- EverVigilant.net - "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." - John Philpot Curran
For little over a century, German Shepherd dogs have been trained to herd sheep on the principle that no sheep belongs outside the flock, and no dog belongs inside. The goal is to train dogs to maneuver stray sheep back into the flock without going into the flock themselves and frightening the obedient sheep.
Naturally, the German Shepherd's job is much easier when the sheep are compliant. The less chasing the dog has to do, the less time it takes to bring the sheep under control, and the less time spent in the fields rounding up sheep, the happier the sheepherder is at the end of the day.
One could say that sheepherding is analogous to homeland security. It is the job of the airport security screener (the German Shepherd) to make sure airline passengers (the sheep) stay together and do as they're told. He will try (often unsuccessfully) to avoid needlessly frightening the flock, while nipping at the heels (usually in the figurative sense) of those who stray from the routine. When everyone is doing their part, things run smoothly, and this makes Uncle Sam (the sheepherder) very happy.
It goes without saying that the job of securing the homeland is much less difficult when passengers actually go out of their way to be compliant. Consider a recent incident on a Spirit Airlines flight from New York to Denver. A woman boarded her plane at LaGuardia Airport, somehow getting through security with a stun gun and a knife concealed in her purse. She wasn’t being malicious; she had simply forgotten the items were there.
After a brief layover in Detroit, the woman was in the air once again, bound for Denver. In the middle of the flight, she suddenly remembered the dangerous objects she was carrying and, rather than keep her mouth shut, decided to confess her absent-minded act of terrorism. Spirit Airlines spokeswoman Laura Bennett related quite eloquently the events that transpired: "She immediately went, 'Oh, my God, I'm not supposed to have these here,' and called the flight attendant over."
The flight attendant informed the pilot, the pilot radioed ahead to Denver International Airport and police officers were waiting at the gate when the plane landed to take the woman into custody. She was released after questioning without being charged. Said Bennett, "She did the right thing by giving up the items voluntarily, and she was never malicious. We never considered her a threat." I guess that explains why the cops were called.
Some may agree with Ms. Bennett that this woman indeed did the right thing by owning up to her mistake. After all, the fact that her weapons of mass destruction managed to evade the watchful eyes of a team of under-trained, grope-happy government employees doesn't sit well with those who have entrusted the feds with their safety.
I happen to believe that this woman's actions are symptomatic of a bizarre "sheep mentality" that has been sweeping over the nation since Sept. 11, 2001. Think about it. She was already in the air and beyond the clutches of Ridge's Runway Rangers, yet she still felt compelled to do her duty as one of the flock by turning herself in to authorities.
Doesn't this strike anyone as the least bit odd? I can only think of two possible explanations for this woman's behavior: 1) she was so frightened that Big Brother was watching that she gave herself up in an attempt to avoid more harsh consequences, or 2) she honestly believes in the integrity of the system the government has set up to safeguard American lives. No matter what the explanation, neither should sit well with freedom-loving citizens.
Fortunately for this young woman her "sheep sense" kicked in, and she was able to rejoin the flock without much fuss, demonstrating that the benevolent shepherd is inclined to reward those who go along unquestioningly with the rest of the flock. Now, if we could only get would-be terrorists to develop that kind of sheep mentality, we might just lick this terror problem once and for all.
R. C. Sproul, Jr., in his essay Some Children Left Behind, addresses the issue of voting for "the lesser of two evils," which is the justification Christians invariably use when voting for a Republican. The true character of the Republican candidate doesn't matter; they just know that the Democratic candidate is always somehow more evil simply because he or she is a Democrat.
Sproul, however, points out the fallacy of that reasoning:
If, for instance, the 2004 election brought us Bill Clinton as the Republican candidate, and Howard Dean as the Democratic nominee, men of good will might actually vote for Clinton, believing that (a) he has a chance and (b) he's better than Dean. Such, I believe, would be wrong, but it is a common and somewhat understandable error.
Some have convinced themselves that when they voted for George W. Bush in 2000 they were doing their part to further the pro-life cause. Many will be thinking the same thing when they cast their votes for him again this November. To those people, Dr. Sproul has this to say:
President Bush believes the state ought to protect the right of mothers and doctors to put to death unborn children conceived by rape or incest. These children, he believes, do not deserve the protection of the state. For them, the sword is borne in vain. This, some say, is being pro-life.
