An American Journal In the 21st Century - Thursday, January 14, 2010

Thursday, January 14, 2010 - A new foundation Is being laid for at New America. Those who truly understand this new foundation have hidden it in the 2000-plus pages of the Health Care bill being re-written in Washington D.C. Here's something you need to know about that new foundation.

The President's first choice for Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. After losing his re-election bid in 2004, Mr. Daschle wrote a book about his view of the condition of healthcare in America and his desire to see it improved. The book is titled "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis".

In the book, Daschle argues for a single-payer (government controlled) healthcare system. Daschle concedes that pushing for a single-payer system in the United States would be politically problematic and that it would indeed result in socialized medicine. On March 3, 2008 Daschle said in a Huffington Post article, "I have proposed a Federal Health Board that would be a foundation from which we could address all" healthcare problems.

About a year ago, Tom Daschle had to remove his name from consideration for the HHS post because of reports of inappropriate financial dealings and tax issues. The President then selected Kathleen Sebelius to head the HHS, but the administration was still committed to the blueprint found in Tom Daschle's book - a single-payer system with a Federal Health Board that controls it all.

In the current House Bill H.R. 3962, Section 241 (a) it reads: "There is hereby established, as an independent agency in the executive branch of the Government, a Health Choices Administration". The newly created Health Choices Administration is responsible for "the establishment of qualified health benefits plan standards under this title, including the enforcement of such standards".

This is the "foundation" that Tom Daschle was talking about. In his book, Daschle states that this board should be modeled after other nations like Great Britain. "In Great Britain, for example, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), which is part of the National Health Service (NHS), is the single entity responsible for providing guidance on the use of new and existing drugs, treatments, and procedures." So how does it work in Great Britain?

Let's look at the explanation found on the website for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE):

With the rapid advances in modern medicine, most people accept that no publicly funded healthcare system, including the NHS, can possibly pay for every new medical treatment which becomes available. The enormous costs involved mean that choices have to be made.

It makes sense to focus on treatments that improve the quality and/or length of someone’s life and, at the same time, are an effective use of NHS resources . . .

To ensure our judgments are fair, we use a standard and internationally recognized method to compare different drugs and measure their clinical effectiveness: the quality-adjusted life years measurement (the ‘QALY’) . . .

A QALY gives an idea of how many extra months or years of life of a reasonable quality a person might gain as a result of treatment (particularly important when considering treatments for chronic conditions) . . .

Generally, however, if a treatment costs more than [$32,290 to $48,435] per QALY, then it would not be considered cost effective.

In other words, medical treatment under the proposed healthcare system will come down to a mathematical equation based on cost effectiveness and an arbitrary judgment on your anticipated quality of life and how many years you have left.

Why should you care?

Regardless of what the "talking-heads" say on television, the final decision on your health care choices will be made by the Health Choices Administration. That decision will be a cost-based decision (i.e. is it worth the cost for the United States Government to approve payment for this treatment?). The question for you is, is the proposed healthcare system worth giving up your freedom to make your own health care choices?

What can you do? Here are four ideas. If you have more ideas, please send them to me so that I can pass them along in future journal entries.

1. You can write or call the offices of your Senators and Congressmen and Congresswomen. Ask them to explain the Health Choices Administration and on what basis, this newly created government agency will be making decisions for you.

And don't stop with just one phone call and one letter or email. Contact your representatives weekly or twice a month. At the very least, your representative will know that you are watching.

2. You can pass this journal entry on. It is the first of many. Hopefully it will educate and stimulate a good and noble people to action; the very same people described in the constitution as "We the People . . ." You are free to make copies and distribute them by hand or 'snail-mail.' Please make sure that the last paragraph of this journal is included with your copies so that individuals can contact me with comments or questions.

If you forward this in e-mail form, please remove the "FW:" from the subject line. Many people delete Email Forwards without even opening them up. Also, take the time to e-mail it to one or two individuals at a time. You are encouraged to send this to everyone in your contact list, but many spam filters block emails that contain too many addresses in the "To:" box.

