Quick Hits on the Duck Dynasty Fiasco

Quick Hits

“A&E has free speech rights too, and they exercised those rights.”

Certainly. And they lost an enormous chunk of business. There’s no law against stupidity—mainly because it would be too hard to prosecute every politician in D.C.

Second thought: Was it really an exercise of free speech by A&E? Or was it caving to GLAAD’s demands for punishment?

Third thought: A&E is a business—a business that sacked its top tier moneymaker, and intentionally jeopardized it’s best show. Someone online asked: “does GLAAD pay A&E’s bills?” Probably not. It’s the people that watch A&E? …err…used to watch A&E.

Fourth thought: A&E’s business is to make money via network television. Delving into matters of belief and morality was obviously beyond the scope of their best interests. But they feared GLAAD more than their customers and now the rest is history. This is the same reason that singers and bands should stay out of politics. I don’t care what their politics are…I’m just here for the music. I’ve got an internet full of punditry if I need it.

“Was firing/suspending Phil Robertson wrong?”

Ethically: Probably borderline. There’s a good case for “the boss does what he wants” but also a good case for being fired for irrelevant off-the-clock opinions.

Morally: Dicey. An external group pressured Phil’s bosses to pull him. That’s like me talking your boss into firing you because I don’t agree with your belief. Sketchy.

Business: Yes. A&E just shot their cash cow on their little duck hunt. Dick Cheney now takes Second Place for the “Dumbest Thing Someone Shot While Duck Hunting” award. It was the wrong business decision. Pissing your customers off is always the wrong decision. (Hey at least Cracker Barrel got the memo).

“A&E just wanted to distance themselves and disassociate from Robertson’s remarks.”

That’s a weak argument for two reasons.

First, it requires the faith of a canonized saint to really believe that in 4 years of filming this family’s everyday lives that A&E did not ever find out the Robertson’s beliefs on homosexuality. This then reveals a viable theory: A&E knew their beliefs and ran the show anyway. In other words, Phil could believe it, but the moment he expressed that belief they caved to GLAAD and canned him. That would make the suspension about nothing other than speech.

Second, as the Twitterverse (@AceofSpadesHQ) pointed out, A&E is still running the Duck Dynasty Marathon and presumably reruns—all with Phil in them. They’re actively running new content from Phil. If they REALLY wanted true separation they’d stop running all Duck Dynasty content with Phil in it. Oh wait. They need the money.

“This whole thing is a ploy, a fabrication, a conspiracy.”

If so, by whom?

The Ducks? Canning themselves? Why? Just quit…they didn’t need a scandal for that.

GQ? Possibly, but only in the sense of “hey let’s get a Christian conservative traditionalist in for an interview and ask him about gays.” That’s journalism? That would make GQ the most predictably boring magazine in the world. Seriously…what did they THINK he was going to say?

A&E? On the one hand, it makes sense. Get someone to bait Phil into something controversial, make a stink, get attention, and then watch the ratings soar. Not a bad plan…if not for the (now very real) backlash risk involved. Kind of a long shot for that to be true. It’s a multi-million dollar gamble on A&E’s part—with a lot to lose. 

“This is dumb…while everyone was griping about Phil, Congress passed XYZ.”

On the one hand, yes, people pay too much attention to entertainment figures instead of rotten politicians.

On the other hand, I’d argue that this incident generated steam because it was about freedom of expression, and it brought people into the fray who don’t even watch Duck Dynasty. In other words the issue was bigger than the entertainment factor. Being able to speak your mind without fear is a universally desired standard.

Also, Congress would have done business as usual, Phil or no. The Phil-Incident happening did not distract the people from D.C. long enough to sneak something through. Congress would ram anything through, whether anyone is watching or not. Proof? ObamaCare. It’s never enjoyed majority support, and probably never will. If the American people had voted on it, it would never have passed. Congress passed it anyway, in full view of the public.

Gay writers

A few homosexuals have actually sided with Robertson. Yes, you read that right. What’s interesting is that they see this as a freedom of expression issues first and foremost. Gay CNN Anchor Don Lemon said, “I always err on the side of free speech. Just because I’m offended — as I said, people can say whatever they want to say. I don’t think people should be fired. I think the marketplace should decide.”¹ In short, Don Lemon handled this way better than A&E did—and note his stance: it’s based on free speech.

