Introduction to the Book of Genesis

How to access my blog posts: manringen.blogspot.com

We are about to embark on a study of the book of Genesis. This book is the part of the Bible that has caused the most controversy—especially the first 3 chapters. The difficulty has been arguments over the creation of the universe and the time frame of the book’s claims.

It must be said that in order to understand this book, one needs to have a belief in the supernatural. The whole Christian faith hangs on this basic belief. Does God exist? Did He create the universe and all that is in it, including mankind? If He did, why? Where did such a complicated organism as mankind come from? How old is the earth? Where did morality come from? Why do men insist on constantly worshipping something or someone? How does God say that man should behave? What is the ultimate significance of mankind, if, indeed there is any? What will happen to us at the end of our lives on earth? (And on and on with more questions!)

It is important that before we begin this study we must, at least, make a stab at answering these questions by establishing some basic presuppositions. Without true basic presuppositions, we cannot frame our thoughts in a logical and believable way. The following several paragraphs will attempt to help us form some true presuppositions.

Regardless of what you think about the age of the earth and the whole creation, you must admit that mankind has been around for a long time. If you have ever looked at recorded history, you must admit that mankind has developed a thinking pattern over the last 300 years that is different from the thinking pattern he worked with previously. In ancient times, man’s thinking was largely occupied with what we call now-a-days as “superstition;” that thinking pattern was largely worthless. As a matter of fact, is was a kind of thinking that led men to fear; it had no hope or high quality about it. One thing, however, that the ancients had in large quantity—a belief in the supernatural. For them, there were lots and lots of gods—a god for about everything; and men were scared to death of those gods. Their gods were thought to be dangerous and largely hostile to them. That ancient form of religion is known today as animism. As time passed and life became more complicated and crowded with an expanding population, the agricultural revolution happened (about 10,000 years ago), urbanization began to occur; and technology began to appear. As secularization occurred and the activities of individuals became more specialized, priests appeared in society; and people started to have more sophisticated ideas about religion.

Even though religion began to differentiate in the thinking pattern of the ancients, animism persisted; and even today it has proved to be very difficult to eradicate wherever it occurs. Nancy and I saw animism in its full development in West Africa among tribal peoples.

As more time passed, at least one ethnic group moved out of animistic belief and developed another kind of thinking pattern, e.g., monotheism—the belief that there is only one God. That ethnic group was the Jews. Later, the ancient Jewish belief system developed Christianity—a full blown revelation of what we have now, a belief in a creative God who brought us all the blessings we enjoy today, even a strong sense of right and wrong and all its implications of morality. Christianity gave mankind a way of knowing the reason he is on the earth in the first place. But…along with the basic tenets of the Christian faith, came a sense of guilt and hell. Mankind became preoccupied with those features of religion; he was frightened. However, as he really looked at the Christ of the religion, he saw clearly that Christ had the answer to his guilt and his fear of hell and death. This revelation was fully developed during the Middle Ages.

Mankind’s understanding of Christianity included a preoccupation with the above ideas; later it began to center on the question of “What is my SIGNIFICANCE?” But the Christian faith had the answer to all these several questions—Christ provided significance as well as an answer to what man should do with the problems of hell, guilt, and death. In sum, many blessings accrued to mankind as a result of Christianity, e.g., freedom from the fear of death, hell, guilt, and the lack of significance. This thing the ancients and the early Christians had would have been called by the Apostle Paul—"the milk of the gospel.” But, one thing went along with these early expressions of the Christian religion, i.e., FAITH!. Many early Christians had a rock-hard faith that carried them through hard times. That faith even allowed many of them to continue in the religion and testify to the truth of Christ in severe persecution.  And they had that faith even without the reasoning and logic which we moderns so strongly appreciate. Their faith was strong. All during this long time period of about 1500 years after Christ’s crucifixion, they maintained an understanding of the supernatural—they did not entertain a lot of questions about ultimate things; Christ was enough for them.

But,…later, along came another stage in human development, the Renaissance and with it the elevation of man’s thinking into the realm of pure thought. Mankind began to look at his universe and see how the hand of God had made the whole thing. Early scientists of the Renaissance such as Kepler, Bacon, Newton, Copernicus, and many others began to study the universe to see how God had done it. They were men of strong faith. They maintained a belief in the supernatural; but they wanted to know the answer, WHY and HOW? So, they developed the basic tools of modern thinking, i.e., the scientific methods of experimentation and testing to see if their conclusions were right or wrong.

As Renaissance thinking developed more and more, scientists began to discount the role of God in the creation; all they were willing to see was the hand of man in about everything wonderful in the world, all the technological gadgets from the plow to the computer microchip. Yes, they invented lots of things that we hold near and dear today. All the marvels of modern medicine, our cars, airplanes, plastics, printing presses, etc., etc. but along with these marvelous things we use daily came instruments of destruction, even culminating in such weapons as the atomic bomb. We have seen that the scientific revolution has contributed to some of the most horrific social, economic, technological, effects imaginable. The 20^th Century was marked by more war and bloodshed than any other preceding century in man’s history.