3. Organize a trip to your representative's office (local or in Washington D.C.). By carpooling you can share the expense while making a stronger impact by arriving in greater numbers. By the way, if you haven't done so already, you should make at least one trip to D.C. in your lifetime. Go to the memorials; read the inscriptions on the walls; examine the statues and paintings. You will discover a strong Godly heritage, clearly on display and quite possibly forgotten by your representative.

4. If you are a person of faith, pray. Pray fervently for your nation and for her leaders. Pray daily or hourly. Pray for a good and noble people to wake up and take action. Pray also for those who wish to reshape America in a Progressive image - pray for their safety and protection, but pray that their efforts will be thwarted.

My name is Curtis Ferrell, and this is An American Journal In The 21^st Century. You can find additional journal entries at http://clfnotes.blogspot.com. You can contact me at American_Journal@sbcglobal.net. If you do not wish to receive these journal postings, please email me so that I can remove you from my contact list or click here: Remove

You can find me on FACEBOOK at my Facebook Page (http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504321719).

Here's a link to my Flickr.com Page (http://www.flickr.com/photos/curtisferrell/)

Thanks for reading!

An American Journal In the 21st Century - Thursday, January 7, 2010

We are awakening to find ourselves in a topsy-turvy world. Each new day, starting before the election in the fall of 2008, we have seen actions by government officials which not only anger and frustrate us but are hard to comprehend. Their actions cause us to say things like, "What are they thinking?" or "How can they think that will possibly work?" and "It just doesn't make sense."

I am convinced that our officials are intelligent people; they are not stupid. I am also convinced that they believe that their actions will bring about a better America; they are not suicidal. So if they are not stupid and they are not suicidal, why are they convinced that their actions will "fundamentally transform America" into a better place, while many of us believe they are destroying the America that we know? Why are they convinced that their actions will solve our problems and we believe that their actions are irrational?

Worldview.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am not convinced that there is a secret group of individuals using well-known-faces as puppets to "take over the world." It is possible, but not very probable; there's always a snitch that squeals and the plot is revealed, or a deathbed confession, or memoirs that are published after someone's death.

What IS possible (and, in fact, irrefutably true) is that everyone has a worldview; a fundamental way that a person sees the world and how it works, or how it should work.

For years in America, the predominate worldview was biblically based. In fact, America was founded on a God-centered worldview: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

But there are competing worldviews in America, including Progressivism. A person with a Progressive worldview typically believes in economic and social justice. Economic justice, for Progressives, means that we should take from those who have too much and give it to those who have too little. (Who will decide what is too much and too little?) Social justice, for progressives, means promoting policies that say that a woman has a right to her own body (as well as to the life or death of the one in her womb). Social justice also asserts policies that say there are all kinds of families (meaning straight families and gay families) and that they need to be recognized and celebrated equally.

What we are awakening to is the reality that many of those who wield political and social power in this nation subscribe to a Progressive worldview. And, just like one who rubs the sleep out of his eyes in the morning to make his surroundings clearer, the picture that is becoming clear to us is that a Progressive worldview is contrary to a God-centered worldview and contrary to the worldview that founded this nation.

Again, I am not a conspiracy theorist; I don't believe there is a grand "master-planner" who seeks to dominate the world . . . at least, not one that is human. And I don't believe this is a Republican or Democrat plot. What IS happening, from my perspective, is that many individuals, regardless of party affiliation, all wielding considerable political and social power, and all with a similar Progressive worldview, are now in a position to make decisions and establish policies that "fundamentally change America" and make it the "way it should be." In fact, Progressives from both major parties, beginning with Republican President Teddy Roosevelt and continuing down through our current President, have been making decisions based on this worldview for more than 100 years.

I also believe that, if the recent decisions and policies of Progressives are allowed to take place and mature, we will witness the greatest crisis this nation has faced since the Civil War. If we do not change our course, we will wake up in a society that is not only frustrating and confusing, but unrecognizable as the nation that was founded nearly 234 years ago. In essence, we will suddenly become citizens of a very different nation - immigrants in our own country.

