In 20 Years Guns Double, Gun Crime Down 70%

May 10, 2013 Leave a comment

In the last twenty years the number of privately owned guns in the United States has roughly doubled. There are approximately 300 million privately held firearms in our nation today. Millions more are being purchased every month as Americans fear gun control regulations will limit their second amendment rights. If one were to listen to the hysterical Democrats and their surrogates in the media, one would think the doubling of guns in this country would equal a massive increase in the number of murders and other violent felonies. In fact 50% of the country thinks violent crime has increased over the last twenty years. In fact, it’s decreased dramatically.

In the last twenty years murders are down almost 40%. Gun murders are down almost 50%. Violent crimes involving guns are down around 70%. These are dramatic decreases in violent crimes committed with guns and yet our nation roughly doubled the number of privately held guns. How can it be that a nation which doubled its guns saw crime drop so much? Obviously there are a lot of factors in the decrease in the number of violent crimes committed. One of them undoubtedly is that a significant number of potential violent criminals are fearful that a potential victim is carrying a gun. That fear is a significant deterrent.

These numbers aren’t exactly surprising to those who believe in a robust second amendment. Since 1960 all of the mass public shootings in the US but one took place at a location where firearms were banned. You could probably throw in most of the European mass public shootings as well, they have these events just as much as we do despite severe firearm restrictions. When potential criminals aren’t afraid of their victims being able to defend themselves, they’re emboldened to commit crimes. There’s a reason why mass public shootings happen at government schools and movie theaters and malls which ban guns but not at NRA conventions.

In the 90′s it was popular for European visitors in Florida to put a NRA sticker on their rental car or wear a NRA hat. At the time, European travelers were targeted by criminals for muggings and car jackings because they were vulnerable targets. The NRA paraphernalia warded off potential attackers who were afraid these people might be packing a firearm. That they were not doesn’t really matter, it’s the fear a criminal has that is important. If a criminal fears violent retaliation they’re less likely to engage in a criminal act.

Yet the Democrats want to restrict access to firearms in this country. They want to ban certain kinds of guns and ban certain kinds of magazines or clips. They want to make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain a firearm. Yet all of the evidence available to us indicates that more firearms aids in having less crime. We’ve doubled our guns in the United States and at the same time violent crime with a gun is down 70% and murders with a gun are down 50%. We have 300 million guns in the hands of private citizens, the government isn’t going to be able to confiscate all of these weapons. Rather than trying to restrict access to more firearms, we would be better off allowing American citizens to exercise their gun rights. Would it shock anyone if crime dropped as a result? Probably only Democrats.

Filed under culture Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Gun Control A Matter Of Freedom VS Slavery

April 17, 2013 16 Comments

It looks like Obama’s gun control bill is going to be up for a vote today in the Senate. Whether it will pass or not isn’t clear at this point. Sen. Harry Reid has acknowledged that he doesn’t have the votes, though he claims the winds are shifting in his general direction. The Toomey-Manchin proposal, which would close a loophole concerning internet gun sales which really doesn’t exist, hasn’t seen the widespread support the two of them initially thought it would. While the press is making a big deal out of the Senate vote, it’s worth nothing that unless Speaker Boehner wants to lose his job this issue won’t even come to a vote in the House.

It’s been rich watching the administration the past week or so. They’ve been using the families of Newtown victims as props in their push for gun control that would have done nothing to prevent the Newtown crime. The nation was subjected to a weepy mother during Obama’s weekly radio address. If the nation is swayed by an illogical, emotional response from a grieving mother than there is no hope for our nation’s future. It is foolhardy to have public policy dictated by emotion. The fact is, nothing in the proposed bill would do anything to prevent Newtown. Joe Biden even acknowledges this.

According to Obama, Congress shouldn’t “defy” the American people by shooting down gun control. It’s funny, Obama wasn’t worried about defying the American people when he forced through Obamacare against the nation’s will. In his world only the “enemy” (read: Republicans) can defy the American people. Obama was just doing what’s good for us when he forced through Obamacare against the people’s wishes. Obama was punished, harshly, by defying the American people. He got his Obamacare but he lost the House, probably for good. The GOP risks more by defying their constituents, which overwhelmingly support opposition to gun control.