We need to step back from our view of mankind and his affinities and ask ourselves, “What shall we do with all this wonderful modern thinking and all the scientific accomplishments it has accrued to us?” We need to ask ourselves, “What was the value of all the ‘blind faith’ of the ancients and of Medieval man? Should we jettison all of our scientific thought in favor of living again in the Middle Ages?” I don’t think so. But, at the very least, we need to evaluate the development of scientific thought and ask ourselves why did science fail us in developing a culture and a society that we can hardly live with because of its concomitant war, violence, and intolerance. I strongly suspect that the science-based way of thinking will ultimately be found to be deficient—largely wrong in its ability to tell the whole truth about our universe.

I think we need to look back at the Middle Ages and early Renaissance and ask ourselves if those times had anything we might be able to use in a constructive way to understand our present dilemma.

Let’s step back a moment and try to see where our modern system of thought might have gone wrong. In 1830, a Scottish geologist, Charles Lyell, wrote a book titled Principles of Geology. In this book, Mr. Lyell thoroughly outlined a principle called “uniformitarianism.” Uniformitarianism is a principle that posits the idea that the laws of physics, mathematics, and chemistry are immutable, permanent, always existing, everlasting, and undoubtable. These uniform principles were seen as the basic building blocks of human knowledge and ultimate truth. They were all that really counted. Everything else worth knowing could be seen as derivatives of these principles of physics and chemistry. On them, mankind could supposedly build all his scientific and true knowledge of the universe. This book had such an appeal to scientists, such as Charles Darwin that he took a copy of it along with him on his voyage in the Beagle to study the islands of the Atlantic ocean and the costal areas of South America in the mid-19^th Century. The book led many scientists to believe that they no longer needed God to assure themselves of the significance of mankind and the way he should go. All they needed was more and more science to tell all the truth; mankind could do it all, himself. Evolutionary ideas arose from the basic tenets of uniformitarianism to describe the whole universe. Objections arose to these scientific ideas but scientists countered these objections with the claim that the driving force behind the development of mankind and all life on earth along with its geology, anthropology, and all the other “…ologies” was the passage of time—lots of time. Time was the powerhouse.

One question uniformitarianism did not answer was this one, “Who set up these ‘uniform’ principles of physics and chemistry in the first place? Somebody must have done it!”

I must tell you all that I do not believe in uniformitarianism; I believe that there is something much larger than the laws of physics, mathematics, and chemistry. I believe there is a Creator and a Law-Giver outside of the world in which we live. The development of the human organism and other life manifestations is far too complex to have come about by random distribution, natural selection, and the passage of time. To believe that TIME did everything takes a gigantic leap of faith—a leap much larger than the leap required to believe in a supernatural God who did it all through His intelligence and infinite power.

In trying to decide on the question of “Which is right, uniformitarianism and its attendant scientific accomplishments…or, supernaturalism, the belief that God did it by His limitless intelligence and omnipotence?” In arriving at a decision about this question, we should refer to a scientific principle called Ockham’s Razor. Ockham's razor is the problem-solving principle that states, "Entities should not be multiplied without necessity." William of Ockham was an English philosopher of the 14^th Century. Mr. Ockham defined a principle that used a preference for simplicity to defend the idea of divine miracles. To put this principle into understandable form, let’s think of it in this way—when we are confronted with two conflicting explanations of how something occurred, we should usually choose the simpler explanation. We will be right most of the time.

We are now confronted with two possibilities. On the one hand we can attribute the universe and the creation of life to the idea of uniformitarianism and science. On the other hand, we can attribute these things to the existence of a supernatural being who did it all. I, personally, think that the better explanation is supernaturalism; and that is probably the simpler explanation. At least, supernaturalism certainly comports with the Ockham’s Razor principle better than the explanation given by uniformitarianism.

What I believe is that “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

In closing, let me say that I fully understand the arguments advanced by scientists who do not agree with me on this issue. I not only understand their side of the discussion, I understand that they have a cogent argument. They have reason on their side, as I, also have. My request of my scientific friends is that they allow me to participate in discussions with them without discounting my side of the question and considering me a fool for holding my opinion. Nobody, today, discounts the value of science; but many scientists totally discount the value of supernaturalism. We must both remember that we all have a right to our opinions; but…we do not have a right to “our facts.” The true facts of the matter will ultimately vindicate one of these two points of view.

(The part of this essay dealing with Charles Lyell was derived from a book by John MacArthur, The Battle for the Beginning.)

Any effective invitation to Hell will certainly appear in the guise of scientific planning. C.S. Lewis

Ed and Nancy Manring

Marriage Rates Dropping in the U.S.

I have not written a blog post for a long time; but today’s Wall Street Journal contains an article titled Marriage Is Becoming More Like a Luxury Good in U.S. I just could not resist writing one more blog about this subject.