If we fail to act, we will witness what one Progressive hero called, "Act II of the American Revolution." This Progressive hero was the subject of our current Secretary of State's senior thesis when she was attending Wellesley College. Our President valued the thoughts and ideas of this Progressive hero so much that he taught a course promoting his hero's philosophy and worldview. And on December 23, 2009 an MSNBC's news anchor, while interviewing the only socialist Senator in the US, affirmed that Saul Alinsky, the Progressive that penned the quote above, was one of his heroes as well.

Why should you care?

Saul Alinsky's worldview is clearly articulated in his most popular book, Rules for Radicals. As I read it, I was shocked that this worldview was admired and emulated by some of the most powerful people in our nation's capitol. On the page following the dedication, Alinsky praised "the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer." On the final pages of this book, he calls for "Act II of the American Revolution" and likens it to the "revolution of the soul."

On the pages between these bookend quotes, Alinsky makes statements like these: "[A person] should ask of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; and of means, only whether they will work." "He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of 'personal salvation'; he doesn't care enough for the people to be 'corrupted' for them." "The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war, the ends justifies almost any means." "Ethical standards must be elastic to stretch with the times." "Reviewing and selecting available means is done on a straight utilitarian basis - will it work?"

In short, many of our political and societal leaders revere a man who said, in essence, that when it comes to political power there are no morals. Many of the current influencers in our society are agnostic or simply religious in name only. They do not believe that there are unalienable Rights given to us by a Creator; they believe that rights are given and taken away by those who have the political power and the will to do so. If they proceed, unchecked, they will succeed in "fundamentally transforming America" by re-laying a foundation for our nation; one without a Creator, with a less restrictive Constitution, and a more powerful centralized federal government that does not have a moral compass.

What can you do? Here are four ideas. If you have more ideas, please send them to me so that I can pass them along in future journal entries.

1. You can pass this journal entry on. It is the first of many. Hopefully it will educate and stimulate a good and noble people to action; the very same people described in the constitution as "We the People . . ." You are free to make copies and distribute them by hand or 'snail-mail.' Please make sure that the last paragraph of this journal is included with your copies so that individuals can contact me with comments or questions.

If you forward this in e-mail form, please remove the "FW:" from the subject line. Many people delete Email Forwards without even opening them up. Also, take the time to e-mail it to one or two individuals at a time. You are encouraged to send this to everyone in your contact list, but many spam filters block emails that contain too many addresses in the "To:" box.

2. You can write or call the offices of your Senators and Congressmen and Congresswomen. How can you pay for the phone charges and postage? You could pay for the calls by dinning out one less time a month. How can you find the time to write? You could find the time by sacrificing one of the TV shows or movies or video games that consume a good portion of our lives.

And don't stop with just one phone call and one letter or email. Contact your representatives weekly or twice a month. At the very least, your representative will know that you are watching.

3. Organize a trip to your representative's office (local or in Washington D.C.). By carpooling you can share the expense while making a stronger impact by arriving in greater numbers. By the way, if you haven't done so already, you should make at least one trip to D.C. in your lifetime. Go to the memorials; read the inscriptions on the walls; examine the statues and paintings. You will discover a strong Godly heritage, clearly on display and quite possibly forgotten by your representative.

4. If you are a person of faith, pray. Pray fervently for your nation and for her leaders. Pray daily or hourly. Pray for a good and noble people to wake up and take action. Pray also for those who wish to reshape America in a Progressive image - pray for their safety and protection, but pray that their efforts will be thwarted.

My name is Curtis Ferrell, and this is An American Journal In The 21^st Century. You can contact me at curtisferrell1962@gmail.com . If you do not wish to receive these journal postings, please email me so that I can remove you from my contact list or click here: Remove

You can find me on FACEBOOK at my Facebook Page (http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504321719).

Here's a link to my Flickr.com Page (http://www.flickr.com/photos/curtisferrell/)

Thanks for reading!

