Change...

I am changing the subject matter for Dr Rob's Podium. In the past, I discussed several subjects here. Now, I have started a new blog, Berean Comments, for my remarks about theological, religious, and faith topics. Dr. Rob's Podium will now focus on other subjects, such as politics, science, culture, current events, etc.

Certainly, some issues cross over into both territories. So, if these subjects touch on Berean Comments type matters, I may still post such here. However, I wish to devote Berean Comments to matters about directly about God and the common faith Christians share.

- Rob

Does Personal Faith Create Truth?

In light of people talking about the personal faith of NBA player Jason Collins, it occurred to me that there is a false presumption underlying such discussions. I often hear people refer to one's faith as being personal, but they do so in a way that suggests that their personal faith creates truth. This implies that what is true for me is not necessarily true for you. Furthermore, it implies that we must not challenge each other's faith because it is personal. So, toleration becomes a denial of truth.

Well, I agree that we must respect each others beliefs. There is no place for disrespect or bullying when trying to persuade someone about the truth of a matter. I absolutely believe toleration is a characteristic of civil society. Yet, to suppress the truth is not healthy or right.

Yes, we all can and will differ on questions about the answer to the question, "What is truth?" For example, Jesus said, "For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world--to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice." Pontius Pilate replied, "What is truth?" (John 18:37b-38). This was Pilate's personal standard in judging Jesus.

I argue that faith, while being personal, does not create truth. Why? Because God exists, and is active in human affairs no matter what our individual faith about Him is, or what we think He requires from us. We in the United States often prefer "salad bar" faith where we pick and choose what we want to believe from our respective religions. Yes, that is personal faith, but it is not truth.

Christ suffered and died for our sins. That is truth whether I acknowledge it or not. My faith does not create a Christ who suffered for me (John 1:1-5). His Lordship over my life is not created by my faith in Him. He is the sovereign God even when I do not understand why He allows somethings to occur and does not prevent other things from occurring. He is sovereign when I do not agree with Him. Just ask Job (Job 42:1-6).

So, the Lordship of God has no place for salad bar Christianity, which is a personal faith where we each make my our own decisions about how to live our individual lives.

I am so glad this is the truth, because if the meaning of my life depended upon what I create through my faith, then I am in real trouble. Too often I make bad judgements, my motives are self-centered, and I know I do not understand God's entire purpose. My rationality is bounded by my human limitations, my human nature, but God is unbounded. So, I also know I need my Savior, Jesus Christ, so I can be in an eternal relationship with God. Indeed, God can be fully trusted even when I do not trust Him, and is faithful even when I am not faithful to Him.

So, if my faith does not create truth, what is faith? The writer of Hebrews in the Christian Bible said, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1, New American Standard Bible (NASB) (Kindle Locations 38146-38147). The Lockman Foundation. Kindle Edition.) These "things" which are not seen actually exist. So, these things are not dependent upon my faith, nor are they created by my faith.

Truth exists because only God can say, "I AM" (Exodus 3:14 & John 8:58). Truth originates in Him because He is the only Creator (Genesis 1:1 and John 1:3-5).

So, Jason Collins certainly has the right to his personal faith. The question still remains in this discussion, "What is truth?"

Is God Indifferent about our Happiness?

Click here to read an excellent short passage by Tim Keller about God desiring our happiness.

I have heard several ministers preach that God does not care about our happiness. In saying this, they seem to confuse "pleasure" with "happiness." Yes, it is true that we will not always feel pleasure when following God, but this does not make Him indifferent to our happiness. Indeed, confusing pleasure with happiness is a characteristic of our present culture, and these ministers seem to be reacting to a cultural trend instead of preaching the eternal truth about our relationship with God.

Even worse, by claiming that God is indifferent to our happiness, these ministers unintentionally make God less than our parents, friends, and others who desire us to have a happy life. So, because I understand that they desire my well-being, why would I desire to follow an indifferent God?

