image courtesy of http://gal.darkervision.com

Pope Benedict XV recently approved the use of condoms in cases where their primary purpose is to decrease the risk of AIDS. This is an unusual relaxation of the absolute ban on contraceptives that the Catholic Church has had for decades. Perhaps the Pope is starting to realize that condoms can prove useful, if not necessarily for the right reasons. In the face of this theological dilemma it may be fruitful to ask: what would Jesus say about the matter?

The Pope’s decision is based on preventing partners from transmitting AIDS, most notably in places like Africa, where the disease is a prevalent problem. He also said that their use may be justified in specific cases, such as preventing infection from male prostitutes.i The Vatican has to be careful with the message they are sending with this new policy. In order to be consistent with their other prescriptions, they must continue to stress abstinence as the most important tool in combating issues of this nature. The pope even acknowledged this when he said that condoms are not a “real or moral solution” for combating AIDS.

From a biblical perspective, one prevailing stance is that contraceptives can be used as long as they are for the right reasons. Though it can be hard to answer “What would Jesus do?” for modern situations, a holistic approach to an issue can be based on the bible. There are no conclusive verses in the bible that specifically ban the use of contraceptives. That being said, a closer look reveals that humans are instructed in Genesis 1:28 to be “fruitful and multiply.” Also, Psalm 124:3-5 is one of many verses that speak of children as a blessing from God: “Children are a heritage from the Lord, offspring a reward from him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are children born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them.” These verses show how child bearing is something to be used to honor God.

Since there are no specific verses condemning the use of contraceptives, the aforementioned verses can be seen as a limiting factor on contraceptive use. People using contraceptives should always use them with the intent of honoring God, and his gift of children. People who feel they are not ready to take care of a family, or need to focus on other aspects of life may choose to use contraception. For situations like these, it would seem Jesus would deem it acceptable. However, when contraceptives are used in a selfish manner, such as avoiding the consequences of pregnancy in order to have promiscuous sex, it can be seen as an inappropriate usage. In other words, the bible offers no definitive answer on the subject of contraception, leaving room for interpretation.

Coming back to the Pope’s reasoning: he was correct in allowing contraceptive use for partners who are trying to stop the spread of diseases such as AIDS. It is an unselfish method of curbing the disease’s effects. Outside of marriage however, the Pope should stick to a stance of abstinence only, since that is the biblical teaching on premarital sex. The Pope’s actions seem like a first step for allowing some use of contraceptives but not all of the reasoning seems valid in light of what Jesus would do. In addition to that, rules on contraceptives from the Vatican still remain unnecessarily inflexible because there are people who do use them with good intentions.

Though it still remains hard to say exactly “what Jesus would do,” the Pope is making progress on contraceptive policy for stopping AIDS, as long as it places abstinence first. There are also strong social conservative arguments for positive uses of contraception that the Pope has yet to acknowledge. Regardless, the Pope is heading in the right direction– though he must be careful along the way.

References

i Wynne-Jones, Jonathan. “Pope approves use of condoms in fight against Aids.” The Telegraph, 20 November 2010. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

The hot-button issue of illegal immigration has bubbled to the top once again over the summer. The SB1070 law from Arizona has sparked politicians into taking another stab at the immigration problem. But what’s it going to take for true immigration reform this time around?

States like Arizona have it the hardest being on the border when it comes to illegal immigration. The flow of illegal immigrants contributes to drug and violence related crime, and also puts stress on services such as hospitals and the public school system. They are a burden on the taxpayers and they can take away jobs from citizens. The people in Arizona are desperate for solutions to the immigration problem, especially with the murder of Arizona rancher Robert Krentz by a suspected Mexican drug trafficker.

With the federal government lacking solutions that get to the heart of the problem, Arizona lawmakers took the matter into their own hands. The now infamous Arizona law SB1070 was passed in response, including key provisions such as making illegal immigration a state crime and allowing officers to check immigration status. The officers would only be able to check the status during a lawful stop for another offense. Once officers make the stop, they must additionally have reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally. Whether the law would actually be effective is up for debate, especially since the aforementioned provisions were blocked by a federal judge for now.

President Obama and the Justice department filed this lawsuit with Arizona based on the potential of racial discrimination and overstepping the already existing federal law. This is politics at its finest however, because the law specifically bans racial profiling and compliments the existing federal law (it is less strict in fact). It is merely a maneuver to please the constituents who are opposed to enforcing the laws.

It would seem the real reason for attacking Arizona policy is that Obama and many Democrats want comprehensive immigration reform first. Arizona senator Jon Kyl heard it first hand when he spoke with the president on the issue. Obama said if the borders were secured, there would be no reason for Republicans to support comprehensive immigration reform. The “comprehensive” policy would most likely involve giving amnesty to the illegal immigrants already here. In other words, they want to make it easier to become a citizen, and then maybe talk about enforcing the border as an afterthought. That’s already been tried with the amnesty legislation of 1986. It failed because it didn’t attack the heart of the problem – unsecure borders.