Camille Paglia, a lesbian author, teacher, and social critic wasn’t so passive in her remarks. She called the action against Robertson, “punitive” and “Stalinist”. “People have the right to free thought and free speech. In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as they have the right to support homosexuality -- as I 100% do. If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again they have a right to religious freedom,” she said on a radio interview.² Paglia seems to understand something about free speech: you can’t be choosy about what’s “ok” and what’s not. Perhaps it’s because she’s been on the “wrong” side of the line everyone is so fond of drawing.

Tammy Bruce is the former head of NOW, a feminist activist group, and a lesbian. She tweeted, “The gay civil rights effort was about making sure we weren't punished for being who we are. [It's] Time the left applies that same value to others.”⁴

But perhaps the most poignant quote comes from Brandon Abrosino, a gay writer at Time magazine’s online site. He wrote that, “I’m undecided on whether or not I think Phil actually is homophobic, although I certainly think his statement was offensive . . . But I also think that if I were to spend a day calling ducks with Phil, I’d probably end up liking him — even in spite of his position on gay men. It’s quite possible to throw one’s political support behind traditional, heterosexual marriage, and yet not be bigoted.”³ That’s profound. Brandon’s punch line, as a leftie is: “Why is our go-to political strategy for beating our opponents to silence them?” It’s a great question, and one that I don’t expect the political left to want to answer.

Sources

1 - http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/19/gay-cnn-anchor-defends-duck-dynasty-star-i-dont-think-he-should-be-fired/#ixzz2o2Klxw8r

2 - http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/12/19/Openly-Gay-Camille-Paglia-Anti-Duck-Dynasty-Crusade-Utterly-Fascist-and-Utterly-Stalinist-PC-Culture

3 - http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/19/the-duck-dynasty-fiasco-says-more-about-our-bigotry-than-phils/#ixzz2o2OK2T9z

4 - https://twitter.com/heytammybruce/status/413490573106892800

Why the Phil Robertson Incident is Important

Some thoughts on the Great Duck Hunt of 2013:

            First, I’d like to start off by saying that the remarks made by this man are disgusting, heinous, and intolerant. No mere apology will suffice as his statement reveals that he believes a large portion of this country to be evil, deficient, inferior, and it leaves little doubt that he wants to tolerate them, work with them, or ever validate their point of view. It shows his self-serving arrogance, and his prejudiced view of those who think and believe differently than he does. It is my firm belief that he should retire to private life where his beliefs cannot cause further damage. This man, John Podesta should step down, and leave his position of leadership. Podesta is an advisor for Mr. Obama, and thus can directly impact the country. That’s a much bigger story than Phil Robertson.

            Secondly, the United States government abandoned this citizen in his hour of need. All he was guilty of was expressing views that weren’t popular. In their efforts to negotiate a deal, and make peace the US left their own citizen in prison and never lifted a finger to help this peaceful man whose daily existence is one of fear, torture, and constant threat of death. It’s a shame John Kerry was too busy reveling in the moment of now-worthless negotiations to help an American Citizen who is the victim of multiple human rights violations. This imprisoned American citizen is Saeed Adedini, a victim of Iran’s human rights policy and American bureaucratic ineptitude. Saeed, along with Ambassador Stevens, and a good number of other dead, injured, and forgotten are the living (or dead) proof of an incompetent foreign policy strategy. He too is a much bigger story than Phil Robertson. But onward. You came here for ducks and I won’t disappoint you.

            What Phil expressed was his personal belief in a GQ interview and following this the GLAAD organization pressured the A&E channel to “do something” about Phil’s remarks. More or less, they wanted Robertson punished for his statement—they wanted him punished for speaking about his beliefs. Unfortunately, A&E did just that. What they had not anticipated was the criticism, backlash, and the probable loss of a lucrative show from their network. If you think Phil Robertson suffered something for his freedom of speech, you should calculate the financial impact A&E is suffering for their own freedom to fire him—it’s probably significant.

