On the Resurrection

Today is Easter Sunday.  Many have gone to church as a family tradition.  Others have held Easter egg hunts for the children and/or terrified them with people dressed in bizarre and eerie bunny costumes.  And everyone has gorged themselves on candy.  Even now, I stare at a box of peeps, as they desperately plea for their lives and I ignore their terror.

For many others, this is a day like no other, for it is Resurrection Day.

For on this day we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Born of a virgin into a fallen world, Jesus came into the world with one purpose: to transform it.

And transformed it He did.

After preaching in the Galilee region, Jesus traveled to Jerusalem on Palm Sunday.  Already detested by the Pharisees, the religious leaders of the people of Israel, His continued preaching eventually led to his arrest and execution (which is traditionally observed on Good Friday).  To the disciples and the other followers, all seemed lost.  The man who had transformed their lives and many others with His teachings and miracles was gone.

Then, on the third day after his crucifixion, something was amiss with His tomb.

The stone covering it was rolled away and He was gone.

For He had risen.

He had gone to Hell and battled Satan for the sake of mankind.  Sin and evil had dominated the world since the original sin in Eden.  And Jesus fought for a way out; of sin, of the world, of Hell.  And when directly confronted by God the son, Satan was once more cowed and defeated.

Jesus returned from the dead, so that we may all have eternal life.  He died and rose again so that we would no longer be slaves to our sinful nature and our personal failings.  He exerted power and victory over death, hell and the grave.  He transformed the world and us because God loved us enough to give His only begotten son as the sacrifice that would finally atone and intercede for our sins from Adam on.

The world has light in it once more.

Have a happy and blessed Resurrection Day.

On Offensive Comparisons

Look at that picture for a moment.  No rush.  Just look at it, drink in the details, think through the implications.

I cannot stress enough how insanely offensive that picture is.

It is saying that people who oppose gay marriage are like the people who opposed the civil rights movement.  It is drawing equivalency with people who wish to redefine the ancient institution of marriage, implying that they are somehow as oppressed as the people who had to use inferior facilities because of the color of their skin.

They are saying that judging someone for their actions is the same as judging someone for the color of their skin.  That being a homosexual, tied to the actions of the individual, is somehow similar to having a certain skin color, which is immutable.

Is this picture trying to tell me that homosexuals are being blasted by water cannons in the streets?  That they're being beaten by abusive police officers while dogs are unleashed on them to tear their flesh?  Is it telling me that they are being murdered and hung in the town square for all to see?

You bet.  It's drawing a moral equivalence between people who believe that government shouldn't and in fact, does not have the authority to redefine marriage and those who believed that people of color did not deserve basic human dignity.

Pictures like this are the result of leftism.  The left transforms every issue into a dichotomy of "being on the right side of history" vs. "bigotry."  By making the side the left disagrees with appear to be bigoted, it gives them a massive talking point which no one will disagree with, except those of conscience on the opposing side.

Because the left teaches kids what, rather than how, to think, they post and repost pictures like this without thinking it through.  Anyone who thinks about this image for a bit realizes the disturbing and disgusting implications at the core of its message.  The way it marginalizes the struggles of the civil rights movement by putting what amount to minor inconveniences on the same level as being treated as less than human is abhorrent.  Anyone should be repulsed at the idea of drawing this comparison.

The future seems scary from where I'm sitting.  Comparisons like this are becoming commonplace and people of traditional, Biblical mores are slowly being shunned and shoved to the side.

What effect do you think this mentality will have on liberty?

Fighting On Multiple Fronts

With Jim Carrey's recent jackassery and the sudden explosion in discussion over same-sex marriage, I have seen many interesting articles and tweets over the past couple of days.  Somewhat predictably (as much as it pains me to say it), I've also noted some naysayers on the right complaining about all the attention these two issues are getting.

"Jim Carrey is irrelevant," they say.  This is true.  Not only is he not funny, this is the first I've heard of him in some time.

"If only we saw this much energy and enthusiasm regarding the economy and taxes," they say.  And I agree, it would be nice to see enthusiasm on other issues.

But of course, the real question is, what are the implications of statements like these?

I'll start with the argument against Carrey, particularly as I have seen the argument used time and again regarding various leftists from Michael Moore to Piers Morgan.  You see, the point of engaging someone is not because of their importance.  Otherwise, we wouldn't argue with family, friends, strangers, etc. because, comparatively speaking, they are not important.  The point of engaging is to challenge a person's assumptions and conclusions when they deserve to challenged.  Or in Jim Carrey's case, the fact the he is a complete ass.

