Lewis and the Third Commandment

This article was published in Indiana Policy Review, November 2, 2016

On C.S. Lewis and his meditation on the Third Commandment

By Donna Volmerding

Particularly in this election year, Christians are having discussions about the candidate whom they think is the better one, and the philosophy and ideology that they believe is best for America and shows God’s love the best.

In C.S. Lewis’ Meditation on the Third Commandment, he discussed the “growing desire for a Christian ‘party,’ a Christian ‘front’ or a Christian ‘platform’ in politics.”

He expounds by saying “Nearly all parties agree in professing ends which we admit to be desirable — security, a living wage, and the best adjustment between the claims of order and freedom. What distinguishes one party from another is the championship of means. We do not dispute whether the citizens are to be made happy, but whether an egalitarian or a hierarchical State, whether capitalism or socialism, whether despotism or democracy is most likely to make them so.”

We do not have a Christian party in America, and most Americans would not want one. (I haven’t found anyone who would.) First, our kingdom is not of this world. While we certainly are commanded to make this world as good as we can for ourselves, our families and our neighbors, it is not the final resting place for Christians. It is a stepping-off point.

Second, there is so much disagreement among Christians about what ideology and/or system of government truly serves God’s ends the best. As Lewis stated, some Christians believe that no one can be trusted with more than minimum power over others, some that an authoritarian state better promotes the Christian life, and some demand a Left revolution and redistribution of wealth.

Third, our Constitution was wisely based on a government with deep Christian influence and thought but one that allows freedom of religion. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Political science professors at the University of Houston collected 15,000 writings from the founding era, isolating 3,154 direct quotes made by the Founding Fathers. This is the breakdown of the source of those quotes: Baron Charles de Montesquieu, 8.3 percent; Sir William Blackstone, 7.9 percent; and John Locke, 2.9 percent. Most interestingly, the researchers discovered that the Founding Fathers quoted directly from the Bible 34 percent of the time. Blackstone, a brilliant 18th-century English judge, author, professor and lecturer of law at Oxford University, used the Bible to arrive at his conclusions.

These are quotes from our Founding Fathers:

• Benjamin Franklin:

“The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: ‘that God governs in the affairs of men.’ And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?” (June 28, 1787, at the Constitutional Convention when the delegates were deadlocked)

“Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.”

• George Washington:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. … Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. … It is impossible to govern rightly without God and the Bible.”

• John Adams:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

• James Madison:

“We have staked the future of all of our political institutions … upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

In 1800, Congress approved the use of the Capitol as a church building for Christian worship services. As president, Thomas Jefferson attended these services and employed the military band to play for them, at taxpayer expense.

John Quincy Adams said, “The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: that it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of Christianity with the principles of civil government.”

The influence of Scripture is evident in the Supreme Court building, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial, the Capitol Building and the Library of Congress.

Author Jerry Newcombe says that “Without exception, the constitutions of all 50 states refer to ‘the Almighty God of the universe, the Author and Sustainer of our liberty.’”

Almost every Ivy League school was established primarily to train ministers of the gospel. Harvard College’s first presidents insisted that there could be no true knowledge or wisdom without Jesus Christ.

In 1892, the Supreme Court stated that “Our lives and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise … our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian … This is a religious people … this is a Christian nation.” (Holy Trinity Church vs. U.S.)

Because of their understanding of the Bible and laws based on Judeo-Christian principles, our Founding Fathers gave us several invaluable gifts — a comprehension of the importance of limited government because of man’s fallibility, laws based on a wise understanding of Who gives us our freedoms, and the right of conscience with freedom of religion.

Can there be any doubt, even among those who profess a strong central government as the ideal, that our Constitution gave us the greatest, richest, most free, most powerful nation that ever existed? It is certainly one that has been exceedingly blessed by God. It would be a travesty to deny the wisdom and discernment of the Founding Fathers and trample the documents they produced.

As C.S. Lewis explained, “By the natural light He has shown us what means are lawful: to find out which one is efficacious He has given us brains. The rest He has left to us.”
Donna Volmerding, a member of the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, is editor of The Fort Wayne Lutheran newspaper.

