Mark West
Family friendly culture
By Mark West
Several years ago, as a young Christian man, driving home from work I saw a man under an overpass holding a sign. On the sign was a plea for compassion. He just wanted a bite to eat. Having read Matthew 25:31-46 that morning, I responded to God's work on my heart. I drove over to Burger King and purchased the man a value meal with all the money I had. Giving him the meal, I told him that Jesus loved him and that He was the reason I had come. He thanked me for his meal and went about his way.
Sharing this memory with you helps me illustrate an important note that needs to be kept as we endure the final month of the 2004 Presidential campaign. Compassion! I believe that Americans have developed a jaded sense of compassion that hinges on spending money rather than on actually meeting the needs of those in need.
After a long day of healing the sick and hurting, Jesus looked compassionately on the crowd. Matthew records that, "when He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd." All of the needs that were present: hunger, poverty, illness, injury...the need that brought out Christ's compassion had nothing to do with earthly things, but with heavenly things. Jesus was moved by their lack of a Savior. They needed a shepherd!
True compassion has a goal. Providing those in need with the only real answer for their needs...a Savior. We do not help those in need by simply providing for this and that material need without addressing the deeper and darker spiritual need they have. If the gospel of Christ is not the goal of our compassion, our compassion is vain and useless. As Paul wrote, "though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor...but have not love, it profits me nothing." Jesus said, "Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends." Our works of "compassion" are not truly compassionate if they aren't sacrificial to us and if they are not coupled with the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Now let's focus on government compassion. Government, by nature, cannot be truly compassionate. Why? Government compassion can only meet the material needs. It ignores the spiritual nature that is a source of so many material needs. Welfare and poverty do not exist because of lack of materials to go around, but rather because of the lack of spiritual people.
President Franklin Roosevelt was considered a compassionate politician, however the sort of compassion that he gave America was a compassion of low expectations and generational theft. Social Security is a pyramid scheme that only works if those at the top of the pyramid are less in number than those at the bottom of the pyramid. Unfortunately the abortion industry has cut forty million taxpayers from the bottom of that pyramid and thus the pyramid is becoming more of a square. Pyramid schemes are so risky that the federal government outlawed them, of course they excepted themselves from that law. Welfare is basically robbery. Think about it, rather than deal with the problem of criminal activity among the poor stealing from the rich, our government became the intercessor, confiscating income from the rich (taxpayers) to redistribute it to the poor. Why should a person in poverty steal when the government can do it for them?
Speaking of crime, how better to fight crime than to enforce the laws that are on the books. Like many say about the Bible, there really isn't a need to add to the Bible, just to learn how to do what it says. We don't need new laws, we need to enforce the ones that already exist. One law that needs stricter enforcement is the Second Amendment. Second Amendment rights are infringed upon by federal law and this just isn't right. Allowing people to own guns to protect themselves is a deterrent in itself. Could you imagine a mugger thinking twice about mugging someone out of concern that the person they are about to mug may be packing? How about bank robbers or those who break into people's homes? Gun ownership is a crime deterrent, not a crime adherent. As I heard a comedian say in a movie one time, "Guns don't kill people, stupid people with guns kill people." An excellent point indeed!
Growing up in West Memphis, Arkansas, a city in which the minority race is in the majority, I learned a lot about equality. I learned that black men can do the same job a white man can do. I don't believe that people are less capable because of their skin color. I'm not naive enough to believe that racial discrimination doesn't occur, but I will say that any system that makes a judgement in favor of, or opposed to someone based on their skin color is nothing more than the denigration of the people of that race. I include hate crimes legislation and affirmative action in this category. Legislation of this sort bases decisions on skin color, sexual preference and religious persuasion as opposed to the actual merits of the individual.
Families are the heart and soul of a strong society. Societies that demean and denigrate the meaning of the family will falter under the weight of the cultural erosion that results from it. Family goes back to the beginning of time. God made man and woman to complete one another and to be the means through which He would populate the earth. Strong families begin with a husband and wife who become a father and a mother, raising their children to be husbands and wives to future mates and fathers and mothers to their future children. Any act that would redefine the family must be opposed by any truly patriotic citizens if we desire to pass this nation onto the next American generation.
True patriots will have true compassion for others, treating not only the symptoms of their problems, but also the root causes that make them occur. America's problems will not be solved with the temporary band aids of false compassion, but with the lasting results of true compassion. True compassion makes no bones about skin color, religious persuasion or sexual preference when it reaches out, through individuals into the lives of those around them affecting society one heart at a time. Not from coercion or confiscation, but from love and a hope for the future!
Where do I stand?
