading countries and then killing and torturing their people. I have a feeling that a great deal more animosity is stirred up than is alleviated by such actions. Furthermore, if we were really fighting against terrorism, the war would have been on Afghanistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. I have yet to hear any rumor of invading the final country on the list. The only real indications I've heard of invading Iran can from John McCain while in a drunked, patriotic fervor.

Alright, so much for briefly. Another novel it is.

Chris Ryan said...

Make that sentence, "The only real indications I've heard of invading Iran came from John McCain while in a drunken, patriotic fervor."

Aussie John said...

Paul,

By virtue of where I live, and that my knowledge and understanding of the political scene in USA is always, at best, second hand, I will refrain from that discussion, but I do believe there are some things which are very much a common thread in the politics of both of our nations.One obvious one is the fact that we are members of the one humanity which carries the one terrible disability of sin.

That in itself ought to cause us to never allow ourselves to, trust out of hand, or be ruled by, unfettered, unaccountable government.

As an aside,it seems to me that the hype of elections causes voters to put their critical facilties on hold, hence we often get the governments we quickly want to get rid of.

Looking from the afar, it seems to us here that what has happened in your country, and it certainly has in ours, leaders make executive decisions which were never envisaged by our constitutions.

I don't know the writer of your original quote from a bar of soap, but I know his name is Mr Markoff. He is/was a dentist in Saipan. I would suggest his comments, no doubt, are based on his experiences in Saipan, which has been described as the Mexico of the Pacific,and, as you know, has a government which is very loosely modelled after your own.
It seems from my own research that he may have a good reason for his comments, since, from waht I understand, the government is run by families, who have the further disadvantage , of having no formal training in law. Not one are lawyers.

A comment from a USA lawyer who lived there for years: "Hell, most of them are not even high school graduates."

When nepotism holds sway in such a small place, with much of its finance coming from American taxpayers, one doesn't have to have much imagination to understand the temptation to run for office to find oneself in the position to appoint relatives to financially advantagious positions.

Paul Burleson said...

Chris,

You have a wonderful ability to express yourself and I appreciate reading your comments here and on other blogs I read. I'll bet you and I are very close theologically and philosophically about Kingdom stuff.

I even agree with the general assessment you make of where we are nationally. Our differences in viewpoint may be a matter of degrees. To simplify it I would use a scale of 0 to 10 with 0 being the lowest and 10 the highest.

You probably see us nationally at a 3 [and dropping] using the last couple of good comments you made as the standard of reality. I probably see us nationally at a 6 [and dropping] on that same scale.

That said, I think we would agree that we [as christians] are not PRIMARILY to be engaged in changing our [falling] national character standard EXCEPT it be the natural result of our loving people where they are and meeting needs as we are able. [The hungry, sick, addicted, etc.] All the time sharing the true gospel with them. [Ours is a Kingdom thing primarily.]

But I also think you and I would agree that our allegiance as citizens is NOT to politicians NOR to policies but to people and so, SECONDARILY, as citizens, we believe change CAN be brought about with our only recourse nationally...elections that will put people in office that share our set of values. Values which were originally put forth [albeit flawed] in our Constitution when this county was established as a free society.

I, somehow, see myself as that kind of responsible person with my duel citizenship as a believer. I'll bet you do too.

But...I don't believe that makes my American citizenship my badge of Christianity or that my Christianity is, in any fashion, better BECAUSE I'm an American. I believe they are simply an act of Providence and I'm to be responsible in both. I'll bet you do too.

Thanks for the dialogue. Keep it up.

Paul Burleson said...

Aussie John,

I was pecking out my response to Chris as you commented so I missed seeing yours until mine was up.

Your comment..."[Because of sin] ought to cause us to never allow ourselves to, trust out of hand, or be ruled by, unfettered, unaccountable government... is spot on IMHO.

By the way, I'm a bit surprised the more I hear how parallel our nations may be in some ways. I'm going to have to study you Aussies a bit more...with pleasure.

Also, the author of my quote is an American popular fiction author whom I'll name in my next post.

Paul Burleson said...

Aussie John,

Two things I forgot a moment ago.

One, is it appropriate and acceptable to Australians to be referred to as "Aussies?" Because you use it in your post name I assumed..and you know where that can lead. :) [I also like Americans being referred to as "Yanks so assumed..there it is again."]

Two, your comment cleared up for me your reference to "dentist" in your first comment. I've meant to ask but forgot. No need to now.

Chris Ryan said...

Paul,

I think that is a fair assesment.

Aussie John said...

Paul,

The name "Aussie" is worn with pride in the country. As I understand it the appelation was given to us by American servicemen during WWII, who pronounced it with the 'ss' being drawn out slightly (a bit like in 'hiss').

My apology for not being careful enough! Yes, Markoff quoted from the book “Shadow of Power,” published 2008, in the "Marianas Variety", which claims to be Micronesias leading newspaper.

As for the similarities you mention: I agree :)

On the scale of 1-10 my opinion would be slightly higher,but on a par with where I would assess our own situation.

When visiting the USA I was quite shocked to find how little is reported in your country regarding matters in our neck of the woods. I visited twice, and each time stayed with the same family (a school teacher and an accountant) who were surprised that we have large cities with sky scrapers, and that we don't have wild native animals inhabiting our backyards.

You said, "I, somehow, see myself as that kind of responsible person with my duel citizenship as a believer. I'll bet you do too."

Sure do, but finding it harder and harder to implement.

The Revivalist said...

Pastor Paul,
I am a quite reader of your blog, but this topic intrigues me so very much. Dual citizenship? Obviously as a Christian our priority in this area is our King. I have always held that my hierarchy is: Christ, Family, Brethren and country.
For the vast majority of my life, my citizenship as an American has not been directed by the laws of the land, but by the laws "written on my heart." To the best of my knowledge, my citizenship in the Kingdom has not, and I pray never will be influenced by my American-ness.
More thoughts: I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said, "If we want a government that can provide for all our needs, it will be a government that will take all we have."
As to a revolution every 20-30 years... how about every 4 years. This "revolutionary" idea was provided to us by the framers of the Constitution, it is called the vote. Sadly, most have become contient living under the tyrannts.
Thank you for the opportunity to vent some.
David Hasty
"therevivlaist.blog.com"

Paul Burleson said...

David,

Thanks for stopping by.

I would agree with your hierarchy of responsibility. It may be that the first three, King, family, brethren, are what I would term Kingdom responsibilities and would be true of all BELIEVERS in any nation on earth. But I think you got it right in terms of personal responsibilites.

I've found, believe it or not, that some people have so identified their Americanism with their faith that they ARE influenced by any thing American as a sacred thing. [A Christian Nation view thing.] Glad to see you don't make that mistake.

Could not agree with you more on the four year revolution idea of voting.

Again, thanks for your thoughts.

Lin said...

I love Thy Peace. He is our very own internet guru.

Greed has infected us to level seen not only in the secular but also the church.

Since I am a conservative I try to balance things but when you see companies laying off and not paying dividends to stockholders but the CEO walking away with 30 million in bonuses, something is clearly wrong. It is not a compensatoin issue but an intergrity issue. When we see similar things in ministry groups and churches, it is despicable and we are our worst enemy.

I think the founders understood this

John Adams: "

"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made
only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."

Paul Burleson said...

Lin,

I love the guy/gal too. [I'm not sure which at this point.] His [generically] posts are always helpful to me.

By the way, speaking of love [generically] I love your final paragraph and your John Adams illustration is tops.

I've enjoyed this whole comment section resulting from a kinda silly moment of mine in appreciating a fiction writer saying something weighty. [Unusual]