Bill H.R. 1913: Hate Crime

May 24, 09 - Bill H.R. 1913 has been passed by the House, and is currently being decided on by the Senate. This could be the first steps towards censorship against Christians in America, and allows for added severity of punishment in crimes against peoples of a different sexual orientation.

Is it possible that under such a bill, people could be seen as breaking the law if holding a view contrary to that of the state towards matters of sexual orientation?

Abiel Abbot - A Discourse on the 23rd Anniversary of American Independence

Published in "Passing the Torch of Liberty to a New Generation"
by the American Vision Press
Summary of Key Points - pgs. 45 - 60

An interesting point that Mr. Abbot makes in his message, is that the states of Greece flourished until a sense of moral obligation was weakened, and the way opened for the corrupting influence of the gold of Philip. Rome too, was a powerful and prosperous nation until the Epicurean sentiments infiltrated the nation. They then became a nursery of crime and corruption - ultimately being easy prey for their enemies. He notes that religion is the best means to secure the strength, order and happiness of a people, and that no religion is better suited for this than that of Christianity.

Impiety (oaths and curses, and the profaning of sacred things), as well as laxness in morals are challenges to our great nation. Under such corruptness, people seek reform and innovation towards a religion of reward and no punishment, as well as a government of all protection and no energy or expense. Mr. Abbot notes that if a people are corrupted, the government follows suit. He warns that our nation will not function properly if our people are unable to discern the law of our Creator, and make wise decisions towards the election of our leaders.

Abbot discusses how the French have abolished the Bible with every mark of insult that could be invented - with the use of such "visionaries" like Voltaire and Weifhaupt. Their first fruits of innovation and reform have lead to Christianity expelled, the priesthood seized, and their temples plundered with a government of military despotism. He warns of this happening in our nation if we aren't vigilant against threats to the moral precepts of the Christian principals that guide us.

Mr. Abiel Abbot closes by saying "There is still hope for us, if we are faithful to ourselves. Our altars, though threatened and assaulted, are yet in their place." He admonishes us that while we love peace, we should be prepared for war - to defend our altars and our government. "May God disperse the clouds which obscure our political horizon, and cause our national greatness, glory, and happiness to become as clear and resplendent as the noonday."

95th Mo. General Assembly - House Bill 46 and 434 FAILED (Anti-Abortion)

Pathway - May 26, 09

House Bill 46 and 434 might have made coerced abortions as unlawful, and may have given pregnant women the ability to make informed decisions over alternatives to an abortion. However, this was struck down in the 95th Mo. General Assembly by figures like Senator Joan Bray (St. Louis Democrat) who was reported as saying "I'm sick of the ethics around here - that men are pro-life for their wives, and pro-choice for their girlfriends." Another key abortion advocate in Mo. government is Senator Jolie Justus.

In good news:
Missouri has provided full funding to the Alternatives to Abortion Program, and is currently the only state to allocate a portion of fed. Stimulus funds towards Pro-Life projects. It's also the first state to pass a resolution opposing the Freedom of Choice Act.

Some of those who stand as Pro-Life voices are:
Kerry Messer (lobbyist for Christian Life Commission)
Senator Rob Mayer (Dexter)
Rep. Bryan Pratt (Blue Springs)
Rep. Cynthia Davis (O'Fallon)

Possibly setting a dangerous precedent in the latest Missouri proceedings, is that the legislative branch once against defers lawmaking responsibilities to the judicial branch. As observed by Don Hinkle, Pathway writer, this could possibly undermine the separation of power and checks and balances in our government.

Empathy in law making - moral relativism?

KC Star, Page A11 of May 24 - 2009
"Obama close to supreme court decision"

"Obama is inclined to pick someone who shares his view that the Constitution is to be interpreted in light of today's realities - NOT those of the founders.

Ellen Goodman (page B8 of May 24, 2009 issue) quotes Harvard Law professor Carol Steiker as saying that empathy is central to moral reasoning of any kind.
Ms. Goodman also argues that Justice should not be blind or unfeeling, and praises Pres. Obama for seeking someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory.

As interpreted by myself, this seems to indicate that modern thought amongst some in our nation is that Law is not absolute. The Constitution is not absolute. Law and justice are subject to whatever is considered right at the moment, or whatever feelings you have about something.

The Quest for Truth and Fair Representation

The following is a letter I recently posted on the White House.Gov site on ideas from the middle class (although I'd consider myself lower middle class). It's included here for the purposes of discussion - so please leave your respectfully worded thoughts.

