The top 1 percent of income earners pay 38 percent of all federal income taxes. They earn 20 percent of all (adjusted gross) income.
The top 10 percent of income earners pay 70 percent of all federal income taxes. They earn 55 percent of all income.
The top 25 percent of all income earners pay 86 percent of all federal income taxes. They earn 67 percent of all income.
Approximately half of U.S. households pay no federal income taxes whatsoever
In response to President Obama’s recent suggestion that the gross budget deficits could easily be erased if more Americans were simply more willing to engage in “shared sacrifice.” Mr. Kirsanow poses the obvious question which the feckless US press corp hasn’t, whom does the president have in mind? Certainly not the bottom half of earners that pay effectively nothing.
But these statistics are more than just rhetorical push back points. In my opinion, the current distribution of burden for sustaining the federal behemoth is fundamentally immoral. A plurality of government spending is now entitlement spending, meaning that these spending patterns reflect a massive redistribution of wealth. We don’t all share in the burden of sustaining our civic government.
I can hear the standard refrain already – our impoverished shouldn’t be required to pay. Foremost, half our population isn’t impoverished, even by our “standard” of defining “poverty.” Second, our standard for defining “poverty” is suspect, particularly by historical standards. Most of whom we define as impoverished “suffer” air conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox. Our “impoverished” suffer the highest rates of obesity. Obesity is a serious health risk, perhaps the most serious modern epidemic, however, never before in history and almost nowhere in the world where true poverty is still known is “obesity” a symptom of poverty. There are some truly poor and downtrodden in the United States, however, it’s a small fraction of those “labeled” as in “poverty” in this country.
The vast majority of Americans can and should financially contribute to our shared form of government. It’s immoral to shift the burden onto a minority while conveying advantages without any payment to those that have the ability to pay.
The popular sentiment, however, remains that “the rich should pay more.” The United States is quickly becoming a land of “From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need.” Unfortunately, too few appreciate just how fundamentally un-American and illiberal is such sentiment and how dangerous it proved to be in the 20th Century when played out in places far away.
Recently the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that violent video games enjoy First Amendment protection—even when sold to our youth. Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 113 S.Ct. 2729 (2011). The Court struck down a California law that prohibited the sale or rental of these games to children under 18. At first glance this might sound like a victory for those who want to poison our young people.
Not so fast! Decisions like this cut both ways. The First Amendment protects a lot of speech that we as Christians find highly offensive. But it also protects our right to
preach the gospel—to people of all ages. I used to live in California, where I participated in volunteer ministry to children. I volunteered for Child Evangelism Fellowship, an organization that directs its efforts to children at state fairs and other public places. On Sunday mornings, I accompanied other volunteers from Pacific Youth Correctional Ministries to a county facility for children removed from their homes for neglect and abuse. We held chapel and Sunday School for those children. I was also part of a large chaplaincy program at Olive Crest, a private nonprofit that operates group homes for abused children. If atheists in America had their way, there would be laws prohibiting this type of religious evangelism to minors. Look at what the Supreme Court just said in the Brown decision:
And what is good for First Amendment rights of speech must be good for First Amendment rights of religion as well: It could be made criminal to admit a person under 18 to church, or to give a person under 18 a religious tract, without his parents’ prior consent.
Modern atheism has taken on an “evangelistic” fervor. Atheists do not merely reject religion for themselves—they insist that religion is dangerous. Authors like
Christopher Hitchins, Richard Dawkins, and Samuel Harris are on a rampage to stamp out religion. In the legal arena, atheists have removed prayer and Bible reading from our public schools and filed a multitude of lawsuits to eject religious expression from the public square. Meanwhile, anti-Christian materials corrupt school curriculum—evolution, sex education, homosexuality. Parental complaints fall on deaf ears in the courts of “Christian America.”
Parents have the constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their children in their homes and schools. They should be able to opt out of objectionable programs and actively participate in decisions about what the schools are teaching their children. Government ought to support them—not cram corrupted teachings down the throats of our families. The recent Brown decision affirms this, observing that
…the state has the power to enforce parental prohibitions — to require, for example, that the promoters of a rock concert exclude those minors whose parents have advised the promoters that their children are forbidden to attend. But it does not follow that the state has the power to prevent children from hearing or saying anything without their parents’ prior consent.