If true immigration reform is to happen, it must be looked at as an issue of safety before all else. With the little enforcement we have on the borders, it creates an incentive for criminals and terrorists to access our country. It is a huge source for the transport of illegal drugs as well. If politicians truly care about homeland security, they will do everything to close off our border. People do not like the extra tax burden illegal immigrants place, but it is primarily a problem of protecting Americans.
Politicians who have emphasized securing the border are already starting to see the benefit. Jan Brewer, the governor of Arizona, took a stand for securing the borders and signed the SB 1070 law. Since then, she has gained favor with Arizonans and easily won her primary election. John McCain also handily won his primary after a strong shift to the right on immigration policy. In the polls, Arizonans supported the law with over 60%, and a majority of Americans supported it as well. It is an issue that Americans are fed up with and they want to see action. Republicans might be divided on ways to implement immigration reform, but they all need to agree on securing the borders first and foremost. It is the desire of the people, and Republicans would be wise to continue the push.

To their credit, President Obama and congress have been taking action on the issue. Arizona is now starting to receive their share of 500 of 1,200 National Guard troops ordered by Obama to patrol the southern border. Just recently, Obama signed an immigration spending bill with bipartisan support. The measure will pay for 1500 more border agents among other security provisions. Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain continue to fight for the border saying that the new law doesn’t do as much as it should. It is a step in the right direction, but there is still much to be done before stopping the flow of illegal immigration.

In the meantime, states should continue to pass legislation to secure their borders. It reflects the desire of the people and it sends a message to Washington to act. Immigration advocates will still be pushing for easier access to America, but conservatives should stay on track by implementing practical reforms such as troop deployment, surveillance, and physical walls. Once we can prevent illegal immigrants from coming across the borders, the rest will fall into place. With the source of the problem cut off, congress can take a fresh look at reforming immigration policy for those who are already here. Who knows, Republicans might even be open to talk about streamlining access to America.

I believe in America. America is the leader of the free world, the strongest military power, and a beacon of freedom for the world. America is great, and I’m not afraid to admit it.

There is no need to apologize for our greatness. We set the bar high to be an example for other nations to follow. We are a protector of world order, and we value freedom above all else. America strives to do what is right.

America makes mistakes, and we are certainly not perfect. There are always things to work on, and challenges to overcome. But I still have pride in my country. I have confidence that we will succeed.

I find that people tend to lack spirit and patriotism for their country. They get bogged down in our problems, and fail to see the beauty of America. It’s all a state of mind. Take pride in your country! America is great only because of the people who live here — they strive for excellence and believe in their nation.

America is first in my mind. I am so proud to be a citizen of the greatest nation in the world. It is such a blessing to call it my home and I will never deny the greatness of the people that live here. Don’t be afraid to remember our heritage– the people who have worked before us to create such a great nation. Remember the founders and the principles they enacted. Remember the immigrants who built this nation from the ground up. Remember the soldiers that gave you freedom. But most of all, believe in excellence. Believe in America.

Social conservatism is ingrained in the GOP and is key to its existence and success. Take these three examples:

Abortion: Standing up for the right of unborn children is the only natural stance for the Republican platform. They are the ultimate defenders of life. Were Republicans not the party who gave life to slaves? Republicans defend citizens from the oppression of government and strive to make sure they can lead a life full of freedom. To deny support to babies in the womb would be to deny the very foundation of the party.  These fetuses have the right to live, and the government should not be able to prevent that.

Family values: The Republicans support the strong, time tested, family structure in American life and they should continue to do so. A strong family and marriage decreases government reliance, and increases overall prosperity. Much of today’s poverty (and the huge welfare spending) is a result of out-of-wedlock births, and divorced parents. The traditional family system has been the key to success in America, and if Republicans are true to their roots, they will not stand idle as our families slowly degrade. And this goes for “Gay marriage” as well. Gay families and homosexual partners who attempt to adopt children are attempt to destroy traditional family structures which have been the backbone of our society. Republicans cannot support this movement.

Rights from a creator: Many conservatives know that their rights do not come from the government, they come from a creator. An entity outside of the government. They hold that government is only there to protect these rights. They have ultimate respect for a small government. They don’t rely on government for their lives, they rely on God. Republicans are the party of freedom and small government– more personal control and responsibility.  These two philosophies go hand in hand, and the Republicans should welcome Christians and other religious citizens. Republicans know that we are “one nation, under God.”