The Fragrance of Mercy

Want to read a good book? “The Fragrance of Mercy” is an adult Christian mystery that plumbs the process of forgiveness in all of its aspects. Forgiveness is ultimately experienced as a gift of God and His grace, for our healing, our strength and our ultimate joy. I pray that you will enjoy this book and that it will be meaningful in your life.

The book thread is

-->

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077B8X7JH/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510360632&sr=8-1&keywords=the+fragrance+of+mercy

Are we haters?

By Donna Volmerding

I loved to watch the TV show “Little House on the Prairie.” The Ingalls family, who were excellent role models, were sometimes opposed by the dysfunctional Oleson family — in particular, Nellie. Years later, the Olesons adopted Nancy, a girl who made Nellie look like a choir girl.

Whenever Nancy did something hateful or malicious and got caught, her quick response was “You hate me!” I would roll my eyes and say to myself “Puhleeeeze.”

In today’s politically correct climate, I often feel the same way about hot-topic discussions. You don’t agree with gay marriage? You hate. You didn’t vote for Hillary? You hate. You don’t believe in open borders? You hate.

Thoughtful, informed, reasonable discussion is shut down. You are labeled a bigot, homophobe, misogynist, xenophobe, sexist, fascist, blah, blah, blah. You are in a basket of deplorables, irredeemable, in fact.

If you have any beliefs other than what the radical left deems appropriate, you’re a hater. Your speech is mean and hurts others feelings; therefore, you are denied your First Amendment right to free speech.

It isn’t that the left needs to hone its message. The problem is, lefties don’t have a message other than to demean those who disagree with them. When they are asked probing, serious questions from those who seek understanding, the kneejerk response is “You hate!”

My eyes roll, and I say to myself “Puhleeeeze.”

Abortion: The courts, the judges and the lies that bind

This article was first published in the May 2004 issue of The Fort Wayne Lutheran

By Donna Volmerding

Our Founding Fathers believed that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. This is the foundation of our government — that our rights are bestowed by God, not by the state.

Our Founding Fathers set up a system of government with three equal branches, performing separate tasks and duties but answerable to the people. When judges and courts make laws that circumvent the constitutional process, we all suffer, our system of government suffers, and justice and righteousness are too often ignored.

In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that each woman had a right to abort her unborn child, for no more compelling reason than she just didn’t want to have a baby. The court ruling, Roe vs. Wade, discovered (after 200 years!) a previously unrecognized “right to privacy.” But there’s more to this story that must be told.

Norma McCorvey, the defendant “Roe,” has publicly stated that her entire case was built on lies and fabrications, falsehoods known to her lawyer at the time of trial. McCorvey was a 21-year-old carnival worker who, at the time, was pregnant with her third child.

According to defense arguments for Roe vs. Wade, “Roe” was raped and did not want to bear her child. McCorvey confesses that she was not raped, and she ended up placing her child for adoption.

Eventually, McCorvey joined with anti-abortion activists in 1994 to have Roe vs. Wade overturned. She cited what she termed as more than 30 years of evidence that abortions are psychologically harmful to women.

Sandra Cano, the Doe in Doe vs. Bolton, a companion case to Roe that instituted partial-birth abortion, also has publicly attested to the deception perpetrated in her trial.

“My case was based upon a fraud upon the court,” Cano said. “I did not want abortion. I would not want to kill babies. Partial-birth abortion is wrong, and it should be called murder since they are killing the baby with part of its body already outside the mother’s womb. It is murder, in my opinion.”

Bernard Nathanson, M.D., co-founder of the pro-abortion group NARAL, “served as chairman of the executive committee of NARAL (the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, and later renamed the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) as well as its medical committee,” stated the December 2002 issue of Whistleblower magazine. Nathanson was one of the principal architects and strategists of the abortion movement in the United States, the article said.

He tells an astonishing story.

“In 1968 I met Lawrence Lader,” Nathanson said. “Lader had just finished a book called ‘Abortion,’ and in it had made the audacious demand that abortion should be legalized throughout the country.