If the government starts making it illegal to present certain material to minors on the basis of content or viewpoint – the results won’t necessarily be what Christians would want, especially in today’s secular climate. Christian parents must be vigilant. If they don’t want their children playing violent video games, they need to supervise them—bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. It isn’t the government’s job to do that for them.
Just a few months ago, our family was studying the rich history of the English. We admired how the English planted worldwide highly refined views and systems of law, culture, and society. The English system as reflected in its former colonies and former and current Commonwealth has been a blessing to millions if not billions over time. The English belief in the rule of law, the common law, and the integrity of civil institutions has led to some of the freest and materially blessed countries in the world, to include our United States. Our British friends are a long way from Runnymede and it’s been a dark hour in what used to be the center of an empire where the sun never set.
Are the English riots symptomatic of something fundamentally astray in the UK? Are these the latest signs of the West unraveling? Or are these isolated, unique occurrences?
Michael Youssef opines in Americans Should Learn from London, that those who sounded the warnings and tried to fix the UK’s unsustainable policies are being blamed for the violence and lawlessness – “whoever tries to bring sanity to a nation or a culture heading in the wrong direction will become the scapegoat.” The UK Socialist party readily agrees, at least that the Tory party reformers (conservatives) are to blame for the riots. Indeed, they argue that the violent protests are a response to “Tory attacks.” The British socialists explain the nature of these supposed attacks – reductions in social welfare and overall government spending. See here.
A Brit, Iain Murray has perhaps the most pointed and stinging critique of what gave rise to these mass acts of violence:
Most [rioters] have no jobs to go to or exams they might pass. They know no family role models, for most live in homes in which the father is unemployed, or from which he has decamped.
They are illiterate and innumerate, beyond maybe some dexterity with computer games and BlackBerries.
They are essentially wild beasts. I use that phrase advisedly, because it seems appropriate to young people bereft of the discipline that might make them employable; of the conscience that distinguishes between right and wrong.
They respond only to instinctive animal impulses — to eat and drink, have sex, seize or destroy the accessible property of others.
…
So there we have it: a large, amoral, brutalised sub-culture of young British people who lack education because they have no will to learn, and skills which might make them employable. They are too idle to accept work waitressing or doing domestic labour, which is why almost all such jobs are filled by immigrants.
They have no code of values to dissuade them from behaving anti-socially or, indeed, criminally, and small chance of being punished if they do so.
They have no sense of responsibility for themselves, far less towards others, and look to no future beyond the next meal, sexual encounter or TV football game.
They are an absolute deadweight upon society, because they contribute nothing yet cost the taxpayer billions. Liberal opinion holds they are victims, because society has failed to provide them with opportunities to develop their potential.
Most of us would say this is nonsense. Rather, they are victims of a perverted social ethos, which elevates personal freedom to an absolute, and denies the underclass the discipline — tough love — which alone might enable some of its members to escape from the swamp of dependency in which they live.
Only education — together with politicians, judges, policemen and teachers with the courage to force feral humans to obey rules the rest of us have accepted all our lives — can provide a way forward and a way out for these people.
They are products of a culture which gives them so much unconditionally that they are let off learning how to become human beings. My dogs are better behaved and subscribe to a higher code of values than the young rioters of Tottenham, Hackney, Clapham and Birmingham.
In unwittingly supporting Mr. Murray, two English women explained their motivation to riot: “It was madness, good fun … . Showing the rich people we do what we want.”
As always, Jonah Goldberg in Riot Rationalization Misses the Mark, makes eminent sense in cautioning against reading too much into a riot or series of riots, since riots have been around as long as human nature.
The problem, of course, is that even if conservatives are right, there’s precious little government can do to fill the holes in such souls.
Moreover, I think we put way too much effort into intellectualizing or romanticizing mob violence. Whatever the root causes of such behavior, the simple and unavoidable truth is that looters loot because they can.
…
[T]he people tearing apart English society are simply criminals, whose villainy is not diluted by their numbers, but magnified by them.