             There is one simple fact that illustrates this is more about freedom of speech and then it is about homosexuality. That fact is that no less then three different and gay authors and thinkers have sided with the idea of keeping Phil Robertson on the air, and supported his right to express himself without fear of repercussions. Camille Paglia a feminist lesbian author and critic, Don Lemon, a gay CNN anchor, and Brandon Ambrosino, a gay writer for Time magazine online have all voiced their opinions on the matter. While they don’t appreciate his remarks each of these three people understands something the rest of the frenzied world does not: Phil Robertson’s views are protected just as much as their own views are protected. Tammy Bruce, the former head of the feminist organization NOW, and self-described lesbian said, “The gay civil rights effort was about making sure we weren't punished for being who we are. Time the left applies that same value to others.” Our beliefs define who we are—should people be punished for that? Doesn’t this principle go both ways then? In other words isn’t being fired for being pro-gay the same thing as being fired for not being pro-gay?

            This is why the Phil Robertson issue really applies to everyone. Everyone enjoys freedom of expression; that they can say things, have unique thoughts and embrace beliefs without the fear of being oppressed or targeted.

“Well I don’t watch Duck Dynasty, I’m not gay, and I don’t care.” You should. You have beliefs and opinions: do you like the idea of being targeted for having them?

            This entire issue boils down to the idea of precedent. Phil Robertson’s private beliefs cost him one of his jobs. What A&E has done is set a precedent and that precedent is this: your irrelevant private beliefs can get you fired. Let’s personalize that idea. What if your boss looked at your Facebook “About” page and summarily fired you for your “Like” of some page? What if you were fired for liking the works of Karl Marx? Or Ayn Rand? What if your boss found out you voted Democrat, or registered Libertarian and fired you? What if your boss found out you were pro-Israel and fired you? What if your boss found out that you gave money to a certain organization, a certain political figure, or a certain charity, and fired you? Then what? Do you still have “freedom of expression”? When you have something to fear for your stance or beliefs are you really free? It certainly doesn’t sound like it. While there may not be the proverbial “duck-tape over the mouth” there certainly is the proverbial “gun to the head.”

This is what even these gay writers understand—especially Camille Paglia, because she’s been on the wrong side of “the line”. Setting this precedent means that in the right situation someone could be targeted, harassed, or pressured because of what they believe. It’s easy to draw a line, and declare that Phil Robertson was on the wrong side of it. But aren’t “line drawers” always on the safe side of the lines they draw? Drawing lines is all well and good, but those lines can be moved…and sooner or later you find yourself on the wrong side of a line. It’s easy to ignore injustice if you’re on the safe side of the line. But what if you are not? (Extra credit: read Martin Niemöller’s famous statement on the subject).

This is why I wouldn’t vote to outlaw homosexuality, socialism, etc, if given the choice—because it sets a precedent that allows us to outlaw beliefs. Outlawing beliefs sounds great if you are thinking about your political enemies, but it sounds awful when the law gets around to one’s own beliefs. That Duck Dynasty is probably over doesn’t bother me…I never watched it. What does bother me is that our culture is setting a new norm: being yourself can cost you something, stating your views, or even having certain views can make you a target for more than just disagreement. It can make you a target for negative action because you are “different”. Isn’t that what intolerance is anyways? And isn’t it ironic that GLAAD stands behind that norm?

The Relationship Between Secularism and Human Rights: Solid Lineage or Frayed Thread?

by Andrew M.

            From the beginning of human history, the rights of human beings have often lacked a voice. Early ideas, such as the Cyrus Cylinder, were concepts in their infancy and were thus limited in scope and development. It is in the last century that human rights have found a voice, acceptance, codification, and concern amongst the nations of the world (Donnelly 496).

            As human rights have become more broadly accepted they have also been more broadly discussed. One such discussion revolves around the relationship between secularism and human rights. Some argue the idea that human rights (and thus also the lack of human rights abuse) stem from creating secular governments, free from religious interference and ideologies (Centre for Secular Space). However, this viewpoint assumes that a government of a secular nature is friendlier to human rights, and more over that there is in fact a positive correlation between secularism and human rights. The question then arises if such assumptions hold up to the test of reality. Given a survey of countries, governments, and human rights offenders from recent history, it quickly becomes clear that such a link is, at best, difficult to establish.

