Has Christianity been a negative influence on the world?

Modern atheists complain about many things associated with Christianity—its documents, its theology, its history, its reliance on miracles. But there is one huge charge made by them—that Christianity is dangerous and ruins everything. Is that true? A few moments of reflection will put this charge to rest. Christianity has, in fact, been a positive good for civilization. What follows is a brief list of major contributions.

Let’s start with one key component of the Western world—reliance on and love of science. Why did the Western world act as the cradle of modern science? Because the Judeo-Christian view says God is rational, He created an orderly world, and He is separated from His creation. Therefore, it was OK to investigate everything, thinking God’s thoughts after Him. Most of the brightest early scientists were devout Christians.

What about evils like slavery? It was the West, thanks to Christianity, that finally abolished this terrible scourge from its territories. Compare its track record with other major civilizations. In Islamic areas, for example, slavery has been much longer in existence..

What about another key interest in the West—higher education? Again, it was Christianity and the Protestant reformation that urged the development of centers of learning. Most early American universities were begun with religious motives and an emphasis on literacy.

Then there’s health care and charities. Christianity has always been in the lead for these concerns. Going back to the Roman days, it was the Christians who helped those in need. Hospitals, care for children, concern for the poor—all were part of the Christian agenda. Think about the Salvation Army, the YMCA, the Red Cross, and other successful charitable organizations—all had Christian roots.

Women have been treated better, thanks to Christianity. Any comparison of Christian women with non-Christian peers will reveal this to be true. Again, consider how women are treated in Islamic countries as a powerful contrast.

Democracy owes its start to Christianity. The ordinary person is uplifted in the Christian faith. It was the religious awakenings that led to the American Revolution.

The freedoms we cherish are also thanks to Christianity. We separate church and state, allowing freedom to worship as we see fit. How is freedom handled in atheistic countries like North Korea and China? How is it doing in other religious lands like the Islamic countries?

Then there’s the emphasis on hard work and capitalism. That’s due to a couple of things. The Protestant Reformation elevated work to a noble calling, a way to honor God, no matter what the job. The general Judeo-Christian worldview emphasized private property, allowing people to work hard for themselves.

This is only a quick list, but it serves to make the point. The atheists are able to freely express their opinions precisely because they live in a land that was founded on Christian principles. Imagine they were to say these things in Iran, Saudi Arabia, or other repressive regimes. Their life expectancy would be measured in hours. They should thank Christians for giving them a platform for their views.

Let's set the record straight

The Wall Street Journal reports on a bit of recent history that we need to remember. The good news is that nearly all the TARP funds used to bail out Wall Street banks have been repaid. The bad news is that the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stand out as the source of the greatest taxpayer losses. How much are we talking about? The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that, in the wake of the housing bubble and the unprecedented deflation in housing values that resulted, the government's cost to bail out Fannie and Freddie will eventually reach $381 billion. It may go higher.

Here comes the interesting, historical part—the government had a chance to prevent this disaster but didn’t. Without a bit of shame, these same people now ask for more power. The Journal gives an interesting account of their earlier failings.

One chapter of this sad story took place in July 2005, when the Senate Banking Committee, then controlled by the Republicans, adopted tough regulatory legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on a party-line vote—all Republicans in favor, all Democrats opposed. The bill would have established a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie and given it authority to ensure that they maintained adequate capital, properly managed their interest rate risk, had adequate liquidity and reserves, and controlled their asset and investment portfolio growth. If legislation along the lines of the Senate committee's bill had been enacted in that year, many if not all the losses that Fannie and Freddie have suffered, and will suffer in the future, might have been avoided.

Of course, a question comes to mind--Why was there no action in the full Senate? As most Americans know today, it takes 60 votes to cut off debate in the Senate, and the Republicans had only 55. To close debate and proceed to the enactment of the committee-passed bill, the Republicans needed five Democrats to vote with them. But, and here’s where it gets interesting, in a 45 member Democratic caucus that included Barack Obama and the current Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), these votes could not be found.

Yes, the same Barack Obama who warns us of the power of special interests today was silent back when help was needed. As a senator, he was the third largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, behind only Sens. Chris Dodd and John Kerry. Can you say “hypocrite”?

Are you surprised that nearly 80% of Americans, according to new Pew polling, don't trust the federal government or its ability to solve the country's problems? The ones who helped create the mess are asking us to turn over even more power to them. How’s that for ultimate nerve?