Solution? I think Mr. Goldberg provides a valid short-term solution: “If Britain lacks prisons to hold them, build more prisons. Call it a jobs program if it helps.”
Ultimately, however, Mr. Goldberg’s suggestion is myopic. You can never build enough prisons to restrain the vices of an immoral culture. The disease of systemic immorality is spreading across the West. Whether it’s a lack of respect for civil authority, rampant sexual promiscuity, normalization of perversion, a disregard for your neighbor’s property, or gross fiscal irresponsibility, the Western nations are rapidly loosing their moral bearings. Indeed, we’re rapidly becoming exemplars of Romans 1:18-32. This should not be surprising to Christians since over the past 100 years, particularly in Europe, westerners have strayed further and further away from Biblical truth and morality. You can build more prisons, but the answer long-term is in building more churches and training and equipping the next generation in the truths of God’s word.
A beauty of the West, thus far at least, is that we can openly observe, comment and argue over what we’re doing incorrect and right ourselves before it’s too late. While there is presently much going wrong with western liberalism, there’s nothing so drastic that an open, free and determined people cannot overcome.
Derived from the same worldview as the laws that sanctioned and recognized the institution of slavery, the ultimate form of tyranny.
~ Tea Party activist, author, and motivational speaker Frantz Kebreau comparing a 1662 slave law to current abortion legislation via his Facebook page, August 8
(Check out his wife’s updated pro-life clothing line at Life Rocks)
Remember all those times Newsweek went out of its way to make candidate Obama look like an inexperienced empty suit by their photo selections of him? And how the “mainstream” pubs treated him and Gov. Palin the same? Oh yeah, forgot. That never happened. See Andrew Cline’s The Newsweek Bachmann Cover
Remember all those times NPR went out of its way to make evolutionary zealots look bad and gave even voice to biblical Christians? Never happened. Never will. NPR dedicated a piece during prime drive time this morning to parroting the recent Christianity Today cover article showcasing the leading evangelical compromisers on human origins. NPR phrased the issue as whether evangelicals were going to rely upon the authority of science or lose all intellectual credibility and stick with the authority of scripture – the classic science v. Bible false dichotomy. The only positive in the coverage was that they did take a few seconds to talk to one Biblical evangelical, Dr. Mohler, which is more than I recall Christianity Today having done. NPR also gave Dr. Mohler the last word and he used his soundbite well, stating “The moment you say ‘We have to abandon this theology in order to have the respect of the world,’ you end up with neither biblical orthodoxy nor the respect of the world.”
Societies that jettison God’s truths devolve into moral bankruptcy. Systemic economic bankruptcy is typically tied directly to moral bankruptcy. Pray we turn this mess around here and in Europe. Interestingly, the church is thriving in the east, particularly in China and South Korea and their economies are booming. So far, the 21st Century is foreshadowing that 2100 will be more different from 2000 than 2000 was from 1900. Like the last century, technology will continue to transform cultures and societies, but it appears a significant geo-political and economic shift is occurring. Head West young man, so far you go east …
“If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year, & are $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget & debt, reduced to a level that we can understand.” – Dave Ramsey
I wouldn’t invest my hard earned dollars in that family. Apparently, S&P wouldn’t give that family the highest possible credit rating. Shocking …
United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To ‘AA+’ On Political Risks And Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative
We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to ‘AA+’ from ‘AAA’ and affirmed the ‘A-1+’ short-term rating.
We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from CreditWatch negative.
The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics.
More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government’s debt dynamics any time soon.
The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to ‘AA’ within the next two years if we see
INCREASING THE STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT — (Senate – March 16, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. OBAMA:
Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem.
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.
Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.
Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.
And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans–a debt tax that Washington doesn’t want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.
But we are not doing that. Despite repeated efforts by Senators CONRAD and FEINGOLD, the Senate continues to reject a return to the commonsense Pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously, Pay-go rules applied both to increases in mandatory spending and to tax cuts. The Senate had to abide by the commonsense budgeting principle of balancing expenses and revenues. Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned, and now the demands of budget discipline apply only to spending.
