If the allegations are true, it is a dagger wounding the image being fostered that the public school system is a non-threatening atmosphere for the unbiased evaluation of competing ideas. We hear the phase “critical thinking” represented as synonymous with the milieu of public education. But that term seems little more than a euphemism for the promotion of political correctness.

The alleged incident also makes the case for further positive consideration of the “school choice” movement, whereby tax subsidies follow, rather than limit, the opportunities of educational choice for the student. Educational vouchers have already gotten a foothold in major metropolitan areas in Wisconsin, and the governor wants to expand the outreach.

Of course, opponents of school choice frequently offer several objections to the policy. First they claim such a policy will destroy public education rather than make it more competitive.

Another argument offered, often by those who tend to be strident secularists, is that many private schools are religious in their orientation, and they believe its wrong for their tax money to be used as such.

They fail to recognize that their argument is easily reversible. Concerned parents may believe that their children are exposed to philosophies of secular humanism and political liberalism in public schools that circumvent the values of the parents, and are completely extraneous to the learning experience. They bemoan the requirement to fund what they perceive as indoctrination.

Of course, a simply way to handle the funding issue, which would side step personal objections to subsidizing what goes against liberty of conscience, would be to replace the voucher with tuition tax credits. Nobody would need to worry about financially promoting religion.

People opposed to school choice say that parents already have a choice. They assert parents who desire other options for the education of their children have to pay for that choice, yet still fund public education just the same. The libertarian devotion to personal choice typically reserved for reproductive issues mysteriously vanishes when it comes to eduational preogatives.

In addition, this issue underscores another element of hypocrisy. Liberals attack Voter I.D. as a scheme to disenfranchise the poor, elderly and youth, who are thought to be constituencies for the democrats. Yet they also oppose school choice which gives more opportunities to economically challenged segments of society. This makes private education less attainable for those other than the wealthy.

While the boilerplate claim of the public education establishment is that their top priority is the children, not everyone employed within the system agrees. A few years ago the retiring general counsel for the NEA, briefly laid out the group’s true priorities in a departing address …

“…And that brings me to my final, and most important point. Which is why, at least in my opinion, NEA and its affiliates are such effective advocates. Despite what some among us would like to believe, it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children. And it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power…”

The statement above should make any dedicated educator cringe. But before anyone offers a chorus of protests about the statement being out of context, please provide a context where such a statement is acceptable.

The NEA has championed many liberal causes and endorsed a disproportionate number of “progressive” politicians in recent decades. Would it be unreasonable to suppose these ideological postures seep down from the administration through some educators, and then to the students?

It should be noted that I have no particular axe to grind against public education. I am a product of the public education system and have no complains about either the quality or content of the education I received. I was a decent student academically by my senior year in high school. I would say there was a mutual respect between my teachers and myself. Adding to that, I have professional educators in my immediate family. While I started in the Appleton school system, I finished in a small neighboring community. At that time I think that the worldview of the faculty closely reflected the community ethic, rather than embarking in a campaign of progressive activism. The 1970’s were a different era, and I thought differently as well, as I remember be gung-ho for Jimmy Carter my senior year of high school.

Abraham Lincoln once said that the philosophies in the schoolhouse today are the philosophies in the statehouse tomorrow. Parents should not merely consider the quality of education, but also the content of education, as well as the ideology that trickles down, as they consider their children’s welfare.

One common innuendo, is that religious zealots are responsible for unwanted children because they refuse to give women access to birth control measures. This assertion comes after we have been told virtually all Roman Catholic women ignore their church policies on contraception. How the two claims comport is pretzel logic.

Another observation expressed is that abstinence doesn’t work. This is like claiming that designated drivers don’t curtail drunk driving incidents. This is something of a category error. It is true that people may not follow through with noble intensions, but that is a question of character not failed methodology. Do accidents at intersections prove that stop signs are ineffective?

The idea that greater education about birth control will end the single parenthood and abortion culture is a fool’s paradise. Every statistical and empirical failure of this philosophy is met by calls for additional resources which they claim will finally solve the problem. It reminds me of the misguided optimism expressed by Hebert Hoover in the early stages of the Great Depression, that prosperity is right around the corner. What people advocating this idea don’t understand is that law of unintended consequences is at work.