Choose Well, Choose Life

Article for The New Castle Courier-Times, Christian Perspectives, December 26, 2009

And in despair I bowed my head,
“There is no peace on earth,” I said.
For hate is strong and mocks the song
Of peace on earth, goodwill to men.

It’s the day after Christmas, and this article is sharing the newspaper with stories of current events that impact our community. Inside its pages you will likely find a section filled with names and photos of individuals who have died in the last 36 hours. You’ll see stories about the war in Afghanistan, a tragic fire or domestic assault. You likely read a story about political squabbling or mudslinging, and one of our superstars may be in the news again – for all the wrong reasons. Maybe today will be the day when the annual “Grinch” story will be written about this year’s hard-hearted person who stole all of the Christmas presents from under the tree.

It’s clear, even as you examine this paper, that Henry Wadsworth Longfellow was right. Hate is strong. In these “United” States, we are experiencing more animosity and division than we have in several years as politicians pit the Haves against the Have-Nots. The threat of a nuclear Iran is foreshadowing a handful of responses, all of which make Sodom and Gomorrah pale in comparison. The "good-old-days" of abortion on demand have mutated into today's headlines of a Virginia woman being able to kill her own live-born daughter without consequence because "the mother and baby were still connected by the umbilical cord."

This day is not unlike the days following the first Christmas. The part of the advent story we seldom read in our "sanitized" version of the Christmas story was very dark and tragic. Herod, the king, was so afraid of this new born King that he had every male child under the age of two slaughtered. Mothers and fathers across Judea wailed in anguish over the loss of their sons.

"There is no peace on earth," I said.

But, what is the source of this animosity, these dark-days, this war that is waged every day in our neighborhoods, and political parties, and churches, and families? Could it be that the source of this ill-will can be found in our freedom of choice?

Of all people, Americans should have the most intense understanding of the power we find in the freedom of choice. Our nation was founded on this freedom-of-all-freedoms. We are free to choose our own paths as we “pursue happiness.” We are free to choose how we will live. It is with this power, our freedom of choice, that we can transform the world both for good and bad.

Examine a passage of scripture common to Jews, Muslims, and Christians says, “I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life!” This may come as a shock to some right-wing individuals who have invested far too much energy in the wrong argument of the abortion debate, but God is pro-choice. Before us every day are countless decisions. In each one we can choose between blessings and life, or curses and death. God wants us to choose life. He commands us to choose life. But the choice is ultimately ours, and so are the consequences.

The angels on the hillside announced "Peace on earth, good-will toward men." But that is just God's side of the equation. What is our side of the equation? Are we choosing life over death? Are we choosing peace over conflict? Sadly, I think not.

All too often we choose the things that promise hope, only to be disappointed. Herod promised peace as long has he was in control. But when his power was threatened, even by an infant, pain and anguish replaced the stillness found in Bethlehem. God never asked us to choose hope; he asked us to choose life, even if choosing life meant a life of challenge.

Longfellow's final stanza reminds us what can happen if we choose life; if we choose right; if we reject wrong. He reminds us that we must fight for what is right and reject what is wrong. The choice is ours. Now is the time. Choose well.

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
God is not dead nor doth He sleep;
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail,
With peace on earth, goodwill to men.


You can find more my Facebook Page (http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504321719).

Or my Flickr.com Page (http://www.flickr.com/photos/curtisferrell/)

Thanks for reading!

On Divisions In The Church

Courier-Times Christian Perspectives Article for 11/14/09

Three weeks ago a brother in Christ took issue with these words that I wrote the week previous: "The Bible speaks very clearly about the sanctity of life; about our responsibility to the poor, the orphaned and the widow; about God's view of homosexual behavior."

I try to follow the guidance of C.S. Lewis, who stated in Mere Christianity, "Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son." But I would like to take this opportunity to discuss WHY there are divisions in the church, and divisions with peoples of other faith systems.

A friend of mine, and national speaker for women and youth events, Lori Salierno, says that there are three general areas of belief in the church: standards, convictions, and preferences. For example, divisions in the church about the style of worship are preference differences. Scripture does not speak directly to these issues.

