I know we sing it with an exclamation point, but the national anthem ends in a question mark: “Oh say, does that Star-Spangled Banner yet wave o’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?” That’s a question, not an exclamation. And it’s a question that each generation of Americans must answer for itself.
This is my home because I value every shred of freedom the Constitution protects. Where else in the world can a woman shout aloud proclaiming her disgust with a government that is bound to protect her right to make such statements? Where else in the world can a person provide for his own physical protection, practice an unorthodox religion, succeed or fail on merits, yet be a part of a society that is for the most part compassionate toward the weakest among us?
Where else are people free to pursue their own dreams and potential and freely search for God and meaning?
Where else have people from every race and nation, of various creeds and languages, been welcomed as part of the great experiment we sometimes call the melting pot?
Where else is it recognized that our freedoms come from God and not from some benevolent elite who believe that they “allow” our freedoms?
Where else can one shout from the mountaintop one’s faith in God, proclaim the Word in print and media, and know that the vast majority of the people believe in that same God even though they may fall short in understanding and practice?
The question is not whether we are the land of the free. It is whether we have the bravery to protect that freedom for our children. It aggravates me to see some of my own countrymen stating publicly that this country is not worth fighting for. What, pray tell, is worth fighting for if freedom is not? Should Americans passively watch as our freedoms are slowly eroded by confused judges, pandering legislators, and internationalist lobbyists who want to subjugate our Constitution to some multi-national body?
The current conflicts in which our nation is now engaged, which like it or not are struggles between world views, are very much about whether our freedoms and lives are worth protecting. The question is whether we have the patience when it takes longer and costs more than expected. Would our generation of Americans have stayed more than the decade long course that spanned the time between the Declaration of Independence and the ratification of the US Constitution? Would our generation tolerate the hundreds of thousands lost in World War II and the financial burden that went with it?
Today’s enemies of this country want to take our cherished freedoms, and some of them want to kill as many of us as they can. Those are stated aims. Are we still the home of the brave so that we can remain the land of the free?
The Star-Spangled Banner yet waves, but it waves only because the land of the free has been the home of the brave.
Unlike the first verse of the National Anthem, the seldom-sung last verse is an exclamation and not a question. May that ever be so.
Then conquer we must,
When our cause it is just;
And this be our motto:
“In God is our trust!”
And the Star-Spangled Banner
In triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free
And the home of the brave!
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
The Bramble and the Olive Trees
Once the trees went forth to anoint a king over them, and they said to the olive tree, 'Reign over us!' But the olive tree said to them, 'Shall I leave my fatness with which God and men are honored, and go to wave over the trees?' Then the trees said to the fig tree, 'You come, reign over us!' But the fig tree said to them, 'Shall I leave my sweetness and my good fruit, and go to wave over the trees?' Then the trees said to the vine, 'You come, reign over us!' But the vine said to them, 'Shall I leave my new wine, which cheers God and men, and go to wave over the trees?' Finally all the trees said to the bramble, 'You come, reign over us!' And the bramble said to the trees, 'If in truth you are anointing me as king over you, come and take refuge in my shade; but if not, may fire come out from the bramble and consume the cedars of Lebanon.' (Judges 9:8-15 NAS)
That little parable told by Jotham son of Gideon should remind us of our responsibilities on the one hand and warn us on the other against craving to be ruled.
The people of Israel had experienced the wise and brave leadership of Gideon, but at his death they seemed to be incapable of living without someone around to tell them what to do. Just like the trees in the parable, they seemed to go from one honorable candidate to another offering to place themselves under rulership, but all the honorable ones refused. So the big, mighty trees submitted to the rule of the basest bramble. By doing so, they gave up their dignity, for to take refuge in the shade of the bramble, one must stoop to the bramble’s level. “But if not,” the bramble said, “may fire come out from the bramble and consume the cedars of Lebanon.” Their rulership would be one based on coercion.
Israel was born a free nation. They had escaped from slavery, and it was God’s intent that they remain so. He was to be their only King, and they themselves were to be a kingdom of priests (Exodus 19:6). But the history as recorded in the book of Judges shows the sorry result of a people who had freedom without character, for time and time again their freedom led to license, which led to moral laxity, which led to social disorder. Eventually the nation found itself in bondage to its enemies, or calling for a strong man to restore order. Freedom has its costs, and they seemed unwilling or unable to pay the price.
The lesson of Jotham’s parable is twofold. If good men are too content with their own lives to provide leadership, then the bramble will fill the vacuum. Good men are enjoined to do their civic duty.