Pleasure is momentary, and by pursuing wrong pleasures or even good pleasures in the wrong time, we can find ourselves unhappy with the consequences. Even if we do not feel remorse due to a pleasure's overwhelming sensation, or because we do not experience bad consequences, we still offend God when we are indifferent to Him (Revelation 3: 15-16). To find happiness, we must understand its source.

Keller understands that God desires us to be happy, but he also notes that happiness is a byproduct of glorifying God. The Westminster Short Confession (also here) begins by asking, "What is the chief end of man?" The answer is, "Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever." Yes, we are to enjoy God.

As Keller notes, happiness does not come from using God as a means to our happiness. I should add that this also means we must not seek pleasure as a means to happiness because it places pleasure as an idol in place of God (John 1:1-5; see also Keller's book, Counterfeit Gods).

I once heard a radio talk show host, Dennis Prager, note that happiness is what we feel when we do what we are supposed to do. An example is that of a parent getting up in the middle of the night to take care of their child. It is not pleasurable, but afterwards (maybe much later after a good night's sleep) he or she is happy as a parent. I think Prager got this one right. I might add that doing the right thing must not be defined by human standards. Likewise, happiness is not found by following abstractions such as minimal ethical standards. Rather, happiness must be defined by its source: God, the Creator.

In Matthew 6:33, Jesus tells us, "But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you" (Crossway Bibles (2011-02-09). The Holy Bible English Standard Version (ESV) (Kindle Locations 37819-37820). Crossway. Kindle Edition).

Yes, God desires us to be happy. He is a most loving God. Here is the beginning point to finding true happiness.

Easter...

Easter is my favorite holiday of the year. It is about the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. He died to remove our offenses to God, and He lives forever. His regeneration is about God regenerating us; as He breathed life into Adam, so He breathes new life into us so we can believe in Jesus and be reconciled to God.

As Paul said, "17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation." 2nd Corinthians 5:17-19 ESV. Crossway Bibles (2011-02-09). The Holy Bible English Standard Version (ESV) (Kindle Locations 45871-45876). Crossway. Kindle Edition.  

John also testified, "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 4He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” 5And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” 6And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. 7The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” Revelation 21: 1-8. Crossway Bibles (2011-02-09). The Holy Bible English Standard Version (ESV) (Kindle Locations 49162-49176). Crossway. Kindle Edition.

Happy Easter!

Republican Reform: Lincoln's Advice

If the Republican Party truly wishes to reform itself, it might begin with advice from the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln:

"If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend."

Before one can convince another that he is a sincere friend, he must sincerely be a friend in words and actions. The Ayn Rand faction that seems to controls so much of the Republican party (or at least influences much of its rhetoric) argues that helping weak people is immoral. Yet, to be a sincere friend of everyone, and not just the powerful in society, means the party will have to change it view of the weak, that is, the disadvantaged in society. Once it changes its view of such people, its rhetoric will follow.

The political issue Republicans should debate with the Democratic Party should be HOW to help those with little power, not whether to help them.

Should my Conservative friends argue that they sincerely want to help the disadvantaged, my reply is that their words and actions do not match. For example, tax cuts help those of us who pay taxes. I am all for them. However, such a policy alone does not directly and immediately help the disadvantaged, but may only help indirectly over the long run. So, what are poor people to do in the short run except suffer?

What Republicans need to do is develop both immediate and short term solutions to problems of poverty and education rather than defer them to a Darwinian form of the market where only the strong survive. Then Republicans need to communicate these solutions effectively before elections.

One of the best ways to communicate an idea is to put it into practice. What many of the disadvantaged in society see in Republicans are a lot of words without corresponding practice.

So, here is one other reform: Republicans need to run and win elections for local and state political offices, and gain experience in such offices before running for national office. I want to emphasize local governments, because it is at the local level that most government goods and services are provided (e.g. education, police, fire, etc.). Learning what government does best at the local level will help Republicans understand how government at all levels can be a positive force in society.

Currently, it seems the Republican model for a potential candidate is to make a lot of money in the private sector (or get to know a lot of rich people), then run for national office and promote anti-government policies. Republicans once ran for and served in local offices as a matter of practice in the past. Running for and serving in local governments helps such candidates better understand what governments at all levels actually do in practice, and also how governments are a positive force for social and business growth in many ways (no, I am not referring to Government Motors, uh, General Motors).

