Narcissism has become America's greatest weakness, and a return to Christian humility may be the most effective way to save our democratic republic from the authoritarian demise of Ancient Rome, a citizenship scholar says.
"America is perched in a place right now, because of the moral and political decisions we have made – we are jeopardizing – have not yet abandoned, but are jeopardizing – self-government," David J. Bobb, author of Humility: An Unlikely Biography of America's Greatest Virtue, told The Christian Post in a Monday interview. Bobb decried a culture of arrogance, citing Justin Bieber's audacity to inject himself into the story of Anne Frank, and presented humility as "a very good tonic, a very good bulwark," to protect freedom. more >>
The daughters of former Vice President Dick Cheney are clashing over same-sex marriage, with the elder sister, running for the Republican Senate primary in Wyoming, facing criticism from her younger sister and her wife for supporting traditional marriage.
"I was watching my sister-in-law on Fox News Sunday (yes Liz, in fifteen states and the District of Columbia you are my sister-in-law) and was very disappointed to hear her say 'I do believe in the traditional definition of marriage,'" wrote in a Facebook post Heather Poe, the same-sex partner of Mary Cheney, with whom she has two children.
"Liz has been a guest in our home, has spent time and shared holidays with our children, and when Mary and I got married in 2012 - she didn't hesitate to tell us how happy she was for us," Poe continued. more >>
A former Navy chaplain turned conservative social commentator is working to suspend the YouTube Account of a Progressive organization's watchdog group.
Gordon "Dr. Chaps" Klingenschmitt, speaker with The Pray in Jesus' Name Project, has filed multiple copyright infringement complaints against Right Wing Watch.
His efforts have resulted in YouTube taking down RWW's account earlier this month. At present, RWW is appealing the video website's decision. more >>
If there's one thing Obamacare's supporters and opponents can agree on, it's that Obamacare is unprecedented. Never before did the federal government require every American to buy a commercial product. Never before did it attempt to use its spending powers to coerce states into implementing a federal program. And never before did it so fundamentally rewrite the rules of such a major economic industry – one that makes up about a seventh of the national economy.
With Obamacare, the federal government decided it would run not just a business but also an entire industry of businesses. Imagine if the government decided it didn't like how airline companies were running their business, so it started to require bureaucrats to choose flight routes and ticket prices. They would decide how much airlines could spend on everything from fuel to peanuts. They would use money from some fliers to pay for the travel of over fliers. And they would sell tickets on a government-run "exchange" that looks a lot like Orbitz or Expedia – except it takes days, weeks, or months to buy a ticket.
There were more than a few of us who believed the federal government was incapable of running one-seventh of the economy. This was the same government, after all, that couldn't get water to thirsty Katrina victims and that couldn't process the benefits claims of war heroes in under a year. President Obama had never run anything larger than a Senate office. Kathleen Sebelius had never seen any success that was not taxpayer funded. It didn't take a Nobel Prize to realize they weren't going to run a health care business as well as professional health care businessmen and businesswomen. more >>
"If you like your health insurance, you can keep it. Period." Those words will haunt Barack Obama through the remainder of his term, and probably achieve eternal life in books of memorable quotations.
Obama's words will levy even more contemporary embarrassment and political immortality than George H.W. Bush's "Read my lips. No new taxes," or Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." (Bush probably believed his "no new taxes" pledge when he said it, but he reversed his policy so soon that it sounded like a lie.)
Obama's famous line is worse than those of the others because it was a gross lie about something that matters to millions of Americans and costs them lots of money. His line is also unforgettable because he repeated it so many times (37 times according to PolitiFact), and because his staff knew it was a lie when they put it on the teleprompter and notepad for Obama to read. more >>
Something significant happened last week when the Supreme Court considered the issue of public prayer: a few of the Justices gave Americans an unusually candid peek behind the judicial curtain, revealing some provocative opinions on the role of faith and the purposes behind the First Amendment's religion clauses. The case was Town of Greece, New York v. Galloway and it centers on the practice of the Town to open its monthly board meetings with prayer. The Town has invited, without limitation, members of the public, including clergy, to deliver a short prayer at those meetings, but gave no restrictions on content or theme. The lower court ruled that, despite the fact that invocations were offered from persons of a variety of different faiths, the predominance of "sectarian Christian prayers" meant that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment had been offended. That decision was appealed, and in oral arguments before the Supreme Court last Wednesday, some of the Justices took the occasion to travel outside the facts of the case and to offer up a fascinating, and somewhat troubling, view of religious liberty in our nation.
Justice Stephen Breyer commented, "in my own opinion … a major purpose of the religion clauses is to allow people in this country of different religion[s], including those of no religion, to live harmoniously together." Later, as counsel for the parties continued their arguments, Justice Elena Kagan picked up on those comments and remarked, in a similar vein, "[p]art of what we are trying to do here is to maintain a multi-religious society in a peaceful and harmonious way."
No one would deny the benefit of societal peace and harmony. The point, though, is whether those goals are what really energized and directed the Founders to recognize in our First Amendment the notion of religious freedom in the first place. To the contrary, my reading of the historical record tells me that religious freedom was recognized at our nation's founding as a good in itself. The consensus back then was that a belief in, and acknowledgement of, a sovereign God was an inherent liberty and privilege, indeed a spiritual duty, originating not from government, but from God. When Justices Breyer and Kagan (and I would surmise a few others on the Court as well) indicate that "peace and harmony" is the goal, then we can predict, ironically, that a very un-peaceful assault on faith will result. After all, under the view of Breyer, Kagan, et al., the concept of religious freedom would be ultimately reduced to a kind of de facto social bromide, permitted in practice only to the extent that it can keep the masses quiet. Such a utilitarian idea reduces faith in God to a mere social component for the courts to protect, or not, whichever way they wish, as long as the perceived goal of community harmony is being pursued. more >>