            For the sake of clarity, it must be noted that “human rights” in this paper refers to rights defined and recognized in the International Bill of Human Rights. This list is not universal by any means, but in the interests of brevity and a definitive argument it is a reasonable starting point for a discussion on human rights.
            Likewise, the term “secularism” also demands definition. The Centre for Secular Space argues that secularism or more specifically “secular space” is defined as, “a separation between religion and the state” (Centre for Secular Space). Their argument revolves around the idea that the state must not be controlled by religious influences. While this can lead to further debate about the nature of influence and religion, for the purposes of this paper the definition of secularism is thus: a government, theory, or figure known to be free from religious influence, that is, an entity removed from the impacts of religion. Such a definition is somewhat of a broad brush to paint with, but further detail would demand exhaustive research and detailed reckoning with all aspects of what may be implied by the term, “secularist”.

            First, it must be determined what a few of the key documents are in the earliest history of human rights, and if those documents are in fact secular documents. United for Human Rights (UHR) NGO, lists the Cyrus Cylinder, the Magna Carta, and the US Bill of Rights as foundational to modern human rights (“History…” 1). While this is not a complete and universal list, it does represent a significant portion of the foundations for modern human rights. This is notable because each of these sources is by no means purely secular. The Cyrus Cylinder originated from King Cyrus the Great in ancient Babylon. The Cylinder is a record of Cyrus’ decrees for religious and racial rights and equality, and thus one of the earliest records of codified human rights law (“History…” 1). Cyrus himself was known to be quite tolerant of other religions (“The Cyrus Cylinder”) and even encouraged the rebuilding of the Jewish temple and religious system (ibid). While it may be fruitless to argue which religion Cyrus practiced (Briant 94), it is well known that Babylon itself was highly religious society and cultural center. This makes the argument for Cyrus and his Cylinder as purely secular entities very difficult at best.

            The Magna Carta is another example of early rights documentation. King John enacted (albeit briefly) the document nearly 800 years ago, which established rights and limits between John and some of his subjects (Hirsch). In 2010 the UK Minister for State of Justice, Lord McNally referred to the Magna Carta as the “most influential secular document” in the world (Hirsch). But the language of the document itself, as well as those present at the signing creates doubt regarding the extent of its secularist nature. Those present included not only King John, but also a list of bishops, archbishops, and “reverend fathers” (“Treasures…"). At the very least, the company of the creators and signers was anything but purely secular. Furthermore the language includes phrases such as, “John, by the grace of God, King of England . . . know that before God . . . to the honour of God . . . the exaltation of the holy Church”, as well as additional language about the freedom of the church (“Treasures…”). Whether or not John was a highly religious man is somewhat irrelevant. What is relevant is that the religious authority of the day had influence in politics and the creation of the document, and the language of the Magna Carta reflects this. These origins strongly imply religious influence, and yet the document would go on to be highly regarded in the eyes of human rights history.

            Likewise, the Bill of Rights was not constructed in a purely secularist vacuum either. James Madison and George Mason authored the document, and while the details of their religious views may not be fully known, what is known leaves much to be desired for the secularist argument. Madison is thought to have believed in deism, and author James Brieg says that Madison, “defended belief in God as a moral necessity to man” (Brieg). George Mason, was also a religious man, who wrote that, “Duty which we owe to our divine and omnipotent Creator . . . And that it is the mutual Duty of all, to practice Christian forbearance, Love and Charity towards Each other” (Dreisbach). As it is, both men held their belief in God as a serious conviction. It is reasonable to assume that these beliefs were of some influence as they crafted the Bill of Rights (a codified law of human rights), and it would be very difficult to prove otherwise.

            The presence and likely influence of religious beliefs in the creation of each of these documents or belief systems is problematic to wholly disprove. Each of these influential sources shows evidence of religious influence and a lack of evidence for a secularist argument. They contain either religious language, or was written by such a person or in such a way that it is impossible to purge religious influence from them. Thus, from a beginning it is impossible to declare human rights as an entirely secularist entity. Modern human rights as seen by the United Nations and Declaration of Human Rights may be somewhat secularist in nature, but the origins of such concepts are far less one-sided.