As a result, tax breaks have not been paid for by reductions in Federal spending, and thus the only way to pay for them has been to increase our deficit to historically high levels and borrow more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus the cost of borrowing for them. Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration and its allies in Congress will add more than $600 million in debt for each of the next 5 years. That is why I will once again cosponsor the Pay-go amendment and continue to hope that my colleagues will return to a smart rule that has worked in the past and can work again.
Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years. Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours.
Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Even without counting most unfunded liabilities, the national debt is now calculated to be nearing $14.1 trillion. It increases about $4.22 billion per day (each citizen’s share stands at roughly $45K). Thus, Democrats will soon demand that the debt ceiling be raised, lest the sky fall. When they do, they will be asking for a significant boost in a ceiling that is already 60 percent higher than the one Barack Obama said was “a sign of leadership failure” five years ago.
I almost hesitate to mention it, but I maxed out my credit line, again. I owe only slightly more than half of what our entire country generates in revenue in a year. How about increasing my limit a few trillion more? Four trillion should hold me over for the rest of the year. I’ve got this spending habit I’m trying to kick. Despite being paid BILLIONS a day, I need more right now. I commit to getting that under control, soon. After the next election for sure. In the meanwhile, I think I should be paid more. Would help with my spending habit. Also, you better act quick on helping me out or somebody’s going to suffer. It’s going to look bad. I promise. Not a threat, just saying.
U.S. Long-Term Debt Situation Is One of the World’s Worst :
This year, the U.S. public debt is projected to reach 62 percent of the economy—up from 40 percent in 2008 and nearly double the historical average, according to recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates. The financial crisis and recession drove much of this debt swing, yet larger problems loom in the future. By 2030, the CBO projects that debt will more than double to 146 percent of GDP.
This past April, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a landmark decision upholding Arizona’s tuition tax credit program. Opponents claimed it violated the “separation of church and state” because of the benefits that flow to religious schools—through several layers of PRIVATE choice that allow more families to place their children in private schools. Here’s how it works:
Private individuals organize “School Tuition Organizations” to manage and
distribute scholarship funds to families who want to place their children in
private schools. There’s a wide variety—some of these limit scholarships to particular religious schools (Catholic, Jewish, evangelical) while others do not.
Taxpayers voluntarily donate to School Tuition Organizations of their choice and receive a state tax credit (up to $500)—thus directing a few of their own “tax
dollars” according to private choice.
Families apply to an STO of their choice for funds, and choose from among the schools that STO has chosen to support.
The opponents – who sued to have the law declared unconstitutional – lacked legal “standing.” NONE of their tax dollars went to any of the STOs or any of the private schools, religious or otherwise. Thus they suffered no legal “injury.”
Like so many recent Supreme Court decisions, this one was close – 5 to 4. Justice Kennedy is the “swing vote” who made the difference.
Congratulations, Arizona families! You have choices about where to educate your children, without having to pay twice—first through your tax dollars that support public education, and again through tuition for your choice of private schools.
And besides the benefits to families, this important decision may help to ward off other ominous litigation—for example, challenges by non-believers to the minister’s parsonage allowance, a critical tax benefit for churches and pastors.
From Mark Steyn’s Happy Warrior column, National Review July 18, 2011:
A government big enough to give you everything you want isn’t big enough to get you to give any of it back. That’s the stage Greece is at and so, to one degree or another, is the rest of the Western world. In the United States, our democracy is trending as Athenian as the rest: We’re the Brokest Nation in History, but, as those Medicare polls suggest, getting enough people to give enough of it back isn’t going to be any easier than it is in Greece. From Athens to Madison, Wis., too many people have gotten used to a level of comfort and ease they haven’t earned.
…
The social capital of a nation is built up over centuries but squandered in a generation or two. With blithe self-confidence, the post-war West changed too much too fast. We changed everything, and yet we’ll still wonder why everything’s changed.
