A New America

When President Truman’s Secretary of State Dean Acheson wrote his memoirs of the crucial years following the Second World War, he entitled them, “Present at the Creation.” Little did he know how true that was. So much of our political world of today was brought into being during the days of the Roosevelt administration. A new national mentality was created by the two Roosevelts who were president. What Teddy set in motion Franklin accentuated. That generation of Americans was present at the creation of a new interpretation of the role of government.
When President Franklin Roosevelt signed what we now call the death tax bill he said, “This is the beginning of the redistribution of the wealth of America.” It ushered in a new creative way of interpreting the role of government. All of today’s entitlement programs are an outgrowth of that philosophy.
Economic stimulus checks, government support of businesses facing potential bankruptcy, federally funded programs that were once part of the business community were not the intent of the founders of our nation. The government cannot give the public anything costing money that they don’t take the money from the people to give. The government has no money. Their money comes from the tax paying public and the government determines how much the tax will be.
As a Congressman Davey Crockett, the lion of Washington in his day, said, “We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity, but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.”
It was part of his speech when Congress proposed to give a subsidy to the widow of a navy man. He felt it unconstitutional for the government to give support so instead he offered to personally give a week’s wage to the widow and urged his colleagues each to do the same.
Later in explaining his reasoning he offered this sockdolager, “Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”
A new America was created in the 1930s and 40s. Now another new America is being advocated by some proponents of an even more benevolent government who are poised for election. The new America will be more dramatically different from our present one than ours is from the one of which Crockett spoke.
It will involve government getting more involved in public life and giving away more than ever. To do so they will have to take more than ever from the people. For example there is a proposal that not only will income off savings be taxed but the savings themselves.
One of our founding fathers warned against the day when an unproductive element of society would discover they could vote themselves benefits by electing those disposed to provide them. Thus we were warned of a potential implosion resulting from the more productive element of society being over taxed.
Like Acheson, are we present at the creation?

Democracy In America

Alexis de Tocqueville was an eminent French representative of the liberal tradition of the mid-1800s. As such he was very active in French politics. He came to America to study the penal system but stayed for some time to study the nation from the perspective of a detached social scientist. His book released in 1835 entitled, “Democracy in America” is considered a classic early work in sociology. It reveals his perspective on the developing nation. These insights into our heritage are worth considering.
His observations led him to conclude America had not embraced socialism or feudalism as in Europe. It was the different attitudes regarding money. In Europe the common people had no hope and therefore no aspiration to gain it. The privileged felt it was their right to have wealth. Their inherited entitlement resulted in lethargy regarding trying to gain it. The ethos in America was different. In America money was an object to be sought. Here the people all felt they could gain wealth through industrious hard work. This resulted in a productive people.
He also wrote of the character of our society.
“Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.”
“I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion …. But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions.”
“I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors…; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in the democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.
“Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.”
“America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”
Today there is a correlation between the diminution of morality in our present society and the flickering flame in many pulpits. The popular health, wealth, and prosperity version of the gospel has replaced calls for a faith commitment resulting in morality, virtue, and integrity. Personal gain has replaced an appeal for a culture of responsible ethics that benefit all of society. A moral world is rarely addressed.
de Tocqueville wrote of the interrelation between two phases of American life. “In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.”
His belief that the two were mutually dependent resulted in this conclusion:
“The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom.”

Whatever Became of Sin?

“Whatever Became of Sin?” is an intriguing title of a book worth noting. The author is not a right wing evangelical. Rather it is Karl Menninger, M.D., founder of the prestigious Menninger Clinic (psychiatric) and the Menninger Foundation.
 Menninger is a prophet and a good one. He warns us of a social sickness in our midst and diagnoses it well. There is  a long standing problem however. People since the Old Testament era tend not to believe even the best of prophets. At best they are ignored.
 Menninger quotes Dr. Daniel J. Boorstin, director of the National Museum of Science and Technology at the Smithsonian Institution regarding our current malaise: “…we have lost our sense of history….lost our traditional respect for the wisdom of ancestors and the culture of kindred nations….we haunt ourselves with the illusory ideal of some “whole nation’ which had a deep and outspoken “faith’ in its “values.’”
 In attempting to answer how this deterioration has occurred he says one word is missing from our analysis and that is “sin.”
 It is still very present and influential but unidentified. In answer to the title of his book he says sin is still prominently responsible for our situation but we have renamed and often dignified it. We no longer call it sin.
 A classic example is the circumstances involving the girl in the case of Governor Spitzer of New York. Such a person was formerly called a whore. They are sometimes called hookers. The name was derived from the group of women who followed General Hooker’s forces in the Civil War. Now they are referred to as call girls or preferably escorts.
 Menninger makes a connection between sin, guilt, and not only social ills but psychological sickness. The name of the act has changed but the consequence is still the same.
 A foreign observer of our society describes our values as being like a display window of a store in which someone has secretly gotten into at night and changed all the price tags. The valuable items have been made to appear cheap and he cheap ones given value. Our values have been inverted. The “faith” and “values” spoken of by Boorstin have been denigrated.
 Who is to blame? Menninger says the responsible person is identified by the central letter in the word “sin.” No one sins today. We appear to have officially stopped sinning about twenty-five years ago.
 The clinical mind of Dr. Menninger connects sin and guilt. He postulates that regardless of what sin is called on a personal basis it still erodes one’s emotional and psychological being. On a national scale it corrupts culture and leads to moral decay.
 Imagine a prominent political figure doing as President Lincoln did and calling on the nation “to confess our sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon.”
 An Old Testament prophet said if people will do that God will “forgive their sins and heal their land.” What a novel concept! God? What ever happened to Him? Oh, yes, He has been replaced by karma, luck, good fortune, fate, and Mother Nature.