Divisions among believers about the day for worship, the appropriate age for baptism, the manner of baptism (i.e. sprinkling or dunking), and women in ministry are based on conviction. In other words, we believe the Spirit of God has convicted us that "this" way is the way God wants "us" to behave. We don't deny that other Christians have a different understanding. We don't call them non-Christian, or believe that they are sinning. However, if we act in a way, different than the way that God has convicted us to follow, we would be committing an act of sin.

Finally, standards are truths that scripture declares are true for all people, for all times. If someone opposes a standard, the bible calls those actions "sin". The church doesn't label it a sin; individuals don't label it a sin; it is the bible that labels those actions as sins.

While there are some Christ-followers that will identify as standards, the things that I identify as preferences and convictions, most believers will acknowledge these three general areas of belief in the church.

In the late 1960's, intellectuals began toying with an idea called "deconstruction". This idea states that you cannot know what a writer "actually" meant, so you, the reader, must deconstruct what is written and decide for yourself what you think the author meant. In other words, you re-construct what is written in the way that you think it should be read. Actually, the first deconstrucionalist was the serpent in the garden, "That's not what God really meant; you won't surely die."

Armed with this new tool, people have been deconstructing documents for over 40 years and re-constructing them according to their own preference.

They deconstructed the First Amendment to the Constitution which reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "Surely freedom of speech doesn't mean ALL forms for speech." As a result we have a new type of crime: Hate speech. Additionally, religious expression is being restrained by public law on several fronts.

They deconstructed the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "Surely they didn't understand that we would need National Health Care." As a result, we are well on our way to a government-run health care system; a power that was not enumerated in the Constitution.

There are also those who deconstruct scripture. Where scripture is clear but uncomfortable, some say, "That's not what God REALLY meant." Sadly, this is where some divisions among believers occur in the area of standards. In past generations this re-construction of scripture was called heresy. Now we timidly say, "That's your understanding of truth; not mine."

As to areas of agreement, my brother is correct in saying that what brings us together is far more important than the things that separate us. But that is also true of my Jewish and Muslim friends. These faith systems, as well as Christianity, all count the Hebrew Scriptures in the Old Testament as holy scripture. There are many areas in which we can all agree. But the areas that divide us are significant.

For example, the Jewish faith does not accept every scripture we accept (i.e. The New Testament). In the other instance, the Muslim faith accepts, as scripture, documents we cannot accept (i.e. The Koran). Interestingly, they are both battling attacks by those who wish to deconstruct their holy scriptures.

This week we celebrated the veterans that have served this country by fighting for and defending freedom in all of its forms. Many of them died for the truths that we find in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They didn't worry about what the Founders of this nation "really" thought. They clearly understood what was at stake and what the cost could be. They fought for freedom. All gave some; some gave all.

Deconstruction has done damage to the fabric of America and has resulted in the loss of some of the freedoms they fought and died for. Deconstruction has resulted in the creation of an expanded hate crimes law. Someday, we will be reading the report of an individual being charged under this new law for simply speaking his or her mind and defending biblical truth. It could be your pastor. It could be me. It could be you. We were warned and failed to do enough to defend the right to freedom of speech. Someday, someone will have to fight to win it back.

Deconstruction is doing damage to the unity of the church; the unity of all believers who claim to follow Christ. If we begin throwing out the passages of scripture that make us uncomfortable, soon we will have little left that we can call scripture; little left that unites us. Fortunately, scripture defends itself very well, if we have faith to believe what it says.

There is another truth that is clearly spelled out in Scripture. Faith in Christ means more that simply acknowledging that He exists; it means being obedient to His Word. Those who wish to debate this truth will have their opportunity one day, face-to-face with the Author of Truth. Personally, my debate with scripture is done; the Word won.

Questions or comments? Write curt@smdcog.org


You can find more at my Facebook Page (http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504321719).

Also at my Flickr.com Page (http://www.flickr.com/photos/curtisferrell/)

Thanks for reading!