            This is an important theme as the issue of human rights violations and abuses are also considered in light of secularism. One the one hand, religions have historically been notorious for their abuse of those who did not join their cause, and this is seen even in modern human rights history. The 2013 U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) report names the top 15 worst human rights offending countries—ten of which are governed by Islamic totalitarian regimes (Blankely). While the report does focus on religious freedom, it is important to note that the top 15 countries on the report are regarded as Tier 1 countries, that is that they routinely engage in acts that violate basic human rights such as “torture, prolonged detention without charges, [and] disappearances” to name a few (Liben 3). The report also suggests that an additional number of countries be added to the Tier 1 list, as “CPCs” or “countries of particular concern” (ibid). The majority of these countries are also Islamic totalitarian regimes. Issues such as women’s rights, and the rights of religious, ethnic, or sexual minorities are often endangered at best, and all-out persecuted at worst.  Additionally other historical events such as the Crusades have brought wholesale torture, threats, and death to the general populace in the name of religion. The history of religion reveals that some religious movements have thoroughly trampled on human rights.

            On the other hand, however, this is not a wholesale endorsement of the secularist viewpoint. The Centre for Secular Space argues that, “human rights cannot thrive in an atmosphere of religious intimidation” (“Frequently…), and argues also that the State should not have abusive power over religious institutions (ibid). Yet it is clear from a survey of history that human rights have been abused in a secularist vacuum—and perhaps worse than their religious counterparts. University of Hawaii Professor R.J. Rummel conducted research suggesting that Soviet Russia saw the death of 61 million people during its tenure as communist regime (Rummel). The official stance of the Soviet government was decidedly secularist: atheism was the only acceptable belief for citizens (Kowalewski). Many of those killed, tortured, or oppressed were so abused because of their own religious beliefs by a secularist authoritarian government. Likewise, many of the top countries of concern for human rights abuses are also secularist regimes: China, Burma, Laos, Cuba, North Korea, Belarus, Equatorial Guinea and so on (Liben 3,4). In these countries religion is not the aggressor—secularist regimes are. Some are merely oppressive, others are vehemently anti-religious in nature, such as North Korea which is arguably one of the most repressive regimes of the modern world. As the CSS argues, human rights cannot thrive under religious intimidation. But neither do they flourish de facto under secular rule, and the secularist leadership of Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot made this point with tens of millions of secular state murders (Rummel).

            Each of these factors reveals a few simple truths. First, secularism has no corner on the market of the creation of human rights. Arguably the involvement, and codification of human rights at the UN is somewhat secularist, but by no means is secularism the overwhelming force behind the initial concepts of human rights. Many of the concepts were espoused or theorized by religiously practicing peoples, and possibly with religious basis or intent. Separating the religion from these theoreticians is a challenge grossly lacking in hard evidence, and instead, evidence may actually suggest the opposite (Freeman 399).

            Secondly, while secularism has no monopoly on the origins of human rights, neither has religion a monopoly on the abuse of human rights. While radical Islam is the most current and oppressive religious factor regarding human rights there are other oppressive forces in the world. There are multiple countries guilty of egregious crimes against humanity not in the name of religious beliefs, but in the name of secular control. It could be argued that secularist religiophobia has proven every bit as deadly as religion itself.

            From this then there is an answer for the correlation between human rights and secularism: it is a theory stretched thin by the lattice of history. Human rights concepts and milestones such as the Cyrus Cylinder, Magna Carta, and Bill of Rights have been crafted in something less than a secularist vacuum. Yet human rights have been violated on the steps of cathedrals and in atheists’ gulags, showing that the case for pointing fingers at one side or the other is a difficult one to make at best. Religions and the non-religious have oppressed themselves and each other in every possible permutation throughout human history. In the secularist union of the United Nations human rights has found a stage by which to make a plea for reasonable treatment for people around the world. This setting modern era is fertile soil for the ideas of human rights to be promoted abroad. This is the best reasonable correlation; even so the secularism of the U.N. may not be the cause of such fertile soil, but merely a bystander in the right place at the right time.

Works Cited

Blankley, Bethany. "Report: Two-Thirds of 'Worst Violators of Religious Freedom' Are Muslim Countries." CPWorld. Christian Post, 07 May 2013. Web. 24 Nov. 2013. <http://www.christianpost.com/news/report-two-thirds-of-worst-violators-of-religious-freedom-are-muslim-countries-95381/>.