The first sentence of the article reads, “Middle-class Americans are forsaking marriage amid financial insecurity, effectively making the institution more of a luxury good enjoyed by prosperous Americans.”

The article goes on to say, “Affluent Americans who marry are more likely to pool six-figure incomes, buy homes, and watch their assets grow. Among people aged 25 to 34, the median wealth of married couples is four times that of couples who live together but aren’t married.”

Even though many people on the lower levels of income are not marrying, most high school seniors in the U.S. still say that they expect to marry. Three quarters of them have claimed that ambition since 1976. Notwithstanding that fact, by the time a few years elapse, their attitudes seem to change; and they begin to feel that they must first start careers or land secure jobs and have some money in their pockets. Then, some of them decide to marry; but many maintain that marriage holds a lesser draw on their goals.

Half of middle earners were married in 2018, a drop of 16% since 1980. In the highest earners in the U.S. 60% were married, but even in that income level, the marriage rate had dropped 4% since 1980.

One may wonder why that drop in marriage rate has occurred. One reason is that many young people have seen their parents divorcing at an alarming rate; and they have become cynical about the prospect of establishing a stable home. Another reason is that women without a college degree have closed the earnings gap with their male peers even faster than women with higher levels of education.  That earnings shift has reduced the economic motivation for these women to marry. I think that another pertinent reason for the drop in the marriage rate is the falling away from meaningful religious experience. Young people are just not going to church and experience the love and the grace of Christ in their lives. For that reason, I believe they do not feel the necessity of marriage in compliance with the church’s traditional teachings.

Government regulations are not helping the situation, either. Nancy and I have a housekeeper who is in her 50’s. Her husband died, and she began drawing Social Security benefits from his Social Security income. Now she is living with a man she would like to marry, but if she marries him, her income will drop by $1000+. That is a strong incentive for her to remain unmarried! Housekeepers don’t make much money.

All the above being said, I think that Americans who shun marriage should be aware of biblical admonitions warning against adultery. “The wages of sin is death.” That means that despite the apparent benefits of living together without marriage, eternal punishments for that kind of behavior will  hurt far more than the “rewards” of living in an adulterous relationship will ever counter.

I am sure that many of my readers have been confused, as I was, about the true issues raised in the U.S. House of Representatives by the impeachment attempt on the President. As hearings grind on and more witnesses testify, I get bogged down in similar claims and accusations to the point that Nancy and I have become bored watching TV reports of the activity on this problem.

Nevertheless, this question of impeachment of the President is a very important one because it may set a dangerous president for the administration of our nation. For that reason, I have set out below what I think is a correct and pertinent explanation of the situation.

In an editor’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal of 21 November 2019, the editors write: “…readers who have lives to lead can save time (trying to understand this problem) by reading Senator Ron Johnson’s account. (https://bit.ly/2OwBLJ8 Control +click to follow link). The Wisconsin Republican has taken a personal interest in Ukraine since he joined the Senate in 2011. In a November 18 letter to House Intelligence members he explains what he saw and heard at the White House and on his six visits to Ukraine after 11 April 2019.” I strongly recommend that all my readers look carefully at Senator Johnson’s account of his extensive and comprehensive experience working with this Ukraine and impeachment situation.

The essence of the problem was that President Trump was initially opposed to giving money to Ukraine because of endemic corruption there in the government. He also thought that European governments should support Ukraine in its problems with significant financial distributions. President Trump was also concerned that the Ukraine government should ferret out any Ukrainian operatives who might have acted in opposition to his election in 2016. Never in any communication with Ukrainian officials did the idea of “quid pro quo” for cooperation ever come up in their conversations. The quid pro quo question should be expunged from the conversation, now. But…did he abuse his power? That seems to be the problem, now.

 Nevertheless, as Peggy Noonan, a lead opinion writer in the Wall Street Journal notes, it was not necessary for President Trump to specifically call out the Bidens in a conversation with President Zelensky. His position as the stronger of a two-sided conversation might carry the day just by the power of suggestion. It is very possible that Trump might have influenced Zelensky along the mode of the gangster movies of the 1930s in which the suave mobster tells the saloon keeper from whom he’s demanding protection money, “Nice place you have here, shame if anything happened to it.”

In a meeting with Zelensky and high-ranking members of the Ukraine government on 23 May 2019, Johnson and Energy Secretary Rick Perry both reported that their conversations never included any discussion of Burisma or the Bidens. Senator Johnson had not heard that money had been withheld from Ukraine until 28 August.

The President obviously had reservations about Ukrainian corruption and the lack of outside European financial support. However, he was convinced by opposition from the Senate and the House that the money should be released. That congressional opposition was spearheaded by Senators Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) and Richard Durbin (D-Illinois). Advocates for release of the money claimed that it would bolster the military stance of Ukraine in its present struggle with Russia; and it would show the world that America is willing to help its allies in practical ways. Senator Durbin introduced an amendment to restore funding on 11 September; the funding hold was lifted within only a few days.