Freedom Of Speech No Longer Exists In America

Courier-Times Christian Perspectives Article for 10/17/09

Just four months ago I wrote these words: "The Bible speaks very clearly about the sanctity of life; about our responsibility to the poor, the orphaned and the widow; about God's view of homosexual behavior. The church needs to rediscover the authority found in the Word of God and stand on it. However, that kind of stance could become something more than politically incorrect, it could become illegal. The U.S. Senate is considering a Hate Crimes Bill (S.909) which could be used to prosecute ministers for declaring God's truth on homosexuality."

As I write this article, the President of the United States is set to sign the Defense Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2010. Hidden in this bill, which will fund our troops around the world for the coming year, is an amendment which couldn't pass the House of Representatives on its own merit. A handful of legislators from the U.S. House and the Senate quietly included the Senate Hate Crimes Bill as an amendment to the Defense bill during the development of a conference report that was supposed to merge two different versions of the Defense bill, one from the House and one from the Senate.

When that merged bill is signed, it will establish restrictions in U.S. law preventing certain kinds of speech. At that point every Christ-follower, including and maybe especially pastors, priests, and ministers, will have to determine if they are willing to risk prosecution and jail time to proclaim the whole truth found in scripture.

Many will be tempted to ignore the topic of homosexuality and what the Bible has to say about it. If you don't talk about it you cannot be arrested and charged.

Others will be tempted to deny the authority of the Word of God so that they can pick and choose which verses they like and which verses they don't like.

You may be thinking, "Curt, you are crazy! It would never come to that!" Let me tell you what is happening around the world, where speech has been limited with recent hate crimes legislation.

In the Netherlands, film maker Geert Wilders will stand trial on January 20th, 2010 for true statements that he included in a film he produced that is offensive to Muslims.

In June 2001, A Canadian man was found guilty of hate speech, when he advertised bumper-stickers he was selling which depicted the outline of two men holding hands inside a red circle with a slash through it. Next to this image was an equal sign and four bible references: Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. As a result of this court decision, the nation of Canada has found that these four scripture passages constitute hate speech, and to affirm them as true is to commit an act of hate speech, punishable by law.

In the United States we see other efforts to curb biblically-centered speech. Colleges and universities, long thought to be bastions of free thought and free expression, have increasingly established hate speech codes to protect students from racial, sexual, and other forms of harassment. In 2004 the Colorado Supreme Court upheld a ruling in a custody case which required Cheryl Clark to protect her daughter by making sure "that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic." This would include the first chapter of the book of Romans. A high school in the U.S., while approving the Day of Silence, which promotes a homosexual lifestyle, tried to deny the observance of the Day of Truth, which tried to counter the ideas promoted in the Day of Silence.

Through the decades of this experiment called the United States of America we have heard voices warning against limiting free expression and free speech. Political scientist Martin Gruberg said that we, "should confront offensive ideas by rebuttal, not by suppression." Ben Franklin stated “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech." And consider this statement from President Harry S. Truman: "When even one "American" -- who has done nothing wrong -- is forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril."

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The idea that speech should be free from constraint is not universal. We see this in a response during the investigation into the Canadian ruling to outlaw the four offensive scripture passages. When asked, "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?" Investigator Richard Steacy said, "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."

Actually it is a biblical value, the first chapter of the Old Testament Book of Isaiah contains these words: Stop doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow. "Come now, let us reason together," says the Lord. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool."

Reasoning together requires freedom of thought and freedom of expression. These ideas, these truths, did not originate in a civil document authored by the founders of America. These ideas originated in the heart of God.

There are those who try to say that this bill will not be used to attack religious expression, and can only be activated if someone commits a felony and says that he or she was encouraged or enticed to commit the crime based on "hate speech" statements. These are the same people that assured us that abortion on demand would never happen in America and euthanasia (mercy killing or assisted suicide) could never be seriously considered in such a civilized society.

What can you do? Encourage your spiritual leaders to boldly preach the Word of God without fear or hesitation. Defend the authority of scripture. Pray for the church in America. Love and pray for those who disagree with the truth found in scripture. Support politicians who value freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Encourage the appointments of judges who value freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Prepare yourself to boldly face the consequences of the words you speak or write.

