Some Quotes from Patrick Henry

There is no doubt in my mind that this country was founded primarily on Christian morals. To deny this fact, flies in the face of history. True, not all of the Founding Fathers were devout Christians. However, they all understood that the Christian morality, in particular that all men are created equal, was a good starting point for creating a new country.

The United States was created so that the individual had more rights than the state, and that the state had more rights than the federal government. The Constitution played a key role in making sure this happened. Everything from Checks and Balances to the Electoral College was put in place to make sure that the individual was always heard, no matter how small. This is what makes a country, a republic, so much different from a democracy. For in a democracy, a popular vote where the majority says “yea”, that is all that is needed. Therefore the minority, must go along with the majority. To intentionally recognize the individual as having unalienable rights, is truly Christian indeed.

This weekend I was reminded of one of our Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry. He was a devout, Christian man that is probably best known for making the bold statement: “Give me liberty or give me death”. But did you also know that he also said, “…this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians…”? What do you think about that statement? Does it make you squirm? Does it make you raise your eyebrows and question? Let me know your thoughts on Patrick Henry and the rest of the Founding Fathers.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.

It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!”

“It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts... For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.”

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains or slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take but as for me; give me liberty or give me death!”

“Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

“Religion I have disposed of all my property to my family. There is one thing more I wish I could give to them, and that is the Christian religion. If they had that and I had not given them one cent, they would be rich. If they have not that, and I had given them the world, they would be poor.”

Views on Capitalism, Again

Recently, the big wigs at Goldman Sachs were brought before Congress to explain their role in what appears to be questionable practices in hedge fund management. There was a lot of swearing by congressman, accusations of breaking the law, vehement monologues that nothing Goldman did was illegal, and in short, nothing was actually accomplished. All can agree that what Goldman Sachs actually did was immoral, but not necessarily illegal. Also recently, Obama actually made the statement, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” Unfortunately, the fact that he made this statement is not surprising. But there is something in these two topics that I believe need discussing. That topic is the concept of capitalism and the MORAL responsibility to those that "have enough."

What is “enough”? Who “has enough”? Can you honestly say that if someone makes $_________ per year that that is enough money? The answer is no. Most everyone will say, "it depends on a number of factors such as, location, standard of living, debt to income ratio, dependents, etc." There is no absolute number that will fit all people. Now, I can say that recently Michelle and I had the conversation of “where did it all go this month?” Granted, we were able to identify where the money went, but it got me thinking again: “what is enough?” Truth is, I don’t have a very good answer. I find myself thinking that I don’t have enough on a not too frequent basis. I have to remind myself that there is a significant majority who don’t even have a home on this planet.

Historically, as people gain more and more money, they strive to spend more, give more, and save more. This is the beauty of our society, and this concept helps it to thrive. In short, as I am paid more, I will spend more and give more. Those who I give to spend more as well. This spending and giving improves the economy. As the economy improves, I make more money, thus spending and giving more. It’s a beautiful circle….

Our commander and chief would have us believe that he knows what the finite amount is that someone can earn. But do we really want to live in a culture that actually has a ceiling on financial growth? My answer is no. Unfortunately, the Goldman Sachs fiasco has led people to believe that our free market can (or at least should) have laws attached to it that force people to do the moral thing. This is not true. No amount of laws will force people to ALWAYS do the moral thing. Restricting someone's income, for any reason, will only force them to focus more on themselves, than on others.

If someone has a lot of money, they should give a lot of money to those in need. We all know this to be the case, because it is the moral thing to do. We all have a moral compass built inside of us. There should not be laws in place to force people to do the right thing with money. That‘s my problem with Obama’s statement and congress wasting tax payer money trying beat up executives taking advantage of rules already set forth in the financial arena. Because here is the question: “how much money do I give?” Would I really give enough if I am forced to give?

We want billionaires to give away as much as possible. We don’t want entrepreneurs to be limited to a certain value. That defeats the purpose. What we want is for billionaires to recognize that the money actually isn’t theirs in the first place. Its God’s. He wants you to do wonderful things with it! So, instead putting laws in place to restrict growth, let’s start encouraging those with more to give more. How do we do that?

Its the Republic, Stupid...

OK, so this post is political. If you don't care for that, then stop reading now.





Recently, a political activist group seeking to eliminate the Electoral College gloated over the fact that 4 more states looked to adopt laws that would allow them to turn over their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. The United States is on its way to a true democracy, by eliminating the Electoral College (....and there was much rejoicing...).

Much to a lot of people's surprise, the founding fathers of our country actually discussed the idea of a Popular vote. It makes sense doesn't it? If the majority of the people want the guy to win, shouldn't he win? But alas, the founding fathers yet again show just how intelligent they were, and how passionate they were in establishing a country where no one person or group (including the majority) can gain absolute power. Ron Paul wrote on this very thing right after the 2000 elections. He points out:

1) Our country is not a democracy, but a republic. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands.....

2) The word "democracy" does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution. Freshen up on the Constitution here, and do a quick search. Check out the Declaration of Independence. What an amazing document!

3) The Founding Fathers were passionate for liberty, not democracy.

Democracy says, that the majority of a group of people want a certain thing. Liberty focuses on the right of the individual. Democracy, has the potential to create a tyrannical rule over the few by a united belief from the many (or even the more powerful, i. e. Nazi party). A Republic has laws established to protect ones rights as an individual (the Bill of Rights, Checks and Balances, the electoral college). A Republic says, "You as an individual matter. your basic rights as individual matter. What you own matters. Your voice can be heard." A Democracy says, "the majority of the people believe 'this', therefore 'this' is what we will do for everyone."

