9/12 - The Morning After

I thought long and hard about what to post yesterday.  I was fully intending to put aside my 'typically don't post on Sundays' habit and write something for the anniversary of the attacks against our nation.
But I couldn't bring myself to do it.
Why?  One simple question:  What has changed?
Sure I could talk about what I was doing, or how I felt, or what awakened in my understanding of the world around us.  I could go on for hours about what it felt like when I realized we are hated simply because we are free.  I could go into detail every minute of my day: Evacuation to talking to my friend in Army Ranger School at the time, to the trouble I had sleeping that night.  But the point is, it doesn't really matter.
When America awakened on 9/12, we all knew something was different.  We all realized we needed to change our outlook on the world around us.  We all knew that life would never be the same again.  What we didn't know was that we were going to do more harm to our own country than the combined efforts of every terrorist have done.
I know I typically write about freedom, firearms, and the like.  But today I'm going to temper that writing with something a little more faith-driven.  I've never attempted to hide the fact that I believe the God of the Bible, who sent His Son Jesus to pay the penalty for sin, and die a substitutionary death on the cross for us.  For me.
So what does that have to do with the events of the decade following this tragedy?  The answer is simple:  Everything.
I've learned much in the past decade, not the least of which being that those of us who have this faith have an obligation to lead people.  We are to the the ones holding the standard, encouraging people to continue on when it seems there is no hope.  We are the ones who are to be willing to give our lives for others, even strangers, because our eternal security is assured.  We are the ones who are to bring hope to those who don't see any, and joy to those who don't know her touch.
And we are to do it, not because of anything within ourselves, or because we are better than anyone else, or because we are supposed to do it.  We are to do it because greater is He who is in us than he who is in the world.  It's not our own power, it's not our own love, and it's not our own means.
So in the decade since that tragedy, while our rights have been being systematically stripped by an oppressive government bent on crushing the people, and we've watched loved ones giving their lives in an attempt to free others from the control of similar evil governments, we continue to stand.  We are called to be salt and light to a world in need.
Are we?  Are we taking those difficult stands, choosing the right path, even when our own nation seems to be turning completely against us?  Are we calling evil for what it is where we find it?  Are we prepared with an answer when people ask us questions, or attack us unjustly?  Are we ready to defend our faith with our minds and hearts?  Are we ready to reach a world in need?

Zo is no Dummy

Source:
http://www.pjtv.com/s/GQZTMMY

I've enjoyed AlfonZo Rachel for a while.  He has a great sense of humor, and watching him stand for his faith, and what he knows to be true about our history, and conservative values is fantastic.  He's gone after the black community as a member of it, pointing out so many of their bad choices, mostly due to believing the lies of the left.  It is well worth watching his archives to better understand what I mean.
This particular episode is from a little over a month ago (7/19/11).  The best part is his correct interpretation of 'Render unto Caesar' which he explains shortly after 3:30.
In this particular video, he is destroying the concept of income tax, and pointing out why it's such a bad idea, why the founding fathers did NOT include it in the constitution, the questionable ratification of the 16th amendment, etc.  It's classic Zo, saying exactly what's on his mind, and pulling absolutely no punches.  My hat is off to you, sir!

Political Correctness Kills Another Group

Source:
http://www.ccci.org/about-us/donor-relations/our-new-name/press.htm

It's a shame.  It's an absolute shame.  The entire purpose of this organization is to bring people to Christ, and they don't have the courage to keep His name in their title.  People were crucified because of their faith in Him.  People gave their lives to further the gospel.  Yet this group is unwilling to stand by His name because of fear of offending people?

Disgusting.  My heart breaks for the Brights, who founded this once-great organization.

To Build? Or not to Build?

Sources:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/a-southern-baptist-leader-chides-cain-for-mosque-comments-52448/

http://serr8d.blogspot.com/2011/07/herman-cain-and-murfreesboro-mosque.html

In short, this article points to an instance where Herman Cain is being attacked by a pastor because on the surface it appears that he is taking an anti-First Amendment approach.  I would tend to agree, if I only looked at the surface, and no deeper.  

Let's look deeper, shall we?

It seems that there is quite a bit of information leaking which points to this mosque being the project of the Muslim Brotherhood.  That group is not a religious group, but rather a political one, which would like to see a 'conservative' (in this case, read strict adherence) application of Sharia law.  This is a major issue for any American.  

Sharia law is about as far removed from the concept of individual liberty, and equality that we have established in this nation, and about as anti-American as it is possible for an organization to be.  Additionally, the terror group Hamas is closely related to this group.  The last thing we need in our country is a breeding ground for terrorists.  