To whom it may concern:

As a mid-west male Gen X, strong family man, and lower middle class, I'm vastly disappointed with our governments lack of true care for the people. While encouraging the leaving of comments on a web-site is mildly admirable, it also smacks of propaganda when the huge rift between the so called "right" and "left" continues to grow. When this administration continues to strongly support the genocide of abortion, as well as deepening the financial burdens of debt (while seeming to ignore the Tax Tea Party movement that seeks for some kind of responsibility), and appearing to enact only the change that special interest groups who funded the campaign drive for the white-house support - it doesn't seem very sincere to me. All people like myself want - people who are conservative, but progressive and intelligent individuals - is a government that truly cares what we think, and backs this up with responsible actions that aren't forcing people into positions of civil disobedience. As it stands, many conservatives are feeling repression not felt since our fore-fathers took the steps for independence from a government tyranny that thought it knew what was best, and forced its will upon them.

A summary on Jonathan Mayhew's "A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission"

In regards to the governmental ruling over men, Jonathan Mayhew brings forth the question: "What unprejudiced man can think, that God made all to be thus subservient to the lawless pleasure and frenzy of one, so that it shall always be a sin to resist him?"

He continues with the thought of how far we are obliged to submit to our rulers? If we may innocently disobey and resist in some cases, why not all? What is the measure of our duty? He points that if we are not careful, such a doctrine could lead to the total dissolution of civil government, and introduce such scenes of wild anarchy and confusion - which would be more fatal to society than the worst tyranny.

However, Mr. Mayhew draws an analogy to children submitting to parents, and how it is most commonly acceptable for children to often submit or obey to their parents - but not in all cases. When a child does question or disobey the rule of parents, is this always a sin, or does it seak to subvert the parental authority? "We know in general that children and servants are obliged to obey their parents and masters respectively. We know also, with equal certainty, that they are not obliged to submit to them in all things, without exception; but may, in some cases, reasonably, and therefore innocently, resist them."

While Jonathan Mayhew creates a case for disobedience against those who lead over us, he also says that "turbulent and vicious-minded men, may take occasion from this principle, that their rulers may, in some cases, be lawfully resisted, to raise factions and disturbances in the state; and to make resistance where resistance is needless, and therefore sinful."

In the case of a nation of people abused by their ruler (or governmental leaders), Mayhew says that the dethroning of such leadership is not criminal, but a "reasonable way of vindicating their liberties and just rights; it is making use of the means, and the only means, which God has put into their power, for mutual and self-defence." Not only does he conclude with this thought, but he continues with the statement, "It would be stupid, tameness, and unaccountable folly, for whole nations to suffer one unreasonable, ambitious and cruel man, than to wanton and riot in their misery."

To conclude, Mr Mayhew draws the following points for a people to consider before resisting their governors:

• No civil rulers are to be obeyed when the enjoin things that are inconsistent with the commands of God: all such disobedience is lawful and glorious - particularly if resisting against any legal establishment of religion.

• All commands running counter to the declared will of the supreme legislator of heaven and earth, are null and void; and therefore disobedience to them is a duty.

• If therefore, in any case, the common safety and utility would not be promoted by the submission of government, but the contrary, there is no ground or motive for obedience and submission, but on the contrary.

• If it be evident that a ruler abuse their trust and power, then neither the law of reason or religion requires obedience or submission. The ruler should be discared, and the authority which they were vested with transferred to others.

• If people find themselves greatly abused and oppressed by their governors, they are not apt to complain; and whenever they do, in fact, find themselves thus abused and oppressed, they must be stupid not to complain.

• The people know for what end they set up, and maintain their governors; and they are the proper judges when they execute their trusts as they ought to do it. When a ruler exalts himself to that of tyrant and requires his subjects to be that of slaves to his will, he plunders them and makes them his prey.

Student Product Controversy

Being aware that a recent cartoon of mine has caused a bit of a stir (as seen in the March 18 issue of The Landmark), I thought I might attempt to explain my stance on the subject of education.

Certainly I am not against education or the student who genuinely learns - I myself attended public school and am thankful to many teachers who helped nurture my growth as an individual. But education is about people, and sometimes the secularized, degenerating atmosphere of public school is not the most ideal environment for a young person to flourish. While the governmental institution of education attempts to raise up productive citizens, it also often stifles important values crucial to the progress of our western civilization.