As for putting energy into certain issues over others, that is just a matter of taste.  Some people are more engaged by moral arguments than economic or political ones.  How is that wrong?  How does "shaming" those who focus on certain issues help with the ones they are perceived to neglect?  Hammering one's allies strikes me as an ineffective way to build alliances.

Ultimately, what this complaining comes down to is the idea that certain issues are "more important" than others.  Not that this isn't true; some issues do carry greater implications than others.  However, this is not a justification to ignore particular subjects, people or ridicule someone for focusing on a subject that you deem less important.  What is important to you may not necessarily be important to someone else.

This mentality is very dangerous.  Determining whether an issue should be addressed by its perceived importance to someone is unwise.  According to this logic, if I may use a military analogy. the Union (in the American Civil War) should never have fought in the Western theater (with General Grant and the Mississippi River).  The Eastern theater, where the northern armies fought General Lee in much more publicized battles, were considered more important by the War Department.  We should have focused purely on the east, according to this perspective.

The war was won in the west.  The Confederates were defeated because of the many victories out west.  Had this sort of short-sighted thinking been applied to that war, we might live in a radically different nation today.  Assuming we would exist at all.

Frankly, having someone who is interested in social issues and having someone else who is interested in fiscal issues should be seen as a good thing.  Then you have people fighting battles that they are fully engaged in.  Additionally, as a movement, this allows conservatives to fight on multiple fronts.  Because ultimately, every issue is important.  Every issue has implications that no one has considered.  Ignoring an issue for no reason other than "it's not important" will allow our opponents to get around us and subvert us.  Our gains in one area will be rendered meaning by our losses in another.

How is that good strategy?

GO AWAY. YOU'RE STILL NOT FUNNY.

Question Time

Today, I try something new.  I've been entertaining this idea in my head and this seems as good a time as any to start it.

You see, I want to answer your questions.  Not that I claim to be an expert, to be brilliant, or even have much in the way of experience.  Often, I'll answer with my initial gut reaction.  Largely, this is just an exercise to keep myself thinking and writing.  With any luck (and maybe some discernment from God), I'll also answer your questions satisfactorily and maybe give you a little food for thought.  With that, let's kick things off.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Have we shifted as a nation? Are we no longer center right? Have the parties shifted?" - from @MikeHancho7

I will tell you right off the bat, this is a not an easy question.  Things like this are infinitely more complex than these simple concepts they're often boiled down to.  I feel my answer will likewise be too simplistic for the reality.

To answer your question...I believe the president's (and progressivism's) success in the past election is borne as much out of the slow cultural and moral decay of the past forty years as much as their ability to drum up support.  Despite some of us in the country being fully aware of the president's empty rhetoric, many in the country are not and are easily swayed by the flashiness of the president.  It may not be deserved, but praise is still thrown his way constantly.  So for right now, no, the country has not "shifted."  Not yet.  There is still a big, persuadable middle.  However, that middle will shrink (as it slowly has been) unless we work to reverse course.

As for the parties...no.  They've been like this for years.  The politicians (all of them) are just less willing to hide their statist inclinations.


"Is it possible for the virtues of frugality and honor to ever regain their place in the hearts and minds of this nation?" - via @netmarcos

Theoretically, yes.  However, it will require two things: hard work and, even more importantly, patience.  Liberalism didn't hit our society all at once.  It crept in slowly, subverting traditional values without us really realizing it.  We gave ground because the pushes were otherwise so imperceptible.  And now here we are.

That said, I fear reality may mean we've already slipped too far.  Some aspects of our culture are corrupted so deeply, that people no longer recognize right and wrong.  Even if we manage to affect a general shift back to honor and frugality, dishonorable things will still be seen as acceptable in the eyes many.  Additionally, the nation is still on course to oblivion, particularly after November, which means that the fight for honor will grow harder by the day.  It doesn't mean we give up the fight, of course.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, my intention with this is really to make it a little more lighthearted and mix up the content on the blog.  I most certainly don't mind answering serious questions, but less serious ones are fine too.  Keep in mind, the seriousness of a particular answer will be proportional to the seriousness of the question that is asked.  So I will answer questions like the ones above completely seriously.  If someone asks me for dating advice, I'm liable to give bad advice.  If someone asks me why it burns when they pee, I'm likely to make a crack about that prostitute from last week.  You get the point; this can be both serious and comedic.

You can leave questions for me on my Twitter account (@OnConservatism) or on my Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/OnConservatism).

So...get askin'!