“Our very nature demands home. It is the first essential element of our social being. This cannot be complete without home relations. ” John Potts
One of the best fringe benefits of practicing intellectual property law is meeting creative and innovative people. Several years ago I was blessed to receive a call from Vicky West, who with her daughters went by the name The West Girls. They needed help copyrighting their new album, Further Along, which they independently produced and wrote most the songs from their remote holler somewhere in the back hills of Tennessee. I quickly realized that not only was the album independently produced, the family itself is simply independent — self-sustaining (in the temporal sense) and off the grid — four miles from the nearest power line! Their album is simply great blue grass and is available in CD directly from them and via download through Amazon. Greenbeans in the Garden is one of my family’s all-time favorite songs. (It appears that when they’re singing about greenbean gardens, they know what they’re talking about – see here.) There’s not a bad song on the album; the entire album is a favorite of mine. I understand that they may be soon releasing their second album … Can’t wait to hear it.
The West Girls, now more commonly known as The West Ladies, have also been involved with several other productions under their label Homestead Blessings, such as a multi-part DVD series on valuable homemaking skills, including instruction in bread making, candle making, soap making, canning, gardening, herbs, cooking, dairy, and sewing.
Tim Jore, of Distant Shores Media, is a guest contributor to the Sapphire Sky blog. He, together with his wife and a great team of people at DSM, are helping to equip the global church with unrestricted discipleship resources that are intended for use on mobile phones. Find out more in the video and join the community at facebook.com/distantshoresmedia and facebook.com/door43!
The rise of the Internet and worldwide mobile phone technology is the greatest opportunity for the advance of the global church since Gutenberg’s press half a millenium ago. But taking advantage of this opportunity requires discipleship resources that are released from copyright restrictions so that they can be legally translated, adapted and redistributed without restriction.
This video introduces Door43, an open-access project to create and translate discipleship resources that are free of charge and released from copyright restrictions under an open license so that anyone, anywhere has the legal freedom to use and improve them. Join the movement at door43.org and help us make this vision a reality: Unrestricted discipleship resources, in every language, and on any mobile phone. Find out more at dsmedia.org/intro.
In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that barring same-sex couples from civil marriage was unconstitutional. In an advisory opinion to the state legislature on why enacting “civil unions” as an alternative to marriage was legally insufficient, the Court explained its view that “segregating same-sex unions from opposite-sex unions cannot possibly be held rationally to advance or preserve” the governmental aim of encouraging “stable adult relationships for the good of the individual and of the community, especially its children.” Under this decision, the state of Massachusetts began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in May 2004. Over the next seven years, activist courts across the country continued to rule that the failure or refusal to extend “marriage” to gay couples violated state and the federal constitution. See here.
Polls show an ever increasing number of Americans support the notion of gay marriages, demonstrating yet again the normative influence of laws over time and the power and consequence of an activist judiciary. See here.
This past June, the New York legislature was the first body of elected officials to pass a gay marriage statute on its own volition.
Two leading conservative evangelicals point the blame for this unbiblical re-defining of marriage not on the activist courts or the politicians, but instead on the Church. Ken Ham observes of the NY gay marriage law, “This is only the latest in a long list of how America has been turning its back on biblical authority.” See here. Mr. Ham points out that the church and Christian leaders have so compromised God’s word and failed to teach apologetics and that faith that the current generations are simply walking away from the faith and Biblical truth is increasingly ignored. Mr. Ham explains and demonstrates these points at the church and Christian college level in his two recent books Already Gone and Already Compromised.
Younger evangelicals have been sucked in by false teaching and are now walking away and turning their backs on biblical morality. The only morality they look at is taking care of the poor by the government—not by us but by the government. That is very dangerous. …
This problem started in the church. The society did not begin to collapse on its own, morally, when churches started to reject the authority of the word of God. The debate about homosexuality started in the church and not politics. The Episcopal Church started the whole thing by ordaining gays and blessing gay marriages. That came from the church pulpit into society. Then the Presbyterians followed and now many evangelicals don’t want to talk about it. The main issue is rejecting God’s word as authoritative over us as individuals and as a church. As goes the church so goes society. The church is the one that needs to repent first. It is my call to the church … to call the church to repentance. Until that happens society is going to continue going in a downward spiral.