I believe that the best civil rights legislation works to encourage unity rather than promote division. Social Security and welfare both need to be reformed in order to deliver Americans from the entitlement mentality that we face. Crime is controlled through enforcing laws, not from taking away the people's right to self defense. Families must be protected from the onslaught of gay marriage.
Where do the candidates stand?
President George W. Bush (Republican Party) believes in affirmative access, not affirmative action. Seeks to reform social security through the privatization of younger workers' money. Believes that crime can be controlled through both further legislation and through enforcing the laws that are on the books. Seeks a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Faith-based initiatives for government to cooperate with charitable groups in welfare. Favors the death penalty. I give President Bush an A- (10 points).
Senator John F. Kerry (Democrat Party) believes in affirmative action without quotas. Will not privatize or reform social security. Supports hate crimes legislation and some restrictions on guns, especially "assault rifles." Believes the Defense of Marriage Act is fundamentally ugly while opposing a Federal Marriage Amendment. Responsible government welfare. Opposes the death penalty. I give Senator Kerry a D- (1 point).
Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party) believes in removing barriers, one of which is affirmative action. Wants workers to have total control of their own retirement. Crime solved through requiring compensation from offenders to victims. Opposes the death penalty. Believes gun control is wrong. Federal government out of the marriage issue. Charitable groups should be the arbiters of welfare, not the government. I give Badnarik a B+ (9 points).
Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party) believes in equality of all men. Federal government out of retirement and welfare. Crime must be punished. Families are society's building block. Gay marriage is wrong. Gun control is illegal. Favors death penalty. I give Peroutka an A (11 points)
David Cobb (Green Party) believes in affirmative action. Believes in hate crimes and the elimination of the death penalty. Ban assault weapons, responsible gun control needed. Increase payroll tax but allow worker to invest some of it. I give Cobb a D- (1 point).
Ralph Nader (Independent/Reform Party) believes in protecting and promoting rights of minorities. Favors gay marriage. More concerned about corporate crime than street crime. Opposes death penalty. Supports some gun bans and gun control. Believes government responsibility is to equalize society as the solution to the "root" cause of our problems. I give Nader a D- (1 point.)
After three issues, our debate stands with Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party) 33 points, President George W. Bush (Republican Party) 29 points, Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party) 21 points, David Cobb (Green Party) 4 points, Senator John F. Kerry (Democrat Party) 2 points, Ralph Nader (Independent/Reform Party) 2 points.
© Mark West
Several years ago, as a young Christian man, driving home from work I saw a man under an overpass holding a sign. On the sign was a plea for compassion. He just wanted a bite to eat. Having read Matthew 25:31-46 that morning, I responded to God's work on my heart. I drove over to Burger King and purchased the man a value meal with all the money I had. Giving him the meal, I told him that Jesus loved him and that He was the reason I had come. He thanked me for his meal and went about his way.
Sharing this memory with you helps me illustrate an important note that needs to be kept as we endure the final month of the 2004 Presidential campaign. Compassion! I believe that Americans have developed a jaded sense of compassion that hinges on spending money rather than on actually meeting the needs of those in need.
After a long day of healing the sick and hurting, Jesus looked compassionately on the crowd. Matthew records that, "when He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd." All of the needs that were present: hunger, poverty, illness, injury...the need that brought out Christ's compassion had nothing to do with earthly things, but with heavenly things. Jesus was moved by their lack of a Savior. They needed a shepherd!
True compassion has a goal. Providing those in need with the only real answer for their needs...a Savior. We do not help those in need by simply providing for this and that material need without addressing the deeper and darker spiritual need they have. If the gospel of Christ is not the goal of our compassion, our compassion is vain and useless. As Paul wrote, "though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor...but have not love, it profits me nothing." Jesus said, "Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends." Our works of "compassion" are not truly compassionate if they aren't sacrificial to us and if they are not coupled with the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Now let's focus on government compassion. Government, by nature, cannot be truly compassionate. Why? Government compassion can only meet the material needs. It ignores the spiritual nature that is a source of so many material needs. Welfare and poverty do not exist because of lack of materials to go around, but rather because of the lack of spiritual people.
President Franklin Roosevelt was considered a compassionate politician, however the sort of compassion that he gave America was a compassion of low expectations and generational theft. Social Security is a pyramid scheme that only works if those at the top of the pyramid are less in number than those at the bottom of the pyramid. Unfortunately the abortion industry has cut forty million taxpayers from the bottom of that pyramid and thus the pyramid is becoming more of a square. Pyramid schemes are so risky that the federal government outlawed them, of course they excepted themselves from that law. Welfare is basically robbery. Think about it, rather than deal with the problem of criminal activity among the poor stealing from the rich, our government became the intercessor, confiscating income from the rich (taxpayers) to redistribute it to the poor. Why should a person in poverty steal when the government can do it for them?
