The RIGHT stuff…Politically InCorrect

How radically different is the Christian lifestyle from the rest of the world?

Unfortunately, it’s not much more than a label today. As a result, many Christians are misled to believe that all Christianity entails is the sinner’s prayer and going to church every week (or twice if you’re feeling extra spiritual or don’t have anything else going on). This isn’t to say you shouldn’t go to church. It’s important to be part of body of believers. However, Christianity is not a ritual, it is a lifestyle. This leaves us with the question: How should we live?

This is an excerpt of part one of my four part series entitled “Not A Tradition”. In my series I answer the question in the last paragraph - Biblically, how should we live? “Not A Tradition” however, is a Regenerated Magazine exclusive and will not be published on Politically InCorrect. To read the rest of the article go here - and don’t forget to go to Regenerated Magazine on the 1st and 15th of the month to see the continuation of the series and more excellent writing from Christian Teens!

The good people of this country have really let this country down. We’ve let pop culture, drive our culture in the ground.
And I’ve stood by and watched it, shook my head and wondered why
Nobody’s putting up a fight – “From Here on Out” by The Right Brothers.

This is the point we are at today. For too long Christians have just stood by and watched our nation turn further and further away from God. If we continue this trend, we will arrive at a god-less America, and the results of that are dangerous. Societal conditioning has taught us for decades that Christians do not belong in the decision making of this country because of the “separation of church and state” phrase that is so prominent today.

In addition, many Christians have stayed out of politics because of peer pressure and being told that they can’t change the outcome, so their involvement doesn’t matter. We have been indoctrinated to believe that there is no biblical basis for Christians in government. All of these allegations against Christians in government are false. We do have an important job to do in our government and we are the only people that can get it done.

When I am asked the question, “what do you want to do when you “grow up”?” I respond, “I’ll be somewhere in politics.” The reaction I receive is always priceless. I typically get one of two types of responses. The first is a shocked expression and a “well, I hope you do ok” or “great, keep it up girl!” The second is deeper and generally results in a good discussion, the response boils down to a simple question: Why can’t we just stay out?

The answer is simple. We can’t stay out because we are to be the light of the world. Our founding fathers built this land on Judeo-Christianity, and we have strayed too far from Christ. The reason our ancestors came to America was that she was and is a free, God-fearing nation.

Having established this, we have another question. Since we have strayed so far, does it even matter if we continue on this downhill journey? Does it even matter if we get involved? After all, we can’t make a difference.

Yes, it does matter. We are going down the wrong road; following pop-culture stars and Hollywood actors who have no sense of reality. We are soaking in phrases and taking them as fact because we don’t have the determination to make sure what we are being spoon-fed is right. We are being taught that there is no right and wrong and we must tolerate everyone except those that don’t agree. We are becoming a society run on emotions, not facts and logic. If we continue down this path we will crumble, not from the outside, but from within. Our freedoms will eventually be lost, and rather than a republic form of government, we will have nothing but tyranny.

If we stay apathetic and do not get involved, we will end up with tyranny, the only way to stop this is to get involved and change!

The allegation that we can have no impact on our culture is false. Samuel Adams, a founding father, and founder of the Sons of Liberty in the American Revolution once stated, “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires in people’s minds”. Throughout history it has been proven repeatedly that a handful of people have the potential to make a dynamic impact.

Now that we know that we can make an impact, we have to ask the question: Is it Biblical? Does God raise His people to be involved in the government?

There are many instances throughout the Bible where God chose His people to be involved in government, not only their government, but pagan government’s as well. The stories of Joseph, Esther, and Daniel are perfect illustrations. In all three instances God took them from their home, or “comfort zone” into a pagan environment and used them to impact the culture.

In Daniel 2:21 it states: And he changes the times and the seasons: he removes kings, and sets up kings: he gives wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:

Psalms 75:7 also reads: But God [is] the judge: he puts down one, and sets up another.

In 1Corinthians 12:28 it says:
And God has set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

These verses are just a few that prove that God does govern in the affairs of men, and he does raise up leaders. Many people in the church today have put down the calling into politics and government saying that it is not “of God” to be involved in that arena.

In the Bible times the Jewish people didn’t have the right to vote and express themselves like we do today. However, you did see many of His people involved in the political system of their time. Whether it was by birth, choice, or just because God opened a door, they were involved in the government.