Someday, we will be reading the report of an individual being charged under this new law for simply speaking his or her mind and defending biblical truth. It could be your pastor. It could be me. It could be you. We were warned and failed to do enough to defend the right to freedom of speech. Someday, someone will have to fight to win it back.


You can find more my Facebook Page (http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504321719).

They are also posted at my Flickr.com Page (http://www.flickr.com/photos/curtisferrell/)

Thanks for reading!

Why Does The Health Care Debate Confuse Us?

Courier-Times Christian Perspectives Article for 10-10-09

Jesus said, "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves." That's easier said than done.

We are in the midst of a national debate regarding health care: who will pay, what will it cost, what services will be available, how many will be covered, how will it affect my ability to choose? These questions are difficult enough to get our minds around, especially when the numbers being used are in the billions and trillions. But the debate has now been thrown in the moral arena.

Individuals like Jim Wallis, a Washington based moral activist, and even the President himself have suggested that it would be immoral NOT to support the health care policies that are being proposed today. Others, like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, say that the health care proposals in congress are immoral and downright evil. So how do we, as Christ-followers, cut through all the fog of politics and moralizing to find the answers?

Let me suggest that we spend more time in the Word of God and more time in prayer. The decisions made in the next few months will have far reaching implications for decades to come. Scripture says that if any of us lack wisdom we should ask God for it, and He will give it to us. But what else does scripture say?

The Apostle Paul told the church at Corinth that we should give what we have decided in our heart to give, "not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." But in his letter to the Christ-followers in Rome, Paul said, "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God . . . Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

In the same way, the Apostle Peter wrote, "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right." This suggest that a primary role for the government is to maintain order and punish evil-doers. But in the Old Testament we see that when Joseph was in power in Egypt he used that authority to secure grain for the coming famine so that the government could feed the people that otherwise would have starved.

A shrewd follower of Christ will also consider history. Part of the confusion we are dealing with stems from the fact that we are the first government in history to be "of the People, by the People, and for the People". Even though it doesn't feel like it all the time, WE are the Government; WE make the decisions; WE make the call. What is our responsibility, as a government, to the People?

We are also members of the church. What is our responsibility, as a church, to "the People"? History again shows is that time and time again the church has relinquished its role as caregiver and allowed the government to fill that vacuum. Who built the first hospitals? The church. Who built the first schools? The church. Who cared for orphans and widows and provided adoption services? Initially it was the church. But over the years we have allowed the government to assume those duties.

As individuals we are called to love our neighbor as ourselves. What is our responsibility, as individuals, to "the People"? Scripture clearly teaches that we are to give to the poor, care for the ill, visit those in prison, feed the hungry, and clothe the naked. Are we as Christ-followers still doing this, or are we expecting other people to fill the vacuum that we've created?

I think, if we are honest with ourselves, we will see that the reason we are struggling with the current health care issues is because we don't want to examine our own moral failures, as individuals and as the church. We understand that there is a need; a moral requirement that we care for those who are ill. We also understand that the primary role of government is not to care for the sick. That is not even the secondary or third or fourth role of the government. So we are stuck because we are ignoring the fact that, in most instances, the church has failed to care for the sick. And we don't want to admit that, in many instances, we as individuals have failed to care for the sick.

Maybe if we spent more time in prayer and more time in the study of scripture we would discover God's plan for our society. Maybe we would better understand God's definition of freedom, found in the book of Galatians. "You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: Love your neighbor as yourself."

Brothers and sisters in Christ, we have a choice to make. Will we live free and love our neighbor in tangible ways, or will we use our freedom to indulge in the things that please us and, as a result, lose more of our freedoms as we are bound by the debt that we owe? Will we as churches stop simply going to church and actually BE the church? The choice is ours; we must choose well. If we fail to choose well we will likely hear these words: For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.


You can find pictures at my Facebook Page (http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504321719).

They are also posted at my Flickr.com Page (http://www.flickr.com/photos/curtisferrell/)

Thanks for reading!