The polls are in--Obama and the Democrats are losing ground with Americans

I read in The Wall Street Journal that a new poll has devastating news for the Democrats. A Pew Research Center report just out has found that trust in government is at an "historic low" of only 22%. But I thought Barack Obama was going to be the savior of the Western world.

After one year of President Obama, after passage of the party's health-care bill, after spending zillions on all sorts of questionable economic ideas, the American people have the lowest opinion ever of national government.

Another survey reveals the movement away from the Democrats' ideas on more government and increased regulations. The Journal reports that a year ago 54% said government should exert more control over the economy; a year later it's 40%. Some 58% say Uncle Sam is interfering too much in state and local affairs; 53% want "very major reform" of the federal government.

Wow, who would have thought so much could happen in a year? Americans' desire for smaller government has ironically grown ever since Barack Obama took office. Something unique happened in the first Obama year. We have had a chance to see the true cost of government. Think of the mind-boggling numbers we have had to deal with over the past year. The financial crisis and the recession led Democrats to wave a $787 billion stimulus at the problem in early 2009. Then, on April 30, they passed a 2010 budget of $3.5 trillion. This year their 2011 budget hit $3.8 trillion, reaching a post-World War II high of 25% of GDP. In March, they passed the trillion-dollar health-care bill. Keep in mind all of this was passed during a recession with 9% unemployment. Where's the money coming from? Not the rich, so get ready to bleed money in new ways.

Think of what it was like when Obama tok over to appreciate the change. Barack Obama started with public support for his party (62% said they liked the Democrats in January 2009). But that is gone now. Since he took office, the percentage of people who want smaller government and fewer services has risen, to 50% from 42%.

What makes this such strange irony is the actions taken by Obama as his numbers slid off the charts. He worked to give the nation health care, he sat down with the Russians to create an arms treaty, he coordinated a huge 47-nation, anti-proliferation convocation in Washington. But all this whirlwind of activity had the opposite effect from what he expected. Americans are more cynical of big government. People want less, and don't trust what they've got. They want reform.

One last bit of interesting news from the Journal. In 1994 when the Democrats lost over 50 House seats at mid-term, the party's favorable rating was 62%, and for the Congress they controlled it was 53%. They still got killed. Now the party's favorable is 38% and Congress's approval is 25%. Wow, can you say "Big trouble ahead"?

Are you safe from taxes if you make less than $250,000?

I have read a lot on what's ahead for our taxes. Remember, President Obama pledged on many occasions not to raise taxes on people earning under $250,000. How is that working out? Unfortunately, not too well.


Just recently we saw a new reason to be skeptical of this promise.
Taxpayers earning less than $200,000 a year will pay roughly $3.9 billion more in taxes — in 2019 alone — due to healthcare reform, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress's official scorekeeper...Once the law is fully implemented in 2019, the JCT estimates the deduction limitation will affect 14.8 million taxpayers — 14.7 million of them will earn less than $200,000 a year. These taxpayers are single and joint filers, as well as heads of households.




The healthcare bill contains seven tax hikes that unquestionably violate Obama’s pledge. Here they are:



1. Individual Mandate Excise Tax: Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following (page 71 of manager’s amendment updates Reid bill):


Single 2 People 3+ People
2014 $495/0.5% AGI $990/0.5% AGI $1485/0.5%/AGI
2015 $495/1.0% AGI $990/1.0% AGI $1485/1.0%/AGI
2016+ $495/2.0% AGI $990/2.0% AGI $1485/2.0%/AGI

Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS).

Don't you love the fact that there are exemptions? Do you fit in any of those categories? No? Then, get ready for more taxes. The CBO estimates that this Mandate Tax will raise $39 billion in penalties from 2010-2019.

2. Employer Mandate Tax: Small business owners pay their business taxes on their personal 1040 forms. This tax does not exempt startup small business owners even if they make less than $250,000. If the employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $750 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees.


3. Medicine Cabinet Tax: Americans would no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

Once again, like all government programs, there are exceptions, making this unweildy and unfair.

4. HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike: Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

5. Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax”: Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2011. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

And I thought liberals had big hearts.

6. Medical Itemized Deductions Cap: Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction if the total cost of the expenses reduces the filer’s income by 7.5%. The new provision would impose a threshold of 10%. This new tax will most adversely affect early retirees and the catastrophically ill. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only.

This is a biggie. Read it again--if you have big medical bills, you can now look forward to paying additional taxes. Stay healthy!

7. Tax on Indoor Tanning Services: New 10% excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons.

OK, I'm not too worried about this one. But it just shows the depths to which the feds want to micromanage everything in our lives.