If people are irresponsible enough to engage in indiscriminate sex in the first place, what makes anyone think they will suddenly get scruples when it comes to using birth control measures? Said another way, birth control measures have simply granted social permission to engage in promiscuous behavior without guilt, whether or not protection is available or used.

In times past, we had an social ethic that dictated sexual expression had a proper context. This notion was supported by the institutions within our culture. Behaviors that rebelled against the norm were met with disapproval and stigmatization, because we prudently understood that unwanted pregnancies were bad for society, bad for the child and bad for the mother.

Generally, these disincentives worked well to counter balance the hormonal impulses, so relatively few unwanted pregnancies resulted before an era of easy access to birth control. In cases where unwanted pregnancies still occurred, the state expected the parties involved to assume responsibility, rather that forcing citizens to own the financial obligation for support.

People frequently paraphrase Einstein by reminding us that the definition of insanity to do the same thing repeatedly and expect a different outcome. Likewise, it is equally absurd to change something that is already working and expect a good outcome. Remember the old adage “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”

What has changed is that our social ethic resulted in diminished expectations of people, especially our youth. Today we collectively believe that failure to indulge one’s appetites without adverse consequences is unreasonable deprivation. The goal is no longer responsible behavior, but developing strategies to eliminate adverse behavioral consequences.

We see these expectations expressed in other areas. One such example is our endemic problems with national obesity. If someone needs to lose weight, they must reduce calorie consumption. This amounts to engaging in physical exercise and a sensible diet that avoids consumption of empty calories. But we would rather believe that we can take a fat magnet pill that allows everything to pass through, as we consume multiple sodas and twin packs of potato chips while we lounge on the sofa.

While opponents will be anxious to cite examples of countries where birth control measures correlate with low unwanted pregnancy rates, it should be remembered that in this country several decades ago we achieved the same thing without youth having access to easy birth control methods. Of course people will want to summarily pooh-pooh what happened in the past as prudish and unrealistic, but it raises the question as to how many common sense approaches are we going to sacrifice to that iconic virtue we call ‘changing times’?

Obviously, people aren’t going to like what is being said here, because it requires self-control that many of us don’t care to exercise these days. And there’s the rub. The issue of birth control is really about personal autonomy and not solving problems with unwanted pregnancies. As long as the former is more important that the latter, we will see only minor changes

While lip service may at times be paid to the problems of appealing to minority voters, such as Hispanics and African-Americans, the real 800 pound gorilla is the staunch positions on moral issues. The strategy is that by taking non-committed positions on certain hot-button issues, Republicans can avoid the problem of energizing fringe constituencies on the left, and at the same time stop the defections of moderate and independent voters who are scared off or embarrassed by conservative social positions. Supposedly Republicans will hereafter only be allowed to focus on fiscal issues if they are ever to win another election.

The problems with this approach are legion. Why not just vote for progressives who have deliberate positions on the issues, rather than a party that won’t take a stand at all? Abandoning unpopular positions to gain voting majorities only makes you the impostor, rather than giving voters a distinct choice. The Libertarian Party already facilitates the attraction of voters who have conservative fiscal policies, but remain uncommitted, or all over the board on social issues.

The fracture of the party that could result from eschewing Tea Party influences and other social conservatives could decimate the party far worst than the defection of moderates and RINO’s would. It would be creating a worst dilemma than the one being avoided. Republicans should not take for granted the continuing support of the Tea Party movement and other social conservatives if their commitment to social issues is shunned or belittled.

It should be remembered that when the Tea Party began to pick up momentum in the spring of 2009, the leadership had to make decisions about their operational strategy. There was never a guarantee they would attempt to reform the Republican Party back toward its conservative roots. They could have instead formed a third party voting movement that would have left Republicans in the lurch. They could join their separatist brethren in the Constitution Party to form a formidable third party voting bloc that would assure perpetual liberal ascendancy.

We have to ask whether the Republican Party will continue to reflect the populist conservatism of Ronald Reagan, or simply become a bastion for the country club set. There is no certainty that it is social issues putting people off. It could be that people in greater numbers have bought into the enticement of progressive fiscal policies. Further, while there seems to be little correlation between fiscal conservativism and commitment to social positions, conversely, most moral conservatives are the staunchest fiscal hawks.