On A Culture of Decadence

We live in a society that is falling apart. Biblical morality has been tossed by the wayside in favor of loose lifestyles and "fun times." From promiscuous sex to abortion on demand to yes, even homosexuality, our society seems to steadily lose its way by the day, as we are assaulted by some new, un-Godly insanity. Worst of all, this behavior is not just tolerated by society; it is condoned.

There is something to be said for liberty, to be unconstrained by our leaders and rulers, mere men, in how we live our lives. It is another matter entirely when, as a free society, in our own personal lives, we allow for evil in our midst and call it good.

Let me tell you something about myself. I've hinted a couple of other articles I myself am not free of sin. And you know what that sin I keep hinting at is?

Pornography.

For years, it has been my a secret and a difficult one. Like the anchor of a ship, it has dragged me down. It leaves me ashamed and self-loathing, a hypocrite and a coward.

Yet our society says that loose sexual boundaries are a good thing. It tells us that exposure to porn and masturbation are a healthy. It tells us that we ought to "test drive" our partners in bed before making commitments, as though the ones we love are cars instead of people with feelings. That it's "self-righteous" to be proud of saving yourself for marriage.

Something advocates of a society with loose moral boundaries do not realize is that living in sin is not true freedom. As a friend on Twitter described it to me, sin is "like a baby rattle snake. Looks so cute at first, but grows into something venomous. Then another one bites the dust." It is fun in the beginning, for sure. New feelings, new sensations. It's all pleasant; we're naturally attracted to it.

Then the ugliness of sin rears its head as one realizes the truth. One becomes addicted to that thing that was once fun, realizing it has a hold over them. One's perspective on the world has been changed and not for the better. Everything is a bit more lewd, a bit more crude. It becomes a comfort zone of sorts, a place where we feel comfortable, even if it harms us. It becomes a crutch and a safety net protecting us from the risks of the real world.

And that is just pornography. What could it be like for so many others?

But worry not, for society says it is okay. It is healthy. Therefore we should do it as much as we're comfortable with.

But there's the catch.

There is never a place that stays comfortable for long. We are dragged down by these "anchors" because we always crave more.  The more we seek, the larger those anchors grow. We seek happiness and fulfillment in our sins and it leads us astray. Society tells us to seek happiness in things and other people.

Yet, true happiness only comes from God and salvation in Christ Jesus.

Consider that for a moment. For the longest time, western society believed there was a good, all-knowing, loving God in Heaven. Even the sinner knew on some level that he was doing wrong, doing evil, in the eyes of someone...something greater than mortal men. Now, that is no longer true. That which is good is called evil and that which is evil is called good. People live in their sin and are celebrated for it.

Did I not know the truth of Jesus, I would likely not be convicted and ashamed of my secret. I'd use the justifications of a corrupt society that it was healthy and good. It might seem wrong, but I would believe that it wasn't. I would convince and deceive myself into believing it wasn't.

It for this mentality that I weep for my nation. A nation that has no clue where it is headed: the ruin of many kingdoms and empires long before it.

On Being More Conservative

In the wake of Mitt Romney's defeat in November, there has been a large debate on the right as to whether or not he should have run as a "more conservative" candidate than he did.  It is a topic worth broaching, if only because it seems to have flared up somewhat in the wake of CPAC.

The first element to answer: Was Mitt Romney a conservative candidate?

That question feels a bit hard to answer.  Does Mitt Romney share (basically) the same conceptualization as the average conservative of fiscal responsibility?  More than likely.  Does he share a similar view regard small, limited government?  This is less clear, though "no" is likely closer to the truth, if his history is any indication.  Regardless of what he believes, the Romney campaign was weakened by the fact that neither of those questions can be answered clearly. This has led many to criticize him and his campaign for “not being conservative enough” (a sentiment I happen to agree with). Of course, this point of view is not without its detractors.

Critics of that idea often cite two reasons against a more clearly conservative candidate. First, the electorate was not looking for a very conservative candidate.  Second, they believe that those who think the candidate should have been more conservative also believe that “more conservatism” automatically equals “victory.”

The former belief may not be inaccurate.  After decades of the modern public school system and a corrupt media, many people are inherently inclined to agree with the assumptions of the progressive worldview.  Tricked into believing that government programs and intervention are not just compassionate, but necessary, has left many people in the United States clamoring for it, regardless of the results.

Of course, this does not mean there are not people who cannot be persuaded otherwise.  The primary flaw of this argument is that it implicitly assumes people will not be swayed by strong conservative arguments.  Keep in mind, the critics likely do not believe this either, but in criticizing the idea that a strong conservative would be better, they accidentally assume this.