Gun control zealot Nanny Bloomberg believes there’s something wrong with your family if you sell a gun to your kid. Apparently one can get around just about any background check by buying a gun on behalf of a family member then selling it to them. Maybe Bloomberg’s dad simply gave him everything in life, in the real world family members buy and sell between themselves all the time. There must be something wrong with you if you sell a gun to one of your kids for $100. What exactly is wrong isn’t clear. It’s also not clear if there’s something wrong with you if you sell a car, house or computer to your kid. This is a typical left-wing tactic, criticizing family and trying to tear it down and apart. There must be something wrong with these families, we should submit to the collective.

Gun confiscation is the goal here, it’s already happening in New York. The goal is a national gun registry, then they’ll create regulations which ban the ownership of guns for just about everyone. Guns equal control. If the people cannot legally own guns, government will be in full control over every aspect of our lives. If we have the freedom to own guns, government can and is kept at bay, however minimally. The government wants us to be completely dependant on them for security. We need only look at cities like Chicago and Detroit, which have strict gun control, to see that the state isn’t capable of providing us individual security. (interestingly cities like Houston, which has fairly lax gun control, have less crime) If we want to be dependant and controlled, we’ll support gun control. If we want to be independent and free, we’ll oppose it.

Filed under Guns Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Obama Loses Gun Control Debate, We Will Lose In The Long Run

April 10, 2013 9 Comments

President Obama is using the families of Newtown victims as props as he pushes for gun control legislation that has little to no chance of passing Congress. Amusingly Obama has the audacity to accuse the GOP of engaging in “stunts” concerning gun control. In the world of Obama parading around the families of child victims of a tragedy isn’t a stunt. Stunts are apparently reserved for those evil Republicans. So are politics. Obama doesn’t play politics, he’s for common sense reform. It’s only those evil Republicans who engage in politics. Obama knows he’s losing this debate, his tone is getting increasingly shrill as a result.

In his recent gun control rally Obama said he wants to “make it a little harder for our kids to get gunned down.” In other words, your kids are going to get gunned down but in his love and benevolence Obama is going to make it a wee bit harder for those nasty gunmen to gun down  your kids. Never mind that nothing in these new laws would have done anything to stop Adam Lanza or any of the mass public shooters of the last half century. Obama’s proposals don’t even focus on the real problem: Antipsychotic drugs. Instead of focusing on real issues, Obama is playing a typical left-wing political game by attacking gun rights.

Obama has almost no chance of passing gun control legislation through Congress. Even if he is able to defeat a filibuster in the Senate, it’s highly unlikely the House will vote on Obama’s legislation. The country generally opposes assault weapons bans, they oppose increased background checks and they oppose limits on magazines and clips. Obama must know this by now, which is why he’s getting more shrill and why he’s parading the families of victims on Air Force One while at the same time accusing opponents of engaging in stunts and politics. He’s losing and he knows it.

Make no mistake though the progressive left believes it will win in the long run. Obama might lose this issue now but in 10-15 years the progressive left has a recipe for victory on gun control. It’s the same plan they used on the homosexual marriage issue. They’re going to focus on the nation’s children at the government schools. The best way to dictate future policy is to get at the little minds of mush in the education system today. As such schools are teaching children guns are scary and dangerous. They’re denying that Americans have a second amendment right to keep and bear arms. They’re teaching kids that those who support gun rights are dangerous fanatics. The goal is to convince the next generation that guns are dangerous and gun control is vitally necessary. The schools are setting up legislation for a decade or two from now, just like they did with homosexual marriage.

Obama is going to lose this issue but he’s going to win it in the long run when he isn’t in office if we don’t pull our kids from government schools. We conservatives have to actively engage children when it comes to gun rights or we risk losing our freedom for generations to come. It didn’t take very long for the left to convince the nation that sodomy was not only a right but worthy of marriage. While gun rights are seen as entrenched in the American psyche, it will only take a generation of relentless attacks on gun freedom in schools for the next generation to support massive gun control. Obama has lost the gun control debate, we will lose it if we conservatives and Christians keep entrusting our kids to the progressives at the government schools.

