Why Am I Conservative?-Part 2

"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 the powers of the earth, hte 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.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they have been endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."--Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence

I received an email from the ACLU recently, screaming about religion in America; and one of the main points of the email was that the God is not referenced in the Constitution. Strangely, they completely left out the fact that the Declaration of Independence, which predates the Constitution, and was signed off on by many of the same people, is literally based on the assumption that God exists.

Our Founding Fathers, for the most part, believed that a) God exists and b) He is active in the affairs of men. There is extensive documentation of this, not least in the Declaration, quoted above. There were some who held strange views, without a doubt; but for the most part, they were Christians, the nation that they founded was intended to be run on Christian principles, and I would like to see this country run the way they intended to be run.

This is, quite frankly, the difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives want to stick with the Founding Fathers' vision. Liberals don't care about what the Founding Fathers thought; they know what they want, and they will do whatever they have to do to accomplish their goal. If you disagree with me, take a close look at FDR and President Obama, and you will see that I am right.

So why am I a conservative? Why do I care what a bunch of long-dead old white men intended?

Well, to start with, they are the reason that I'm here. Without them I'd be British or French or Spanish or something like that. They created this country, and that gives them the right to set the rules.

Second, they had a pretty good idea of how things ought to be done. (SLAVERY!) Some of you cry (IS ENSLAVING HUMAN BEINGS HOW THINGS OUGHT TO BE DONE?!) I'll get to that in a moment. But if you look at their policies on taxation, foreign relations, the military, and just generally how America does business, up to around Teddy Roosevelt, most of our Presidents had a pretty good bead on things.

Now, let's address the slavery issue. Many people, when you praise the Founding Fathers, trot out the fact that they owned slaves. When this happens, most conservatives get tongue-tied. (Been there, done that). Some will point out that Washington set his slaves free, only to have their opponents point out that he was the only one. (And then the tongue-tying ensues).

As a whole, the Founding Fathers hated slavery. They didn't think that men had any right to enslave other men. Founding Fathers who spoke out against it include Benjamin Rush, John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, and Charles Carroll (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=120)

So, if this is true, then why did they allow slavery? Ask yourself for a second: "What happened when we tried to abolish it?"

Think about that for a second. If we had tried to abolish slavery right from the very beginning of this country, would we have remained a unified nation? Of course not. There would have been a civil war right off the bat. South would have fought the North, and it wouldn't have mattered who won, because Britain, Spain, or Portugal would have come in and picked us off we were weak and vulnerable.

The Founding Fathers, as much as they hated it, allowed slavery to continue. However, they designed a society in which they knew that slavery could not survive. Think about it: In America, the status quo is constantly changing. If the status quo is constantly changing, is it not only logical then, that one group can only remain on the bottom for so long?

This is the answer to the standard slavery argument, which is the main argument that is raised against the Founding Fathers. Thus, this is why I support the Founding Fathers, and this, along with the reasons given in the last post, is why I am a Conservative.

Why Am I Conservative?

My politics have long been defined by Psalm 144; particularly verse 15 (By the way, I dare anyone to challenge my interpretation of v. 12: "Our sons will be jacked and our daughters will be gorgeous").

Psalm 144, after an entire chapter of describing a nation that God has obviously blessed, ends with "Blessed are the people of whom this is true; blessed are the people whose God is the Lord." Cross-reference that with Psalm 81:13-14 "If my people would only listen to me, if Israel would only follow my ways, how quickly I would subdue their enemies and turn my hand against their foes!"

Now, I don't know about you, but a nation blessed by the Almighty God sounds like a good deal to me. But how should a nation blessed by God act? I don't claim to know the complete answer to that question, but I think there are some things in the Bible that are made pretty plain, and that's what I'm here to talk about

What follows is a compilation of Scriptures, with my interpretation of what they should mean to those who make our policies. (All Scriptures are from the NIV 1984 translation)

Verses:

2 Thessalonians 3:10

For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: If a man will not work, neither shall he eat.

1 Timothy 5:16

If any woman who is a widow has believers in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need.

Implications:

Do not reward those who do not work. There are those in a society who are legitimately unable to work; and for those, we have families first, and secondly the church. Nowhere is the government on that list. For families to be able to take care of each other, we first have to have stable families. Currently, in America, that is not the case. So, from these two verses, I think it is safe to reach these conclusions:

1. Eliminate unemployment benefits

2. The government should stay out of the way of the church as the church helps those in need.

3. The government should not work to disrupt the family. (This has extraordinarily far-reaching impact in arenas such as homosexual "marriage", abortion and social security. Namely, that they should be eliminated)

Verse:

Romans 13:4

For he is God's servant to do you good; but if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath sent to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Ecclesiastes 8:11

When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, the hearts of the people are filled with schemes to do evil

Implications:

In the very first post, we talked about assassinations, and how the state has the right to kill. Swords are killing weapons, that's their purpose. The state has been given the power to punish wrongdoers, both foreign and domestic, with the sword; and they ought to do it quickly. From this we can conclude

1. Capital punishment is legitimate, and once it is decided upon, it ought to happen quickly

2. There is a time for just war, and when that times, act forcefully and decisively; so that others are not encouraged to imitate the wrongdoers, and so bring more trouble

Verses

Romans 13:6

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing

Leviticus 17:32

The entire tithe of the herd and flock--every tenth animal that passes under the shepherds rod--will be holy to the LORD

Implications

Taxes are legitimate. But if God only demands ten percent of our income, then what right do his servants, the governors, have to demand more than that?