Beyond this, there is sufficient protesting and complaints from the residents of the area that they do not want this constructed in their neighborhood.  While I'm a firm believer in private property, there is a point where you need to understand that your neighbors don't want your business there.  And let's face it, if this is an entity related to the MB, this is no religious center, but rather a political one.  

Were this to be a purely religious facility, with absolutely no ties to politics, or any attempt to muddy the local political waters with Sharia law, I would have no ground on which to stand.  However, just look at the organization(s) backing it's construction, and pushing for it to be built.  There's an old saying that suggests that following the money will lead you to the source of any activity.  I think the same applies here.

Amendments in Danger

Sources:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-07-10-muslim-women-mosques_n.htm
http://www.christianpost.com/news/ever-hear-of-the-first-amendment-an-argument-to-watch-52222/

While I typically write most passionately about the importance of the Second Amendment, I would be a terrible citizen of this nation if that was the only amendment I supported.  The first 10 are all vital to our way of life as a Free people, and we must defend them all. 

The First Amendment (you know, the one that says Government can't force us to practice our religion or not practice our religion in any fashion?) is coming under attack, by a Muslim woman, who reported for the Wall Street Journal.  Apparently she hates freedom too, and would use the legal system, and the overwhelming weight of bureaucracy to crush it. 

The attitude behind this approach is disgusting in so many ways.  Speaking from an American perspective, I would say that 'There are enough other religions and sub-sects within those religions that you can find one with any set of beliefs in this land that match those which you hold.'  As someone who understands what it means to be faithful to a 'religious concept' (In my life, I would refer to this as a relationship with Christ, not a set of beliefs, or book of rules, or anything limited and man-centric such as that.) I would suggest that she either needs to understand what her faith teaches, and adhere to it, challenge it from within using any examples or scripture or teachings or any other source needed, or leave it. 

If a government attempts to force religions to practice within their set of rules, it defeats the entire purpose of any religion.  Following a set of beliefs based on faith is an understanding that a higher power than man is the source of those beliefs.  To give government authority over religion subverts the purposes of both.

This is something our founding fathers understood, and specifically wrote 1A to protect us from that very real, very evil reality.  

Our rights are under attack daily.  This is why it is vitally important that we the people make our voices heard.

God as a Political Concept

As most of my readers are aware, yesterday was Independence Day.  That is the day that the United States of America celebrates independence:  Not only from Great Britain and the tyrannical rule that was happening at the time, but independence from all forms of rule which would inhibit freedom.  Or so we think.

As the world progresses, we lose our freedom.  With every administration, more laws are passed which limit personal liberty ever more. As I heard on a recent Vicious Circle episode (and I have to paraphrase here, I don't recall the exact phrase, or who said it), "It doesn't matter who is driving, we're still going the same direction.  Some drivers just happen to not be accelerating toward destruction as quickly as others."  This was said in reference to republican, or conservative, vs democrat, or liberal.  Such a simple yet profoundly true statement.

One of the key reasons for this, I think, is a fundamental shift in understanding of what liberty is, and where it's origins can be found.  For the sake of this discussion, we'll focus on American Liberty, as opposed to general liberty.  

Let's look at history.  235 years and 1 day ago, a document was signed which declared our independence from another tyrannical rule.  This document is vital to our history.  This document is the official announcement of the people of the United States of America that they would not live in subjection to a power which was going to rule them in an unfair, or unjust manner.  It marked the separation of America from Britain.  The war, the constitution, and the rest were related, but this key document did more to establish freedom for the people than any other.  So let's take a look at the phrases used to establish that liberty, and where we stand today in relation.

The first paragraph:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

 From the beginning of the document we see reference to the world (Nature) and the Creator of the world (Nature's God).  As far as introductions go, this one is excellent.  It introduces the source of the freedom to be discussed in depth, as well as the purpose of the document, and what the result of it will be.  no beating around the bush, no wavering, or making excuses, just straight to the point, and effective.

The first portion of the next paragraph is what so many of us remember from school, and hear quoted so often in life:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

This reiterates the source of human rights:  The Creator.  The words 'of humanity' can easily appended to His title, as the implication is that the One who created humanity is the One who decides what rights we shall have, and how we should govern ourselves.  

This is a key point, and the focus of my thoughts today.  We live in an era which has done everything to remove God from any public forums.  If we fail to keep God in some form of public recognition, the foundation of our rights becomes diluted, and baseless.  This erosion will lead to a loss of liberty, and return us to the days of unjust, unfair, slave-like subjugation by government.

This is NOT, by any means, a demand, or even a request, for a formal, official government-pushed religion.  Quite the contrary, the concept here is that all men have the freedom to worship whomever they want, in whatever manner they want.  The bases of that freedom is also from God.  From a political perspective, God must exist to be the source of rights, as a power higher than the government.  If the people chose to worship or not, that's not the government's concern.  Maintaining their freedom to worship is.  