I believe it is incumbent upon anyone who is interested in this impeachment controversy to read the initial report of the “whistleblower’s” statement https://nyti.ms/2pIBZV4. After reading this report, it seems obvious that this whistleblower is a strongly ideologically oriented Democrat with a powerful bias toward impeachment. We can know that from a tweet posted by one of his lawyers, Mark Zaid only 10  days after President Trump’s inauguration Zaid posted, “#coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately.”

If the whistleblower’s intention was to improve and solidify the relationship between the U.S. and Ukraine, he or she failed miserably.  Instead, the result has been to publicize and highlight the president’s deeply held reservations toward Ukraine that the whistleblower felt were so damaging to our relationship with Ukraine and to U.S. national security.  The dispute over policy was being resolved between the two branches of government before the whistleblower complaint was made public.  All the complaint has accomplished is to fuel the House’s impeachment desire (which I believe was the real motivation) and damage our democracy as described above. I do not think the President has done anything that rises to the level of “high crimes or misdemeanors,” as required by the constitution in order to impeach. At the most, he might be found guilty of misuse of power.

This impeachment effort has done a great deal of damage to our democracy.  The release of transcripts of discussions between the president of the United States and another world leader sets a terrible precedent that will deter and limit candid conversations between the president and world leaders from now on. The weakening of executive privilege will also limit the extent to which presidential advisers will feel comfortable providing “out of the box” and other frank counsel in the future. 

I have thought that the phenomenon of guilt by accusation, manifested by the McCarthy trials 1954, had been a lesson the American people had learned. But…no, we still seem to follow that line of action, at least in the case of the President. We should learn that lesson all over, again.  

House Democrats would have done better to hold hearings on the question of abuse of power to censure the President. Instead, they have released the dogs of impeachment—I think they have overstepped their procedural boundaries in doing this. If they were to censure the President instead of trying to impeach him, they would have issued the first presidential censure since the administration of Andrew Jackson. President Trump likes to think of himself as similar to Jackson. For that reason, he might even enjoy receiving a censure!

Identity Group Dangers

Nancy and I have been reading a highly interesting book of the Old Testament, the book of Esther; and with this blog post, I hope to share with my readers some of the ideas generated by this reading. The book of Esther deals with the history of a conflict between the ancient Persians and the Jews in Mesopotamia, where the Jews were exiled during the 5^th Century BC. Esther, the queen, who was a Jew, became the deliverer of her people from certain extinction by the Persians. Haman, a hater of the Jews had convinced King Xerxes to kill all the Jews in the kingdom in order to gain a high position in government for himself. Esther and her uncle, Mordecai, exposed the plot and saved all the Jews from certain destruction.  

The problem described in the book of Esther illustrates some of the political and social problems that plague our societies now in the 21^st Century.  I think you will see that this Bible story is not so very “out of date.” The same problems with the development of cultural conflict in the world of the ancient Jews exist in today’s development of “identity groups.” You will see that political forces working in Queen Esther’s time are still operative even in 21^st Century America. 

To begin this discussion, I need to define what is meant by “human capital.” Human capital may be defined as the skills, knowledge, and experience possessed by an individual or population, viewed in terms of their value or cost to an organization or country. Human capital refers to the production factors, coming from human beings, that are used to create goods and services. Our knowledge, skills, habits, and social and personality attributes all form part of the human capital that contributes to the creation of goods and services. Creativity also contributes. Examples of human capital are the tendency to work hard, get educated, obtain on-the-job experience; the development of human capital includes a wide radius of trust among the group members so as to allow one person to reliably trust other members of the group. Thus, with lots of human capital and a wide radius of trust, it becomes easy to do business without a lot of government regulation.

As cultures and nations develop, there is an easily recognizable political problem that arises when two or more ethnic cultures live side by side, either in one single nation or in neighboring nations. The problem of conflict begins when one majority cultural group lags behind a minority cultural group in their respective possession of human capital.  The Jews have traditionally surpassed many other cultural groups in the possession of human capital. This tendency has produced cultural resentment among majority cultural groups who feel forced to compete with the Jews. Of course, this feeling of resentment is not limited to cultural interaction with Jews only. Resentment builds up among societies that find themselves living with other cultural groups who have different amounts of human capital (or, in other words, different skill sets). Disparities of income and wealth among groups with different amounts of human capital produce resentment that often breaks down in violence; such was probably part of the problem with the Jews and Persians in the 5^th century BC. 

When one social group is lagging behind a more successful social group, living next to them a challenging situation will often develop. This situation presents a logical opportunity for a lagging group to better itself by acquiring the skills of the more advanced group through following their example in development of technical and administrative skills. This can be done through efforts of the lagging group to learn from the examples set by the more advanced group. Knowledge is one of the few things that can be transferred to others without those from whom it is transferred having any less for themselves. So…it seems only logical for a lagging group to learn the skills being demonstrated by the more skillful group and thereby improve the life situation of the whole society. 

