Fear vs. Freedom

In his 1976 book, "How Should We Then Live",  Francis Schaeffer wrote  about 5 historical things that lead people to accept a manipulative authoritarian government. They are: economic breakdown, war or serious threat of war, chaos of violence (terrorism, anarchy, etc,),  radical redistribution of wealth, and/or a shortage of food and other natural resources. If you are paying any attention at all, you realize that we have been courting all of these factors over the last decade or more. The response to these factors has been slow in the past but is increasing at an alarming rate. With each passing year the U.S. Constitution is becoming less and less relevant to the masses and certainly the politicians. (If you closely examine the founding document, it actually prevents an a manipulative authoritarian government, when followed.) 

We have seen the manipulation of money at increasingly alarming rate, ever swelling entitlement programs, unbalanced taxation, government intrusion in industry (in some cases, even take over) and fanatical environmental legislation based on unprovable theories. All of these things are a threat to liberty and freedom in a collective sense.  Now this authoritarianism has moved even farther into the realm of personal liberty and freedom. Yea, that's right, I'm talking about the use of body image scanners and "enhanced security searches". The TSA has "adopted" these new procedures and even the U.S. Marshal's office is considering using them in federal courts. 

The Fourth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

These new searches exceed all of the precedents the Supreme Court has determined as reasonable. In Terry vs. Ohio (1968), the Supreme Court ruled that a police officer could "stop and frisk" a suspect based on the reasonable articulation of suspicion that (a) a crime had occurring or was about to occur and (b) that suspect was in possession of a weapon. The search was allowed for officer safety reasons and was limited to a pat down of outer garments for weapons only. 

This ruling excludes random sampling and hunches. It also limits the search to outer garments. Can the TSA reasonably articulate suspicion that every passenger is transporting a weapon? It also is surpassing the limitations of the search by going beneath the under garments and handling your nether regions. 

This erosion of the Fourth Amendment did not begin with these new procedures, but with an over reaching decision by the Ninth Circuit (circus) in U.S. vs. Davis (1973). In that case the court ruled"...that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft." The ruling continues by saying “(the search is to be) no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.”

For those that believe we should trust that the government is acting righteously and in good faith, where is the limit? In Beck vs. Ohio (1964), Justice Potter Stewart wrote, "If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, only in the discretion of the police."

The absurdity of the Ninth Circuit's (the most activist and overturned court in the U.S.) decision is their rational. Think about it. Their decision in other words says (a) the government is in control of the airways, (b) it is for your safety and (c) flying is a privilege, not a right. Allow me to lay that framework over a different traveling medium: (a) the highways and interstates are built and controlled by the government, (b) it is for your safety and (c) driving is a privilege, not a right. Where does the intrusion end? The only reasonable point made in this excerpt of the Ninth Circuit case is that “(the search is to be) no more intrusive or intensive than necessary".  Searching me down to the birthday suit would certainly seem unnecessary not to mention unreasonable.  

My hope is that this issue is carried to the U.S. Supreme Court and that the government is forced to come back with a more reasonable, less intrusive method that brings dignity to how regular citizens are treated by their government.

It all boils down to wether we will allow our fears (some justified and some absurd) to erode our freedom.

Just my opinion,

Bob

Is He a Muslim? Is He a Christian?

    A Pew Research poll was released in August of this year showing that the majority of Americans are unclear about President Obama's religious persuasion or affiliation. The poll shows that 43% say they don't know what the President believes, 18% believe he is a Muslim, while 34% believe he is a Christian. Even Ann Coulter, a conservative columnist, declares that the President is in fact an atheist. Viewing and listening to varied segments of the media will leave you more confused than ever. So the question still begs to be answered, right? Why not go straight to the "horse's mouth"?

      In March of 2004, then Senate candidate Obama, sat down for an interview with Cathleen Falsani with Chicago Sun Times.  

     When asked by Falsani, "What do you believe? 

     Obama answered, "I am a Christian. So, I have a deep faith. So I draw from the Christian faith. On the other hand, I was born in Hawaii where obviously there are a lot of Eastern influences. I lived in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, between the ages of six and 10.

     My father was from Kenya, and although he was probably most accurately labeled an agnostic, his father was Muslim. And I'd say, probably, intellectually I've drawn as much from Judaism as any other faith.