The problem is that while pundits have focused the blame on those holding firmly to social issues, what they have failed to do is develop candidates that can effectively articulate conservative positions. If you have the better argument, then cater to your strengths rather than becoming ashamed of them. It has become strategic laziness that has created this problem. How foolish to neglect the very positions that separate you from your opponents.

Why should the Republican Party cave on social issues in hope of a “big tent” approach that can attract voters across a larger spectrum? Such a compromise is simply capitulation to misguided conventional wisdom. Ideological purity is considered a vice on the right side of the political spectrum, while it is thought to be a virtue on the left side. Republicans have allowed this to happen. Advice to forsake social stances is easy to dispense for those who were never committed to them in the first place.

It is claimed that Barrack Obama is trying to destroy the Republican Party by dividing its factions. Others claim the party is doing a pretty decent job of self-destructing on its own. It will be hard to argue against that latter position if the social conservatives are tossed overboard. Polls continue to show that Americans hold conservative positions, yet fail to vote accordingly. The Republican Party ought to work n correcting that dissonance instead of changing its stripes.

One has to honestly ask what is being won, if one has to abandon principle in the hope of winning.

It’s no mystery why we have so many unwanted pregnancies and abortions in an environment where contraception is readily available. No matter how much money is spent on contraception education, more will be demanded because the problems of unwed pregnancies keep expanding. Society once frowned on recreational sexual activities, because unwanted pregnancies were bad for the child, for the mother and for society. We supported an ethic of abstinence, and it worked well because the existing social stigmas balanced the impulses of hormones.

Then contraceptives like the birth-control pill came along, and with it unintended ramifications. It provided cover for people who desired illicit sex without consequences, and society cooperated by lowering their expectations, eventually granting approval to the new approach. Rather than just limiting birth rates, it granted social permission for people to engage in recreation sex with or without protection.

The focus became insulating people from the consequences of their activities, rather than avoiding destructive behaviors.

With firearms we take a different approach and blame the instrument as the culprit. People don’t kill people after all, guns do.
I advocate Second Amendment rights, not because I have a fascination with firearms, or because I’m a sportsman or target shooter. Plain and simple, weapons restrictions are the current pivotal front on which the battle for liberty is being fought. The Founders saw private firearms possession as a necessary check in favor of citizens.

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed — unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46

We put armed marshals on airline flights to enhance security, yet the idea of placing armed guards on duty at schools for the same reason is unthinkable.

Social problems within the United States must be considered within their own cultural context. Simply because murder rates are lower in countries where firearms are publicly restricted, or fewer unwanted pregnancies occur in European countries where birth-control is dispensed like multi-vitamins, doesn’t guarantee the same results with those policies in America. Here in America, we deal with a cultural, ethnic and ideological diversity that is unlike countries used as comparisons. We should recognize (as did Madison) that “liberty’ in some free socialist countries, is a different animal from the concept of liberty we understand here in the United States.

Neither the approach of protecting people from their behaviors, or blaming the instrument are the solutions, but examples of looking in the wrong place. The relationship between liberty and internal governance was elegantly expressed by Robert Winthrop, Speaker of The House of Representatives over 150 years ago.
“All societies of men must be governed in some way or other. The less they may have of stringent State Government, the more they must have of individual self-government. The less they rely on public law or physical force, the more they must rely on private moral restraint…”

Will observing this advice prevent all situations where deranged individuals commits a grave atrocity? Of course not. While it’s gratuitous to blame any particular crime on the disintegration of moral values, it would be naive and irresponsible to suppose they haven’t factored in the coarsening of culture overall, resulted in the proliferation of impulse to violence.

We must choose between the “Land of the free and home of the brave.” or the “Brave new world,” where the central government is wholly responsible for our amusement, our care and our livelihood.

This slaughter of young children occurred in a “gun free zone,” not merely under the jurisdiction of a ban on “assault rifles.” The result was that there existed no means of self-defense. Perhaps this a reason why such vulnerable targets are chosen.

The liberal mantra has consistently been “You have a right to your opinion, but not to legally impose it on others.” Of course, the rule doesn’t apply to the people wagging their fingers. This is the usual double standard in play.