Filed under Guns Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Progressive Richard Nixon Favored Handgun Ban

March 12, 2013 Leave a comment

The Associated Press is running an article in newspapers across the country hailing Richard Nixon as a proponent of gun control. The AP is suddenly reporting on “previously unreported” recordings of Nixon in the White House plotting to ban handguns while brushing off the NRA. We’re of course to believe that the AP or whoever supplied the AP with this information didn’t wait until an opportune time to disclose this information. Nixon is described as a “conservative President” throughout the piece. One wonders what is conservative about Nixon’s statement “I don’t know why any individual should have a right to have a revolver in his house. The kids usually kill themselves with it and so forth.”

Let’s first dispel the notion that Nixon was a conservative. Perhaps in the minds of the liberal press, which is made up of former 60′s radical hippies and school age children of the 70′s. If by conservative we mean grouchy and didn’t get along with Democrats or the press, then Nixon was a conservative. Nixon’s policies suggest he’s a progressive rather than a conservative. Nixon signed into law the EPA. He signed into law wage and price controls which created chaos during the Carter administration. He took the United States off the gold standard completely. He increased taxes. It appears he wanted to ban handguns. Remind me what is conservative about any of this.

The 60′s hippies would have preferred RFK or McGovern who were no doubt to the left of Nixon. But that doesn’t make Nixon a conservative anymore than it makes every opponent of Soviet Communism a fascist. Nixon believed much as Obama does in a top down economy with Washington as the center. It is hardly surprising that Nixon believes that people shouldn’t be allowed to own handguns. That he wonders how it could be that anyone would be allowed to own a revolver suggests that Nixon never appealed to the Constitution. Like with most things during his administration, he appealed to the power of government or to himself.

The fact is we have a right to keep and bear arms according to the Constitution. That includes handguns and revolvers. Anyone who believes that children are killing themselves with revolvers is living in a liberal fantasy land. In Nixon’s defense, he’s having a discussion with aides so perhaps he’s going a little strong on the hyperbole to make a point. For his sake it’s probably good he didn’t make this argument in public. For the nation’s sake it’s probably good he never proposed a handgun ban because he may well have gotten it.

Now that the left magically came up with Nixon’s opposition to handguns expect them to use that as an argument against us today. Republicans ought to shrug their shoulders and toss the argument aside because it doesn’t matter. While Nixon’s support for a handgun ban is an interesting historical footnote for the progressive president, it isn’t relevant today. The GOP for almost 40 years has tried to distance itself from Nixon. While the former President was able to get some good publicity before he died (Clinton was close with Nixon) he’s still the only President to resign and he is, in fact, a crook. Even the progressives in the GOP shy away from Nixon, rightfully so. If the liberals at the AP think they can get liberal Republicans on board with Nixon, they’re sadly mistaken.

Filed under Guns Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Drone Strikes On Americans Deserves Public Debate

February 6, 2013 2 Comments

The Justice Department has declared that drone strikes on American citizens is legal. The Federal government must believe that such Americans are going to engage in an imminent attack on the United States. Unfortunately the government hasn’t defined imminent and they don’t have to have clear evidence that a specific attack will happen in the immediate future in order to launch a drone strike on an American citizen. Jay Carney calls this “ethical and wise” but we really need to take a second look at these drone strikes. Perhaps it’s time to take a second look at drone strikes. Not just against American citizens but against all targets.

Drone strikes have increased dramatically under the Obama administration. Bush started the practice, though his use of drones was largely limited to using them in declared war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has extended the practice, allegedly to attack al Qaeda all over the world. All of these attacks and all of the arguments the government is making regarding the attacks are centered around al Qaeda. For obvious reasons we’re at war with al Qaeda and perhaps more importantly they’re at war with us. It isn’t per se a bad thing that we’re attacking al Qaeda via drone strike.

The problem is that we cannot view drone strikes in a vacuum. It’s impossible to limit their use and the arguments for their use only to al Qaeda. Eventually al Qaeda will no longer exist yet we will have set a precedent for the use of drones which can then be extended to other situations. The precedent isn’t just set for the United States, it’s set for the whole world. Don’t think Iran wouldn’t love to get hold of a drone to chase around Israeli’s or our President with. If the President of the United States can play judge, jury and executioner with drones, you can bet that other nations will want similar power.