We can't memorize all of these points. But here's the main idea--NONE OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS EXEMPTS FAMILIES MAKING LESS THAN $250,000


Working families will suffer, the economy will continue to stagnate, and our President will continue to say the exact opposite of what he is doing.

Some good news for a change

This will be the last blog dealing with Michael Medved’s recent book, The Ten Big Lies about America. I wanted to end on a positive note, so I jumped to lie # 10: “America is in the midst of an irreversible moral decline.” The author says this is not true, and that, in fact, improvements are visible in the vast majority of social indicators.

Medved starts by noting that the idea of imminent doom has been part of America’s history for as long as there have been people here. William Bradford, a longtime leader of Plymouth colony, saw evidence of deadly moral decay within 25 years after landing at Plymouth Rock. In the 1740s, Jonathan Edwards wrote that his time period was more degenerative than any before it. About 100 years later the anti-slavery advocate William Lloyd Garrison complained bitterly about his generation’s moral standing.

Medved looks back at our history to discuss several great awakenings that have improved the morality of the people in America. The first, from the 1730s to the 1750s, was led by Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, and the Wesley Brothers. This religious revival helped lay the groundwork for the American Revolution. The second awakening, which occurred between 1800 and1830, brought camp meetings and a new energy for the antislavery and women’s suffrage movements. The third of these awakenings, from the 1880s through the early 1900s, brought the holiness movement, the beginnings of American Pentecostalism, the social gospel, progressive politics, and a new crusade against alcohol. Medved says many sociologists and theologians see a fourth great awakening beginning in the late 1970s and continuing to the present. The results of this last revival can be seen in the power of the religious right, the growth of evangelical megachurches, and a greater Christian influence in popular culture. I have noticed this in the area of Christian publishing--good authors are getting their message out clearly.

One example of an improvement in morality can be seen in New York City. In late 2007 it was reported that the city was on track to have the lowest number of homicides since statistics became available in 1963. Other major cities all show less violence and property crimes from their peaks some 20 years ago.

What are other positive signs? In many attitudes the current generation of teenagers and young adults appears to be more culturally conservative than its immediate predecessors. For example, Americans from 18 to 30 are the most likely of all age groups to oppose abortion. Teenage drug use, which had moved up throughout the 1990s, has declined since then by an impressive 23 percent. Teenage use of alcohol has also fallen greatly in the last 10 years. Fewer high school students today are having sex. Abortion rates have declined by a full 24 percent between 1990 and 2004. The divorce rate has been falling continually over the last 25 years. Even out-of-wedlock births have begun to level off in recent years. One recent survey found that there has been an unmistakable declining in extramarital sexual activity. The number of people on welfare has plunged, overall poverty has decreased, and employment figures for single mothers have risen. Medved also says religious activity is on the upswing—“the most demanding and scripturally rigorous denominations show the greatest vitality of all.” It looks like religion is not in danger of dying out in our secular age, for which I offer a hearty “amen.” Why is that? Religion offers people community, ritual, and support for values they hold, according to Medved.

Medved says there are huge forces out there which threaten these advances. I especially like this thought: “Any effort to roll back immorality faces formidable government bureaucracies, official regulations, the smug assurance of nearly all of academia, and ceaseless special pleading in mass media meant to protect and glamorize the most deeply dysfunctional values.” But the new technologies offer us unprecedented alternatives –cable, satellite, and internet options, for example.

So things are not out of control. We can be encouraged by his findings and resolve to help make our society a “shining city upon the hill.”

Is America a threat to world peace as the left suggests?

Another of the big lies that Michael Medved attacks (The 10 Big Lies About America) is the charge that America is an imperialist nation and a constant threat to world peace. His point is that involvement in overseas conflicts is not new; it has characterized every stage of our emergence as a world power. These clashes have little connection to colonialism or empire building – instead, they were often done with unselfish intentions. Their long-term impact most often benefited the peoples involved as well as the world at large.

He starts with a look at foreign fights. As an example, United States fought against Islamic extremists more than 200 years ago. These battles took place in North Africa where ruthless pirates devastated U.S. shipping. Thomas Jefferson made war successfully on these pirates and their fanatical rulers. Medved says American was never truly an isolationist nation. Virtually all of our major wars began without enemy attack on American soil – the French and Indian War, the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, Korea, Vietnam, and the first Gulf War. So, the current war in Iraq is not a new situation for America; as in other wars, we attacked a country that had not attacked us first.