Capital Punishment

Biblical basis for believing in capital punishment is based on the following.
It is first spoken of in Scripture in Genesis 9:6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man, (murder) by man shall his blood be shed (the state exercising capital punishment.) [Parentheses added as an interpretation.].
Thereafter in the Mosaic Code of 613 laws found in the first five books of the Old Testament, the Pentateuch, it is expanded on.
The commandment rendered “Thou shall not kill” in the Hebrew text is literally, “Thou shall not murder.”
In John 19:10 Pilate said to Jesus, “Do you not know that I have power to crucify you (capital punishment) and power to release you. [Parentheses added.]
Jesus said to him “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above ,” (that is by God.) John 19:11 [Parentheses added.]
Thus Jesus was saying capital punishment is authorized by God.
Upon facing the death penalty enforced by Roman Law Paul said, “If I have committed any thing worthy of death, (capital punishment) I refuse not to die….” Acts 25: 11. He was aware that capital punishment was legitimate. [Parentheses added.]

Peter affirmed government as an instrument of God given authority “for the punishment of evildoers” (I Peter 2:14ff; Titus 3:1).
The civil government is shown to be ordained by God to maintain law and order in Romans 13:1. “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God….”
Revelation 13:10 “he who kills by the sword (an individual who commits murder) must be killed with the sword (action by government in punishing murder). [Parentheses added.]

Israel Part 3

This is not to say who is right and who is wrong in Israel. It is to say what is.
There are three regions governed by three separate codes of law. Along the Costal Plane and Gaza Egyptian law prevails. Around Bethlehem, Jericho, and suburban Jerusalem Jordanian law is applied, and in Israel and the part known by many since the Six Day War as the West Bank Israeli Law, which is primary British, is in force. Confusing isn’t it. Why is this important?
The region called the West Bank by Israel was conquered in 1967 and has since been called the West Bank by Israel. The Arab world calls it “the occupied territory.” Who is right? By ,Israel appears to imply the Arabs, even though they contend it is not occupied territory.
The reason some consider some regions occupied territory is that International Law says that if a country occupies another, those conquered must be governed by their own laws. The fact the people in those territories are governed by their own laws implies they are occupied territories.
To compound the issue is the question of what law prevails on the Temple Mount, site of the Mosque of Omar, better known as the Dome of the Rock, the third holiest place in the Arab world.
Israel is a mosaic of diverse cultures. In addition to the complexity of law, there is the compounding matrix of religion. There are many faiths that propagate in this cradle, though there are three principle ones. Israel is the home of Judaism and Christianity. It is a primary fountainhead of Islam. The faiths of two of these are embraced by various states, Judaism by Israel and Islam by the Arab countries. Christianity has no national base of support. The other two often form a vice putting pressure on the Christian community.
This is observable in Bethlehem which was once 95% Christian. Today it is about 28% Christian. There have long been seven quarters to the city. Six were long Christian and one Muslim. Now four are Muslim and two about equal. Every time a piece of property comes up for sale it is purchased by a Muslim, rather for a Muslim. The money comes primarily from Saudi Arabia. Cost does not matter. One business man told me that if he put his business up for sale for $5,000,000 they would pay $10,000,000 rather than a non-Muslim obtain it. In the heart of old Bethlehem, all the property around Nativity Square and the Church of the Nativity is being purchased by Muslims.
A sub confusion comes from the fact some Christians are Arabs and some Israelis. These are often in conflict with the faith of their heritage and those who espouse it.
Another layer of confusion is the pluralism of the population. Immigrants from all over the world have moved into the country. Israel has a very liberal immigration policy for Jews wanting to “come home.” Assimilation of the many diverse customs into one is difficult. Many youth grow up not knowing who they are. The Israeli government has a good program to help acclimate young Jews to their new society but children of other cultures have no roots. This causes emotional problems.
Don’t try to solve all this. Do comply with the ancient admonition: “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.”