The President playing judge, jury and executioner is even worse when we’re talking about American citizens. We all understand when the police shoot a suspect who points a gun or even something that looks like a gun in their general direction. The police are in immediate danger and their shooting is generally justifiable. But when government shoots missiles from a drone at an American citizen in a foreign country because they think that maybe, perhaps they could be involved in some sort of crime against the country. That’s something else entirely. We’re too quick to give a pass to the government because of what al Qaeda has done. With the precedent the Obama administration is setting, what American is safe?

The government could very easily act on bad information. The government could target political opponents they don’t particularly care for. It would be easy to take the precedent being set for al Qaeda abroad and apply it here in the United States to other groups. Left, right, religious, secular, no group is safe if these drone strikes can be extended beyond al Qaeda. With our Federal government, they very rarely give back power. Our government almost always extends their power. That’s what makes these drone strikes so dangerous. We ought not have our vision clouded by the name al Qaeda. This is a serious issue that requires serious debate. The Obama administration is making a massive power grab argument, we the people need to have a say in this.

Filed under freedom Tagged with , , , , , ,

Homosexual Left’s War On Religion

February 4, 2013 4 Comments

A baker in Oregon is facing the wrath of the state government Aaron Klein is a Christian who owns a bakery called Sweet Cakes. A lesbian couple wanted Klein to make a wedding cake for them but were refused when Klein cited his religious opposition to homosexual marriage. Rather than find another baker to bake a cake, the lesbians ran to the state government who are now threatening up to $50,000 in fines. It seems that the free exercise of religion ends when liberals don’t like the end result. Klein says he would rather lose his business than bake cakes for a wedding he religiously opposes.

This is the cutting edge of discrimination against Christians in our country. Under the banner of tolerance, state and local governments harass Christians who disagree with homosexual marriage. These lesbians aren’t content with having what they know is a bogus wedding, they want to destroy a Christian bakery in the process. These people could care less about the cake, this isn’t about cake. It’s about the left forcing it’s view on everyone else via law. If it was about cake, these lesbians would go to another baker. After all, who would want a cake from someone who didn’t want to make it? Especially when there are other bakers around. They don’t want cake, they want to shut down opposition via law.

If Oregon is successful, where does that leave the free exercise of religious faith? We could ask the same question if the Obama administration is successful in its birth control demands for health insurance policies at places like Hobby Lobby. We know the left doesn’t particularly care for religion, much less the free exercise of it. Their view of the free exercise clause is that exercising religion is something that takes place behind closed doors, in churches or perhaps in their dream world in closets. It isn’t something that is public, done in the town square or via a business. Obama’s attack on free exercise of religion coupled with Oregon’s make this abundantly clear.

If we cannot exercise our religious faith in our business then we lose the same rights that we would lose if the government banned religious faith altogether. These lesbians lose nothing by being denied sale of a cake at Sweet Cakes. There is nothing stopping them from going to another bakery. Surely in liberal Oregon there are dozens of bakers who would complete for a lesbian wedding cake. So while the lesbians are out nothing, they and the State of Oregon seek to take away from Klein a fundamental constitutional right. Make no mistake, this is their goal. They don’t want us to be able to freely exercise our faith so long as it stands in opposition to the left’s political agenda.

Klein may very well have a Supreme Court case if he can afford to pursue it. It is nothing short of outrageous that the free exercise of religion is being trampled on in the name of left-wing “tolerance.” The left wants to force everyone to support homosexual marriage and they’ll apparently go as far as to attempt to shut businesses down when they dare to disagree. The left’s war on religion has been made abundantly clear in the last year. We who are of faith must fight back against this infringement on our Constitutional rights. If we do not, we will lose our right to freely exercise our faith forever.