So often we hear the argument that firearms with high volume magazines, known as “assault rifles” have no practical applications for average citizens who insist on having weapons primarily for self-defense. But, for the law-abiding citizen, a high-volume magazine only provides deterrence against a greater threat, not a temptation to initiate senseless acts of violence. The question of what the average persons “needs” is not germane to the issue. Thousands of deaths occur on America’s highways each year. Many can be partially attributed to speeding. Do we suggest solving the problem by making cars that won’t go faster than 65 m.p.h., since people don’t “need” to go any faster?

The patriotic case for possessing firearms is more extensive than just a conservative interpretation of the text of the Second Amendment in the United States Constitution. Contrary to what some may argue, the primary reason for having arms was not for shooting game for food, or protection against hostile strangers out on the frontier. A host of quotations from the founders supporting citizens having firearms could be tendered. I’ll choose three from among them.

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed — unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46

“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — (Thomas Jefferson)

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that is good” (George Washington)

There is a certain sense in which the Founders acknowledged that firearms represented a necessary check against government tyranny. Less than a decade ago, liberal icon, former Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, led opposition against the Patriot Act, warning that the provisions of the legislation could be used to violate the constitutional civil rights of citizens. At that time, the mantra was “He who trades liberty for security deserves neither.” Yet, many of the same ink that supported Feingold, bristle with derision and indignation when presented with the principle that the right to bear arms is a check against tyranny. Such “crackpot” thinking is a bane to citizen statism. The presumption of trading liberty for security is happily chosen when it comes to gun control.

Since the assumption is made that criminal activity is always thwarted by stricter weapons laws, why not just prohibit murder in general? That way, the next time some deranged individual uses a car to drive into a playground full of children, someone won’t feel the need to suggest we restrict the private use of the automobile, advocating the exclusive use of mass transit as the alternative. The same applies to the abuse of knives, baseball bats and pitchforks, with the only distinction being that these implements have a general use in addition to being potential lethal weapons.

Some people believe that restricting access to private ownership of weapons is justified by statistics showing lower weapons related crimes in other developed countries where guns are publicly banned. Despite ignoring the cultural implications latent in the assertion, it must be recognized that one of the worse incidents featuring senseless gun violence against children occurred during 2011 in Norway, a country where private ownership of firearms is restricted to hunting and target shooting purposes. In addition, we must ask how effective gun control laws have been, when statistics show that cities like New York and Chicago, have high gun related murder rates despite their strict laws.

Of course, emotions run high for those who lost family members in the Sandy Hook school incident, and others who have been emotionally impacted by this atrocious act of violence. I can understand why grieving people would lash out emotionally, thinking that without stronger measures coming to pass, nothing was learned by the incident. Liberty always has a cost; namely that the experiment of self-government can lead to tragic ends when those liberties are abused. Even so, principle must triumph over sentimentality.

The truth is no tax policy can stem the growing national debt problem without focusing on a reduction in government spending, since taxes deal primarily with revenue production.

The President and House Republicans are currently in a negotiation stalemate that could trigger deep mandatory cuts–harmful to the country’s growth prospects-if the issue remains unresolved by year’s end.

Obama’s call for a “balanced approach,” is really a lopsided approach, calling for increased taxes on the wealthy, while making only trivial changes in domestic spending programs.
The demand that some must pay their “fair share” is an Orwellian mantra, that results in people who pay little or no federal income tax, feeling justified in their indignation toward those few who pay most of the freight already. As Paul Ryan pointed out in the Vice-Presidential debate, the extra tax revenues gained from increasing taxes on the wealthy would only operate the federal budget for a matter of days. This “fair share” demand is based in envy and sentimentality rather than anything fiscally significant or practical.

Polls have indicated conservative lawmakers will be blamed if the impasse continues, resulting in increased taxes for all after the New Year. This seems odd since it is Obama who wants to change the current tax brackets, rather than leaving tax rates as they have existed for over a decade. Yet, it is a good bet that the Republicans will fold and capitulate to Obama’s increase tax demands, fearing the blame and electoral repercussions of the economically misinformed and misguided public.

What has been emphasized by the media is that Romney had an effective personal federal income tax rate of under 15%. What hasn’t been pointed out, is that a substantial portion of Romney’s taxable income was given to charity. The conclusion that Romney’s effective income tax percentage was impacted by his charitable contributions is entirely ignored. Further, it is never observed that much of what Romney gave to charity accomplished many of the same things that paying extra taxes would have, except in a more efficient and self-directed way. One’s federal tax liability, which is at least partly involuntary, is deemed more important to the welfare of society, than one’s charitable contributions which are totally voluntary. In most cases, credible public charities are more effective and efficient with their resources than programs that are established and operated with federal tax money.

