The United States still tussles with illegal immigration; and it seems that the states are making some progress despite the languor of the Federal government.
Utah is probably going to pass a bill that will allow illegal immigrants to stay in the state and work legally if they pass a criminal check, pay a fine of $2500, and apply for a permit from the state’s Department of Workforce Services. This program is very reminiscent of the Bracero Program that allowed alien Mexicans to come into the U.S. legally for limited periods between 1942 and 1964. Those Mexicans were imported temporarily to work in agricultural venues, for the most part. The Bracero Program decreased illegal immigration by 95% between 1952 and 1959.
My wife and I work with illegal immigrants twice weekly in a food bank; and there is one problem we see with this Utah solution: We do not know a single undocumented Mexican who can raise $2500 to pay the fine required. But…this idea of Utah’s is a start back to sanity on the part of the U.S. concerning illegal immigration.
The other disincentive for illegal immigration that is cooking through U.S. legislative channels is a move to eliminate the automatic awarding of citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants in the U.S. About 340,000 babies are born to illegal Hispanics in the U.S. each year; and these “anchor babies” serve as justification for keeping their parents in the U.S. permanently, despite that fact that the parents are illegals.
If you wish to contribute to the passage of this kind of legislation, I would appeal to you to write to your Congressional representative and ask him/her to vote for and support the passage of the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 (H.R. 140).
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Sermon on the Mount. Do Christians Obey It? NO! Why?
A question is often asked by Muslims: Do you Christians obey the Sermon on the Mount? If we answer 'yes', he will believe we are hypocrites, for nobody does and nobody can. If we answer 'no' then he will tell us to go home and practice what we preach before trying to teach it to him.
So…what can we say about the Sermon on the Mount, a real cornerstone to our Christian faith? The uncompromising absolutism and perfectionism of our Lord's ethical teaching in the Sermon on the Mount can be most clearly seen in his conception of the holiness of God. It is because we believe that Jesus reveals God to us in all that He was, said and did--including his ethical teaching--that we can accept the Sermon on the Mount into our faith experience with Him. We see that the ethics of Jesus show us what man is NOT and what God IS. Our Lord's teaching does not relate man to man so much as it relates God to man. Put in another way, when a man stands in the presence of God, after having had Jesus as his Teacher, he realizes that his ethics are not God’s ethics. Man’s ethics were designed to help and protect man against man in the crosscurrents of conflicting social claims. Man’s ethics come from the practical efforts to control the explosions caused by aggressive egoism, and they are not the ethics of pure love and absolute, infinite perfection. Man’s ethics are but the makeshift measures of a corrupt humanity in its effort to control and suppress the grosser forms of evil in society. The man standing in the presence of God, as Jesus presented Him, understands that he will be judged, not by the standard of his own very best efforts, but by the standard implied and expressed in the ethics of Jesus.
For the Christian, the Sermon on the Mount is the inspiration and the motivating force behind his every ethical decision-—achievable or not-—these principles are the things that should motivate our every decision. The principles of the Sermon on the Mount should, also, motivate and drive every policy decision made by our government and by other organizations to which we belong.
So…what can we say about the Sermon on the Mount, a real cornerstone to our Christian faith? The uncompromising absolutism and perfectionism of our Lord's ethical teaching in the Sermon on the Mount can be most clearly seen in his conception of the holiness of God. It is because we believe that Jesus reveals God to us in all that He was, said and did--including his ethical teaching--that we can accept the Sermon on the Mount into our faith experience with Him. We see that the ethics of Jesus show us what man is NOT and what God IS. Our Lord's teaching does not relate man to man so much as it relates God to man. Put in another way, when a man stands in the presence of God, after having had Jesus as his Teacher, he realizes that his ethics are not God’s ethics. Man’s ethics were designed to help and protect man against man in the crosscurrents of conflicting social claims. Man’s ethics come from the practical efforts to control the explosions caused by aggressive egoism, and they are not the ethics of pure love and absolute, infinite perfection. Man’s ethics are but the makeshift measures of a corrupt humanity in its effort to control and suppress the grosser forms of evil in society. The man standing in the presence of God, as Jesus presented Him, understands that he will be judged, not by the standard of his own very best efforts, but by the standard implied and expressed in the ethics of Jesus.