The second belief is both condescending and wrong.  First, it assumes that the people who agree with the idea that Mitt Romney should have run more to the right are simpletons who actually believe "more conservatism" = "automatic victories."  This is a false way to frame it.  No one of consequence actually says that.  And I otherwise find it hard to believe that large amounts of people think being more conservative will automatically result in victory.

The point of running conservatively is that it can draw a clear distinction between us and progressives.  It allows the right to make a more effective case for liberty and small government.  Romney was completely unable to do this.  From Romneycare to his tendency to agree with President Obama in the latter two debates, he rarely came across as a clear conservative, no matter how often he mentioned that he was.  More often than not, he unintentionally made himself appear to be a less progressive version of the president, blurring the differences between the two.

Tying the two beliefs together, this sounds like the common idea that the Republicans need to run more moderate candidates to win (despite evidence to the contrary).  By making the first assumption, they conclude that conservatism will not work as an election theme, even when presented clearly to the voting populace.  Then they assume that conservative ideals have been clearly presented to the voters in the time since Ronald Reagan.  Between President Bush's "compassionate conservatism" (which likewise contains the inherent assumption that we are not compassionate otherwise) to the constant media distortions, this has not been the case.  While there are certainly areas of the country where a more moderate candidate would work better, it is not universal either.

To assume that running with stronger conservative bona fides would be detrimental, while not necessarily a point to automatically shun, is likewise not universally applicable.  It shows a lack of understanding of conservatism to treat it so dismissively.  It is the ideological driver of the right and should be treated as such, both by the politicians and the voters.

On Bosses and Daddies

So, you may recall a few weeks back that Chris Rock said that President Obama was like the country's boss and daddy.  Setting aside the colossal irony (think about who said it) and stupidity of such a statement, his word choice actually deserves a bit more analysis than its shallowness suggests.

That statement reveals one of the big differences between how conservatives and progressives think.

Julius Caesar.

Something everyone should understand is that throughout most of history, governments have owned their people.  Not in the strictest sense, as a master would a slave, but close to it.  Governments had expectations and required duties of their people without any reciprocal expectations from those people.  Kings could tax their populations into poverty and levy them for war without the people's consent recourse.  More recently, the regimes of facists and communists curbed freedoms, demanded work and often pointless fighting for the state.  This has held true throughout history and continues in most nations today.

This is a major reason why America has been different from nearly every nation that has existed on the Earth.  For in America, we are not lorded over by nobles, senators, councilmen, kings or ayatollahs.  We are in charge of them.  We are responsible for electing them and keeping them in check (whether or not this is true in practice is another matter).  Our government is there, with our consent, to keep an orderly, lawful society, for no one denies that laws, diplomats and militaries must exist.

However, no one rules over us nor do we need anyone to do so.  We accept that we are free peoples who can make decisions for ourselves, for good or for ill.

Napoleon Bonaparte.

For the progressive, it is the exact opposite.  They think collectively, as most people around the world have and continue to do.  They see people (besides themselves, naturally) as requiring, if not demanding, someone to rule over them.  They see the country and its people as needing a boss to control it and direct it.  They believe that without the guidance of some "benevolent" ruler, society would collapse, a victim to its own "excesses."

Though Chris Rock never said those words, he and millions of other leftists imply this belief with the value and importance they place on government.  They (unwittingly) become proponents of subservience to men.

This way of thinking is dangerous.  When we see men in positions of power as our "bosses" and our "daddies," as opposed to mere men, we raise them to a position in our hearts where they do not belong.  This eventually translates to elevating them to those same places in reality.  We end up conceding that we are incapable of governing ourselves without the help of some external force.

Unfortunately, the progressive looks to men to give them direction and make them better people.

Men who are flawed and prone to error.

Adolf Hitler. 

Men whose egos lead them to overestimate their value and abilities.  Many, if not most, leaders of history form cults of personality around themselves, leading up to and including actual worship.  Many become so enamored with themselves and what they believe they represent, they place themselves on pedestals over God Himself (or any god, for that matter).  In their own minds and in the minds of those who follow them closest, they become infallible and gods unto themselves.

Progressivism's fundamental weakness is its dependence on men to lead and solve problems, rather than each individual.  Their ethos leaves no room for God or individual choices.  By accepting other men as their "bosses," they leave themselves vulnerable to being controlled and destroyed by the men they look up to.



Quick footnote: My point (especially with the pictures), if you have not picked up on it, is that this mentality creates tyrants.  It creates men who control the people, people who, because they think this way, allow these things to happen.  This has nothing to do with Barack Obama, either.  This applies to any man or woman, historical or in the future, who is treated as a boss or father figure when they are merely the leader of an organization or country, no less mortal or flawed.