Sincerely finding immediate and long term solutions to poverty and education, along with gaining experience in local government will help rebuild the Republican electoral base. Doing this will not only change Republican attitudes towards government, it will help Republicans be credible with people by matching Republican words to Republican actions.

Friendship, Erotic Love, and Sex

I love the quote, below, by C. S. Lewis:


“Those who cannot conceive Friendship as a substantive love but only as a disguise or elaboration of Eros betray the fact that they have never had a Friend. The rest of us know that though we can have erotic love and friendship for the same person yet in some ways nothing is less like a Friendship than a love-affair. Lovers are always talking to one another about their love; Friends hardly ever about their Friendship. Lovers are normally face to face, absorbed in each other; Friends, side by side, absorbed in some common interest. Above all, Eros (while it lasts) is necessarily between two only. But two, far from being the necessary number for Friendship, is not even the best. And the reason for this is important.

"... In each of my friends there is something that only some other friend can fully bring out. By myself I am not large enough to call the whole man into activity; I want other lights than my own to show all his facets... Hence true Friendship is the least jealous of loves. Two friends delight to be joined by a third, and three by a fourth, if only the newcomer is qualified to become a real friend. They can then say, as the blessed souls say in Dante, "Here comes one who will augment our loves." For in this love "to divide is not to take away.”

― C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves, see http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/349838-those-who-cannot-conceive-friendship-as-a-substantive-love-but


I've commented that some people talk today in a manner that suggests if a person loves someone, he or she must have sex with that person. My comment may seem to be an exaggeration, but I hear this perspective in a lot of statements made by some individuals in my classes at the university, and by others in the media. Indeed, it has entered into the political mainstream.

Lewis' quote is insightful to me because he shows that such people are really lonely. They are using erotic love, or more often just sex, as an anesthesia to cover up their pain. A person who has a real friend would realize how silly it is to assume that the object of love is a sexual act.

Here, I am suggesting that those who imply that love means sex do not even understand erotic love. Loneliness can lead people to such debasement, that even erotic love escapes their understanding. When this occurs, the idea of Jesus loving His disciples takes on a sexual overtone to the listener.

Then, statements by Jesus such as, "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13 English Standard Version), become meaningless to the listener. This may be the real target of such attitudes: to make us numb to God's love.

Teachers as Priests

Many people assume teaching is primarily imparting information to students. However, good and bad teachers both impart information. Three of the many characteristics that distinguish a good teacher from a bad teacher are: 1) the ability to see gaps in a student's understanding of a complex idea; 2) the ability to help him or her make the necessary connections, that is, build bridges over the gaps between facts, concepts, and ideas; and, 3) the willingness to be this bridge builder.

Often a teacher must identify where a student has not connected a fact to another important fact necessary to understand a complex idea. Other times a teacher must see where a student has not connected one or more complex ideas to each other to help build a larger mental picture of an important concept or view. These connections are mental or even spiritual bridges.

The latin word for priest is "pontifex," which in its root means "bridge maker" or "bridge builder." In this context, all teachers are priests.

Fahrenheit 451

My son, Jackson, is completing a school assignment. He was required to read a book over this past summer that I have read, and then discuss it with me. We discussed several books, but decided on Ray Bradbury's book, Fahrenheit 451. I reread the book and rediscovered why I love it so much. Ray Bradbury is one of my favorite authors.

Part of the assignment requires me to answer ten questions about this work: five of the questions are from the assignment, and five of the questions Jackson developed for me to answer (Jackson also had five questions to answer from the assignment, along with five questions I developed). Below are the ten questions about Fahrenheit 451 I answered for Jackson (citations refer to the 1995 paperback edition by Simon & Schuster):

*********************************************************************************

1. Why did you recommend for me to read this book?
Ray Bradbury is one of my favorite authors, and Fahrenheit 451 is one of his most profound works. A close read of this book shows that he predicted how technology misused can keep us from contemplating important questions about life. In doing this, it can be used to take away our freedoms, such as freedom of the press. Also, although he presents a dystopian view of the future, a "Dark Age" (p.146), he also shows that there is hope without rejecting advances in technology.