“I had just finished a residency in obstetrics and gynecology and was impressed with the number of women who were coming into clinics, wards and hospitals suffering from illegal, infected, botched abortions.

“Lader and I were perfect for each other. We sat down and plotted out the organization now known as NARAL. With Betty Friedan, we set up this organization and began working on the strategy.

“We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal, enlightened, sophisticated one,” Nathanson said. “Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls.

“We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000, but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000.

“Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public,” Nathanson said. “The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans, convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law.

“Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S., and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1,500% since legalization,” he said.

If a democratic process had been followed in these decisions, in which all sides can be heard, facts checked, volatile subjects discussed with cool heads and moral sensibilities, these miscarriages of justice may not have occurred.

But when these issues are taken out of the governance of the people by courts and federal judges, “vitally important cultural issues are now decided for us by a handful of unelected elites,” said columnist Ann Coulter. “It’s a lot easier to get a majority out of nine votes than it is to get a majority of 280 million votes.” (The U.S. population is now about 320 million.)

It is imperative that all of us are aware of the lies, half-truths and misconceptions that deeply harm our country and the spirit of our people. We have the honor and the privilege to live in the greatest nation on earth. Let’s not allow her to be destroyed by the enemy within.

The ties that bind

-->

“Lots of people talk about miracles, but, let’s face it, no one has ever really experienced one,” my friend said. “At least no one I know,” he added.

Then I told him my story, a truly miraculous tale of God’s direct intervention in a crucial second. Do you believe in miracles?

In the spring of 1981, my then 3-year-old daughter, Sarah, and I were in the family room of our home. I had my sewing box out, and I was doing some mending while Sarah played.

My son, Matthew, who was in kindergarten, had given me a retractable measuring tape for Christmas the previous year. It was a small one; the tape was no more than one-quarter of an inch wide. Sarah enjoyed pulling the end out, pushing the button and watching the tape spin back inside again. It was a harmless play toy, or so I thought.

I became involved with my mending and wasn’t paying a lot of attention to her play.

When I looked up, I saw Sarah red-faced, the measuring tape bound closely around her neck with several tight knots in it.

I quickly dropped my mending and ran to help her.

I tried to untie the knots, but they wouldn’t budge. The thin plastic tape was bound so tightly, the knots held true. I grabbed a pair of scissors in an effort to cut the tape off, but I was concerned about stabbing her or cutting her in the neck with the point of the shears. After several unsuccessful attempts of carefully trying to get the scissors under the tape, the tape held tightly. I could not get scissors under it without risking serious injury to her neck — or worse.

By this time, Sarah was struggling to breathe, and her face was growing redder. It was such an effort for her to get air that she couldn’t even cry.

I realized that I couldn’t untie it, and I couldn’t cut it off. I briefly considered calling 911, but I was doubtful if an ambulance could make it in time.

I touched the tape, frantic and trembling, desperately attempting to remove it one more time. In total anguish I cried out, “Dearest Jesus, please help me!”

Instantly, after my desolate plea, the measuring tape came loose and unwound, making it easy for me to remove it. The tape fell on the floor with one stubborn knot remaining; the other knots were, well, gone.

I held Sarah tightly, both of us shaking with emotion, trying to comprehend what had just occurred. I knew that I was not able to get the knots undone, but they were undone anyway.

Upon reflection, however, I knew what had happened. In a time of peril, I called on the precious name of Jesus, and He answered my earnest plea in a heartbeat. I felt as if I had witnessed something as spectacular as Peter walking on water or Jesus healing the sick — a supernatural intervention by a great and loving God.

“In my distress I called upon the Lord; to my God I cried for help. From His temple He heard my voice, and my cry to Him reached His ears.” Psalm 18:6

Can you explain it? Neither can I, but I do believe in miracles.

Climate change: Seven indisputable facts

-->

This is an excellent article by Rep. Lamar Smith. 