Alan Sears recently wrote in American Thinker that the church’s morale failure has been by design, which would make repentance of the church even more difficult:
The church survived intact until late in the 20th century, when the leftist onslaught changed from “in your face” to “in your place,” and activists of every stripe pursued the pulpit in order to further their various causes. (Thus, certain churches are often accomplices in things like the homosexual agenda instead of an impediment to it.) Thus, rather than calling the culture to repentance in light of biblical truth, churches increasingly reflected the culture, actually providing a degree of spiritual comfort for all sorts of behavior.
Mr. Sears sees the church’s being encroached by the dollar and by government.
At CatholicCulture.org, Dr. Jeff Mirus recently explained why homosexuality may provide the impetus for the next gulag.
No group is more hateful to modern society than the perceived moralistic prigs who, out of what most perceive as religiously-motivated prejudice, seek to diminish the personal sexual liberty of others. Nothing could be more obvious in our current culture than that such people must be silenced and, if necessary, restrained. Moreover, it seems only right and just that their denunciation of the gay lifestyle and their opposition to gay marriage should be criminalized. In fact, it should be criminalized in the name of liberty. That is why gay marriage is the lie that will create the next Gulag.
Dr. Mirus concisely explains how we’re following the logical path of “sterile” marriages, i.e. where reproduction is no longer the central focus of marriage and sex. The path started with divorce and then to birth control, abortion, homosexual marriage and increasingly suppression of opposition. There is increasing evidence of a future where standing for Biblical truths will result in criminal and professional punishment. Dr. Mirus advises that we are to live the Truth of Christ in our lives and in our families in the days to come, particularly in the face of persecution.
The prospect of criminal and professional persecution of those who espouse or practice Biblical truths is not terribly far fetched or far off. Indeed, my State Bar of NC recently tried to prohibit its licensed attorneys from taking taking sexual orientation, transgender, or sexual identity issues into consideration during the course of practicing law, such as when hiring new attorneys or deciding whether to represent a client.
Not only are Baby Boomers leaving future American generations with trillions of dollars of debt to repay, but these sexual Bolsheviks appear intent on establishing Pink Fascism as part of their legacy. Pray hard for repentance and revival.
And now, O sons, listen to me: blessed are those who keep my ways. Hear instruction and be wise and do not neglect it. Blessed is the one who listens to me … Whoever finds me finds life and obtains favor from the LORD, but he who fails to find me injures himself; all who hate me love death. Prov 8:32-36
Lady Gaga’s most recent hit, which reached no. 1 on the sales charts, captures current popular moral sentiment. Gaga’s assessment of our condition is spot on, however, her moral conclusion (and encouragement) is quite unbiblical and wrong. Gaga’s lyrics:
My mama told me when I was young We are all born superstars She rolled my hair and put my lipstick on In the glass of her boudoir “There’s nothin wrong with lovin who you are” She said, “’cause he made you perfect, babe” “So hold your head up girl and you’ll go far, Listen to me when I say”
I’m beautiful in my way ‘Cause God makes no mistakes I’m on the right track baby I was born this way Don’t hide yourself in regret Just love yourself and you’re set I’m on the right track baby I was born this way
Ooo there ain’t no other way Baby I was born this way Baby I was born this way … Don’t be a drag – just be a queen Don’t be a drag – just be a queen Don’t be a drag – just be a queen Don’t be! … Whether you’re broke or evergreen You’re black, white, beige, chola descent You’re lebanese, you’re orient Whether life’s disabilities Left you outcast, bullied, or teased Rejoice and love yourself today ‘Cause baby you were born this way No matter gay, straight, or bi, Lesbian, transgendered life I’m on the right track baby I was born to survive … I was born this way hey!…
Lady Gaga captures popular American moral sentiment. While sounding cutting edge rock-n-roll, Gaga’s moral message is mundane popular moral sentiment: look to yourself and be true to what you find. Walt Disney movies often pound the theme of believing in yourself and never losing sight of your dreams. There is good in believing in yourself and your aspirations, to a point. Follows our pop culture cue and runs full speed past that point and never looks back.
Lady Gaga celebrates the way we’re born, whether it’s our race, sexual orientation or gender identity. According to her, if you follow the way you were born, you’re on the right track. If you were born a bisexual drag queen, you’re on the right track because you were born that way and God doesn’t make mistakes … according to Ms. Gaga. I wonder whether she feels the same about pedophiles, sadists, bigamists, and misanthropes. Regardless, her message is quite familiar: trust yourself and how you feel, particularly in matters of sexuality.