He also warned how the media could lead to people voting based on political sound bites rather than by making intelligent decisions (p. 52); how children could be required to attend school at an earlier and earlier age not to learn, but to be occupied so they would not learn to think (p. 57); and he even described a form of ATMs (p. 88).

2. What made this book memorable to you?
Ray Bradbury shows us in this story that we must not fear ideas, even ideas with which we have strong disagreements. Thinking and discussing the merits and drawbacks, the strengths and weaknesses, the good and evil in ideas is the way to reveal truth and expose falsehood. It takes courage to be willing to consider an opposing idea. He notes that, "It's not books you need, it's some of the things that once were in books" (p. 78).

3. What is your favorite part?
Character?
Granger, because he has the courage and patience to rebuild society.
Line?
"It doesn't matter what you do, he said, so long as you change something from the way it was before you touched it into something that's like you after you take your hands away. The difference between the man who just cuts lawns and a real gardener is in the touching, he said. The lawn-cutter might just as well not have been there at all; the gardener will be there a lifetime" (p.157). This passage reminds me of how God created Adam to be a gardener in the Garden of Eden in the Book of Beginnings (i.e. Genesis). This is metaphorically what God created us to do (being a gardener is the metaphor; people actually have different kinds of jobs, but are meant to be gardeners at heart in each of these jobs).
Description?
I love the description of the last society of exiled scholars, and how human society is part Ecclesiastes/rising and declining, and part Revelation/hope (p. 153 & 158). My favorite book in the Bible is the Book of Revelation because it is about certain hope because of God. Yes, there is hope because God has a plan that will not be thwarted.

4. To you, what is this book really about?
It is about really living, not just merely living. Really living means we must be free from tyranny and free to be what God made us to be; and freedom must be earned and respected. Freedom will fade when people cease to exercise their minds in order to pursue constant entertainment and pleasure. The result then is an unhappy life, and eventually death. Notice how people in this story commit suicide because they have nothing to live for, even though they are constantly occupied with work, entertainment, and immediate pleasure. Happiness and pleasure are not the same thing.

What is the author saying to you?
Bradbury reveals to me that people brought about this society in this story, and that it was not imposed on them originally by the government. Therefore, we should not blame the government for what we create (p. 55 & 83). We must take the responsibility to read, learn, and think for ourselves, or else we will surrender our freedom in order to pursue immediate entertainment and pleasure.

5. What did you think I might learn from this book?
I hope you learn about the dangers of suppressing freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and religion. Political correctness is a modern attempt to suppress these freedoms, and it is becoming more prominent in our society. I also hope you learn how important it is to take time to contemplate important things in life so that you do not let other people put you into a state of mental slavery.

6. How do you think the story, as well as the message of the story, would've changed if books weren't illegal? Like maybe they died or were heavily looked down on.
Because more people could read, more people would read. That is why freedom is so important. Many people will not take the time to consider what is really important in life, and even fewer allow themselves to be challenged by opposing ideas. Yet, if we have our freedoms secured (1st Amendment to the US Constitution), the opportunity is there, and some of us will do this.

7. Do you think something like this could happen in the future? Please explain why/why not.
Absolutely. Today, the misuse of the internet, video games, television, can all lead to this type of society. Also, our jobs demand so much of our time with busy-work (i.e. work that adds little value to the product or service being produced), that we can easily become the society Bradbury depicts in this book.

8. How did Montag being a Fireman help make the story more interesting?
Today, Firemen preserve buildings and save lives. They are heroes who risk their lives to save other people (e.g. the firemen who died in the World Trade Center twin towers on 9/11/2001). In the society depicted by Ray Bradbury, Firemen destroy freedom by burning books, and they kill people who keep books. That is ironic, which made the story more interesting to me. “’Those who don’t build must burn’” (p. 85).