Briant, Pierre, and Peter Daniels. From Cyrus to Alexander: History of the Persian Empire. N.p.: Eisenbrauns, n.d. Google Books. Google. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. <http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lxQ9W6F1oSYC>.

Brieg, James. "History.org: The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation's Official History and Citizenship Website." Deism : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History & Citizenship Site. History.org / Colonial Williamsburg, Apr.-May 2009. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. <http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring09/deism.cfm>.

"The Cyrus Cylinder and Ancient Persia: A New Beginning." The Cyrus Cylinder and Ancient Persia: A New Beginning | Exhibitions | Freer and Sackler Galleries. Smithsonian Institution, 09 Mar. 2013. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. <http://www.asia.si.edu/exhibitions/current/cyrus-cylinder.asp>.

Donnelly, Jack. "Human Rights." The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. By John Baylis, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens. New York: Oxford UP, 2011. N. pag. Print.

Dreisbach, Daniel L. "GEORGE MASON: LIFE & TIMES ESSAYS." GEORGE MASON: LIFE & TIMES ESSAYS. GunstonHall.org, 1997. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. <http://www.gunstonhall.org/georgemason/essays/dreisbach_essay.html>.

Freeman, Michael. "Project MUSE - The Problem of Secularism in Human Rights Theory." Project MUSE - The Problem of Secularism in Human Rights Theory. Human Rights Watch, 2004. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. <http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/human_rights_quarterly/v026/26.2freeman.html>.

"Frequently Asked Questions." Centre for Secular Space. Centre for Secular Space, 2013. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. <http://www.centreforsecularspace.org/about-us/faqs/>.

Hirsch, Afua. "Magna Carta: Honouring the World's 'most Influential Secular Document'" The Guardian. The Guardian, 12 Nov. 2010. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. <http://www.theguardian.com/law/afua-hirsch-law-blog/2010/nov/12/magna-carta-800>.

"History of Natural Law & Basic Freedoms, Cyrus the Great: United for Human Rights." History of Natural Law & Basic Freedoms, Cyrus the Great: United for Human Rights. United for Human Rights, 2012. Web. 24 Nov. 2013. <http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/brief-history/cyrus-cylinder.html>.

Kowalewski, David. "Protest for Religious Rights in the USSR: Characteristics and Consequences." JSTOR. N.p., Oct. 1980. Web. 26 Nov. 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/128810?uid=3739552>.

Liben, Paul. Annual Report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Rep. United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, Apr. 2013. Web. 23 Nov. 2013.

Rummel, R. J. "How Many Did Communist Regimes Murder?" Www.hawaii.edu. University of Hawaii, 1993. Web. 23 Nov. 2013. <http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM>.

"Treasures in Full: Magna Carta." Treasures in Full: Magna Carta. British Library, n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. <http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/translation/mc_trans.html>.