For these reasons and more, Republicans need to hold social conservatism dearly. It makes them stand out from the other parties and is consistent with core conservatism. Put simply– a Republican party without social conservatism is no Republican party at all.

Here is an interesting article from Fox News that details a poll about what Americas are fed up with.

Not surprisingly, 81% Americans are tired of the growing federal debt. 73% claim “they are fed up with Uncle Sam’s spending spree.” And on a side note, 53% of Americans are sick of “people having loud cell phone conversations.”

It’s clear that Americans in general are not happy with what’s going on in Washington. It doesn’t matter if you are a Republican or Democrat. What needs to change at the capital? I want to know what you think– leave some comments.

After hearing Newt Gingrich speak at CPAC, it feels evident that the Republicans have the opportunity to take back the House and Senate, much like in 1994. But they need a plan, and a revamp of the original Contract for America would do just the trick.

Gingrich stressed common sense. “2 + 2 = 4″ was his motto. It’s simple, but it’s the truth. No more spending money that we don’t have. No more bills that increase the deficit. People from both parties are fed up with the runaway spending in Washington, and if Republicans take advantage of that sentiment, they can win big. Republicans should lay down a specific plan outlining all the common sense provisions they intend to take action on if they take back congress. It should also include promises for integrity and transparency. America truly is a center-right country, and currently, Washington is on the left.

One doesn’t need to be interested in politics to know that spending is out of control. A common theme to reduce government spending could unite most of the country. It’s time for conservative republicans to take a fiscal stand for what they believe in. The only question left to ask is: Who’s going to lead the charge?

CPAC 2010 had around 10,000 registrants– more than ever before. Glenn Beck was the keynote speaker and he was greatly welcomed into an enormous, packed ballroom. Even I had to view from an overflow ballroom, but that didn’t detract from a phenomenal speech. We laughed. We we were touched. It called us to action. Glenn Beck said what needed to be said.

You can watch Glenn Beck’s speech here. It’s just under an hour (start at the 5:oo mark). I encourage you to skip one TV show and watch this speech.

Beck told us about the “cancer” of Progressivism– now under the term “liberalism”– and how it is slowly destroying our country. He explained how in the late 1920′s, low taxes and high spending helped lead to the Great Depression. He mentioned how we need to turn back to personal responsibility and learn from our failures because some of the best successes come from the of greatest of failures. He claimed that in America, we don’t need big government, because we work hard to succeed and we are naturally generous to one another.

Beck stressed that we are in a tough place right now, but we can do something about it: “stand for the right things. Our future is not cast in stone. It does not have to be this way. It does not have to be that the greatest American generation is behind us. It does not have to be that our children will have a lower standing of living. It will be that way if we choose to believe that. I choose not to believe that!”

Once again the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has discriminated against a religious group. In Christian Law Society v. Martinez, the court upheld the actions of the Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. The law school denied to officially recognize a student group because they did not follow the college’s non-discrimination policy. The group in question is the Christian Law Society (CLS) on the grounds that they refuse to allow non-Christians to become voting members or be involved in club leadership. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is helping to defend the CLS. You can read their account here.

This is clearly undermining the rights of religious groups in schools. Its astonishing how cases like this continually make it past the the higher courts. A Christian law group is not going to be able to fulfill their mission if they are forced to let people be involved who don’t share their vision. What if Campus Crusade for Christ couldn’t deny leadership positions based on religious qualification? It just doesn’t make sense.

Courts like the 9th circuit continually try to introduce small concepts like this, with hopes that they will turn into bigger movements. This is a case that must be reversed to show that we value the rights of religious groups on campuses everywhere.  Thankfully, the ACLJ is currently trying to convince the Supreme Court to overturn this decision. It will be interesting to see what the court makes of this case because it isn’t just vital for Christian groups, its for the protection of all religious clubs.

Will there ever be an end to the spending in Washington? Representative Paul Ryan has a plan. In an interesting article, Ryan defends his “Roadmap for America’s Future 2.0″ against the objections of Peter Orzag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget. Ryan explains the key provisions of his “Roadmap” while rufuting Orzag’s claims at the same time.

Congressman Ryan’s Roadmap  proposes some drastic changes to the government’s entitlement programs to help solve the financial crisis. He suggests changing tax codes to help reduce the number of low-income uninsured and dramatically slowing down the costs of Medicare.

The key part about the congressman’s proposal is that it will solve the long-term financial crisis — as certified by the Congressional Budget Office. The plan may not be perfect, but it seems like a crucial step to take. It appears that congress is just pushing aside this growing financial burden for the future. The Democrats are busy working on a health care bill that would only seem to further this problem. Paul Ryan has made a stand amidst all the inaction.

Hopefully his ideas will gain momentum with the Republicans, and with congress. People know we need finance reform, and this could be a great starting point to a solution.