9. Who was your favorite supporting character and why?
Granger. He had the courage Faber lacked at first to try to preserve knowledge at the expense of his own comfort. Faber finally got this courage, but Granger understood that the Dark Age would end, and men and women like him would rebuild society. I liked how Faber found his courage, though.

10. What are the benefits of reading and how could books make a comeback over technology, or how could they co-exist?
When we read, we are exposed to ideas that can hit us. As Bradbury says, “If you hide your ignorance, no one will hit you and you’ll never learn” (p. 100).  He also notes that with books, “You can shut them, say, ‘Hold on a moment.’ Yes, they can co-exist with technology as long as we master technology and not let it master us and make us slaves. In fact, modern technology helps us preserve books. It is harder to “burn” books that are saved electronically.

Love,
- Dad

*********************************************************************************

If you want to read a profound book, I highly recommend Fahrenheit 451. It holds up over time!

Eric Metaxas: “So who do we say is not fully human today?”

I just finished reading Eric Metaxas’ ebook, Jesus Hates Dead Religion: Bonhoeffer, Wilberforce, and the Power of Living Faith (2012-05-28: Thomas Nelson, Kindle Edition. Available through iTunes or Amazon.com). I highly recommend purchasing and reading this ebook. It is well written, humorous, and insightful. In this book, Metaxas records his experiences leading up to and giving the keynote speech at the Sixtieth Annual National Prayer Breakfast attended by President Obama and other important dignitaries. I enjoyed his sense of humor, which is found throughout the book, and I especially appreciated the insights he offered in his keynote address.

Some of these insights concern the characteristics of a dead religion. One such insight is:
“When he [Jesus] was tempted in the desert, who was the one throwing Bible verses at him? Satan. That is a perfect picture of dead religion. Using the words of God to do the opposite of what God does. It is grotesque, when you think about it. It is demonic” (Kindle Locations 547-549).

Excellent insight! The Bible is God’s Word of life (John 10:10), because on our own without Christ, we are already condemned (John 3:16-18).

Likewise, Metaxas noted,
“Now, of course, dead religion demonizes others… And apart from God’s intervention, that is what we do. So don’t think you won’t do that. You will do that. We are broken, fallen, human beings. Apart from God, that is what we do”  (Kindle Locations 647-649).
This is so true. Therefore, he continued,
“We need to know that apart from God, we would be on the other side of that divide, fighting for what we believe is right. We cannot demonize our enemies. Today if you believe abortion is wrong, you
must treat those on the other side with the love of Jesus.
“Today, if you have a biblical view of sexuality, you will be demonized by those on the other side, who will call you a bigot. Jesus commands us to love those who call us bigots. To show them the love of Jesus. If you want people to treat you with dignity, treat them with dignity.
“So finally, Jesus tells us that we must love our enemies. That, my friends, is the real difference between dead religion and a living faith in the God of the Scriptures, whether we can love our enemies” (Kindle Locations 657-663).

God help me to love those who demonize me. It is not natural to love this way (Romans 5: 7-8). I fail at this all the time. This is why I am encouraged by Metaxas’ words.

He went on to ask a critical question for our day,
“So who do we say is not fully human today? Who is expendable to us?” (Kindle Locations 615-616).

The answer one gives to this question often depends upon one’s political views and personal experiences. However, Metaxas did not retreat into a subjective understanding of truth. Indeed, he talked about William Wilberforce and his allies who fought the culture of their day, characterized by dead Christian religion, to end the slave trade and slavery throughout the British Empire. He said,
“Now how did they see what they saw? There is just one word that will answer that. It is Jesus. He opens our eyes to his ideas, which are different from our own, which are radical. Now personally I would say the same thing about the unborn, that apart from God, we cannot see that they are persons as well.” (Kindle Locations 653-656).

Are the unborn only a mass of cells? Empirically, human life is defined biologically, and the unborn do not initially qualify in a pregnancy. Are humans more than their physical bodies? How we answer this question depends on our views of existence.