Let’s further analyze the anecdotal story about Warren Buffet paying a lower rate than his private secretary. We are then informed about what an injustice such a situation is. Of course, further analysis reveals a different story. Most of the secretary’s income likely comes from wages or salary, while most of Buffet’s taxable income is derived from capital gains, not salary. Money invested in capital is generally at risk of loss, whereas salary and wages are simply payments for services rendered. When people risk their money they have to be compensated for the risk of loss. That incentive is generally a lower rate on how that income is taxed.

As an aside, one wonders what sort of tax advise did Buffet’s secretary receive? My own effective federal tax rate was less than five percent, one third of what Romney pays, and I can’t even itemize deductions. It’s hard to believe the story without knowing more details. The irony is that I’ve always supported a type of flat tax, whether based on consumption or income, and it would be more equitable than the system we have now, even though my personal tax rate would likely go up.

Should the rich pay more in taxes? Sure. Should they pay a greater percentage on higher incomes though? It raises the question as to the mischief that is caused through the implementation of a progressive income tax system–one of the methods which Karl Marx proscribed as a means of destroying capitalism. I could go on to write an entire column on the evils of a progressive income tax system. Suffice it to say it helps to perpetuate the class warfare so prominent in this country, as well as accommodating the perpetual re-election of pandering politicians

What a great bait and switch ploy: Get people arguing about who is paying their “fair share” while the current administration spends us into oblivion. Apparently we elected the government we deserved.

Well, they got amnesia. In fact they are saying supply-side economics have never worked. When they make this claim I always take them to J.F.K.’s arguments from the early 60′s.

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.” – John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference.

“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.” – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964.

Oh, I know, this is perceived as an abuse of Kennedy. Portraying Kennedy as a supply-sider is just conservative mythology, right? They can claim that if they want, but they can’t argue with the plain words and arguments made by Kennedy.

Of course, Kennedy didn’t invent this economic policy or the results. The same thing was done in the 1920′s by Presidents Coolidge and Harding, and it led to the Roaring 20′s.

My question is when has Keynesian economics, or it’s current iteration, Obamanomics ever worked?

During the Great Depression F.D.R. became a beloved god to many Americans for implementing the current social safety net and for his leadership in WWII. But it would be gratuitous to suggest his policies led us out of the Great Depression. The unemployment rate in 1938 was nearly 20%, more than five years after many of Roosevelt’s policies had been implemented.

It strikes parallels to what is happening today, high unemployment despite obscene amounts of money spent to supposedly stimulate the economy. Obama apologists will say that this spending prevented another depression, but anyone that got elected could have made that same claim. The truth is that the TARP bailout is probably what prevented a total economic collapse, and much of that money was committed before Obama took office. Furthermore, the last recession officially ended in June of 2009, likely before any of the stimulus money would have had a chance to effect the economy.

The sad fact is that America has now become addicted to a paternalistic government that provides for their every want. Many years ago Norman Thomas prophetically observed that…

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

We inherited Fabian Socialism from Europe, and look where they are today–in worse financial condition than the U.S. even without the massive defense budget we have here.   Nearly 250 years ago, we fought a war for independence to free ourselves from backward Europeans ideas. Today we want to embrace them without a fight.

Ricken, along with other Roman Catholic bishops across the U.S.A., are taking a stand against political positions that are characterized as intrinsically evil.

Far from imposing a theocracy on society, Bishop Ricken is connecting the dots that have been obscured under the iron boot of ridicule and political correctness. Ricken spells out that it is dangerously hypocritical for individuals to compartmentalize between political and moral issues.

Does it make any sense for the Catholic Church to oppose abortion, yet remain silent and unresponsive toward lawmakers which celebrate it’s legality, along with voters who rationalize away the issue?

Ricken speaking out on the travesty of abortion isn’t an instance of the church delving into politics, but rather exposing the fact that moral issues have been politicized to the detriment of society. In so doing, the bishop restores the church to its rightful role as the vanguard of culture, rather than sitting motionless as a gargoyle on its contemporary, irrelevant perch.