Suppose that one percent of those who are aborted this year fall into this category. Incrementalists can claim that a vote for Bush is a vote to stop 99% of all abortions in America. But the cheerleaders must in turn concede that 15,000 dead babies is not worth quibbling over.
I have more than a quibble with that point of view. If you have been a Bush cheerleader, you need to repent. You need to get past the folly that says "One dead baby is a tragedy. 15,000 dead babies is a statistic." You need to understand that your president supports 15,000 tragedies. Stop waving his bloody flag.
The problem with facts is that they tend to cloud the issue, and the issue for most evangelical Christians in 2004 is getting their man elected to another term. They don't want to hear that Bush is no more pro-life than any other candidate who says what needs to be said in order to win votes from a particular constituency. They will gladly - and in good conscience - settle for a less-than-adamant pro-life candidate and call it a victory for principle. After all, 15,000 is a number they can live with.
The State of the Union speech you delivered was very eloquent, and I could tell that you are a man of conviction who has the best interests of the American people at heart. There are, however, a number of questions that remain unanswered...
Given the size and scope of the federal bureaucracy and everything it does for us today, it's amazing our country was able to survive the dark ages of small government, free enterprise and individual liberty.
What condition would our nation be in without the government regulating our health care system?
What would people do without a government-run retirement plan?
How could we have ever expected private and religious charitable organizations to function without government funding?
What would we do without the government's ability to coerce stubborn state legislatures to pass sensible DWI laws?
How much worse would it be without the government's masterful handling of our immigration policy?
Without the government taxing, regulating and overseeing virtually every aspect of our daily lives, how could we truly call ourselves the "Land of the Free"?
What does football have to do with foreign policy and homeland security? Everything. Like football fans, too many Americans completely disregard the importance of a good defense...
It is not uncommon for people to lump all Christians together into one group, labeling them as crackpots, hypocrites and extremists. Speaking as a Christian, I think that practice is entirely unfair, and it betrays a severely distorted understanding of what Christianity truly is. But I will also readily admit that there are some Christians whose words and actions seem to justify the twisted view unbelievers have of us—and Pat Robertson happens to be one of those Christians.
Robertson stated boldly on his "700 Club" program that he is confident George W. Bush will be victorious in the 2004 presidential election. He said, "I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004. It's shaping up that way."
"The Lord has just blessed him," Robertson went on to say. "I mean, he could make terrible mistakes and comes out of it. It doesn't make any difference what he does, good or bad, God picks him up because he's a man of prayer and God's blessing him." If only the rest of us could have Pat Robertson's optimism.
The general consensus among conservative Christians is that we have been blessed to have a conservative Christian as president. Despite Bush's actions, he continues to be viewed as a courageous man of God. He can head up a government that grows faster and bigger than his liberal predecessor, he can ignore the social ills that plague our nation and he can strip away our freedoms with the stroke of a pen. But as long as he is leading a crusade against terrorism (i.e., waging a holy war on the demonic forces of darkness), all will be forgiven.
It's as if we Christians are expected to support the president because men like Pat Robertson believe it's the right thing to do. And why shouldn't we? They appear to have a direct link to the mind of God and can tell us exactly what He is thinking. And if they tell us that God supports George W. Bush, shouldn't we?
The choice, then, is simple: either vote AGAINST Bush in the next election and risk total chaos (because we might actually end up with a Democratic socialist instead of a Republican socialist), or vote FOR Bush and proceed to bask in the endless shower of God's blessings.
That is the conundrum conservative Christians face. Unfortunately, too many of us fail to realize that the choice presented to us is based on the false premise that God's will can only win out if the right people are in positions of power. This, of course, is utter nonsense. God is in complete control, and nothing man can do will derail His plans.
Our responsibility as Christians is to remain in humble obedience to Christ, to do what is right, thereby honoring and glorifying God in the process. Sometimes doing what is right involves a little pain, so let's not fool ourselves into believing that we can simply vote ourselves into His favor.