Naturalism is one such view that limits all of life and existence to the physical realm. Such view sees the story of a Creator-Redeemer as magic and myth. Yet, for those of us who believe in the Prodigal God (see Timothy Keller’s book, The Prodigal God), there is so much more to existence than the physical realm, and yet, the physical realm is not rejected.

Indeed, human life cannot be understood fully without understanding Jesus as He is: God, the Creator-Redeemer (John 1:1-4). Without Jesus, we find ourselves defining human life through the eyes of our own limited understanding. This is why the radical Christians of Wilberforce’s days could not stand idly by while Africans were physically tortured and treated as sub-human. Metaxas notes that adherents to dead religion opposed them. He notes,
“Wilberforce took these ideas—these foreign ideas from the Bible—and brought them into culture... Because he believed what the Bible said and because he obeyed what God told him to do, Wilberforce changed the world” (Kindle Locations 606-609).

I find it ironic that ideas from the Bible can be foreign to those who called themselves “Christian.”

Jesus Hates Dead Religion is a book that speaks to me so much because I am not a religious person naturally. I cannot stand religion for its own sake, such as religion for an emotional feeling or about obligation, all of which is dead religion. God speaks to this in Isaiah 44:13-17:

“The carpenter stretches a line; he marks it out with a pencil. He shapes it with planes and marks it with a compass. He shapes it into the figure of a man, with the beauty of a man, to dwell in a house. He cuts down cedars, or he chooses a cypress tree or an oak and lets it grow strong among the trees of the forest. He plants a cedar and the rain nourishes it. Then it becomes fuel for a man. He takes a part of it and warms himself; he kindles a fire and bakes bread. Also he makes a god and worships it; he makes it an idol and falls down before it. Half of it he burns in the fire. Over the half he eats meat; he roasts it and is satisfied. Also he warms himself and says, ‘Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire!’ And the rest of it he makes into a god, his idol, and falls down to it and worships it. He prays to it and says, ‘Deliver me, for you are my god!’“
• The Holy Bible English Standard Version (ESV) (Kindle Locations 28809-28816). Crossway Bibles (2011-02-09). Kindle Edition.

We take the physical world and mold it to our use, often abusing it, and then claim it is the origin of our existence. This view is too limited, too subjective, and too indulgent. Such a god is too small! Only the eternal God can explain what it means to really live. All other ideas are idols of our own making to which we say, “Deliver me, for you are my god!”

Through the eyes of Jesus we can see the forms slavery takes on in the 21st century. It doesn’t look like African slavery of Wilberforce’s day, or like Nazi slavery that Dietrich Bonhoeffer faced. Yet, modern slavery has respectability like it did in those days.

So, I highly recommend reading this excellent ebook by Eric Metaxas!

A great quote about eternity...

This is a great and insightful quote:

"No human impulse is more fundamental than our desire to transcend time, and none argues better that time is not the medium for which we are finally meant."

• Eric Metaxas, Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery, p. 280.

The Real RINOS!

Where Are the Romney Republicans? - NYTimes.com

The above link takes you to an excellent article by Nicholas D. Kristof (The New York Times, Februrary 1, 2012) about the real history of the Republican Party. Today, people such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh often claim the Republican party has always been a conservative party. "Conservative" in this context means 21st century conservatism, which is primarily an anti-government ideology. Indeed, Glenn Beck often claims much of modern progressive liberalism goes back to Republican Theodore Roosevelt. Such men and women often call modern Republicans in the mold of Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower "RINOs," or "Republicans In Name Only." Their stated goals is to get rid of so-called moderates in the party.

There are several problems with this view. The article, linked above, notes that traditionally, the Republican Party was not restricted to conservatives.  I'll go further: the Republican Party was the liberal party for most of its history. Civil Rights and Women's Rights were Republican causes, for example.

Furthermore, when pressed, many conservative commentators proudly state that they are conservatives first, and that the Republican Party is only a container for their activism. So, by their own words, they are "Republican In Name Only," the real RINOS.

Again, conservatives in the Republican party today are not ideologically compatible with Republican conservatives historically. Traditionally, Republican conservatives supported civil rights, women's rights, environmental conservation, policies which contemporary conservatives call extremist. Likewise, older conservatives like Robert Taft were more like contemporary Ron Paul Republicans in foreign policy: keep our troops here at home.