We have succumbed to believe that for some reason we should not be involved anymore. Yet, we have just proven this allegation wrong. Since we have the ability to be freely involved, it is our duty to. We are supposed to be a light to the world, one way to effect change, is to exercise our citizen’s rights by voting, supporting candidates, and getting involved ourselves. In the chorus of the song “From here on out” it says:

From here on out I’m gonna do my part. From here on out I’m gonna listen to my heart. It may just be one voice, but I’m gonna make it heard
And I’m not giving in or backing down, From here on out

Not only is it our job to do what we can, but if we don’t we will continue on this road downhill to tyranny. From here on out, I’m going to do my part, the question is, will you do yours?

The Triumph of Evil

A “new” look at what the problem is, and how to solve it.

By Kierstyn P

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”-Edmund Burke. Thankfully, in this case, the good men will not let evil triumph, even if the world pressures them too.

20 days ago marked the start of a war. The Hezbolla captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight. In retaliation, Israel fired into suspected Hezbollah bases. It is interesting to note, that only when Israel retaliated did the world speak out. At that, it has taken on a mostly anti-Israel bias. The question posed, “is Israel justified?” was what everyone was asking. The answer is simple. The best way to grasp it is to bring it home.

In 2001 American planes were hijacked by terrorists and run into buildings, killing thousands. We knew immediately that we would fight back; were we justified? Yes.

Likewise, terrorists have attacked Israel, and Lebanon has been “hijacked”. In response to a terrorist attack, was Israel justified in striking the Hezbollah in Lebanon? The answer to that question is “yes”; we (and any other nation) have a right to protect our nation and ourselves. It is also understood that the government’s role is traditionally to punish evil, defend the nation’s population, and protect national sovereignty.

It is not surprising then, that Lebanon retaliated and struck Israel. This back and forth fighting got us to where we are today. As of July 31 2006 a 48 hour “cease fire” was declared by Israel. This cease-fire was defined as a 48 hour halt on offensive air strikes. They did fire in order to protect their troops on the ground once, which didn’t violate the cease fire since it was defensive.

We have been asking the wrong question from the start, the question is not “were they justified?” the question that should be asked is “what can be done to stop this terrorist organization from harming more innocent people?” Currently, Rice and other leaders are trying to get a long-term cease-fire resolution passed by the United Nations.

While that may seem, and is believed by many to be the perfect solution, we must ask ourselves, are UN resolutions successful? Patrick Henry once stated, “The only way to judge the future is by the past” That is exactly what we have to do now. In the history since the United Nations was created, they have passed MANY resolutions. However, the results weren’t worth the paper they were written on.

What needs to happen is not a cease-fire. For until Hezbollah is eliminated Israel will not cease to fire; Lebanon will not cease until Israel does. However, the problem we are facing is that Lebanon is not taking care of the threat inside; therefore, Israel took the initiative.

While observing the situation, I have noticed that we are skirting the problem. If my great grandparents had not immigrated and my family and I were Lebanese citizens, my first reaction would not be “kill Israel”. It would be, “Let’s solve the problem and stop the people that started this in the first place”. That is the answer to the problem, the question now is “will it be followed through?”

Terrorists have hijacked Lebanon, the strikes against Israel are not from the Lebanese government; it is from a terrorist organization. What needs to happen now is for the governments and the Lebanese populace to work to stop the terrorists from harming more civilians. The courage exemplified by the flight 93 passengers on 9/11 shows that civilians do have the ability, whether they realize it or not, to take back the plane, or in Lebanon’s case, the Nation.

Albert Einstein once said, “ The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don’t do anything about it. ” Complacency and fear are the biggest problems we face, and now it is up to Lebanon to take the initiative and stop the terrorists in their own Nation.

“This member of the government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is…by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the constitution, can do what force would not dare to attempt” –Thomas Jefferson 1825.

Today the majority of America is influenced in some way by the media, the latest actor, or newest band. We pay more attention to entertainment than our government. Our culture has shown a lack of interest in the future of our government and Nation, and a rising interest in the latest movies and technology.

For most, life revolves around their sphere of friends and family, and they pay little attention to the world events around them. The oblivious state of mind today is deplorable to say the least.

In spite of the general disinterest, the government still runs and is still very influential whether we realize it or not. Sadly, our courts seem to have noticed this trend, and are using it to expand their constitutional boundaries. What is and was originally the weakest of the three branches of government is believed by many to be the most powerful and influential.

This general assumption, however, is incorrect. The “untouchable” Courts of today are in fact “touchable”. Moreover, the courts are constitutionally the weakest of the three branches.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper # 78 wrote “The Judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either sword or purse; no direction either of the strength or wealth of society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend on the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably that the judiciary is beyond comparison THE WEAKEST OF THE THREE BRANCHES OF POWER…” (Emphasis is mine).

