2012 Voting Booth Vol. I

And so it has begun. And, as with every election: JMO does the research, so you don't have to! (but feel free to check my facts. Good research always stands up to scrutiny.)

With Santorum finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel (which was the on-coming Romney train) and derailing his own campaign before Mitt, and the GOP voters, could do it for him - we finally have a two person race. (Of course, a two candidate system creates its own issues, but those are for another day.)

The day after Santorum conceded to Romney I saw this image spring up on Facebook:

I restrained myself from commenting on this image on Facebook for a few reasons:

1) It was posted by people who were too young to vote and I didn't feel like taking any action that would make them feel bad about being interested in politics. They are young and misguided, but good for them for being interested.

2) I've found that people don't really pay attention to comments in Facebook. They are typically quippy, brief, and either ignored or misconstrued. This is a much better venue for my thoughts.

3) I had much to say and didn't want to bog down the comments section of the image. But, with as much as I need to say, let's get to it. I'll be refuting each point one at a time (This went longer than anticipated. You'll find the most amazing aspect of this entire situation after each point):

Point 1:
He'd repeal Obamacare and take away health care for millions:
Obamacare doesn't take effect until 2014, so he can't exactly away something they don't have. Obamacare hasn't even survived the Supreme Court test, so Romney may not have to repeal it, the courts may do that for him. I find it interesting that the creators of this document feel the need to specify why this is a bad thing. They couldn't just put "He'd repeal Obamacare." They had to add "and take away health care for millions." Why is that? Is it because the majority of national polls show that American's don't want it?! That if the average American reads "He'd repeal Obamacare" their first thought is: "good?" (Even the pollsters who are in bed with the left can't muster more than a 47% approval rating for this bill. Out of 298 polls only 92% had Americans opposing this bill by an average margin of over 11 points! Even if every "undecided" person polled were lumped into the "in favor" camp that would still leave fewer than half of those polled in favor of this bill. Not only that, but 57% of the polls would still show that Americans don't want this bill. Source

Point 2:
He opposes the President's plan to end the war in Afghanistan and would leave troops there indefinitely:
Romney has taken only one stance on Afghanistan: The top military leaders involved in the conflict should be the ones making the decision. So if Romney's plan is in opposition to the President's plan, that would mean that the President's plan is in opposition to the military's plan. Last I checked, President Obama didn't have any military experience. I suppose that "indefinitely" is accurate if there isn't a scheduled withdrawal date, so that much could be true. Romney has also stated that he would caution against making a similar commitment in the future, as we have in Afghanistan.

Point 3:
He'd cut taxes for millionaires, paid for by cutting the programs that middle-class families rely on:
Once again, as in point one, this is a distortion of the truth based on planned future events. Romney would "cut taxes for millionaires" by continuing the Bush-era tax cuts that cut taxes for everyone who pays them, so, yes, that includes millionaires. Romney also wants to cut taxes for businesses to stimulate job growth and revive the economy. How will he off-set the loss of income for the Federal Government? By cutting services. What puzzles me is this: How many families making between $32,000 and $36,000 a year (the low end of the "middle class" depending on your source) rely on government programs? Now, I understand that there are those that earn less than those figures that do rely on government programs, but... the middle class? I don't think so. Additionally, Romney would return the responsibilities for these services where they belong: to the state governments. Perhaps if we weren't seeing 20% of our income go to the Federal government we wouldn't be as up in arms if we see our property taxes go up a little. (Side note: The average American is working for the government until April 17th, this year before they begin to work for themselves.)

Point 4:
He'd end Medicare as we know it:
I'm not going to lie: I laughed out loud when I read this one. On the one hand, it is completely and utterly true: Mitt Romney would end Medicare as we know it. Sounds like he'd completely do away with it, doesn't it? That a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote to condemn Medicare. Clever wording, no? Of course, what is actually behind this sound-byte is that Romney will suggest reforms to Medicare that we haven't tried yet so, yes: Medicare would no longer be "as we know it." Romney has stated that he desires to "ensure that both Medicare and Social Security are made sustainable for future generations." Seriously, laughed out loud.

Point 5:
He'd get rid of Planned Parenthood and outlaw abortion:
Once again, this point is based on very clever wording and fuzzy deduction (Similar to when then-senator Obama said that he would not "repudiate" Rev Wright). Romney would not look to (nor would he be legally able to) "get rid of Planned Parenthood." Romney would remove Planned Parenthood's Federal funding. Now, if that action results in the dissolution of Planned Parenthood, then I'd have to believe that most American's wouldn't want their tax money subsidizing abortion to begin with. Otherwise, Planned Parenthood, like other private prenatal charities would be able to raise their own support. Oh, and no President can simply "outlaw abortion" or Regan, Bush I, or Bush II would have done it long before Romney got an opportunity.

Most amazing aspect of this situation:
This image originated from President Obama's Campaign Facebook Page!
What does this mean? Well, this wasn't some grass-roots effort to bolster support for President Obama. This came directly from his re-election campaign! Why is this a such a big revelation? It means they recognize that the President has done so little for them to rest their laurels on that they are forced to resort to fear tactics. And not only fear tactics, but deceptive fear tactics at that! [if you skipped the refutation of the points, just check out points 2, 4, and 5. (well, every point has some deception to it but those are the most egregious)].