If we allow God to be removed from public office as we have been doing, we will certainly lose these freedoms.  Our independence from government and tyranny will be replaced.  We will again be dependent on the state for all of our needs.  We will not have the luxury of choosing how to shape the world around us.  We will no longer share the experiences of living in this great nation, which has been built on the ideas found in the Bible of Christianity.  That foundation must remain intact if we are to continue in our liberty.  

At the end of the day, it is important to remember that whether or not you believe that God does exist, you must believe that the people of this world derive their rights from Him, as a power higher than government.  This is what keeps the door opened to allow a just self-governance.  This is what gives people the freedom to live life as they see fit.  

I strongly urge you to read the rest of the Declaration of Independence at the link above.  Study it.  See what the king of England was doing at the time.  Compare each of the statements of his actions to the government today.  Replace 'he' with 'they' or 'the feds' or 'congress' or 'the president.'  It is alarming how similar our country is today to what we faced as a people in those days.  Look at where we are today as a result of the work done by those who signed the document.  And thank God for the 235 years of freedom we have enjoyed. 

Is the Church of Satan an Organized Religion?

Source:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/04/how-to-bury-a-satanist/?iref=allsearch

What would motivate someone who believes in literally 'nothing' (including no Satan) to call their movement a religion, specifically a religion with the name of something that doesn't exist according to their own teaching in it's name?

I'll grant that in the late 1960's heavy drug use influenced many people to do many things which defy logic.  So I can understand the organization being founded.  But as a movement which has a central office, and calls itself a church, it seems to have never come to grasp with the initial logical contradictions inherent in it's foundation.  

Now, with that said, to address the main point of the article linked above.  Death is, for many people, a terrifying event, or moment in life.  This is something which every human faces, without exception.  We all must prepare ourselves for what we will face at the end of life as we know it. 

One of the greatest questions all humans ask themselves is a form of this:

"What will happen on the other side?" 

Christianity has the obvious answers of 'Have faith in Christ, and you go to paradise; live for self, and you will spend eternity separated from your Creator.'  Other faiths have various answers ranging from some form of paradise to re-incarnation to absolutely nothing.  This organization takes a slightly different tact.  They state that there is nothing after death, and that the afterlife one experiences is the aftermath of their actions while alive.  They want their memories to live on after they do.  

This strikes me as an outlook with very little hope.  While we can have no scientific discussion on what happens to any sort of spirit or soul postmortem, there is a curiosity about it.  People with near-death experiences often speak of seeing a light at the end of a tunnel, or other events in which they see family members, or familiar places.  Are these visions manifestations of fearful minds, calming images given by a Loving Creator, absolutely nothing, or something completely different?  I think the only people who know without any doubt are the ones who have preceded us in death.  

Perhaps some day we will have the means to discover exactly what people experience in their last moments without the need to experience it ourselves.  Until then we are left to speculation.  

Or are we?  For those of us who have placed our faith in Christ, we have His Word.  With study, we can see a glimpse of what awaits us in eternity.  Christ promises things from preparing a place in His Father's house, to feasts, to a new Heaven and a new Earth at some point in the future.  That is hope.  That is something to which we can look forward with eager anticipation.  Faith and Hope are wonderful things.

Is Atheism or Agnostisims a Valid Religion?

Source:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/state-ag-appeals-tx-garuation-prayer-ban-says-it-unravels-us-moral-values-50761

This is an interesting case.  Not being an attorney I will make no attempt to examine the legal details of this.  Instead, I will comment on the implications.
The largest implication I can see is that for any state to BAN prayer is enforcing a lack of faith (or a faith in nothing) as the religion of choice.  The only way to not force religion on anyone is to not prevent those who DO hold faith from practicing it.  Logic dictates that two things which contradict one another cannot both be true.  Let's examine what happens in two scenarios.
Scenario #1:  10 people are gathered together.  8 of them have various faiths (some Christian, some Islamic, some Hindi, etc).  The last 2 believe in no super-natural power, and have a faith in nothing beyond what they are able to see.  Now, let's tell the 8 that they are not allowed to practice, express, or otherwise exercise their freedom of religion in a public place.
Scenario #2:  Let's take those same 10 people, and tell them all that they can practice or not practice any aspect of whatever faith they do or do not have in whichever way is appropriate for their religion (provided it does NOT cause harm to any of the other 9).
Which of these two instances is freedom?  Which of these two methods holds true to the principles in the foundations of our nation, and which of these methods violates an individual's rights, and restricts freedoms?