Also, in the constitution, the legislative branch has more authority than the Judicial Branch does.

For example, the legislative has the power to:
Tax, maintain and provide for the military, declare war, borrow money, grant letters of marquee and reprisal, provide for the calling of the militia to execute laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions, make rules concerning captures, create post offices and roads, define laws/rules and punish lawbreakers, coin money, and punish counterfeiting.
This is an excerpt of Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution.

Let us take it a step further and look at the executive role.

The following is an excerpt of article 2 section 2 of the constitution:

The President is the Commander in Chief of the military, and has the power to:
Grant reprieves and pardons for offences, make treaties, nominate ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges, and all other offices, and fill up all vacancies. Even though it does not look like much, making treaties, nominating officers, and just running the nation is an unimaginable workload.

The judges on the other hand, constitutionally speaking, had jurisdiction over cases involving:

Law and equity under the constitution, laws of the US, treaties, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, controversies to which the US will be a party, to citizens of a state and another state, citizens in the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state and a foreign state.
(This was an excerpt of Article 3 section 1 of the Constitution)
It is important to note however, that a large portion has been nullified by the 11th amendment:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. (Ratified 2/7/1795)
So now, the role should look like this:
(The Judicial power extends to Laws of the US, treaties, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, citizens in the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and controversies to which the US will be a party.
By far the Executive and Legislative branches have more duties and responsibilities than the Judicial.

Reading that should also make us realize a little more of how this Nation is supposed to operate. The court, constitutionally, has little power. However, so many times, especially in recent history the court has ignored it’s bounds and stepped outside of it’s constitutional role.

In Article 3 section 1 of the Constitution, it lays the grounds for the judge’s term.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts SHALL HOLD THEIR OFFICES DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
(emphasis mine)

A Biblical principle can actually be seen here, I think we all know the story of Lucifer being kicked out of heaven because he was vain and wanted to be worshipped. He originally wasn’t a threat, but then got proud. God then removed him from heaven forever. It could be said that Lucifer was not exercising “Good Behavior” and got punished…or in a sense, impeached from that “office”. God is a just God and does not tolerate lawlessness or deceit.

Today, it is increasingly obvious that “Good behavior” is not what our judges are executing. Rather, they have implemented their own ideas and agendas over the law of the constitution.

There are many cases of judicial activism that we have seen evident in recent history. Two cases in particular really got my attention; those were: Rasul V. Bush, and Griswold V. Connecticut.

The Supreme Court decision in Rasul v. Bush ruled that foreign enemy combatants had “the right to petition the federal courts to review their status as detainees” This is entirely unconstitutional. U.S. Code 28 states in part: “writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTION.” In Rasul v. Bush, Justice Scalia explained the verdict in the dissenting opinion: “…it permits an alien captured in a foreign theater of active combat to [bring a suit] against the Secretary of Defense.”

The Griswold case came as a result of Poe V. Ullman. Harlan, an attorney for the ACLU explained his strategy for getting the court to adopt the privacy rights approach. He explained “…If there is no exact counterpart to the particular case before the Court, there are others that resemble it in a general sort of way, and the principles applied in similar cases should also be applied- perhaps even EXTENDED a little bit- to the new case” (Emphasis mine). In Griswold V. Connecticut in 1965 Justice William Douglas adopted Harlan’s reasoning and the catch phrase “Right to privacy” became law. Douglas wrote that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.

Do not feel bad if you don’t know what a penumbra and emanation is. The lawyers reading the decision did not even know. A penumbra is an astronomical term describing the partial shadow in an eclipse or the edge of a sunspot- it is another way for describing something unclear or uncertain. Emanation is a scientific term for gas made from radioactive decay, also meaning an emission.

One thing that these two cases have in common is that there are no constitutional grounds for the decision. In BOTH cases, the Constitution was distorted to fit an agenda.

These cases may seem far off and seem to have little impact on America in general. However, when we look at the cases we see the effects of it. One well-known example is Roe V. Wade. The Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion “on demand”. Since Roe V. Wade 47 MILLION children have been murdered, an entire generation has been killed since the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. The resulting effects of that decision are detrimental. We have lost 47 million voters, politicians, singers, actors, businessmen, workers, and families since the 1970s.

In these instances, and many more, the Supreme Court has stepped outside of it’s constitutional role and the justices have not exercised good behavior. In article 3 section one of the constitution it reads: “…Judges shall hold their offices during good behavior…” When we look at Federalist paper 78 we will see an explanation by Alexander Hamilton about the terms of office. He wrote: “The Courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they be disposed to exercise WILL instead of judgment, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.” In other words, they would be subject to impeachment.