Of course Ricken, and those taking up his mantle have met their share of detractors. Most of the nominal church-going public, have been living their lives in the shadows of the post-Johnson Amendment era. In 1954, congress passed a law, promoted by Lyndon Johnson, that prohibited churches from maintaining their tax exemptions if they speak out on “political issues.” This altered one of the traditions roles of churches as the watchdog of cultural trends. Church organizations that fear stepping over a line that could jeopardize their tax-except status, won’t go anywhere near that boundary. As a result, you have had a proliferation and latter-day tradition of wishy-washy messages that focus on personal piety, and humanistic social-justice motifs, at the expense of taking demonstrable stands on cultural issues according to biblical standards.

We should also observe that so-called “political issues” are nothing more than moral issues that have been politicized in order to grasp some ideological advantage. The whole complaint about the church weighing in on political issues is a rhetorical gambit to restrict the sphere of influence of biblically-minded Christians.

The contemporary church population is probably unaware of the role Christian clergymen have played in shaping historical movements. For example, The Black Regiment promoting the War for Independence, the activism of William Wilberforce in England to end slavery, and a host of other achievements leading up to civil rights demonstrations in the 1960’s. People unfamiliar with that history of the church might consider efforts like Ricken’s to be over the top, when they are, in fact, historically normative.

One may wonder why there appears to be so much dissonance between lay Catholics and clergy of Ricken’s persuasion. Part of the answer is apathy, along with the encroachment of predominant secular values, but others claim the moral high ground based on a principle known as the “consistent ethic of life.” Originally the principle sought to bring together both those opposed to abortion and capital punishment, but it has been largely deconstructed in order to provide rationalizations and loopholes for unprincipled politicians and inconsistent voters. It’s current iteration goes something like this: “You pro-life zealots stop caring about people once the umbilical cord is cut. I’m pro-choice, but I’m voting for elected officials that support medical insurance for all, increases in school lunch programs, and youth soccer leagues. These issues support life after it leaves the womb.” You can decide if the issue of moral equivalency is valid.

In any case, why is this an either/or proposition? If people are so adamant about the value of midnight basketball, why shouldn’t they be just as passionate about ending abortion? On what basis is it presumed that someone who in staunchly pro-life, doesn’t care about people after they are born?

The Christian values professed in the church pew on the weekend, ought to be the same values considered in the voting booth on a given Tuesday. Anything less is spiritual apathy or worse. Ricken is doing his duty to remind his people of their moral responsibilities. Unfortunately, too many clergyman have abrogated that duty.

Notice that liberal politicians often want to stress a separation of church and state when it comes to morality, where it doesn’t apply, but call for ignoring it when it comes to charity, where it should apply constitutionally. Understanding proper jurisdiction would eliminate so much of aberrant social justice advocacy that conflates Christianity with Marxism.

While Bishop Ricken does not endorse any political party, it becomes impossible to ignore the fact that one of our major political parties has taken upon itself many tenets of godless secular humanism in its platform planks. Actions ought to have consequences.

The letter writer made an appeal, encouraging a return to a higher level of social moral consciousness. In the “comments” feature of the paper where his letter appeared, he was reliably greeted with a chorus of protests, at least one that claimed we’re entitled to believe as we choose, but can’t impose our morality on anyone else (It should be emphasized such advocacy never actually forces morality on anyone).

While such boilerplate warnings sound appropriate and seem well intentioned, they are ultimately self-contradictory, not reflecting reality. They are as much misguided as they are misinformed.
The often quoted bromide that “You can’t legislate morality,” is literally a fiction, but in addition, the statement’s actual contextual meaning is misunderstood. The real point of the statement is that you can’t make rebellious people into good citizens merely by passing laws. They must have internal moral guidance or they will pervert true liberty into limitless autonomy.

All legislative actions enforce someone’s view of morality on society. Something as benign as a stop sign imposes the common priorities of concern for safety, right of way, and rejection of unlimited personal autonomy. All government’s legislate morality of some kind, but that action is inadequate without wilful compliance.

It is difficult, if not impossible to govern and delegate the blessings of liberty to a lawless people. President John Adams statement “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other,” reflects the truth that liberty actualized without the guidance of common internal moral strictures, produces dissonance and mayhem.