For the Christian, the Sermon on the Mount is the inspiration and the motivating force behind his every ethical decision-—achievable or not-—these principles are the things that should motivate our every decision. The principles of the Sermon on the Mount should, also, motivate and drive every policy decision made by our government and by other organizations to which we belong.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
The Golden Rule in Islam?? Not a chance!
Howard P. Kainz of Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin writes in First Things March 2011, page 10:
“In my research, I have found that there are clear cognates to the Golden Rule in Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Judaism but that Islam mandates reciprocity and amity only among fellow Muslims—not with unbelievers. In fact, one finds in the Qur’an the exact opposite of the Golden Rule. For example, Surah 48:29 reads, ‘Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against unbelievers [but] compassionate among each other.”
“In my research, I have found that there are clear cognates to the Golden Rule in Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Judaism but that Islam mandates reciprocity and amity only among fellow Muslims—not with unbelievers. In fact, one finds in the Qur’an the exact opposite of the Golden Rule. For example, Surah 48:29 reads, ‘Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against unbelievers [but] compassionate among each other.”
Monday, February 14, 2011
Refuting the Liberal Press
On 2/12/11, the Denver Post, no friend of conservatives in this city, ran a very misleading article on their front page reporting what they called a “sea change” in policy at Focus on the Family toward the abortion industry. They reported that Mr. Jim Daly, the president of Focus was going to dialog with Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains to try to help them reach their goal of making abortion “rare.” Below is a letter I wrote to Mr. Daly concerning that article:
Dear Mr. Daly,
My wife and I have been long time supporters of FOTF; and we will continue to support that fine Christian ministry. We have been deeply involved in the Pro-Life movement since the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973; and we are the founders of Caring Hands Pregnancy Center in southwest Denver.
I read with deep angst the article in the Denver Post of 2/12/11 which referred to the “sea change” of policy in FOTF. The article implied that Focus would begin to compromise with Planned Parenthood on the abortion issue. I listened to that program; and determined that the Post’s article was a gross misstatement, obviously designed to diminish conservative support for the FOTF ministry. It did not seem to me that Focus is even thinking about changing its attitude toward this horrendous problem in our country; and I am very thankful for that.
I sent an e-mail to Electa Draper, the author of the article protesting her misleading article.
All that being said, I think it is pointless to try to dialog with leaders of the abortion movement about their purported goal of making abortion “rare.” If they really wanted to do that, they have had many opportunities to do it in the past, which they have not done. As a matter of fact, they have done everything they could do to make abortion a common procedure in the United States. Their condom education program in schools and media has encouraged young people to have more and more sex outside of marriage; this produces ever more abortion business for them—which makes them more and more income. They know very well that the most effective way to get a teenager pregnant it is to put her on birth control pills, and that is just another avenue through which they are advancing their grizzly business.
If you really want to talk with the leaders of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains about how you can help them make abortion “rare,” I guess there would be no harm in that; but I would not expect anything good to come of those talks. I do not recommend talking with them!
Your colleague in saving unborn life,
Edward Manring, M.D., M.S.
Dear Mr. Daly,
My wife and I have been long time supporters of FOTF; and we will continue to support that fine Christian ministry. We have been deeply involved in the Pro-Life movement since the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973; and we are the founders of Caring Hands Pregnancy Center in southwest Denver.
I read with deep angst the article in the Denver Post of 2/12/11 which referred to the “sea change” of policy in FOTF. The article implied that Focus would begin to compromise with Planned Parenthood on the abortion issue. I listened to that program; and determined that the Post’s article was a gross misstatement, obviously designed to diminish conservative support for the FOTF ministry. It did not seem to me that Focus is even thinking about changing its attitude toward this horrendous problem in our country; and I am very thankful for that.