But this isn't what the cartoon discusses. It instead brings forth the notion that young people are more concerned with what happens on a television show than with consequences for actions in their own lives. It also talks about parents who create a soft nest of materialism in their child's lives - and thus encourage a fear, frustration, or cynicism of the harsh realities of the outside world. We then have panels of "educational experts" who attempt to determine what's best for the student, and in effect, do indeed poke and prod the student into learning what is politically popular. Depending on what programs are offered, which text-books are used, which students are favored and which fall through the cracks - this all adds to a subtle shaping which should be the duty of the parent.

My question is this: Should government be responsible for the educating of people? Or should government encourage a society that is able to flourish through the education of itself? If leaders in the community, parents, and business owners took a much needed and valued role in the personal nurturing and individual education of it's citizens, we'd likely have a lot more people who feel less like products, and more like valued contributors.

Thomas Shepard - Foreshadow of the modern day

Matthew 25:5 (NIV) "The bridegroom was a long time coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep."

So begins "Of Carnal Security in Virgin Churches", a message by Thomas Shepard (1605-1649). Delving into the deeper underlying meaning of this parable of Jesus, Shepard explains that though the Virgins - some wise and some foolish - had at one time been awake, they soon fell into a senseless, stupid, dull, and sluggish sleep.

He relates this to the condition of the churches, and a "sleep" which befalls us when we feel we have a feeling of general security. While the new Christian may be excited over the work Christ has done in his life, he may soon be lured into an ineffectual, lazy stupor in which we disregard the work of Christ and and His will.

Luke 18:8 - Will Christ find an awakened faith in the church?
Deut 6:12 -Beware the forgetting of God!
Psalms 106:12-13 After being rescued, they soon forgot God
2 Thes 3:6-14 Do not tire of doing what is right! Make those who are idle feel ashamed.

Consider Noah, and how he relied upon God when the water swelled about the ark. Did he fall into an easy sleep of contentment and security when the rains fell outside the boat? But when the waters ceased, and he'd planted his vineyard - now he sleeps in drunkenness! All because he'd forgotten the strength of the wine. In this Shepard expresses his point - Do Christians consider if they've forgotten the strength of the wine of sin? So much so that we stand guard against it, and work fervently to be utilized by God to rescue others from sloth and lack of purpose?

To close, Shepard begs us to consider: If God should take away this generation of magistracy and ministry, what would this country do? And what would become of our children? When there are no schools for them, and when no Gospel is left among them; then every mans sword shall be against his brother, and God will allow darkness to fall - even though his presences is made light during such times. Fear the breaches that the enemy may make into our lives - the small incursions we may not recognize in our sleep - until we are jerked to our horrified senses when the calamity of evil befalls.

Obama Propaganda

Bearing nothing personal against the individual of President Obama, or the various members of his administration, I’m expressing thoughts against the unagreeable beliefs the Democrats employ. A large percentage of our national population voted against this Administration, but are still expected to fall into line with what they believe in regards to abortion, the economy, and family rights. More and more, it really appears that they have no intention of listening or finding common ground in these extremely crucial, civilization altering topics. The famous motto “United we stand, divided we fall” comes to mind, and seems to pertain directly to the current state of our nation. Our Democracy is in real danger of falling into the deep and painful rifts created by a battle between people who want to protect civilization, and those whose civilization is themselves.

Why I do what I do

Recently I’ve been considering the direction I’ve elected to take with much of my artwork. Politics and religion being an understandably hot topic in our world, some may wonder why I’ve placed myself in the line of fire with such controversial material. Boiling down pages of philosophical ramblings, the best I can say is this: it’s because I care. Yes, I’m aware that some of my cartoons and their style of humor may prompt unease, discomfort, or even anger. But I carefully consider each one before I publish or post, as I want to be sure it’s a message I want to make known as my own. Feeling myself to have intelligently considered my views, and convinced of the importance of absolute truth in our world, I can do nothing but attempt to educate through my work.

Creativity, imagination, and expressing myself through writing, music, and illustration is something that’s an important part of my life. Much the same way that what I believe is important to me as well. But lately, I’ve felt my beliefs threatened by an inconsistent, illogical world-view that flails about for meaning, and finds none. Government is never perfect, but we’re welcoming a governmental administration that speaks tolerance and democracy, but in reality is intolerant to any group or belief system that doesn’t fall in line with their own. We’re sacrificing our way of life for financial prosperity and a facade of post-modernistic belief systems that share more in common with communism and socialism than with true freedom.

So, as an artist, I take this duty of conveying truth and belief as very serious. Most likely, every artist before me would say the same thing, regardless of what they believed.