Unfortunately, this is not the way it works out in practice very often. What usually happens is that opportunistic politicians latch onto the differences in skill sets and make the most of the unfortunate situation for their own personal aggrandizement politically. These politicians will follow a familiar trajectory in their speeches. They will play on the resentment felt by the lagging majority group, define the situation so as to show how “put upon” the lagging group is by the skillful and more advanced neighboring group and, thus, to spotlight every drop of resentment they can in order to gain control for themselves. This process is currently being described by the development of isolated “identity groups” deliberately setting one group against another. We can see this process being worked today, particularly by such politicians as Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and a whole host of Democrat presidential candidates. 

Modern examples of this sociological phenomenon are many. In the late 19^th and early 20^th Centuries, the Armenian peoples of what is now eastern Turkey were severely persecuted by the then current leaders of the Ottoman Empire; a blood bath of persecution broke out, and thousands of Armenians were killed. The Jews of eastern Europe and Germany were targeted by Hitler and millions were exterminated. The conflict between Tamils and Sinhalese of Sri Lanka were set against one another by an opportunistic politician, Solomon Bandaranaike—thousands were slaughtered in the ensuing rebellion, although before Bandaranaike they had lived peaceably together for many decades. Bandaranaike was the catalyst that started the whole destructive process. In Nigeria, a skillful tribal group (the Ibos of the southeastern part of the nation) was set upon by the Hausa-Fulani tribal group in the north; and the Biafran conflict resulted in thousands of Ibos being killed. Chinese in the Philippines are among the many productive groups whose economic success has led to violent backlashes. When Romania acquired territory from the defeated Central Powers after the First World War, this territory included universities that were culturally German or culturally Hungarian. The Romanian government made it a political priority to force Germans and Hungarians out of these universities, even though most Romanians were still illiterate at that point and so could not replace the Germans or Hungarians. The expulsion of Asians from Uganda in the 1970’s led to the collapse of the Ugandan economy, because there were not enough qualified Ugandans to replace them in the business sector that people from the Indian subcontinent had been managing. The same pattern occurred in Rwanda in the late 20^th Century when Hutus slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Tutsis. All this, being said, does not even mention the persecution of the Jews in Russia under Stalin where approximately 20 million Jews were exiled to Siberia and most of them were executed. Chairman Mao systematically starved millions of his people to death using the identity group method to get rid of the intelligentsia in China in the early 20^th Century. Pol Pot, the leader of the Khmer Rouge was a brutal dictator who ruled Cambodia from 1975 to 1979. Pol Pot's attempts to create a Cambodian “master race” through social engineering ultimately led to the deaths of more than 2 million people in the nation and destroyed about half of the entire population.

By encouraging resentment among a majority lagging group, those seeking either the leadership or the votes of lagging groups tend to offer them four assurances:

1.    Assurances that their lags are not their fault.

2.   Assurance that their lags are the fault of some advanced group that they already envy and resent.

3.   Assurance that the lagging group and their culture are just as good as anybody else’s if not better.

4.   Assurance that what the lagging group needs and deserves is a demographically defined “fair share” of the economic and other benefits of society, sometimes supplemented with some kind of reparations for past injustices or some special reward for being indigenous “sons of the soil.”

Such are the forces working in our society, today. Groups are being developed and identified as described above—presently under the impression that income inequality can be remedied best by the governmental operation of money redistribution. The wealthy in our country, today seems to be the identity group that is receiving the brunt of criticism and blame for the unfortunate situation perceived by the less accomplished in our nation. It seems to me that the forces working in the administration of Xerxes is still functional in American politics.  

It should be said that this tendency toward social disintegration does not necessarily have to happen. There are the examples of Scotland in the 18^th Century and Japan in the 19^th Century where a lagging social group chose a more constructive route to take in order to better themselves without violence. Both of those nations rose to world prominence by educating themselves and adopting the more successful roles of their envied neighbors. Similar favorable behavior and policy also occurred in South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore. These examples show that it is not necessary to inflame identity groups in order to produce good effects in a nation. (Data from this paragraph was gleaned from a book, “Wealth, Poverty, and Politics,” by Thomas Sowell.)

If I could do anything about our present economic situation in the U.S., I would wish that people who want to better themselves would work hard to learn the skills of the more affluent. Then, all the people would be better off.  Reparations and other devised techniques of money transfers will never solve the problems of our society.

What's a Good Alternative to Socialism?