American Love: The Male Side to The City Rose's "Modest is Hottest"

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING CONTENT IS AN HONEST MALE COMMENTARY ON THE TITLE TOPIC.

I look forward to the day when Valentine's Day becomes a day that I meticulously plan out a month in advance, and spend money and time on getting it right. However, that day is not yet; and so for me, today falls in the category of "irrelevant". Thus, I feel I have the right to comment on this celebration of American love

Dating is now the norm for the post-, and indeed, even pre-pubescent American. Our society would look at me and go "You're abnormal, you're 17 and have never dated". Conversely, I would look at our society and say "You're abnormal. I'm 17 and not married yet, and you think that's normal." Seriously, name me a historical period (besides the last 100 years in the West) in which it was not abnormal for a 17-year old to not be married.

Normally I would ask how we got here; but the answer to that question would literally take hundreds of pages; but I will say this: It was not accidental.

Now, I subtitled this "The Male Side to The City Rose's "Modest is Hottest". Don't worry, I'm getting to that, I promise.

Before I make this next statement, ladies, I just want to be clear: I am not insulting you,

I am not demeaning your intelligence. It is just a reality:

Females have no concept of what goes on inside the male mind. There is just no category in your mind for the battles that go on inside of ours. This is so true that if I had my way, every girl in the world would have read Every Young Man's Battle

Frankly ladies, you're beautiful to look at. That's why Christian men must constantly fight the battles that most of you are blissfully unaware of. (I say most because I know that there are those women who are not unaware, and who use their awareness to their advantage.)

With this in mind, I can now get to the point, namely, why The City Rose was correct. Girls, you have absolutely no idea how attractive modesty is. It separates you from the rest of our society, and that is attractive. When a girl consistently dresses modestly; that says to a guy that she is a woman of morals and standards. That will get the attention of even the lowest-character guys, and that's a promise

The flip side of that is this: Immodesty is highly attractive, and it will get a girl the attention she wants...from the wrong kind of guy. When a girl dresses immodestly, the higher-character guys will notice, and they will mark her off his mental list of potential mates. Count on it.

All this to say: Guys, in the end, your struggles are your responsibility; no matter how the ladies choose to dress. Girls, it is much appreciated when you make that easier. Not saying you can't dress attractively; because that is, well, unattractive. But, when you walk the line of dressing both attractively and modestly...

That's hot.

Israelis

Yes I'm ba-a-a-ack, ba-a-a-ack...

Yes, I am, but to talk Israel, not sing Australia.

Why does a good chunk of the world hate the Israelis? And why should the US be allied with them?

Reason 1: They're stone-cold killers.

Let me be clear: Israelis scare me. They should scare you too, and if you don't know why, go read Vegeance by George Jonas. (Or, *sigh* you can watch the movie based off of it, Steven Spielberg's Munich.)

The country of Israel was established on May 14, 1948, as a refuge state for the Jewish people. It included about 8,000 sq. miles of the British Mandate for Palestine, including Jerusalem.

On May 15, 1948, Israel was invaded. By four countries. After a year of fighting, a mutual cease-fire was declared. They had not won, but they had kept the peace.

In the Munich Olympics, 1972, very early one morning, a terrorist group called Black September attacked the Israeli dormitories. A 275-lb wrestling judge heard the terrorists outside and tried to hold the door shut with his shoulder. Against 4 Palestinians.

The wrestler stood strong; the Palestinians got inside because the door bent around him. The terrorists knocked him out and shot another wrestler in the face.

He dropped to the floor, and got back up. They shot him several times in the stomach with an AK-47, which can literally tear people in half. He grabbed a kitchen knife, broke a terrorist's jaw, punched another, and slashed a third with the knife before a pullet in the forehead put him down.

Black September killed 11 athletes that day. Golda Meir, the prime minister of Israel, made a list of people behind the attack. Two years later, 8 out of the eleven on that list were dead.

June 5, 1967. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia declared war on Israel.

June 5, 1967. Israel bombs the airstrips of all four of those countries.

June 10, 1967, Israel took 5 different territories from those four countries and ended the war.

I could go on; but I've made my point. Israelis are scary people, and thus, NOT people I want fighting against me.

2. They're God's people

They are, they always have been. It's clear, from their military history of the last sixty years, that they should have been wiped out multiple times. But they haven't been. Why? In my opinion, it's because God has declared Abraham's children as His chosen people. And my friend, if you want to oppose the Israelis and go toe-to-toe with God, that is fine with me. But count me out.

3. They do our dirty work

Israelis fight for survival. They always have, and always will. Whenever an American president makes a decision, he worries about the media, the political fallout, etc. The Israelis don't. There is no one they won't kill, nothing they won't do, to survive. And if we continue to assist them, then when our interests coincide with their interests, but it would be politically inconvenient for us to take action, then we don't have to; because they'll do it for us.

4. The alternative

The alternative (aside from declaring: "Y'all shoot it out, we don't care who wins!" The alternative is to side with the Palestinians. This list includes: Osama Bin Laden. Saddam Hussein. Muhammar Qaddafi, Anwar Al-Maliki, etc. I would personally much rather be aligned with the Israelis, no matter how much they scare me, than with that bunch.