In reality, the traditional Republican Party was the national party, while the Democratic Party was the party of states rights. Both Lincoln and Roosevelt were accused of expanded the powers of the presidency beyond that called for in the US Constitution. Republicans were often criticized for expanding the role of the Federal government. Beck and Limbaugh dare not criticize Abraham Lincoln due to the reverence Americans give him, even though he was not a conservative by today's standards.

President Reagan, an ideological conservative, is often quoted by contemporary conservatives as saying "Government is not the solution to our problems. It is the problem." What he actually said is, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Reagan put the problem of big government in context of that time. Also, President Reagan supported and implemented amnesty for illegal aliens. This is something contemporary conservatives willingly ignore.

Conservatives used to stress the need for good government, believing it should be mainly at the local and state levels, with the Federal government having roles in national security, civil rights, and conservation. Today, too many conservatives just want less government indiscriminately. Liberals, also, used to stress the need for good government believing the national government should have a larger role in implementing public policy. Today, many liberals want more government as the solution to address more problems.

For many of us, it depends. Government is good at doing some things, and not so good at doing other things. Less government makes sense in some public policy areas, and a different government approach makes sense in other areas. The US Constitution must be followed in both cases, and character and competency must accompany ideology in politics.

By re-writing the history of the Republican Party, these real RINOs have more in common with George Orwell's "Big Brother" in 1984 , and thus, alienate many voters whose values are those of Lincoln, T Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and yes, even Reagan.

Newt Gingrich: Immoral or Amoral?

Newt Gingrich has won the Republican South Carolina Primary. Several weeks ago I was trying to summarize in my mind why I do not like the former Speaker of the House of Representatives as a political candidate. It then came to me: Newt Gingrich holds the political ideology of President Ronald Reagan, and the moral character of President Richard Nixon.

Ideologically, Newt is a conservative, but a forward thinking conservative. That is, he is not trying to stop progress. Rather, he is an idea man, and he wants to see these ideas become realities in the future. I can listen to Newt speak for hours because he has fascinating ideas with an interesting world-view. Like him, I love history, and value the works of authors such as Isaac Asimov. These are aspects of his ideology I find attractive, even though I am more moderate ideologically than the former Speaker.

My problem with candidate Newt Gingrich regards his character and credibility. Morally, he strikes me not so much as an immoral man as an amoral man, at least in his private life. He comes across to me as a man whose values are on the table and negotiable.

Nixon was like this. He was a proponent of civil rights and campaigned supporting such policies early in his political career. However, he later pursued a campaign strategy minimizing these values to appease White racists in the South, even though he implemented desegregationist policies in practice while president. Still, Nixon was faithful to his wife and family throughout his life. So, when I say Nixon’s character was amoral, this pertains to his political life, not his family life.

Nixon’s political life seems to correspond to Gingrich’s private life: amoral. Gingrich’s willingness to be unfaithful in his marriage is well known. He claims he knows he has “made mistakes” and has asked God for forgiveness. However, a “mistake” is something one does on an occasion. Gingrich’s infidelity is consistent: he is willing to compromise his values for personal gain when it is expedient.

What really bothers me, though, is Gingrich runs for office supporting “family values” and has even co-authored a book with his current wife called Rediscovering God in America (2009: Thomas Nelson). Yet, Christianity is not about actions alone. It is about God changing a person’s heart towards Him through Jesus, and as a result changing our heart towards our fellow human beings. As a result, repentance results in changing one’s character over time. I don’t see character change in Newt Gingrich. I do see a man who talks about repentance in legalistic terms rather than heart changing terms. Likewise, he talks about repentance in an almost dismissive way.