Reasoning

We told kids they came from animals

And then watched in shock

As the stronger slew the weak in bestial violence

We told a God of love, morals and reason

To get the hell out

And then we watched befuddled as hell took over

We raged against the sword

Because we would rather point the finger

Than look in the mirror at the evil

Holding the sword to our own throats

Write-in Throw Outs: A Conservative Christian Perspective of Third Party Votes

Often when I write, I write with a political perspective and I leave the spiritual out of it. There are a variety of reasons for this, but this is one time I’m making an exception to the rule.
    There are more than a few Christians making the argument for a third-party or write-in vote. Usually this is morally justified as being the best option and not voting for someone who they believe to be morally inferior—or by avoiding the “lesser of two evils” situation. While this sounds fine there’s a few truths that aren’t generally taken into account.
    First, we’re electing a president not a pastor as one minister put it. The leader we are electing is a secular, governmental, leader. For reasons not discussed here, God consistently differentiates between spiritual and governmental authority. (See also Uzziah).
    Additionally, Christians talk a lot about stewardship. The idea of stewardship is that one is responsible to God for the things one can control. The truth is that electing a write-in candidate or a third party candidate is not within the control of the believer. Nearly any traditional Christian would argue that Barack Obama has been a model of bad stewardship on nearly every front. The question is whether said Christians will exercise their own stewardship to oust a bad leader when God gives them the option. I argue they should.
    Given that Christians are typically more conservative, the argument is easily made that a third-party write in does not deny Barack Obama support—rather it denies him opposition. The conservative Christian vote was never for Obama, but it could be against him. Voting third party takes away that opposition, thus a conservative or libertarian write-in vote helps Barack Obama, the epitome of the very mindset conservatives and libertarians despise. Shouldn’t Christians instead oppose a leader with godless and bad stewardship habits when God gives them the legal authority to do so? Again, I argue they should.
    “Well I don’t like Mitt Romney, and I don’t like Barack either. I’m voting 3rd party to voice my discontent!” This is no doubt a tempting route for many. But the truth is that such a vote is, a) a complaint (see Phi 2:14), and b) a vote that doesn’t change anything. Christians are called to be salt and light, that is to stand against darkness and corruption. The corruption in the current administration is easily demonstrable—look no further than Libya, Solyndra, or another 50 companies that were invested in because they were pals to the president—not because they were an honest deal for American taxpayers. Again, the question is to stand against Obama's corruption or not.
    “I don’t like voting for the lesser of two evils!”
This fallacy is predicated on the assumption that the desired candidate (third party/write in) isn’t evil, when in fact, they are. Ron Paul is an evil man. So is Gary Johnson. So are Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. They’re all men. To be evil is their nature aside from grace. The truth is there is no perfect candidate and to get caught up in this trap is to deny that all men are evil. No matter who runs, the choice between two humans will always come down to the lesser of two evils.
    As far as the "cause" is concerned, the libertarian cause isn’t completely justifiable biblically, and neither is the GOP cause. Their particular blindness is to suggest that America can be restored to its early 1800s greatness. But this simply isn't possible. America is a different country demographically. American is also a different country governmentally. Ronald Reagan said that government never voluntarily reduces itself. It simply grows till, like a morbidly obese person, it collapses under its own weight and ceases to move. The simple ingredients for a 1776 America are long gone. The Americans of the past wanted to build their lives from the ground up. Today, they want their lives subsidized from the top down.
    The time has come to face the facts: we’re not going back. Simply put, we can’t go back. Mitt Romney isn’t ideal, and he’s not perfect. But he isn’t Barack Obama, and he is the only alternative at this point. Talk about Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, or whichever candidate all you wish but realize this: God has let only these two choices fall before us. The only question to answer is “will you stand against the corruption of Barack Obama?” If not, please don’t complain about the next four years.
    (Post-Note: The other issue with the grand “Restoration of America” is that it is ultimately is blind to the issue of Biblical prophecy. The words, “In the last days…” are rarely if ever followed by a description of humans getting more godly. The last days are not described as a time when people return to sanity and reason—rather it is a time when they depart from both. The grandiose “Restoration of America” from a libertarian standpoint is not generally preceded by the idea of revival. But unless hearts change the nation will not change. But the Bible is clear that the last days are filled with cold hearts. Cold hearts will not return to 1776, nor anytime near it. Only hearts aflame follow in the footsteps of Jonathan Edwards, Jefferson, Washington, Paine, and all the other great americans we admire. Those hearts are dying off. The good news is that they are being collected, and kept, for the Day when all things are set right. Thus we set no hope in Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson. We set hope in Christ alone, for that Day alone.)

Write it in and throw it out: Third Party Futility

-->

            As we’re down to two candidates many people aren’t happy about their two choices. Many on the right side of the aisle are writing in votes for candidates like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. They claim it’s their right, and it is. However, they usually justify it with a statement such as, “I’m voting with my conscience and with my morals. I just can’t justify voting for Mitt Romney.” But there’s another factor to consider, and possibly an untended outcome to boot.

            Any self-respecting libertarian or conservative-minded independent despises Barack Obama. Libertarians are about less government, and less heavy-authority from DC. Barack is the epitome of both—a power-wielding figure with more executive orders than the last dozen or more presidents combined. Grab any 10 people from the right side of the spectrum and while they may disagree on a plethora of issues, the one they would all unite on is this: Obama is a bad president. And all would agree that he’s got to go.