     So, I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people. That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there's an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived.


(Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html#ixzz0yNvsue2m)

     Still confused about what the President believes? Well, according to his interview back in 2004 he is a pluralist. Oh sure, if he had to pick one to fill in the blank he would say "Christian", but really he does not believe that his Christian faith is exclusive. Rather than speculate I'll take his word for it. He said, "I believe that there are many paths to the same place,..." That is pluralism.

     A pluralist is someone who describes religion as a wheel with us on the rim and God as the hub. Each spoke of the wheel represents a religious viewpoint, but with all spokes connecting the rim to the hub. In pluralism there is a plurality of paths or ways to heaven. Exclusivity is not a welcomed ideal.

     The problem is that Jesus declared His exclusivity. In John 14:6 (NKJV), "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." According to Jesus Himself, the way to heaven is found in Him exclusively, the truth of who God is revealed by Him exclusively and eternal life comes through Him exclusively. 

     One cannot have it both ways. In his book entitled Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis wrote, 

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God."

         Pluralism possesses far more danger than any of the false religions singularly, because it deals in subtly. It slowly erodes the truth and compromises one principal at a time. The proverbial slippery slope.



Not an issue of political party, just an issue of truth.



Pastor Bob

Who am I?

In the simplest of terms, I am all of these things and in this order. 

a CHRISTIAN. At a very young age I realized that I had a large gaping vacuum within me that yearned for a deep and very personal relationship with the God that creates and sustains everything I live in the midst.

I discovered that God had chosen to communicate His love to me through the truth of His Word.  In this incredibly thorough manual for life I was introduced to several spiritual truths:

1. Because of sin, my relationship with God was simply that of created and Creator. I was spiritually separated from God because of the differences in our nature. God is Holy, I am undone. God is Righteous, I am inclined to wrong. God is Pure, I wallow in filth.

2. God was not satisfied with this arrangement. In fact, He longed to be reconciled to me and was willing to do whatever it took. In order to reconcile me to Him, He sent His Son to pay a debt I owed, but could not pay. Through His death on the cross, Jesus paid the penalty of my sin and wretchedness. He was wounded for my transgressions, He was bruised for my iniquities, He was chastised so I could know peace and by His stripes my relationship could be what it was intended to be.

3. By faith, I could trust in Jesus' unfathomable sacrifice (in my stead) as the satisfactory payment for all the sin I had  or ever will commit. I turned from my way of thinking and living to God's way.

4. To prove that His power over sin and death was real, God raised Him from the dead on the third day.

5. After this incredible interaction of truth and belief, I accepted my Savior's challenge of taking up my cross and following Him. 

6. As a believer, I have been called to season the world like salt and illuminate the dark parts of the world as a carrier of the light.

a HUSBAND. God has given me a partner to go through life and even face death with. It is the most important earthly relationship I have and although my attitude doesn't always reflect it, my greatest blessing. Although God has filled the world with beautiful things, none are more beautiful to me than my wife. She is the practical and present face of God's grace toward me. The idea that someone as sweet as her could love and tolerate someone as sour as me is incredible.

a FATHER. God has allowed me to make an impact on the future through nurturing, teaching, encouraging and correcting my own children. My greatest fear is that I will not always be able to protect them from all of life's hurts, insults, discouragements, difficulties and tragedies. My greatest hope is that with God's help they will be better than me. It hardly seems imaginable that God would entrust something so fragile and important to me, but He does. And I am grateful.

a PREACHER. God has given me a seemingly impossible task of taking the truth of His Word to every soul. Fortunately, He calls other like me to be faithful in the work, so that together with accomplish more. To be honest, the preaching comes easier to me than the pastoring part of the job. In fact, I think sometimes I restrain my preaching because I don't want to come off rough to people I'm supposed to help shepherd. If you strike the sheep too often and too hard they tend to shy away from you. The difficult balance of pastoring is something I will probably be searching for for years to come; feed the sheep, keep them clean/sheared, and make sure they stay away from danger and danger stays away from them.

a CITIZEN. I have a responsibility to use my influence for good; whether by my vote, my voice or my vigor. I want to leave this great country on a path that pleases the Giver of all the rights and freedoms I enjoy and preserves them for my posterity.

Pastor Bob