But more than that, it is uncomely for the majestic trees of the forest to beg someone to rule over them. That is the road to serfdom.
As the American Republic goes through its renewal this election year, a renewal which the framers of the Constitution mandate, let us reflect on the freedoms we have lost because of our desire for security. To quote Benjamin Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
That little parable told by Jotham son of Gideon should remind us of our responsibilities on the one hand and warn us on the other against craving to be ruled.
The people of Israel had experienced the wise and brave leadership of Gideon, but at his death they seemed to be incapable of living without someone around to tell them what to do. Just like the trees in the parable, they seemed to go from one honorable candidate to another offering to place themselves under rulership, but all the honorable ones refused. So the big, mighty trees submitted to the rule of the basest bramble. By doing so, they gave up their dignity, for to take refuge in the shade of the bramble, one must stoop to the bramble’s level. “But if not,” the bramble said, “may fire come out from the bramble and consume the cedars of Lebanon.” Their rulership would be one based on coercion.
Israel was born a free nation. They had escaped from slavery, and it was God’s intent that they remain so. He was to be their only King, and they themselves were to be a kingdom of priests (Exodus 19:6). But the history as recorded in the book of Judges shows the sorry result of a people who had freedom without character, for time and time again their freedom led to license, which led to moral laxity, which led to social disorder. Eventually the nation found itself in bondage to its enemies, or calling for a strong man to restore order. Freedom has its costs, and they seemed unwilling or unable to pay the price.
The lesson of Jotham’s parable is twofold. If good men are too content with their own lives to provide leadership, then the bramble will fill the vacuum. Good men are enjoined to do their civic duty.
But more than that, it is uncomely for the majestic trees of the forest to beg someone to rule over them. That is the road to serfdom.
As the American Republic goes through its renewal this election year, a renewal which the framers of the Constitution mandate, let us reflect on the freedoms we have lost because of our desire for security. To quote Benjamin Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
Friday, June 18, 2010
The One-Legged Man in a Butt-Kicking Contest
Because kicking butt is now the official policy in Washington, DC, let’s see how well they are doing.
The State of Arizona has enacted a new state law that gives state officials the permission to enforce federal law. The Justice Department is filing suit, and the governor of Arizona says, “I look forward to seeing you in court.”
After the oil spill, Mr. Obama and his “Administration” stonewalled local initiatives to clean up the mess, using environmental and jurisdictional maneuvers to stop them. They refused to suspend the Jones Act, a 1920s law that prohibits foreign flagged ships from operating in American waters, even though over 20 countries offered help. They have refused permission to local authorities to clean up their own beaches, and the states and municipalities have decided to act anyway, “even if they put us in handcuffs.”
Former allies Turkey and Brazil have negotiated a separate nuclear deal with Iran calculated to disrupt American initiatives through the United Nations for stronger sanctions.
North Korea torpedoes a South Korean vessel, and other than a few initial screeches of disgust, nothing else happens. China pointedly refuses to condemn the act, then refuses to meet with the U.S. Secretary of Defense.
Despite the “Administration’s” diplomatic snubs and threats, Israel continues to build homes where policymakers in their ivory towers say they shouldn’t.
Mexico’s President is allowed to question the Second Amendment before the US Congress and assails Arizona for attempting to protect itself from an invasion of Mexican drug lords, and we hear no protest from the executive branch.
The British openly speak of the end of the “special relationship”, while the “Administration” bashes one of their largest companies, insults the Queen and the Prime Minister with cheap gifts, and returns a bust of Churchill to the British Embassy.
He chastises the American people for their use of fossil fuels and tells them to stay close to home -- and never go to Las Vegas -- but he takes Air Force one on jaunts to New York for a dinner date and lets it buzz the Statue of Liberty, scaring to death New Yorkers wary of another 9-11. His wife jets off to Paris for a shopping trip, and he hops over the Copenhagen for a quick trip to sell Chicago as the ideal site for the Olympics, which pitch was immediately rejected on the first ballot.
The President of Afghanistan threatens to join the Taliban. Iraq is turning into another bloodfest, federal spending is two times tax receipts, areas of the US hit by natural disasters are virtually ignored (especially if they are red states), anyone who disagrees is labeled an enemy or worse, and Chicago-style politics and pay-offs have infected the national scene.
Advice to this “Administration”: Do not start a butt-kicking contest if you don’t have a leg to stand on.
The State of Arizona has enacted a new state law that gives state officials the permission to enforce federal law. The Justice Department is filing suit, and the governor of Arizona says, “I look forward to seeing you in court.”