OK, back to the topic. The Popular vote favors highly congested areas, and pretty much forgets about rural America. Politicians would no longer have to travel through Bucksnort, TN to discuss their views. They can focus their attention to the more populated areas such as New York, Las Angeles, Denver, Chicago, etc. I don't know about you, but I am pretty sure I don't think the same way as the average person that is 2000 miles away from my home. Does that make my voice or their voice any less important? No. This is the beauty of the electoral college: it is the "check and balance" of our republic. Small states have a stronger voice to allow for the rural situation of our vast country!

I found an article where an author tries to show how the correlation of a few point swing in the Popular Vote, correlates to a land slide in the Electoral College. He looked at numerous presidential elections over the last century. Its short, and very informative. I think this helps to better explain why the 2000 election actually worked! To truly appreciate the beauty of the electoral college, one must look at the map of the United States, by county for the 2000 election. To me, this map better shows how amazingly brilliant the electoral college is. If the popular vote winner had been made president, then our country would have been dictated by only slight pockets of the country.

The United States is not a democracy, but a republic, and THAT is something to stand for.

Jesus Is not a Socialist

More than likely the bluntness of this post is due to the lack of sleep I have been getting while here in China. Of course, being able to wallow in my disdain for how the election went today may have something to do with it as well.

As much as liberals would like to think that Christianity is an early form of socialism, it just isn't true. Jesus focused His teachings on people understanding who He was, and helping those in NEED. Christianity does not teach taking from the rich and giving to those who do not have AS MUCH. There is a serious difference. Many of you know people in need. Friends that need relationships. Guys that need drugs to overcome depression. Girls that need to to overcome eating disorders. Couples that need to work through their disagreements. And without a doubt, there are people that need bread and water. My own wife has met these last people personally. I have been less fortunate to step over these people going into a subway.

Jesus also teaches that we are to "Come to the Father". Most scholars have taught a litany of sermons on this meaning that centers around the idea that we, as Christians, have to CHOOSE to be with God. Christians must CHOOSE to give. One of the greatest gifts that God has given us is the ability to CHOOSE to either be with Him, or not. Allowing a government to CHOOSE what is best for us, has to be as far from Christianity as I can think. When the ability to CHOOSE is removed from our nature, we will in turn, focus on ourselves. In other words, self gratification.

Oh yeah, one last thing. I ate lunch with a guy that works for a fortune 500 company before I came to China (where pretty much every successful company in America is going due to high taxes.... but that is for another story). He explained why taxing profitable companies more doesn't work: "You can tax us all you want. We will charge our customers more to pay for the tax. We are still going to get the money to pay for our costs as well as profit. The consumer pays the tax, not us." The next time you read your cellular phone bill, you will see this as federal and state taxes....

* An Atypical Topic (for me)

Today, as with the rest of the nation, I am thinking more about politics. Large chunks of the nation spend a great deal of time thinking about politics, while mostly it gives me a headache. Judah is by far the most political of the family. However I have been thinking more about it lately, hardly surprising since the TV will talk about nothing else, even on Nick Junior it seems. Can I say how much I am ready for the election to be over, just so I no longer have to watch commercials, listens to the recent polling statistics, and look at yard signs.

It pains me to see how polarized folks can get about politics. As someone who leans right in what is often derisively labeled the "Bible Belt" I am not outnumbered in my community. However, even here in a classically red area I am hearing more angry political words directed "my way." My views are labeled and implied to be wrong, mean spirited, and unloving. How can I not want to support the poor and underprivileged? My response is that I absolutely want to do those things. When did leaning right become equated with not wanting to be charitable? The difference - I want to be charitable myself, and not let the government do it on my behalf. I believe that charity is a moral obligation, not a government obligation. I do recognize that overall we are not living up to that moral standard and the government has "had" to step in and do it for us. This is unfortunate. I think of a quote from Star Trek Insurrection (note the nerdiness of my reference) about making machines to do the work of a man, takes something from the man. I think the same about large government. When we allow the government to do something we should do, it takes something from us.

I have read some commentary ranting against the right. About how I do not want to help others. I want to hoard my money and not share. In an ungracious moment I want to yell at them and ask where is their generosity in action? Many who shout about "me" not wanting to share, don't seem to share either. They are happy with governmental programs helping those in need, but don't personally know anyone in need themselves. Do they know a single mother struggling to feed their child on minimum wage and food stamps? Do they know anyone actually receiving assistance form these programs they love? Anyone? (To those leaning left who really do sink into the lives of those in need I apologize, you are not who irritates me)

I have recently also been trying to explain the political process to my son. Since he is the son of a guy who has strong political opinions he naturally knows who we are voting for. He announced this to the polling room during my vote, despite the signs telling us not to mention a candidate's name within a certain radius. We went to someones house for dinner the other day. They had a sign in their yard indicating they supported the "other guy." My son was shocked! Why would they do that? My simplistic explanation - that neither man is "bad" or "wrong" - that everyone truly wants the same for our country - peace, growth, freedom. However these men have two different ideas about how to get there. I wish some grow-ups would see it that way. I understand that issues are more complicated than that, but down at the basic level we all want the same things. Nobody wants citizens living in painful poverty and inhumane circumstances - nobody - either right or left. Nobody wants war. Nobody wants suffering and violence in our cities. There may be some programs I do not want, but the desire for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is still true. Therefore the general meanness in politics irritates me. Why we can't just disagree without it being a character assassination is beyond me. I can only be responsible for myself and living out what God has asked us to do in His word, even if folks think I am close-minded and uneducated to still be believing in such a God. I pray that folks in this country can get to a place where differences in opinion do not require anger, that more people will invest in those in need themselves and realize that shouting from the outside does not solve the problems.

So this has been an atypical post for me - the non-political one. But this is where I am today. Now that this is off my chest I can go back to what I prefer - random preciousness.