Last week, I wrote about socialism and all the things that are wrong with it. This week, I hope to write about some practical things that stand a much better chance of doing something better—some things that might even work. However, don’t look for easy answers from me. The evils of capitalism and the inequalities it produces will never be remedied by easy answers. Socialism’s outlandish popular ideas just won’t work miracles. Today’s current politicians would have us believe that society’s ills can all be countered by throwing money at them—and the more money the better. Free college tuition, free housing for everyone, a basic financial income for all citizens supplied by the government, more social security disability payments, and a single payer health care system that pays for all that ails the public, etc., etc. All that stuff is just so much nonsense. Throwing money at the problems will not solve America’s difficulties.  

Subsidizing single moms, as it was done in the Great Society programs of the 1960’s drove fathers out of the home and gave mothers excuses to demand more welfare payments and quit their education prematurely. TANF (Temporary Assistance For Needy Families), AFDC (Aid For Dependent Children), WIC (Women, Infants, and Children), food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid, etc., etc., all helped human distress temporarily, but they all produced welfare dependency and substituted money for responsible fatherhood and impaired the establishment of healthy homes for children. These welfare programs all contributed to the breakdown of responsible, two parent households. America’s current politicians have included in their ideas about socialism ideas of outlandish give-away programs, e.g., free college tuition, a basic financial income for all citizens, even free housing for everyone. The American families were damaged by these welfare programs.  

Now, we are hearing about the latest fad in government give-away programs, e.g., reparations for evils endured over 100 years ago by the institution of slavery. The slaves are long gone; the slave holders are long gone. However, with the enactment of Civil Rights laws of the 1960’s more opportunities for social advancement and economic security are present in our society.  

I have some personal experience with government give-away programs from the days when we lived in Detroit in the late 1980’s. At the time, Michigan had a welfare program called General Assistance. That program aimed at helping the poor, especially in Detroit, by funding any and all the poor and unemployed people by giving them a government check every month. There were no strings attached to the give-aways. Anyone could get money just for the simple reason that he did not have a job. Thousands of people took full advantage of the program; and unemployment understandably soared.  

There was a man in our church who was receiving General Assistance. The church people prayed long and hard for him to get a job and become more productive and gain a better standard of living for himself. Our prayers seemed to have no effect—he was firmly on the dole without a job or any sign of taking care of himself.  

Finally, Nancy and I decided we should add to our prayers some concrete action for him.  We decided that we all three should search for a job so he could better himself. We went to the city unemployment office, and there we found that he was making significantly more money on General Assistance than he could earn at any job we might find for him. So…understandably, he did not get a job. He wouldn’t even try! 

Finally, a Republican was elected to the governor’s desk in Lansing; and the first thing he did was to discontinue General Assistance. Our friend promptly found a job; and when he earned his first paycheck, he proudly brought it to church to show it to us. We all rejoiced with him. Getting a worthwhile job was possible but only practical when the government assistance was discontinued.  

Social mobility up and out of poverty is possible, as our friend found out, but only after he became more productive. Productivity can and should be increased in our society, but it never will be until the poor become more productive. That can only will happen when the level of human capital increases, and, therefore, the poor become more valuable to businesses that make money. 

Human capital is the stock of habits, knowledge, social and personality attributes (including creativity) embodied in the ability to perform labor so as to produce economic value. It includes the moral attributes of a society that allow a large radius of trust among its participants. Human capital can be built only by the training of young people from the cradle to the grave in a love for learning and the value of considered risk taking. For purposes of the U.S., human capital also includes the ability to communicate in English. 

Needless to say, human capitol needs to be nurtured by good home training beginning in early childhood. It requires the loving attention of two caring parents who are willing to give of themselves to teach good habits to their children. Our current generation of “welfare experts” claim that government wealth transfer programs will give the poor among us a “hand up rather than a handout.” That is a myth that has been proven wrong over and over, again. 

Thomas Sowell pointed out in the pages of Newsmax in July 2019 the give-away principle was proven wrong in the 15^th Century when wealth was confiscated from the Jews in Europe in order to give the wealth to a population of people who were lagging behind them economically. It was again proven wrong in the 1970’s when wealth was confiscated from Asians in Uganda in order to enrich another lagging population. In both of these social/economic experiments, only disaster resulted; nothing   of lasting worth came of it. It has proven wrong again and again in other contexts. He pointed out that like anything else, wealth gets used up. And when it’s gone, and there’s nobody there to replenish it, you’re worse off than before. The only thing that will prevent unearned give-away wealth from disappearing is if the recipients have enough human capitol to replenish the loss.  

As I mentioned above, there is no easy answer to the problem of unequal distribution of wealth. But…I would point out my opinion that a good starting point would be if our society would do something constructive about repairing the problem of broken homes where there is no productive father in the home. More government give-away programs including reparations will never help the situation.

Socialism

Socialism

America has ceased to be a country characterized by Democrat vs. Republican or liberal vs. conservative.  More and more our country has become a nation of the rich vs. the poor.  In 1970, well over 60% of American adults ranked as middle class in economic terms. That year middle class wage earners took home 62% of America’s wealth. By 2015, middle class homes collected only 43% of the national income, while the share for the rich had surged from 29% to almost 50%!