I sent an e-mail to Electa Draper, the author of the article protesting her misleading article.
All that being said, I think it is pointless to try to dialog with leaders of the abortion movement about their purported goal of making abortion “rare.” If they really wanted to do that, they have had many opportunities to do it in the past, which they have not done. As a matter of fact, they have done everything they could do to make abortion a common procedure in the United States. Their condom education program in schools and media has encouraged young people to have more and more sex outside of marriage; this produces ever more abortion business for them—which makes them more and more income. They know very well that the most effective way to get a teenager pregnant it is to put her on birth control pills, and that is just another avenue through which they are advancing their grizzly business.
If you really want to talk with the leaders of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains about how you can help them make abortion “rare,” I guess there would be no harm in that; but I would not expect anything good to come of those talks. I do not recommend talking with them!
Your colleague in saving unborn life,
Edward Manring, M.D., M.S.
Monday, February 7, 2011
States Are Finally Getting The Republican Message
The Wall Street Journal reported today on its 1st page the following couple of paragraphs:
“Governors around the U.S. are proposing to balance their states’ budgets with a long list of cuts and almost no new taxes, reflecting a goal by politicians from both parties to erase deficits chiefly by shrinking government.
“On Monday, Florida Gov. Rick Scott, a newly elected Republican, is expected to issue a budget that cuts state spending by $5 billion and overhauls public employee pensions.
“A democratic governor, John Kitzhaber of Oregon, has proposed a two-year budget that would make cuts to mental health institutions and reduce state Medicaid reimbursements to doctors and hospitals. Cuts to Medicaid, a joint state-federal program, are some of governors’ largest proposed reductions.”
Unfortunately, Colorado’s governor and legislature do not seem to be following this national trend. The Denver Post reported today that, “The total budget in the current fiscal year, which ends in June, is $18.2 billion. While Ritter's proposal for the 2011-12 year would be nearly $1 billion larger, revenues have not grown fast enough to keep up with school and college enrollment and human services caseload growth.”
The Governor presented his proposed budget to the state legislature's Joint Budget Committee on Nov. 2, 2010. The committee will draft its own budget and the legislature will vote in March 2011.
Readers of this blog post could do well to contact their state legislators and tell them to cut the state spending—there is no more money around to pay for expensive government.
“Governors around the U.S. are proposing to balance their states’ budgets with a long list of cuts and almost no new taxes, reflecting a goal by politicians from both parties to erase deficits chiefly by shrinking government.
“On Monday, Florida Gov. Rick Scott, a newly elected Republican, is expected to issue a budget that cuts state spending by $5 billion and overhauls public employee pensions.
“A democratic governor, John Kitzhaber of Oregon, has proposed a two-year budget that would make cuts to mental health institutions and reduce state Medicaid reimbursements to doctors and hospitals. Cuts to Medicaid, a joint state-federal program, are some of governors’ largest proposed reductions.”
Unfortunately, Colorado’s governor and legislature do not seem to be following this national trend. The Denver Post reported today that, “The total budget in the current fiscal year, which ends in June, is $18.2 billion. While Ritter's proposal for the 2011-12 year would be nearly $1 billion larger, revenues have not grown fast enough to keep up with school and college enrollment and human services caseload growth.”
The Governor presented his proposed budget to the state legislature's Joint Budget Committee on Nov. 2, 2010. The committee will draft its own budget and the legislature will vote in March 2011.
Readers of this blog post could do well to contact their state legislators and tell them to cut the state spending—there is no more money around to pay for expensive government.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
You Can’t Get A Job in Egypt!
And that is one of the main problems. Despite the fact that there is an overabundance of highly educated young men, there is not infrastructure in the Arab world to support their trained workers. What a frustration for millions of restless, college-trained young people!
What results from that problem? Protest and riot. It seems like the only solution for dissatisfied potential workers.
