Posted by Anthony on March 24, 2010
“the “right” within the church attempt to leverage the gov. to legislate morality. The “left” within the church attempt to leverage the gov. to legislate compassion. Both approaches fail miserably and are an abdication of our responsibility to be the voice, hands and feet of Jesus in this world.” – spoken by a friend.
Someone slid this article across my desk that inquires as to why evangelical Christians are against universal health care. Now, strictly speaking, I’m not an evangelical. Also, I don’t think that all Christians oppose universal health care, and I will not presume that Christians who do will share all my reasons. I hope this caveat spares me the litany of comments accusing me of ‘generalizing.’
I will take the article as my foil as it is one of the finest expressions of liberal hubris and arrogance that I’ve seen in a while. The author begins by indicating he seriously wanted to know why Christians who are supposed to be all about love would oppose health care. The end includes a long screed:
(p.s. this opinion is reserved for those Christians who have not actually thought about the consequences, and decided that more people are harmed than helped by the new law. They are being consistent with their beliefs. That being said, if you think you are in that camp of people excluded, you probably aren’t. You probably are just being geedy [sic], selfish and jerkish, but convincing yourself that this is why you oppose it, while the truth remains you just dont want taxed, or adhere to some abstract notion of how this bill is UnGodly).
WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Anthony on November 19, 2009
I recently viewed Life Dynamics’s documentary, Maafa 21. I wrote a review and posted it to the Christian Post.com. Below is an excerpt. Read the whole review here. I strongly recommend purchasing and viewing this documentary, especially if you want the truth behind the modern abortion ‘pro-choice’ movement and its connections to eugenics philosophies that led to the Holocaust.
Maafa 21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that organizations like Planned Parenthood have their origins in eugenics movements which in turn were formed to deal with the ‘problem’ created to society by the end of slavery. Using primary source material throughout the 2 hour documentary, Maafa 21 details how birth control measures such as abortion and sterilization were originally presented in the context of eliminating ‘undesirables’ from society. Highest on that list for the original eugenicists: black people.
….
let it be said that Maafa 21 does a tremendous job showing just how closely linked eugenics was with the issue of the hordes of freed slaves now released into society. Elites who had been happy to make use of slave labor were now concerned about the impact on the economy that poor, illiterate black people would have on society. That it was elites- white, educated, and wealthy- and not just your average white American is a point that Maafa 21 makes effectively. These were the movers and the shakers of the day (and today) and they were convinced that they were thinking only of the ‘best for society,’ which they calculated from a Darwinian standpoint.
Read the whole review here.
Posted by Anthony on November 16, 2009
The keyword in the title is consider.
I don’t want anyone thinking that I believe in every case it would be desirable or necessary. I do think, however, that accepting the status quo without persistent reflection is dangerous in general. Just because it has ‘always’ been this way doesn’t mean it should continue to be that way. After all, the whole notion of the 501(c)3 didn’t come until the 1950′s. There were many centuries prior to that when things were not ‘always done this way.’
For the record, the ministry of this website, Athanatos Christian Ministries, is a registered non-profit but is not tax exempt. I envision it always being that way but would not rule out obtaining that status in the future: more evidence I am not categorically condemning tax exemption.
There are two general reasons why I think organizations should consider giving up their tax exemption. The first is the most obvious. Tax exemption currently comes with some strings attached. Essentially, while you can speak about issues, your organization is supposed to refrain from overt endorsements of specific individuals. Failure to abide by this means the lifting of your tax exemption status.
It is true that this is very rare, but that is only because many churches try to abide by the law on this point. The Government helps by keeping the financial carrot close by; the stick is rarely necessary. WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Anthony on November 5, 2009
Apparently a gent named Michael Laws, a politician in New Zealand, has advocated that the solution to child abuse and neglect is to pay the ‘underclass’ not to have children; this would be accomplished by $10,000 and sterilization.
This is a perfect example of the Malthusian Mind that I discussed in my Worldnetdaily.com column not too long ago, Christians Beware the Malthusian Mind. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=111412
He writes, “it would be far better for this appalling underclass to be offered financial inducements not to have children, given the toxic environment that they would provide for any child in their care.”
Critics repudiate his position later in the article, saying, “It’s hard to comprehend that an intelligent man who’s leading a city is making such reprehensible suggestions.”
Ha! I find it ‘hard to comprehend that an intelligent man’ who is Obama’s Science ‘czar’ (John Holdren) has made even worse suggestions! WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Anthony on September 30, 2009
Today Worldnetdaily.com published a second column of mine. Title: Christians Beware the Malthusian Mind!
Jesus said, “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.”
Thomas Robert Malthus would have disagreed. The philosophical forerunner to Darwin, Malthus argued that there are limited resources, and competition for them is intense. When there are too many people competing for those resources, you have war, famine and a continual threat to civilization itself.
For Malthus, the pie is only so big: We must reduce the number of people who want a share of it.
Christianity embodies another solution: Make a bigger pie.
In Christianity, God takes a few loaves and feeds thousands with them. Entrance to heaven is not contingent on space available. Jesus came that we would have life, and life to the fullest. Not just for some, but all.
None of what follows is an argument for Christian indifference to the plight of other people. However, Christians should not advocate “solutions” that repress human liberty, dignity and freedom. For some reason, all of the Malthusian’s solutions do just that.
Read the whole column on Malthus and Malthusians.
Posted by Anthony on August 20, 2009
There are plenty of folks about insisting that there is a universal right to health care. Obviously, health care is a hot topic right now, but the question of ‘rights’ permeates many other areas of our existence, so I thought I would address it. I doubt I break any new ground, but it’s on my chest and I want it off.
We have no rights. At least, not strictly speaking. If there is a God, he has as much ‘right’ to destroy us as to sustain us. If there isn’t a God, we have no more rights than an antelope being chased by a lion. Whether there is a God, or isn’t, we have no rights.
However, if there is a God, we can have rights relative to each other, if also God has bestowed them. In this case, for all practical purposes, we do have rights, and no one of us can change that, though we can refuse to acknowledge it. The rights are not intrinsic to ourselves but are imparted from a higher authority and no lower authority can abolish them. If there is a God, we might plausibly talk about something like health care being a ‘universal right.’
Many of the people insisting that health care is a universal right don’t believe in God. WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Anthony on August 16, 2009
I haven’t chimed in on the health care debate but I don’t suppose my regular readers believe I haven’t any strong feelings on the matter. Let me represent a line of thinking that I haven’t heard even among the most strident opponents to the legislation being advocated by the current administration.
I was spurred on to post this because events are unfolding which I predicted privately but I won’t get any credit for, and I should like a little. 
Namely, this morning the news reports that Obama is willing to ‘consider’ taking the public option off the table. Already the section that apparently gave doctors a material motive for having ‘end of life’ conversations has been dropped. I said privately that I thought that the final health care bill would be vastly different: As presented, it would include as many of the liberal and socialistic dream policies as they think they might reasonably be able to get passed, but as passed, a large number of these would be dispensed; but many would be retained.
This may strike the average, patriotic American, as fair. Compromise is one of those things that we think fair play requires. There is only one big problem: liberals who are operating on the activist play book (Read: Obama standing on Alinksy’s shoulders), have an entirely different notion of ‘compromise’ then the average fair minded American. Consider this long quote from Alinksy’s book Rules for Radicals:
…to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. It is always present in the pragmatics of operation. It is making the deal, getting that vital breather, usually the victory. If you start with nothing, demand 100 per cent, then compromise to 30 per cent, you’re 30 percent ahead. (pg 59 emphasis mine)
WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