            The truth is though that when a third-party candidate gets the vote it doesn’t further the cause of firing Barack Obama. Consider this: if you are a Johnson/Paul/other fan and/or voter, you were never in the 45-49% that will almost certainly vote for Barack Obama. Obama never had your vote, and he never will – you never counted as a possibility for him. You can’t take away from him that which he never had. Your vote, and the vote of those like you never counted towards Barack’s hope of reelection. A far more conservative candidate had your vote from the word go. Which candidate is another story, but you are in the pool of voters who are right-of-center—a pool that desperate wants to stop Barack Obama.

            But a write in/third party vote takes you out of that same pool. If 52% of the nation is willing to vote GOP/right wing/conservative, any vote for a third party is to remove oneself from that 52%. In other words, you remove your support from stopping Barack Obama at a second term. You remove yourself from the pool of voters that want to stop his agenda. Your vote becomes useless, and worthless in a practical sense. Sitting out based on conscience only serves to further the agenda of the mindset you find most offensive. It’s a statement falling on deaf ears. It is to refuse to fight against the thing your conscience hates most. Refusing to fight might as well be a nod of silent assent.

            “But Romney is just Bush III!” No, no he’s not. That’s a sweeping generalization—a logical fallacy. Mitt Romney is a very different man, from a very different background. Making the case that Romney = Obama is equally an argument from ignorance. It misses the true nature of who Obama is, what he’s done, and what he will do during a second term.

            The truth is that Romney is not The Great Fixxer—he’s more like the Great Delayer of Trouble. To my libertarian friends I say this: there is no going back. America is demographically different than it was in 1776. America is governmentally different than it was in 1776. We are not the same nation. Our borders, language, and culture are not what they were—even 65 years ago much less 200 years ago. Ronald Reagan and the Second Law of Thermodynamics essentially tell us the same thing: governmental mess cannot be unmade. The government simply cannot and will not be reformed to those ancient (and appropriate) levels. But taking a stand for nothing is not the answer. Voting third party is to lodge a complaint against Mitt Romney, but then to do nothing about it. It’s a complaint that offers no answers, and no solutions. Standing with Gary Johnson or Ron Paul is not standing against Barack Obama—it’s standing against Mitt Romney. Standing against Mitt Romney is standing for the incumbent President. You aren’t denying Obama support—you are denying him opposition.

Is that really what your conscience wants?

Much to Gain, Little to Lose: Debate Three

            Mitt Romney and Barakc Obama square off for the third time on Monday night. Sorry Monday Night Football, but there’s a bigger fight in town. The debate will air live from Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida and focus solely on foreign policy. Truth is, this one is a boon to Mitt Romney.

            The last three debates have all been interesting. This one should be no different. Mitt Romney has a golden opportunity to hammer the President on this subject, and take little damage himself. Barack Obama bungled the Arab Spring, Egypt, and now Libya. The beauty of the situation for Mitt is that he can play offense all evening long. He can attack Barack on Iran, Afghanistan, Benghazi and so on. Mitt’s offensive attacks have the potential to make Monday a devastating evening for Barack Obama’s polls numbers, which are sinking daily.
            The dirty little secret here is of course that Barack doesn’t have many offensive options. In fact, he’s only got one: Mitt Romney’s lack of foreign policy experience. The parry to this attack is simple: “Neither did you Mr. President, and you’ve made a mess. Who are you to tell the American People that I’ll be worse?” Obama can and will at least try to attack Mitt Romney, but the truth is that Mitt has next to nothing to defend—and he’s got lots of attack options. It wasn’t Mitt that blew the last 4 years of foreign policy—it was Barack Obama. Mitt doesn’t need to give an account for anything. Barack needs to give an account for everything.

            In short, this debate it Mitt’s to lose. He stumbled a little last debate on Libya, but with some good prep time and newly minted attacks he could leave the viewers marveling at the mistakes Obama has made. Mitt needs to own the counter attacks, destroy excuses, and use the verifiable truth. He also needs to be prepared to push back at the moderator should it come down to it. For Mitt, the facts and data that have been uncovered since September 11 are all the ammo he needs. If he blows this, he’ll have no one to blame but himself. If he wins it handily Barack Obama better hope for a miracle. He’ll certainly need it.