Governments across the Middle East have expanded universities and educated a swelling cohort of youth, without laying the groundwork to employ them. In the Middle East and North Africa, unemployment tends to increase with schooling. In the U.S. the opposite is true. In Egypt, high school graduates account for 42% of the work force but 80% of the unemployed. One in seven college graduates in Egypt, Jordan, and Tunisia is unemployed; many more are overqualified for the jobs they have. Egypt’s unemployment rate in people under age 25 stands at 24.5%.
China and other booming economies are cultivating private sector jobs. Egypt has clung to a state-dominated model of economy. Outside of agriculture, 70% of Egyptian workers work for the government. The number of graduates has overwhelmed the government’s capacity to hire, leaving many without job options.
It seems to me and many others that the solution to the political unrest in the Middle East would be the development of a Western-style economy with free enterprise. Such an economy would enable businesses to create jobs that would keep restless hands busy. More jobs would allow people to realize some material benefit from the effort they have expended getting an education.
This post was excerpted from the Wall Street Journal 2/5/11, page A11.
What results from that problem? Protest and riot. It seems like the only solution for dissatisfied potential workers.
Governments across the Middle East have expanded universities and educated a swelling cohort of youth, without laying the groundwork to employ them. In the Middle East and North Africa, unemployment tends to increase with schooling. In the U.S. the opposite is true. In Egypt, high school graduates account for 42% of the work force but 80% of the unemployed. One in seven college graduates in Egypt, Jordan, and Tunisia is unemployed; many more are overqualified for the jobs they have. Egypt’s unemployment rate in people under age 25 stands at 24.5%.
China and other booming economies are cultivating private sector jobs. Egypt has clung to a state-dominated model of economy. Outside of agriculture, 70% of Egyptian workers work for the government. The number of graduates has overwhelmed the government’s capacity to hire, leaving many without job options.
It seems to me and many others that the solution to the political unrest in the Middle East would be the development of a Western-style economy with free enterprise. Such an economy would enable businesses to create jobs that would keep restless hands busy. More jobs would allow people to realize some material benefit from the effort they have expended getting an education.
This post was excerpted from the Wall Street Journal 2/5/11, page A11.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Anemic Christians
I am ever more concerned with the weak status of so very many Christians in our world. They just do not seem to understand that they are called by the Maker of the world to a life of sacrifice and service to Him and to their fellows.
David Platt’s book, Radical, is an indictment of this kind of anemic Christianity. He writes, speaking about the church:
“When we gather at the building we learn to be good. Being good is defined by what we avoid in the world. We are holy because of what we don’t participate in (and at this point we may be the only organization in the world defining success by what we don’t do). We live decent lives in decent homes with decent jobs and decent families as decent citizens. We are decent church members with little more impact on the world than we had before we were saved. Though thousands may join us, ultimately we have turned a deaf ear to billions who haven’t even heard His name.”
When Christ propels Christians into the world to risk their lives for the sake of Him and others around them, their focus changes; and they gauge success in the church not in the hundreds or thousands whom they can get into their buildings, but on the hundreds or thousands who are leaving their buildings to take on the world with the disciples they are making.
David Platt’s book, Radical, is an indictment of this kind of anemic Christianity. He writes, speaking about the church:
“When we gather at the building we learn to be good. Being good is defined by what we avoid in the world. We are holy because of what we don’t participate in (and at this point we may be the only organization in the world defining success by what we don’t do). We live decent lives in decent homes with decent jobs and decent families as decent citizens. We are decent church members with little more impact on the world than we had before we were saved. Though thousands may join us, ultimately we have turned a deaf ear to billions who haven’t even heard His name.”
When Christ propels Christians into the world to risk their lives for the sake of Him and others around them, their focus changes; and they gauge success in the church not in the hundreds or thousands whom they can get into their buildings, but on the hundreds or thousands who are leaving their buildings to take on the world with the disciples they are making.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
