Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Freedom Over Security

My wife thinks I was a bit harsh in my last post. She has appreciated the generally positive outlook of the Yes You Can concept. That positive outlook and hope for a better future for every individual is what attracts me to this concept as well. If I am harsh, it is because self-critique and vigorous self-discipline is required to achieve that better future.


I explained that Americans are lacking in their personal morality. One of our greatest moral problems today is a desire to get something for nothing. This has caused Americans to become reliant on Government in a very dangerous way. It results in dependency, slavery, and a loss of freedom. We must be better than that. The American Dream is beyond the reach of anyone who would have it gifted to them. It must be earned. Yes You Can believes in the power and capacity of the individual to create their own prosperity. Consider the following words by Dean Alfange:



I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon. I seek opportunity to develop whatever talents God gave me - not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any earthly master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say - “This, with God’s help, I have done.” All this is what it means to be an American.

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Why Romney Gets My Vote

There is a lot of talk out there that our country is in a crisis. I suppose there’s always some sort of crisis going on in America. It is true, however, that we have some serious problems right now. Our economy is in real trouble and may be beyond recovery without enduring some serious pain first. Our government is bailing out private institutions and socializing medicine. Individual responsibility and self-reliance is no longer valued. Homosexuality is gaining acceptance at a rate we’ve never seen before. Christianity is attacked for being bigoted and oppressive while “old-fashioned” morality is scoffed at for being, well, old-fashioned (as if morality were a style that could change with the times). No doubt, these are troubling times.


So what kind of leader do we need to help America rise up again? Well, if we look at most of these problems of ours, it’s evident that they are the result of everyday Americans being foolish. I don’t think the politicians are the root cause of the problem. Granted they’ve passed legislation and programs that are harmful to America, but they’ve largely done it as a response to our wishes and in an attempt to maintain their own power. Why is it that most of our politicians are selfish and care more about their careers than they do the country they “serve”? It’s because most Americans care more about themselves than their country or their fellow men. Too many Americans lack personal morality. And who are these selfish politicians? They’re Americans! No surprise they reflect our own problems of selfishness and a lack of personal responsibility.


So, if you, like me, believe that our real problem in America is a lack of personal morality, than you may also agree that the solution to this problem does not lie primarily in government legislation. Instead, what America needs is a moral citizenry. In a previous post, I cited D. Todd Christofferson’s discourse on this very problem.


Now let’s look at the office of President for a moment. The President is the leader of the Executive branch of our government. This means it is not his job to legislate - or write laws. The role of the Executive branch is to enforce the laws that are passed by Congress. Unofficially, the President also has another role which I believe is imbued with more power and influence than leading the Executive branch. The President is looked to as the leader of our country. Congress and everyday Americans alike look to the President as a leader. They expect him to point the way and lead us to great places. Most presidents throughout our history have failed in this unique and important role. Most of our presidents have not been model citizens that Americans can look to as an example. At times they’ve talked of being good citizens but even then have often failed to back up their words with their own actions. The irony is, that kind of president, who leads us to be better than we are now, is exactly what we need most. Where the president stands on legislative issues is important since he holds the veto power and can lend powerful support to legislation of his choice, but his example and moral leadership will have a greater impact on this country’s future than almost any piece of legislation. We need a president that makes people want to be good Americans.


This, I believe, is largely what made Obama so appealing during his campaign. He seemed to have this kind of appeal and ability to make people hope for something better in our country and ourselves. Unfortunately, he did not deliver as President.


So how does all this apply to Mitt Romney? I think he is the only candidate today that has any chance of giving us this kind of leadership. I don’t anticipate he’ll be the next George Washington and live forever as a beacon of honesty and honor. Nevertheless, of all the candidates on the stage today, he is the only one with significant leadership experience on a large scale. More importantly, is the only one that regularly talks of the necessity of a good leader and the potential of the American people to dig themselves out of our current problems. All the others think we can escape our problems through proper conservative legislation. Mitt Romney seems to understand that America does not rise and fall on governmental whims but on the moral integrity and hard work of the American people.


Can he do it? Can he lead Americans to become better than we now are on such a significant scale that we might actually rise out of the hole we’ve dug for ourselves? I don’t know. But of the available candidates, I think he stands the best chance. I want someone I can look to and trust and want to follow. Romney is often criticized for being the perfect model of a good leader. They say he’s out of touch with the American people. Perhaps. But why would we want someone who is as morally corrupt as the rest of us? That’s how we got in this crisis in the first place. We need someone who is better than the average American. We need a good, moral leader. Here’s to Mitt.

Friday, November 4, 2011

We Shouldn’t Have to Defend our Moral Code with Secularist Philosophy

It seems, over the last few years, that there has been a strong movement to invalidate religious arguments in the public policy debate. The claim is that religious beliefs are not founded on any concrete evidence and are therefore invalid as a basis for public policy. This is especially evident in the debate over gay marriage. Many Christian believers do not want the government to support gay marriage because the Bible is so clearly against homosexuality. Those in favor of gay marriage believe that these Christians are unfairly enforcing their own moral beliefs on everyone else and that those moral beliefs are empirically unfounded and therefore invalid.


There are a few problems with this argument. For one, the idea that religious beliefs are empirically unfounded is extremely short-sighted. But that is not my focus today. What I take issue with is this idea that my religious beliefs can not inform public policy in regards to morality. The law has always been founded on some kind of moral code. That’s what law is at its root. For centuries, that moral code has been informed by religion. Why then, should I now have to give a secular argument for my moral beliefs which are founded in my religion? The idea is ludicrous, offensive, and oppressive.


This does not mean that everyone must found their moral code on religious principles. I have no problem allowing the secularists to base their morality on whatever philosophy they choose. Even if it is a godless philosophy. That is their right and their choice and they are free to voice that opinion as loud as they wish. Do not, however, claim that I must fall back on your same godless philosophy when explaining or defending my own moral code.


I have decided that when I am asked why I support any given social policy, I will not shy away from explaining my beliefs as they are founded in my religion. I will not seek for secular explanations of eternal moral principles. Don’t ask me to give an explanation for morality that excludes our Creator, because I don’t think such an explanation exists.

Monday, August 8, 2011

Ending Racism

The first rule to ending racism - Don't talk about racism
The second rule to ending racism - don't talk about racism