In 2015 fewer than half of adults lived in middle income homes. A majority of households qualified as either low-income or high-income. America was becoming a country of rich and poor, and the rich are richer than ever.

Winston Churchill pointed out years ago that capitalism produces inequality in wealth, and socialism produces equality in poverty.  

Many are claiming these days that wealth inequality should be compensated for by the institution of socialism. But, we in these days have two glaring examples before us of socialism in action, e.g., the USSR (Union of Soviet SOCIALISTIC Republics) and Venezuela. Both of these nations have tried socialism and have wound up in nothing but disaster.

Ignoring these blatant examples before us, we hear some of our politicians on the left (specifically Bernie Sanders) strongly recommending to us the adoption of what they call Scandinavian socialism.

A friend of mine, Dr. Karl Heller, a man with personal experience in Scandinavian culture and politics has commented on these ideas coming from our colleagues on the left.  He has made observations below that I think are helpful in evaluating the nature of this claim that socialism is the best wave of the future.  

“Socialism has a long history and numerous proponents and variations. But they all have in common the notion that some type of socialism, or government control over the life of its citizens, is the answer to a better life for all. Although this fantasy has been shown to be historically incorrect by the collapse of socialist systems in various countries, some of our fanatic politicians still cling to the idea that the Marxist utopian vision of creating the ‘perfect society’ is the ultimate answer to social inequality and economic injustice. Unfortunately, it has miserably failed wherever it has been attempted.

“More recently some prominent politicians like Senator Bernie Sanders have touted Scandinavian countries as an example of ‘successful socialism.’ There is no doubt that he sincerely believes in this grand              illusion in spite of the evidence against it, but one has to admit that some of his ideas, like the need for health care reform, have some validity. However, the need should be for reforming and improving the capitalist system, not replacing it. The fact is that socialism has never worked anywhere for anybody, not even in Scandinavia where, contrary to Sanders’ ignorant assertion, it actually does not exist.

 “Scandinavia, located in Northern Europe, includes the countries of Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark with a total population of about 27 million people which is roughly the same as the State of Texas. Unlike the United States, these countries are not the ‘melting pot of nations’ but have maintained a unique ethnic identity with some differences. Each country has its distinct language, and while differences in the overall character of the population are not easily discerned by visitors, they do exist and have for centuries. Recently Muslim migrations into these countries has upset the relative equilibrium of demographics in these countries.”

Despite the cheery opinion of leftists in the U.S., if one probes beyond the essence of their ideas, one will find that “the Nordic welfare state is developing many problems that are in its structure. The rise of the "Sweden Democrats" (seen by some as "Neo-Nazis") and other radical parties is symptomatic of widespread dissatisfaction with the welfare state, although the governments seem to have struck a workable balance between high taxes and high benefits--at least for now. Scandinavians are finding that, it is not so easy to opt out of work and then collect social benefits. There are strict guidelines about who should benefit from government handouts. 

 “But there is another, even greater threat to the welfare state, especially in Sweden. It has recently experienced  severe stress because the country unwisely opened its doors to virtually uncontrolled Muslim immigration, without first setting up an infrastructure to take care of it. At around 200,000 migrants+ they now represent more than 2% of Sweden's 9 million people, the highest rate of immigration in all of Europe.

 ”Further complicating the situation, Malmo, Sweden's third largest city on the Baltic Sea across from Denmark, has seen a huge increase in crime due to its population being 50% foreign-born. Unless the government sets up strict limits on these migrations, some people argue that their country will be eventually lost to another civilization - an argument not as unreasonable as it sounds.

 ”My personal view of all this is: Scandinavia, but Sweden especially, used to be a bulwark of Protestantism and successfully incorporated its ideals of honest hard work, faith in God and respect for others into their social values. With a largely untouched ethnic base of people sharing the same philosophy, they were successful in setting up an enviable (and arguably too generous) model of welfare. However, with the erosion of the Protestant ethic the social conscience illuminated by divine truth has dissipated, if not disappeared. I am predicting that it will not take long before a welfare state build only on humanitarian values will decline further and collapse. Unfortunately, radical forces on both the left and right are standing by to take advantage of the ensuing chaos.”

Dr. Heller goes on to say, “I was born in Northern Germany about 100 miles from the Danish border, I have had the opportunity of travelling in all Scandinavian countries except Finland. As a race I found that Scandinavians are down-to-earth, practical, tolerant and caring people, and I am sure that their character contributed much to the creation of what I call ‘Welfare Capitalism’ in their countries. However, let me repeat in one sentence that none of the Scandinavian countries have Marxist-Socialist governments. The means of production and natural resources are in private hands, there are no wage and price controls, and all countries have prospered from a free market economy. There is, however, one factor that seems to be a source of confusion to people like Sanders: All Scandinavian countries have very high taxes in order to pay for their generous welfare system which protects their citizens literally ‘from the cradle to the grave.’ It is this government control of fiscal resources and the generous social welfare benefits offered to all citizens that make ignorant ideologues like Bernie Sanders think--or pretend--that these countries are ‘socialist’ when in fact they are not. In any case, the Scandinavian social model of ‘Welfare Capitalism’ or what some loosely call ‘Social Democracy’ would hardly be workable in the United States on neither the federal nor state level. There is some truth in the argument that it is one thing to practice the Scandinavian model in countries with relatively small populations, and quite another to do so in a country of 350 million inhabitants.