 

Filed under culture Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Obama’s Gun Control Measures Fail To Address The Real Problem

January 17, 2013 2 Comments

President Obama engaged in the worst form of bullying propaganda yesterday. Surrounded by children the President introduced his anti-second amendment gun control agenda, including 23 executive orders. His proposals to Congress are largely dead on arrival. The House GOP is unlikely to take up an assault weapons ban or a magazine and clip limit. In the Senate, a handful of red state Democrats would likely derail any serious gun control legislation. The executive orders range from the irrelevant (the appointment of an ATF director) to the obnoxious (creating a “gun safety” propaganda campaign) to the dangerous (more or less turning doctors into Federal agents). If he could have Obama would have banned assault weapons and limited magazines via executive order. It seems in the very least he understands he doesn’t have that power under the Constitution.

Obama is basically trying to turn doctors into agents of the Federal government. He wants doctors to ask about guns in the home which will no doubt be reported via the Obamacare electronic health database. Let’s not pretend that the Feds don’t have access to those health records. Obama especially wants mental health care givers to report about guns in the home. That’s problematic because again the Feds are going to see that information and try to strip a family of its 2nd amendment rights based on a “mental” health condition.  It should surprise no one when patients either lie to their doctor about guns or refuse to seek treatment.

To date there isn’t yet a Federal law banning guns in the home of someone who has or has had a mental illness. It’s in the works, though it won’t be passed by this Congress. Yesterday’s announcement had great propaganda potential with the kids surrounding the President and his high five’s afterward. But nothing Obama signed yesterday could have stopped Adam Lanza shoot up Sandy Hook Elementary School. Lanza may have had mental problems but he wasn’t the owner of the gun, he stole it from his mother. No amount of doctor questions about guns could have prevented Lanza from stealing his mother’s guns. No amount of coordination between Federal and state agencies could have prevented Lanza from doing what he did.

In fact, short of banning guns in the home of anyone with a mental illness, none of Obama’s proposals to Congress would have stopped Lanza. Connecticut already has an assault weapons ban. The magazine limit wouldn’t have stopped Lanza, he had two handguns on his person. In a gun free zone full of children, an experienced gun owner can quickly replace one magazine with another and continue on with a rampage. For all of Obama’s propaganda efforts yesterday, nothing he signed or proposed could have stopped Adam Lanza or any of the mass public shooters of the last decade.

Obama’s biggest error is not addressing the real problem: Antipsychotic drugs. With few exceptions, all of these mass public shooters have been on antipsychotic drugs or recently went off of them. Both situations can cause violent, murderous and suicidal thoughts and desires within people who have taken these drugs. It’s a small percentage but most of the drug companies acknowledge that a certain percentage of people taking antipsychotic drugs will have these desires. They also acknowledge that a similar percentage have these desires just after discontinuing a drug. Not surprisingly Adam Lanza, James Holmes and Jared Loughner, the most recent mass public shooters were all on these drugs. Obama doesn’t address them at all.

By not addressing the real problem, Obama is doing nothing but being true to his radical left-wing, progressive ideology. Obama has long opposed guns and wanted guns out of the hands of Americans. He is an Alinsky style liberal, it should surprise no one that he surrounded himself with children yesterday. As cowardly as it is to hide behind children while proposing something most Americans oppose, we’ve reached a point in this country when people see right through the propaganda. If Obama continues to push this issue hard, he’ll lose his shot at retaking the House in 2014 and thus he’ll lose his chance to really pass gun control legislation. He’ll blame Republicans of course next time some evil man shoots up a school or a mall. But Obama will really have only himself to blame. He’s focused on guns when they are only the symptom of a bigger problem our nation has with antipsychotic drugs. Obama refuses to address the real problem.

Filed under Guns Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Leftists Attack The Constitution

January 3, 2013 5 Comments

The left has spent the better part of the last month attacking the Constitution. It began with the Sandy Hook shootings which brought calls for massive gun control and/or an elimination of the 2nd amendment. A Constitutional law professor wrote an op/ed in the NY Times Sunday suggesting that we don’t bother following the Constitution anymore. Over in the UK, they’re demanding that we eliminate free speech. If we are not governed by the Constitution, just what will we be governed by? This is of course never mentioned by the liberals who want to rain on the Constitutional parade.