So now that we have seen the problem, not only with today’s mind or lack thereof, but with the courts as well. What can we do about it? Can we really win the case against Judicial Activism in America?

There are many options of stopping judicial activism available. Two of the most prominent I’ve seen is 1. Term limits and 2. Impeachment. Both of these are good options in my opinion. Though personally, I favor impeachment as that has partially been done before, and it is constitutional. It is constitutional because any official is subject to impeachment, including Supreme Court Justices. Also, impeachment has been partially done, though the enforcement was never carried out. If we impeach a few of the justices who are not exercising good behavior, and enforce it, I believe it will send a stronger message than setting a term limit. I believe that a term limit would be effective for activist judges, but it would also hinder the judges who have a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Do I believe that we can win the case against Judicial activism?
Yes we can, if we work hard and elect officials who are good strong Christian leaders that will not back down in the face of the mainstream media. Many republicans in office currently are timid because they are afraid of how the media will construe them. I believe that in these upcoming elections we need to pay close attention to the candidates and ask them about what they will do to prevent judicial activism. We need to remember that with God, all things are possible and we can win the case against judicial activism, if we are willing to take a stand.

this article will be featured in David Ketter’s Christian Homeschooling Youths Gazzette-kp

What is the biblical role of government?

I talked a lot about the role of government in my previous article concerning welfare. In that we saw how it is not the role of government to provide for the poor. Which leads us to a question, what exactly is the biblical role of government?

If we go back and read Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy we can see the original form of Government and laws that God ordained and out in place. If we continue to read on up to the point where Kings were established, we can see that in their reigns they still followed the basic principles and laws already established. Of course, most of the kings became corrupt at some point in their reigns; however that still doesn’t negate the fact that the role of government is in the Old Testament as well as New.
A few examples of the biblical role of government include:

Lev 24:22Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I [am] the LORD your God.
Deu 16:18Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment.
Deu 16:19Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.
Jer 22:3Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place.

According to those verses, a government should have a set of laws that everyone has to obey, a just court system, and authority to punish evil.
The Hebrew word for Law in Lev. 24:22 and Judgment in Jer. 22:3 is the word mishpat {mish-pawt’} which comes from the root word shaphat {shaw-fat’}. Shaphat means:

1) to judge, govern, vindicate, punish
a) (Qal) 1) to act as law-giver or judge or governor (of God, man)
1) to rule, govern, judge
2) to decide controversy (of God, man)
3) to execute judgment
a) discriminating (of man)
b) vindicating
c) condemning and punishing
d) at theophanic advent for final judgment
(to find the blue letter bible definitions, click here )

And Mishpat means:

1) judgment, justice, ordinance

a) judgment

1) act of deciding a case

2) place, court, seat of judgment

3) process, procedure, litigation (before judges)

4) case, cause (presented for judgment)

5) sentence, decision (of judgment)

6) execution (of judgment)

7) time (of judgment)

So those definitions are talking primarily about judging and law enforcement. The question may arise, HOW does this relate to government’s role?

In Leviticus, God was laying the framework for the government system, and gave the Israelites instructions on what things to do, how to do it, and how everything will work. Even though Israel did not stay a Theocracy, those principles established, such as making laws and having judges, were still in place.

In Jeremiah, the prophet was telling the king of Israel to execute judgment and righteousness but not to harm certain types of people. That word Judgment is the same as the word law (mishpat) in Leviticus. The principles established there for executing judgment are don’t kill innocent blood, take away the goods from the oppressor (or let the oppressed go free), have compassion on the fatherless and widows, and do no wrong.

These principles are still seen active in wars today, depending on what side you’re on. I know that in America these principles are held dear to almost everyone. The last thing we want to see is innocent blood shed because it is unjust, we want to see the oppressor suffer and the oppressed go free, we can’t stand it when someone harms the orphans and helpless, and we strive to do right.

God set the basis of laws that almost everyone knows as the 10 commandments. Most societies have some of these laws as well. For instance, don’t steal, don’t murder, and don’t lie are rules that can be found almost any where in the world. Not all people follow those laws, but the governments that have them established usually punish the violators.

This brings us to Romans 13: 3-4 which states:

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.

One thing that is very interesting is how each of the different aspects are intertwined. If you don’t have a set of laws, you cannot effectively punish evil, without a just “court system” you cannot effectively enforce laws OR punish evil. All three elements are needed in order for the system to be effective and just.
Now the question is: has America effectively put those principles into practice? Or haven’t we?