 “If the fantasies of liberal politicians and others about socialism stem from their ignorance of historical facts, there is another, equally powerful argument against this hoax from the field of moral theology.

Even atheists agree that the human race is not perfect. Our historical record is flawed beyond comprehension, and man’s determination to make war and kill his fellow human beings dominates the pages of history. Only someone oblivious to reality could deny that humans are afflicted with a universal malaise the Bible calls ‘sin.’ But one does not have to believe in the Bible, God’s Word to man, that the human race is morally impaired and under divine judgment. Humanity’s endless conflict of death and destruction speaks for itself.

 “It was Karl Marx himself, the founder of modern socialism, who said ‘original sin is everywhere at work.’ This raises a compelling question: How does one create a ‘perfect’ society with ‘imperfect’ people? Imagine a builder boasting that he can construct a house with degraded materials like broken timber, cracked bricks and damaged shingles? Or a baker who boasts that he can bake a cake with stale flour, rancid butter and rotten eggs? The logic is compelling: The ‘perfect’ society is a Utopian dream belonging to another world, and the historical record sustains that argument: Every attempt by ignorant fools to build a ‘Socialist Paradise’ has failed miserably’, caused intense suffering, and has been an affront to human dignity.

“Finally, tying into the foregoing comments, there is the often mentioned ‘human incentive.’ Before man is a ‘social animal’ he is an individual and characterized by his need for freedom. Given the independence to exercise his imagination, taking initiatives and confronting risks without the controls of government inevitably leads to creativity and achievement. That is why entrepreneurship works so well in capitalism. The human genius must be released from the fetters and economic constraints of political authorities in order to flourish. That does not mean that any human system, including capitalism, is perfect. The phrase ‘predatory capitalism’ says a lot about its abuses, and we sadly know that the best of intentions are often compromised by selfishness, greed and the lust for power. The nature of man is morally imperfect, and so is anything he tries to achieve. But it is difficult to envision a more workable economic system than benign and restrained capitalism this side of eternity. Those who think they have a better solution should take a few courses in history and study God’s Word to find out what life is all about.”

We Americans need to think very clearly before we fall into the trap of socialism. It sounds good on the outside…but in the long haul, it is a dangerous experiment for us to use.

Universal Health Care? Hmmm.

This blog post will deal with Senator Bernie Sanders’ call for universal health care under a single payer program. His proposed system would eliminate all health care premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. Everybody in the U.S. would be covered—nobody would be excluded. He proposes to pay for this kind of coverage by an elevation of taxes.

We need to look at this idea carefully. I believe that Senator Sanders is suffering under a utopian idea that has serious defects in it. He apparently does not have enough experience in health care delivery to understand what his proposal will entail. Let me explain:

Although many people agree with Senator Sanders, they do not understand that free health care will cause a huge increase in demand for this “free” benefit—I’m talking about a FLOOD of patients appearing in emergency rooms for treatment from everything from hang nails to bad dreams. I know this is true because of work that was done several years ago when I was a medical student. The Rand Corporation examined the effect of co-pays on emergency room visits. The study found that a $5 co-pay decreased ER visits remarkably from the going rate of then $0 dollars for each visit. Evidently, this minimal charge was enough to cause anyone going to an ER to think twice about it and try to remedy the situation by using a little common sense before resorting to ER care.

At the present time, states can impose copayments, coinsurance, deductibles, and other similar charges on most Medicaid-covered benefits, both inpatient and outpatient services, and the amounts that can be charged vary with income. All out of pocket charges are based on the individual state's payment for that service.

Even with the United States’ present policy to require minimal co-pays for ER visits, our ER’s are still treating a lot of minor problems because for Medicaid patients the cost is so low, they can’t afford to go any place else. Eliminating co-pays will only exacerbate that problem. (ER care is the most expensive care available for out-patient help.)

Under Sanders’ plan, hospital costs for maintaining ER services will escalate. I believe that health care should be available for everyone. However, I also believe that everyone should work for a living if they are physically able to do so; and they should make a reasonable effort to pay their own way through the health care delivery system.

The present system of entitlement payments for health care, housing, food stamps, financial assistance, and fictitious disability claims incentivizes people from working for a living. Adding another layer of entitlement payment will only make the welfare system worse than it already is. A single payer health care system will add huge numbers of inefficient bureaucratic workers to America’s present overload of government employees.