Lady Gaga’s moral conclusion is even more errant than her wardrobe. The wisest man reported to have lived instructed that “He who trusts in himself is a fool …” (Prov. 28:26). Gag is correct that we are born a particular way. The Bible is quite clear that we’re born into a fallen state of rebellion. From cover to cover, the Bible makes very clear that our internal moral compass does not naturally steer in a “good” direction. To the contrary, our natural paths is straight to Hell. Jesus Christ clearly explained to Nicodemus that we are not to rely upon they way we are born:
Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”
“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
John 3:3-6. Contrary to Gaga, we were not born “on the right track.” The track Gaga celebrates, the track of our natural desires in the flesh, is the track to God’s condemnation. Gaga praises the way of death. We are born in the flesh, but if we are to enjoy eternal life with God, we must be born again in the Spirit.
So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Galatians 5:16-23.
All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
Ephesians 2:3-5. We should pray that God will fully open Lady Gaga’s eyes and convict her heart that the way she was born is not the way, the truth or the life, and that The Way is Jesus Christ.
Trust in the Lord and walk in His ways. Eat from His table and drink from His cup. Praise Him and follow Him.
Excellent article by Michael Hyatt on how to become your spouse’s best friend. He recommends the following very simple three step process:
1. Make a list of what you would want in a best-friend. 2. Now become that person for your spouse.
3. Keep sowing the seeds, until the relationship blossoms.
Weeping…
In the last 3 years, I have wept deeply over four significant life moments:
1) For deeply hurting someone close to me
2) For the loss of a ministry position
3) For my Dad’s death
AND most recently 4) For the death of an unsaved friend
I have found in each of these life moments a profound sadness I have not experienced for much of my life. I also find myself weary, deeply weary of life’s disappointments and goodbyes. Upon reflection I find each of these life moments to hold a unique place in my thoughts. I do understand that weeping is truly an emotional release perhaps sort of a burst of deep sadness. Yet for each of the four life moments mentioned above that sadness has a different quality altogether.
Weeping as a result of deeply hurting someone close to me was excruciating, but I found forgiveness and truly that faithful are the wounds of a friend (Proverbs 27:6). On the other hand, my sorrow for a job loss proved to be momentary especially when I experienced a renewed sense of freedom along with the healing grace from family and friends.
No one can prepare you for the death of a parent. My sorrow increased from the moment I heard the news to the moment I saw his lifeless body in the casket prior to the funeral. However, my weeping was mixed with great hope of seeing him again in heaven. Even so, there are times I am surprised by a memory of him and find I am fighting back tears.
In all, these first three have a different ending that the last one will never have. These life moments I have already described have joy attached – forgiveness, grace, and hope. But this last one I’m fearful will linger with me in a wholly different way.
I knew Nick less than a year. He was friendly and outgoing. We were fans of many of the same sports teams and often kicked such subjects around. For the last three months he was my protégé at work. He was a good sales man and I knew he would do well as the months progressed. At age 32, he still wasn’t married, but looking for Mrs. Right. On the matter of spiritual things, he grew up Catholic but the importance of God and church had faded in his life.
Nick heard the truth that you can’t earn your way to heaven. He knew that Christ was essential to eternal life. Yet he felt he had enough religion for now. After all he was young and had much of his life ahead of him. He received a fair share of evangelism, even though I’m not sure how much he saw the truth lived out. I sought to be an example of Christ every day we worked together. At the end, it wasn’t enough. My friend, as far as I know, went to bed Friday evening and died in his sleep without trusting in God’s one and only provision for eternal life.
So my sorrow has an edge that cannot be undone. No do-overs in life after death. There never has been. The Bible says it is appointed for man to die and after this the judgment (Hebrews 9:27). I wish my friend had his judgment cancelled because of Christ.
As with any sorrow, I have but one thing to do: Rest in the sovereign, loving and grace-filled hands of our heavenly Father. He alone comforts my heart.
Sapphire Sky 