The Hill, September 09, 2015, 07:00 am

By Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas)

President Obama last week visited Alaska to preach about the inevitable doomsday scenarios the world will face if Americans fail to embrace his extreme climate change agenda. Like all climate alarmists, the president wants Americans to believe there is no uncertainty about climate change. They pretend to know exactly how much human actions contribute to the changing climate. By denying any uncertainty, their goal is to shut off debate. ‘Just trust us. We know what’s best for you.’

But the truth is there are more questions about climate change than there are answers. For instance, even the most advanced climate models all failed to predict the lack of warming the Earth has experienced over the last 18 years. But the president and his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) refuse to let facts get in the way of their determination to impose greater government control over the lives of the American people.

Below are seven irrefutable facts about climate change that are ignored because they do not fit into the alarmists’ scare tactics. These facts are not disputed.

1. For the past 18 years, weather satellites have not measured a global increase in temperatures although carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased over that same period.  Weather satellites are the most advanced instruments for measuring global temperatures.  The fact that these satellites have not detected a measureable temperature increase despite an increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere calls into question the correlation climate change alarmists preach between carbon emissions and temperature.

2. According to EPA’s own data, U.S. carbon emissions have decreased nine percent since 2005.  These carbon reductions have occurred as a result of technological advancements and free market forces, which will continue. This raises the question of whether burdensome regulations are necessary.

3. The natural cycle of global temperatures has resulted in both higher and lower temperatures over the past 1,000 years than exist today.  These temperature fluctuations occurred before significant fossil energy use.  So temperatures the Earth is experiencing now have been seen before.

4. If implemented, the Obama administration’s Climate Action Plan would reduce global temperatures by only 0.01, or one one-hundredth of a degree Celsius.  President Obama’s former Deputy Secretary for Fossil Energy at the Department of Energy, Charles McConnell, said that EPA’s carbon rules will have only a minor impact on global climate change.  Yet regulations will cost billions of dollars and jeopardize thousands of jobs.

5. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has reported that there is little or no connection between extreme weather and climate change. According to a 2012 report, IPCC stated that there is “high agreement” that long-term trends in weather disasters “have not been attributed to… climate change.”  Climate change alarmists point toward hurricanes, tornadoes and other global weather disasters as a proof that man-made carbon emissions are hurting our planet.  However, as the IPCC report stated, the opposite is true. There is scientific agreement that weather disasters are not caused by climate change, despite President Obama repeatedly trying to connect the two.

6. Population growth, especially in the developing world, will account for even more global carbon emissions. Carbon emissions from developing countries are projected to increase by over 125 percent by 2040. And world population is expected to surge by over 2 billion people by 2050, an increase of more than 30 percent. Yet few climate scientists acknowledge the potential impact of population growth on carbon emissions.

7. Carbon dioxide accounts for a very small part of the Earth’s overall atmosphere and those levels have fluctuated throughout the Earth’s history. Carbon dioxide currently accounts for only .038 percent of our planet’s atmosphere. And human-made carbon dioxide only makes up about three percent of that. Put another way, if all the gases in the atmosphere were represented by the length of a football field, only the last 1/10 of an inch would be carbon emissions caused by humans. It’s hard to believe that such a small amount would supposedly have such huge consequences.

The EPA and other government agencies too often fail to present all the facts. Their agenda comes first; accuracy comes second. Climate change has many explanations — and unanswered questions.  The American people need good science, not science fiction promoted by alarmists.

Lamar Smith has represented Texas’ 21st Congressional District since 1987. He chairs the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, and also sits on the Homeland Security and the Judiciary committees.

Obama needs to pay attention to the ‘stuff of governance’

-->

This letter was published in The News-Sentinel on Dec. 20, 2013.

As usual, columnist Charles Krauthammer is correct in his understanding of political situations. His Dec. 16 column in the Forum section was precise in his description of Barack Obama, titled in The Washington Post as "Obama the Oblivious."

However, his closing lines were unfortunately omitted. After aptly pointing out that Obama "has shown little aptitude and even less interest" in the "stuff of governance," Krauthammer added these sentences:

"'I don't write code,'" said Obama in reaction to the Web site crash. Nor is he expected to. He is, however, expected to run an administration that can."

Exactly.