Another feature of our American clashes shows that we generally avoided the temptations of conquest. In 1848 we defeated Mexico, but instead of annexing all or much of that nation, we agreed to assume that country’s national debt and to pay the government what was considered a large sum of money for a sparsely populated territory that eventually became the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah. It’s true we fought one imperialist war against Spain in 1898, yet we did not attempt to incorporate Cuba as part of American territory. After World War I, we were the only one of the major victorious allied powers that sought no territorial or colonial enhancement at the Versailles conference. When we defeated Germany and Japan in World War II, we provided a security shield for our European allies.

Generally speaking, the states and peoples aligned with America in world affairs prospered economically and developed functioning democratic institutions. Think of our enemies in World War II (Germany, Italy, and Japan). In addition, South Korea has a vibrant economy and is certainly more robustly democratic than many nations in the area. Consider two nations which were once affiliated with the West but have become anti-American --Cuba and Iran. They have both suffered spectacularly. Or consider Hawaii compared to Fiji and Tahiti. They all have stunning beaches and breathtaking landscapes, but Hawaii is by far the most prosperous, functional, and dynamic society in all the Polynesian islands.

But critics often attack the United States for its international affairs during the Cold War. Medved says we must weigh the events in the context of the multigenerational, worldwide struggle against the aggressive force of worldwide communism. A rough estimate counts over 100 million victims of communist murder in the 20th century. Those who concentrate on our mistakes during this period don’t realize that the result was freedom for nearly 500 million human beings liberated from Soviet tyranny.

Medved ends the chapter by using a thought experiment. Imagine that the United States had never become a world power or even existed at all. Would the ideals of democracy and free markets be as important in the world today? Would murderous dictatorships have claimed more victims or fewer? Would nations be under the rule of Nazism, communism, or some other tyranny?
I don't see how anyone could answer these questions without realizing the force for good the United States has been over the years.

Are government programs the best way to help the poor?

Michael Medved has important things to say in his recent book, The 10 Big Lies about America. I have covered several of these lies, but there are still several interesting ones left. One involves faith in the powers of the federal government to take care of us (sound familiar?).

He says many Americans instinctively accept the idea that government programs provide the best way to cope with economic hardship in the problems of the poor. But he says this is not true. Democrats love to recall the stirring days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal; they believe his programs helped lift people out of terrible poverty. However, during the Depression FDR's radical policies were little help. He controlled money generated by society's most productive elements and then distributed it in an often arbitrary manner to his government's favored groups. The truth is, the New Deal brought higher tax burdens and a corresponding loss of liberty with little gain (sometimes serious damage) for the intended beneficiaries of this wealth.

Medved offers a great deal of proof for this perspective. For example, in 1931 the national unemployment rate was 17.4 percent. After more than five years of Roosevelt and all his new government programs, the national unemployment rate was exactly the same. At no time during the 1930s did unemployment go below 14 percent. After seven years of New Deal experiments, the Dow Jones Industrial Average had collapsed far below its mark during the Hoover administration. Federal spending during this time soared from 2.5 percent of gross domestic product in 1929 to 9 percent in 1936.

What's the main point of all this? A "growing majority of economic historians now concede that the programs of the New Deal prolonged, rather than terminated, the Depression." Now some people will want to say that the rest of the world was suffering right along with us, but that's not true. In nearly all European nations the Depression ended more quickly than it did in Roosevelt's America. The Brookings Institution (a left-leaning think tank) concluded that the most ambitious and controversial program of Roosevelt's, the National Recovery Administration, had "on the whole... retarded recovery."

Medved says an examination of depressions throughout our history reveals something interesting. Leaders who cut government to revive the economy succeeded far more quickly and painlessly than did FDR with his New Deal. He uses examples from Presidents Martin Van Buren, Grover Cleveland, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Ronald Reagan.

Medved also takes on more recent government programs. He looks at Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. Poverty, illegitimacy, crime, and social dysfunction grew at the same time that government spending to address these ills vastly increased. Antipoverty programs encouraged a culture of dependency and discouraged self-reliance. Johnson also established the Job Corps in an attempt to train disadvantaged young people for productive employment. A later study found only trivial benefits to Job Corps graduates compared to nonparticipants. But Congress continues to authorize money for this program, which costs taxpayers $21,500 for each enrollee in the eight-month program.

I'm especially concerned right now with Medved's analysis since our current President places so much hope in an enlarged government to solve all our problems. It hasn't worked before, and there's no reason to think it will now. I'll cover more of Medved’s book in a future blog.

Did you hear the one about . . .

We are living in tough times now, so every once in a while I need to take a breather. Here are some lighthearted items that I enjoyed -- I hope you do too.