Louis Seidman suggests that following the Constitutional form of government is ludicrous and antiquated. He more or less argues that the Constitution should be viewed not as the law of the land but as a grand list of governing suggestions. It’s sort of like how the left views the Bible, they ignore what they don’t like. What this means in practical terms is anyone’s guess. Seidman suggests that the government will of course protect free speech and freedom of religion. But one gets the feeling that Seidman would do away with the 2nd amendment. Seidman wants to change the foundation by which our governing institutions claim their legitimacy but if we have no Constitution where exactly do these institutions claim any legitimacy?

When a nation goes down the slippery slope of ignoring its founding document it ends in tyranny. If we don’t have to follow the Constitution what is to stop Congress from passing laws banning free speech? They’re attacking free speech on Twitter, demanding “hate” speech be banned. While privately held Twitter can ban whatever speech it wants, the argument rests on the speech other countries ban. The argument is against the American 1st amendment. If we no longer need to follow the Constitution there will be nothing compelling Congress, the President or the Supreme Court from enforcing Constitutional protections such as free speech.

All free nations have a founding document of one sort or another that details the powers entrusted to the government. The Magna Carta and the Constitution are perhaps the two most famous. When a nation begins to ignore the founding document tyranny usually sets in. The French Revolution saw one Constitution after another destroyed by tyrannical politicians who ignored such documents. The result was Napoleon. The Wiemar Republic had founding documents which were ignored and ultimately eliminated by Hitler. We may not head down the path of Napoleon or Hitler but what exactly will protect our freedom if the government won’t follow its founding document?

The left hates the Constitution because it limits their ability to turn America into a European Socialist state. The only way they can win in the end is to discredit the Constitution, mock it and convince the public that it is worthy to be ignored. We’re seeing an increasing assault on the Constitution from the left, largely because it prevents Obama from going forward alone with his left-wing plans. Make no mistake, if a Republican were President the left wouldn’t be attacking separation of powers in the New York Times. We must as a nation ask ourselves whether we want a government unlimited by the Constitution. Do we want a government that has the power to cast aside the first amendment or any other provision of the Constitution. If we’re willing to cast aside the details of the Constitution, we’re willing to forgo free speech, free press and freedom of religion. Give the government and inch and they’ll take a mile.

Filed under socialism Tagged with , , , , , ,

Obamacare’s Attack On Religious Freedom Headed To Supreme Court

November 29, 2012 4 Comments

The next court battle over Obamacare will focus on religious freedom. This week two cases before Federal courts have shown us that it’s likely the Supreme Court will ultimately decide this issue, perhaps in the next term. The Supreme Court ordered the Court of Appeals to hear a religious freedom claim as part of Liberty University’s Obamacare challenge. Meanwhile a Federal Appeals panel has issued a temporary injunction against the enforcement of the contraception mandate as it applies to a privately held Missouri business. The Obama administration’s attack on religious freedom via Obamacare is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court.

The Obama administration’s contraception mandate, which requires employers to provide free contraception via health insurance policies, is a direct attack on religious freedom. The Constitution prohibits the Federal government from restricting the free exercise of religion. One of the basic beliefs held by any number of Christians, from Roman Catholics to generic evangelicals, is that contraception is sin. As such requiring a church or other religious organization to pay for contraception via a health policy restricts the free exercise of their religion. The same could be said of a business, especially a sole proprietorship or closely held corporation.

To listen to the Obama administration any opposition to the contraception mandate is a “war on women.” (all other opposition to Obama policies are simply “racist”) The real war here isn’t against women, it’s against religious freedom. No one is suggesting a ban on contraception. There is no law on the books or even proposed which would prevent a woman from walking into Wal-Mart and purchasing a $5 month’s supply of birth control pills. The issue here is who is going to pay for those pills, because there’s nothing stopping a woman from getting them in the first place. Griswold v Connecticut enshrined that right, for better or worse, in the 60′s.

What is at stake here is religious freedom. Can the Federal government order a church to spend their money on that which they find evil and sinful? Can the Federal government require by law a church to violate the basic tenants of their faith? The issue here isn’t women and their ability to obtain birth control, the issue here is religious freedom. If the answer to those two questions is yes, then we have no religious freedom in this country. After all, if the Federal government can force a church to pay with its own funds for things it finds evil, what can’t the Federal government order a church to do?