After the oil spill, Mr. Obama and his “Administration” stonewalled local initiatives to clean up the mess, using environmental and jurisdictional maneuvers to stop them. They refused to suspend the Jones Act, a 1920s law that prohibits foreign flagged ships from operating in American waters, even though over 20 countries offered help. They have refused permission to local authorities to clean up their own beaches, and the states and municipalities have decided to act anyway, “even if they put us in handcuffs.”
Former allies Turkey and Brazil have negotiated a separate nuclear deal with Iran calculated to disrupt American initiatives through the United Nations for stronger sanctions.
North Korea torpedoes a South Korean vessel, and other than a few initial screeches of disgust, nothing else happens. China pointedly refuses to condemn the act, then refuses to meet with the U.S. Secretary of Defense.
Despite the “Administration’s” diplomatic snubs and threats, Israel continues to build homes where policymakers in their ivory towers say they shouldn’t.
Mexico’s President is allowed to question the Second Amendment before the US Congress and assails Arizona for attempting to protect itself from an invasion of Mexican drug lords, and we hear no protest from the executive branch.
The British openly speak of the end of the “special relationship”, while the “Administration” bashes one of their largest companies, insults the Queen and the Prime Minister with cheap gifts, and returns a bust of Churchill to the British Embassy.
He chastises the American people for their use of fossil fuels and tells them to stay close to home -- and never go to Las Vegas -- but he takes Air Force one on jaunts to New York for a dinner date and lets it buzz the Statue of Liberty, scaring to death New Yorkers wary of another 9-11. His wife jets off to Paris for a shopping trip, and he hops over the Copenhagen for a quick trip to sell Chicago as the ideal site for the Olympics, which pitch was immediately rejected on the first ballot.
The President of Afghanistan threatens to join the Taliban. Iraq is turning into another bloodfest, federal spending is two times tax receipts, areas of the US hit by natural disasters are virtually ignored (especially if they are red states), anyone who disagrees is labeled an enemy or worse, and Chicago-style politics and pay-offs have infected the national scene.
Advice to this “Administration”: Do not start a butt-kicking contest if you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The Politically Incorrect Prophet
Ezekiel was the dour sort, but given his task, he almost had to be. During his lifetime his nation was being systematically dismantled by its enemies, both foreign and domestic, and the people didn’t seem to understand that a great deal of this they were bringing on themselves.
Ezekiel’s job was to do one simple thing: Tell them the truth. “They are obstinate and stubborn,” the Book says of them (Ezekiel 2:4). They were rebellious and unlikely to listen, but from the perspective of what Ezekiel needed to do, none of this mattered. His job was to tell the truth. “Go now to your countrymen in exile and speak to them. Say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says,’ whether they listen or fail to listen.” (3:11)
For Ezekiel and his nation the time for political correctness was over. It was time to lay out reality to these people. If they were going to be hard-headed, Ezekiel had to be more so (3:8-9). The moral fabric of the nation was deteriorating, weakening their will to maintain their sovereignty and culture. It was time to speak out and hope the people would listen and live, and if not, then he was to at least be strong enough to weather their ridicule and abuse.
In a time when some view the love of God and country as a hayseed aberration, and where the colors of the flag are scorned in some quarters as a provocation, saying nothing out of fear of offending is an act of apathy. When we sit down and shut up at such stunts, we show our unconcern about the social and cultural environment, effectively surrendering the duty to speak the truth in love.
The opposite of love is not hate. The opposite of love is apathy.
Ezekiel’s job was to do one simple thing: Tell them the truth. “They are obstinate and stubborn,” the Book says of them (Ezekiel 2:4). They were rebellious and unlikely to listen, but from the perspective of what Ezekiel needed to do, none of this mattered. His job was to tell the truth. “Go now to your countrymen in exile and speak to them. Say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says,’ whether they listen or fail to listen.” (3:11)
For Ezekiel and his nation the time for political correctness was over. It was time to lay out reality to these people. If they were going to be hard-headed, Ezekiel had to be more so (3:8-9). The moral fabric of the nation was deteriorating, weakening their will to maintain their sovereignty and culture. It was time to speak out and hope the people would listen and live, and if not, then he was to at least be strong enough to weather their ridicule and abuse.
In a time when some view the love of God and country as a hayseed aberration, and where the colors of the flag are scorned in some quarters as a provocation, saying nothing out of fear of offending is an act of apathy. When we sit down and shut up at such stunts, we show our unconcern about the social and cultural environment, effectively surrendering the duty to speak the truth in love.
The opposite of love is not hate. The opposite of love is apathy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)