From The Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce --

alone: in bad company
egotist: a person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me
misfortune: the kind of fortune that never misses
peace: in international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting
quotation: the act of repeating erroneously the words of another
success: the one unpardonable sin against one's fellows


some jokes --

A man wrote a letter to the IRS: "I have been unable to sleep knowing that I have cheated on my income tax. I understated my taxable income and have enclosed a check for $150. If I still can't sleep, I will send the rest."


A lawyer sent a note to a client: "Dear Jim: Thought I saw you on the street the other day. Crossed over to say hello, but it wasn't you, so I went back. One-tenth of an hour: $25."


"Grandma, I ate all the peanuts in the candy dish."
"That's okay. Since I lost my dentures, I can only suck the chocolate off them anyway."


Why was the archaeologist depressed? His career was in ruins.

A guy walks into a bar with a chunk of asphalt under his arm and says, "Beer, please, and one for the road."


A statistician is someone who is good with numbers but lacks the personality to be an accountant. An accountant is someone who solves a problem you didn't know you had in a way you don't understand. A psychologist is a man who, when a beautiful woman enters the room, watches everyone else. A professor is someone who talks in someone else's sleep. A schoolteacher is a woman who used to think she liked small children. A consultant is someone who takes the watch off your wrist and tells you the time.


Did you hear about the two antennas that got married? The wedding was terrible, but the reception was great.

The best day ever

Tomorrow is Easter. It's the day the world changed forever--God became real, Jesus was validated, hope came to all people, life had purpose, death lost its sting, heaven opened its gates, Satan was defeated. Happy Easter to all! He is risen!

Obamacare's Consequence

I recently read a powerful piece by Matthew Continetti in The Wall Street Journal. It summarizes what just happened and what probably will happen as a result of the recent healthcare bill signed by Barack Obama. Here it is:



The liberal line is that President Obama has secured his place in history by signing into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. And secured it he has. Henceforth Obama will be remembered as the man who accelerated America’s mad dash toward bankruptcy. He will be remembered as the leader who promoted a culture of dependency. He will be remembered as the figure who sacrificed a dream of national unity upon the altar of big government liberalism. It’s true: Obama is now a president of consequence. And almost all of those consequences are bad.

The fiscal picture was bleak before Obama made it worse. Government debt is 60 percent of the gross domestic product and climbing. The deficit is projected to remain above 4 percent of GDP for the next decade. The week before the president signed his health care reform into law, Moody’s warned that America’s AAA bond rating may be downgraded . . .

President Obama is an intelligent man. He knew there was no way a massive entitlement could get through Congress when spending, deficit, and debt are major issues. So he claimed that health care reform would help ameliorate America’s fiscal problem, not exacerbate it. And for support he had the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which found that, under a certain set of conditions—spending cuts, Medicare cuts, new taxes—health care reform would not only pay for itself but would reduce the deficit.

But what happens under real world conditions? What happens when the Medicare cuts and the excise tax disappear and the subsidies are more generous than expected? When Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin asked the CBO these questions, he was told the deficit would increase by a considerable margin. Which outcome is more likely: a Congress that cuts services, imposes taxes on favored constituencies, and refrains from spending? Or a Congress that goes instead on a fact-finding mission to Djibouti while making promises it cannot keep?

. . . rather than deregulate health markets and provide consumers with the tools they need to spur competition, reduce prices, and promote innovation, liberals chose another path. They chose to increase regulation and make government the intermediary between taxpayer dollars and the insurance companies. Through the individual mandate, the Democrats have ordered every adult American to purchase a consumer product. And if an American cannot afford that product, government will subsidize him, thereby directing public money to private profit.

. . . What is most striking is the impact of health care on Obama’s presidency. Liberals are already touting his legislative victory as the catalyst for a domestic and foreign policy rebound. To the contrary: Obama is enfeebled. Health care reform has helped turn large swaths of independents against him. It has nullified the chance for bipartisan cooperation in this Congress. It has exposed him as weak: Despite 39 speeches on the topic, despite a huge investment of political capital, the health bill passed by a margin of five votes. Thirty-two Democrats defected. The public opposed this law.

Gone is the charismatic young man who told the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston that there was no Blue America and no Red America, only the United States of America. All that remains is a partisan liberal Democrat whose health care policy bulldozed public opinion, enraged the electorate, poisoned the Congress, and set into motion a sequence of events the outcome of which cannot be foreseen.

This tarnished White House complains incessantly about the crises it inherited from its predecessor. Crises? You ain’t seen nothing yet.