Bottom line: The Obama campaign is resorting to (at the very least) misleading fear tactics, and not all of them are so terrible!

Easter Reflections

As dawn broke on the third day, Jesus arose and walked out of the tomb. He greeted the angel sitting on the stone and the prostrate soldiers by name as he passed them. He found a quiet place to sit and wait for the women and then chuckle as He watched two of His disciples race to the tomb. What an amazing day in the history of humanity! The curtain was torn, God was accessible to all, Hallelujah!

But why did Jesus go to the cross to begin with? The answer seems obvious. Jesus died on the cross for me, right? I have bad news:

Jesus did not die for you.

It's difficult to convey intonation in written form so perhaps it would be better if I "said" it like this: Jesus did not die for you.

That is to say, we are not the primary reason that Jesus allowed himself to be nailed to a cross. Jesus didn't die for me and, I'm sorry to say, not for you, either.

Like any complex human decision, Jesus had many reasons why he chose to tolerate the plight of a Roman cross. But when we discuss the "why's" of things, we focus on the primary reason. And the message we receive all too often is that we are the primary reason that Jesus died. I can say conclusively, we are not.

Jesus went to the cross in order to bring glory to God the Father. Jesus allowed himself to stand before six illegal assemblies, before three different judges, before soldiers to be scourged, beaten, tortured, and before the public to be insulted, humiliated, pierced, and asphyxiated for the primary reason of glorifying His Father in heaven. Not for me. What am I but a worm that He would die for me? Who am I that my King should die for me?

Jesus endured this horrific experience to bring glory to God the Father and we are the unworthy, undeserving, infinitely blessed, grateful beneficiaries of His sacrifice.

This amounts to a complete reversal of everything we've been taught in our American churches: Jesus died for me. "If I were the only person on the face of the planet, Jesus still would have died for me." These statements aren't necessarily false. But they are (at the very least) out of order. If these statements are true, they were driven by His desire to bring glory to the Father, not principally for our benefit.

This may not sit well so allow me to provide some scriptural backing:

Exodus 14:4 "And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD." Did God free His people from Egypt for their benefit? No, he did it to bring glory to himself. The exodus is a prophetic example of God saving his people from their sins. Why would His reasons be different from one salvation to another?

Daniel 2:28-29: "Then Nebuchadnezzar said, “Praise be to the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who has sent his angel and rescued his servants! They trusted in him and defied the king’s command and were willing to give up their lives rather than serve or worship any god except their own God. Therefore I decree that the people of any nation or language who say anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego be cut into pieces and their houses be turned into piles of rubble, for no other god can save in this way.” What is God's motive here? For a pagan King to glorify the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.

What was God's principal motive in each of these? His own glory! Were the Israelites, along with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, peripheral beneficiaries of God's actions? Absolutely! Would they have been in error to say that God did what He did for their benefit? Yeah, kinda. And I can guarantee it would have affected how they each responded to their experiences.

So how does a proper understanding of Jesus' motives color our daily actions and attitudes? If I am the object of Jesus' dedication, and not God the Father, then my motivation to live a life of righteousness, generosity, and Christ-likeness is diminished. After all, Jesus went to the cross for me! He died to forgive me of my sins.

Imagine Meshach says "Praise God, he saved us!" but Abednego says, "Praise God, he brought glory to Himself and we had the privilege of being allowed to be a part of it!" Which attitude results in more praise, gratitude, and adoration?

What is our attitude with this proper understanding? Jesus died for the Father and I am the cursory recipient of the resulting grace; a planned recipient, but still the secondary purpose. Jesus chose to give glory to the Father through obedience even to death on a cross, (John 10:17-18, Philippians 2:8) and I have the privilege of being allowed to be a part of it through the salvation that I unjustly receive! How much greater is my praise? How much deeper is my gratitude? How much fuller is my adoration of the only One worthy of Glory?

Let us worship anew this Easter with a fuller understanding of the primary reason Jesus suffered. Let us recognize our proper position in God's plan of salvation: The grateful, unworthy people, the privileged beneficiaries of the grace made available by Jesus' righteous desire to bring His Father glory by becoming the final sacrifice for sin.

He is risen! He is risen indeed! Hallelujah!

A Historical Rewrite

The following is my version of the beginning of the Declaration of Independence if it had been written today:

We hold these "truths" to be self-evident provided they align with your own personal paradigm, that all men are created have evolved equally, that they are arbitrarily endowed by their Creator the evolutionary process that has lead us to believe that "rights" exist with certain unalienable rights provided you aren't an enemy combatant or a member of the "1%", that among these are life as long as you've already been born, liberty in all things secular, there shall be no liberty to share one's governmentally defined religion in the public square and the pursuit of government provided happiness. That to secure these rights, powerful federal governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed special interest groups who fund them. That whenever any form of government (not including ours, of course) becomes destructive to these ends for those not rich. The wealthy are out of luck, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it (remember, not our government), and to institute new government that will no longer ignore the will of the people, laying its foundation on such lack of principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their liberty-less safety and government funded, a moral happiness.

Somehow it just doesn't have the same ring to it...