Speaking of crime, how better to fight crime than to enforce the laws that are on the books. Like many say about the Bible, there really isn't a need to add to the Bible, just to learn how to do what it says. We don't need new laws, we need to enforce the ones that already exist. One law that needs stricter enforcement is the Second Amendment. Second Amendment rights are infringed upon by federal law and this just isn't right. Allowing people to own guns to protect themselves is a deterrent in itself. Could you imagine a mugger thinking twice about mugging someone out of concern that the person they are about to mug may be packing? How about bank robbers or those who break into people's homes? Gun ownership is a crime deterrent, not a crime adherent. As I heard a comedian say in a movie one time, "Guns don't kill people, stupid people with guns kill people." An excellent point indeed!
Growing up in West Memphis, Arkansas, a city in which the minority race is in the majority, I learned a lot about equality. I learned that black men can do the same job a white man can do. I don't believe that people are less capable because of their skin color. I'm not naive enough to believe that racial discrimination doesn't occur, but I will say that any system that makes a judgement in favor of, or opposed to someone based on their skin color is nothing more than the denigration of the people of that race. I include hate crimes legislation and affirmative action in this category. Legislation of this sort bases decisions on skin color, sexual preference and religious persuasion as opposed to the actual merits of the individual.
Families are the heart and soul of a strong society. Societies that demean and denigrate the meaning of the family will falter under the weight of the cultural erosion that results from it. Family goes back to the beginning of time. God made man and woman to complete one another and to be the means through which He would populate the earth. Strong families begin with a husband and wife who become a father and a mother, raising their children to be husbands and wives to future mates and fathers and mothers to their future children. Any act that would redefine the family must be opposed by any truly patriotic citizens if we desire to pass this nation onto the next American generation.
True patriots will have true compassion for others, treating not only the symptoms of their problems, but also the root causes that make them occur. America's problems will not be solved with the temporary band aids of false compassion, but with the lasting results of true compassion. True compassion makes no bones about skin color, religious persuasion or sexual preference when it reaches out, through individuals into the lives of those around them affecting society one heart at a time. Not from coercion or confiscation, but from love and a hope for the future!
Where do I stand?
I believe that the best civil rights legislation works to encourage unity rather than promote division. Social Security and welfare both need to be reformed in order to deliver Americans from the entitlement mentality that we face. Crime is controlled through enforcing laws, not from taking away the people's right to self defense. Families must be protected from the onslaught of gay marriage.
Where do the candidates stand?
President George W. Bush (Republican Party) believes in affirmative access, not affirmative action. Seeks to reform social security through the privatization of younger workers' money. Believes that crime can be controlled through both further legislation and through enforcing the laws that are on the books. Seeks a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Faith-based initiatives for government to cooperate with charitable groups in welfare. Favors the death penalty. I give President Bush an A- (10 points).
Senator John F. Kerry (Democrat Party) believes in affirmative action without quotas. Will not privatize or reform social security. Supports hate crimes legislation and some restrictions on guns, especially "assault rifles." Believes the Defense of Marriage Act is fundamentally ugly while opposing a Federal Marriage Amendment. Responsible government welfare. Opposes the death penalty. I give Senator Kerry a D- (1 point).
Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party) believes in removing barriers, one of which is affirmative action. Wants workers to have total control of their own retirement. Crime solved through requiring compensation from offenders to victims. Opposes the death penalty. Believes gun control is wrong. Federal government out of the marriage issue. Charitable groups should be the arbiters of welfare, not the government. I give Badnarik a B+ (9 points).
Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party) believes in equality of all men. Federal government out of retirement and welfare. Crime must be punished. Families are society's building block. Gay marriage is wrong. Gun control is illegal. Favors death penalty. I give Peroutka an A (11 points)
David Cobb (Green Party) believes in affirmative action. Believes in hate crimes and the elimination of the death penalty. Ban assault weapons, responsible gun control needed. Increase payroll tax but allow worker to invest some of it. I give Cobb a D- (1 point).
Ralph Nader (Independent/Reform Party) believes in protecting and promoting rights of minorities. Favors gay marriage. More concerned about corporate crime than street crime. Opposes death penalty. Supports some gun bans and gun control. Believes government responsibility is to equalize society as the solution to the "root" cause of our problems. I give Nader a D- (1 point.)
After three issues, our debate stands with Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party) 33 points, President George W. Bush (Republican Party) 29 points, Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party) 21 points, David Cobb (Green Party) 4 points, Senator John F. Kerry (Democrat Party) 2 points, Ralph Nader (Independent/Reform Party) 2 points.
© Mark West
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