The clichés referencing the “imposition of morality” tend to specifically target religious convictions, mistakenly equating the right to “religious liberty” with mere “freedom of worship.” Even countries with poor human rights reputations, proudly claim their citizens have “freedom of worship,” which is only a minor component of the many implications of religious liberty. Liberal secularists frequently pooh-pooh claims of infringements on religious liberty by counter-claiming that no religious people have been deprived of their right to worship here in America.

“Freedom of worship” is an issue of personal piety, while “religious liberty” entails more, carrying the assumption that religious convictions have equal access to the marketplace of ideas influencing culture.

Some will want to put a wrench in this argument by asking if I would promote the implementation of institutions like Sharia Law, which are religiously based. The answer is that those beliefs which are too onerous, or do not reflect the national consciousness, will be rejected from the legislative process.

Our Constitution in principle, rather than words, calls for a functional and jurisdiction separation between the institutions of church and state. It does not require an ideological separation of public policy and religious precept. This misappropriation is a common staple of latter day secular mythology.

Anyone who has read Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s treatise “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” must be impressed by the fact that King tied the quest for racial equally to religious conviction grounded in the created order. Would anyone oppose racial equality because King tethers it to theology?

The extended quotation of Dr. King appears below.

“One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality”

Any suggestion that religious conviction should never shape public policy, is, well…unnatural.

While I agree with the title of his column, inferring that we must ask which political party best reflects God’s values, but I disagree with his calculus. There are essentially two problems. While it may be true that this year’s election is focused on economic issues, discerning Christians understand that God’s values aren’t limited to economic issues. Likewise, understanding biblical economics requires a more comprehensive approach than offering a couple citations and trying to contort them to fit your preferred party’s platform.

Anyone claiming their political party is the “The party of Jesus,” etc., is either obtuse or arrogant. God is prior to and sovereign over any political party. Ronald Reagan said during his 1984 State of the Union address, “…I recognize we must be cautious in claiming that God is on our side, but I think it’s all right to keep asking if we’re on His side.” So perhaps the appropriate question for Christians concerned about the election is “Which party is trying to be on God’s side?”

Let’s look at the latter problem first. A complete examination of biblical economics exceeds the scope of this forum. However, we can quote Jesus, John the Baptist, or any other biblical figure until we’re blue in the face, and we’ll never find a reference to a government program that takes from one and gives to another in exchange for political patronage, as being a substitution for “sharing,” or charity that comes from the heart. To equate the two denies the most fundamental aspect of charity: it is always voluntary. If we want to understand the distinction between true charity and a government program, let’s look at the parable of the Good Samaritan. If we want to find out which ideological group contains the people most generous in charity with their own money, I suggest consulting a 2008 study done by Arthur Brooks, identifying which ideological group gives more to charity.

While Jesus decried greed and the failure of the rich to help the poor, what he never did was attempt to organize a rebellious movement that played on class warfare. The scriptures have a word for the entitlement mentality; it’s called coveting. A popular bromide that conveys this idea is that if you rob from Paul to pay Peter, you will probably have the support of Peter.

Now let’s move on to God’s values.

“If a man will not work than neither should he eat.” Which party is responsible for making more people dependent on government, and makes it more attractive live off the labor of others rather than work?

“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s.” Which party recognizes the need for limitations on the jurisdiction of government over all aspects of life, and which political party condones the government taking over more and more duties that aren’t legitimate functions under our Constitution, so that government functionally replaced God?

“For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” So which political party seeks to honor God’s configuration of marriage and which party views exclusive patronage to this configuration as bigotry equivalent to racial discrimination?

The pro-life position argues that one cannot take innocent life without proper justification. Which party agrees with this premise, and which argues that life in the womb does not constitute personhood, but it’s existence hinges on a choice?

“Neither a borrower or or a lender be.” Much of our economic problems are the result of overleveraging. While government in general has violated this admonition, the current administration has built their whole “radical transformation” on mountains of public debt.

Of course some people will point out that in highlighting bits of biblical texts, I’m guilty of the same misappropriation as the guy I’m criticizing. Perhaps so, but that just the point: I’m may be guilty of what he has already done. Liberals have made a virtual cottage industry out of mining these truncated biblical verses for far too long.

I’ll simply default back to the reflections of Reagan and submit to the idea that we must never claim God is on our side, but endeavor to be on his side in consideration of public policies. The answer of who to support is easy when we look at the entire party platform of the candidate in question.