Likewise, what is not discussed in the press so much is his willingness to change religious affiliations as often as he changes wives, especially when it is politically beneficial (he was raised Lutheran, but converted to the Baptist faith when he ran for office in Georgia, and is now a convert to Roman Catholicism). Changing religious affiliations is not necessarily bad. Personally, I became a Presbyterian recently. What I find of interest is the motivation behind one's conversion. In Gingrich’s case, it comes across to me as being self-serving for his political career. It was beneficial to convert to the Baptist faith in Georgia, and now to convert to Roman Catholicism when running for president. I may be wrong about this, but this is the impression I get about him.

Ultimately, God is our judge because only He know the intentions of the human heart. He is merciful and forgives a multitude of sins. God especially loves a humble heart (see Micah ch. 6 vs. 8). We are all sinful, make mistakes, and have character problems (see Romans ch. 3 vs. 23-24). So, as a voter, I look for credibility rather than perfection in a candidate. My dislike for Newt Gingrich as a candidate is because he lacks credibility and humility regarding his "mistakes."

I am also bothered about his ability to be a competent executive. He was a legislator, not an executive, and has been criticized about his leadership of the House of Representatives by those who should be supporting him in his run for the Republican nomination.

So, I still predict President Obama will be re-elected this year, not because of his record, but because Republicans will likely nominate a poor candidate. President Obama is beatable, but only by a candidate who has ideals and credibility, and is competent to be president. Newt Gingrich has ideas, but lacks both credibility and competency.

The Republican Presidential Nominee - Iowa Debates

After watching the Republican presidential candidates debate in Iowa on ABC tonight, I am convinced the best thing that could happen to the Republican Party is for none of the current candidates to win enough delegates to secure the Republican nomination on the first ballot of the national convention. Then, the Republican delegates could choose someone who is not currently in the race to be the nominee, and thus, choose someone who has not been attacked either by the current Republican candidates or by the Obama campaign. It would draw national attention to the nomination process, too. It has been a long time since a party convention has had to have multiple ballots to decide who would be the party's nominee for president.

The Democratic Party already has its nominee, President Obama (of course). So, there is no issue there. He will run a strong race, and I think the odds are in his favor of being reelected unless the unemployment rate remains high. Even then, he can still win because he is a strong and intelligent campaigner.

Should one of the present Republican candidates win enough delegates to get the nomination on the first ballot, the time will be ripe for an independent candidate to run against both parties. This person would have to be wealthy, intelligent, able to articulate his ideas well, and not be quirky. In other words, this person would have to be credible. I have no idea who this person might be, though. Indeed, such a person may not exist.

Given all this, I am impressed that Ron Paul has remained consistent on his message. I especially admire his willingness in a previous debate to buck the popular conservative position on "enhanced interrogation techniques" by stating that waterboarding is torture. I read a Tweet by Senator McCain where he stated that he agrees with Ron Paul's position, and so do I. Torture demeans our nation morally, and is of no practical benefit.

Invoking Reagan's Name.

Republican candidates seem to invoke President Reagan's name a lot, except when it comes to torture, immigration, or nuclear weapons. Then, they quietly ignore President Reagan's public policies.

Regarding torture, for example, the Ron Paul campaign has an interesting website, quoting President Reagan. I wonder how the other Republican presidential candidates would respond to the former president's statement?

On the other hand, Democrats do the same with President Kennedy's name. By the time many Democratic candidates are done quoting the former president, one would conclude he was a pacifist. Actually, President Kennedy was a cold warrior, who actively strove to defeat communism. In fact, he criticized the Eisenhower administration for not being aggressive enough in its foreign policy. As a result, the US increased its military presence in Vietnam. The rest is history. Again, Democratic candidates quietly ignore President Kennedy's public policies.

This leads me to conclude that a rule of political campaigning is that politicians can't allow facts get in the way of their political invocations.

For Pre-Law Students at SHSU

"The Political Science Junior Fellows are bringing Kaplan Testing to campus to offer a Mock LSAT. The test will be offered on Saturday, September 17, 2011. The test is an actual LSAT test, and the scoring will be done by professionals and provided to the student 3-5 days following the test. Spots are limited and are being filled on a first-come, first-serve basis. To register, contact Mike Yawn at 936.294.1456 or mike.yawn@shsu.edu. The test is free and lasts from 9:30-1:30. "