This issue extends well beyond the issue of contraception and don’t think the Obama administration doesn’t know it. Contraception is the easy case for them because it’s generally popular. But if religious freedom is lost here what is to stop the Federal government from ordering churches to marry homosexuals or ordain women in violation of their beliefs? Make no mistake, that’s the real goal here. Obama lost at the Supreme Court concerning the application of Federal employment discrimination law to clergy during his first administration. If he wins the contraception mandate, the left will have precedent to attack religious freedom on other matters.

This is a monumentally important issue because it decides the fate of religious freedom for the next generation. We shouldn’t allow ourselves to get caught up over the specific issue of contraception, it’s only a means to an end for the left. Contraception doesn’t matter, it’s a non-issue. What matters here is religious freedom and whether or not we will have in the future a church free from government intrusion. How the Supreme Court rules on this matter is anyone’s guess, I wouldn’t trust Justice Roberts at this point. We can only pray that the Court protects the religious freedom we the people granted ourselves in the Constitution.

Filed under freedom Tagged with , , , , , ,

Should Pastors Be Barred From Endorsing Candidates?

September 24, 2012 1 Comment

Something called the Alliance Defending Freedom is organizing a protest by 1,000 pastors on October 7th. These pastors will be giving sermons on political issues and will include endorsements of candidates. This is in direct defiance of a 1954 law which bans tax exempt non-profits from making political endorsements. Apparently the ADF is going to record these sermons and send them directly to the IRS for prosecution. The law has never been enforced, though the IRS loves to make a show out of threatening its enforcement every election year. The ADF is trying force the hand of the IRS, thinking that the law will be struck down as unconstitutional.

We here at Steven Birn Speaks are sympathetic to end that the ADF is trying to achieve. However we cannot endorse their methods. The Lord’s Day is not an appropriate time to hold a massive protest against anything, much less government. Preaching on the Lord’s Day is about worshipping God and the edification of the Saints. To hold a coordinated protest takes away from worship. We stand against Pro-life Sunday in January for this reason as well as Reformation Day at the end of October. The  Lord’s Day is simply not the place for a nationwide protest, especially so when the sermon has nothing to do with the teachings taking place in local congregations.

This position does not however mean that preachers shouldn’t preach on politics or endorse particular candidates. My position is only limited to an intentional one off sermon that’s sole intention is to create a ruckus and to annual event sermons which might as well be called holy days the way some in the church treat them. If a pastor believes it is necessary and proper to preach on a subject that is political, he has the right under scripture and the Constitution to do so. There are plenty of reasons why a pastor might want to do this, including leading the faithful to elect God fearing men to office. There are plenty of reasons why political issues might be discussed from the pulpit even without an endorsement. The Christian faith does not suspend itself at the ballot box or at the mere hint of modern politics.

This 1954 law that the IRS threatens to enforce but never does is unconstitutional on its face. It is a limitation on free speech but more so it interferes with the free exercise of religion. It is highly unlikely to pass the Court’s strict scrutiny test, which is why the IRS hasn’t enforced it in the last 58 years. The IRS doesn’t want to lose this law, they love threatening churches every other year. To be fair, the IRS takes delight in sending threatening letters to just about everyone. But they don’t want to lose this portion of the law which is why it has never been enforced. Odds are the government will ignore the 1,000 sermons sent to them despite the fact that they break the law. The IRS isn’t going to enforce any of this law. But that won’t stop them from sending threatening letters and trying to intimidate people who don’t realize that the IRS is bluffing.

Government has no business trying to shut down the free exercise of religion in any way. The Christian life extends to all aspects of our lives, including who we vote for and what positions we take on the issues of the day. The notion that pastors cannot discuss these matters or point out which politicians are advocating good or evil is contrary to the Constitution and contrary to freedom. It is unconstitutional for the government to force churches to pay for that which they find immoral, it is equally as unconstitutional for government to force churches to self censor themselves. While we don’t endorse ADF’s organized protest, we do hope that they are successful at provoking the IRS because it is highly unlikely that the Court will rule this law Constitutional.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers