Would Jesus drop bombs?  Clever leftist have been asking this question more frequently lately in an attempt to paint Christians who support the conflict that America is fighting as hypocrites.   My answer to this question is; I don't know.  The Gospels are short on teaching about governmental policy.  The only time that I can think of that Jesus mentioned anything about civics was when he was asked by the Pharisees (Matthew 22:21) if it was right to pay taxes to Caesar or not.  The answer of course was to "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."  In other words, Jesus wasn't sent to earth to become some sort of divine politician.  He wasn't interested about the manner in which nations dealt with other nations.  He was concerned with the souls of individual sinners.  But, what do the Gospels tell us of the nature of Jesus?  The left assumes that Jesus was a passivist, not unlike Gandhi, who would never resort to anything so base as violence.  I think that this is a critical misunderstanding of the character of Jesus.  The Gospels do not describe a man who holds a politically correct, tolerant view of the world.  In stark contrast to this assumption, the Gospels describe a man who confronted all evil that was placed in his path, and destroyed it completely.  Therefore,  I can assure you that Jesus was no Gandhi.

The most obvious example of this is when Jesus went to the temple in Jerusalem and found merchants and money changers desecrating the sanctity of God's House.  The Bible states in Matthew 21:12-13,

 12Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'"

So much for passivism.  This passage clearly shows that Jesus absolutely condoned violence when necessary for defeating evil.  In fact the Bible consistently paints a portrait of Jesus of a man that does not compromise on principle, and does not run from confrontation.  He held great contempt of the religious establishment of the time.  His life would have been much easier, and longer, if he would have tried to appeased the Pharisees.  He didn't though.  He told them exactly what he though about them, and he didn't care how politically incorrect it was.  This sermon from Matthew is an example of this.  Matthew 23:1-36 states,

 1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

 5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries^[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

 8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.^[b] 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

 13"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.^[c]

 15"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

 16"Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' 17You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' 19You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.

 23"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

 25"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

 27"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

 29"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' 31So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!

 33"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.

The important question ceases to be; Would Jesus drop bombs?  This is a completely irrelevant inquiry.  What question should be asked is; Are we confronting evil?  If the answer is yes, then we are following the example of Jesus in trying to remove it from the earth.

 “This strategy depends on the willing support of what Lenin called "useful idiots." These are the accommodating Westerners - many of them intellectuals - all too willing to take the word of totalitarians and even more eager to believe that the champions of democracy are in the wrong. Some social scientists call these people "French," but that is too limiting. There are plenty of them in America, too.”

Jonah Goldberg

I listen to the Dennis Prager show all of the time.  He never ceases to amaze me with his thoughtfulness and rationality, and I admire the man immensely.  If he were a work of art, I imagine he would be a giant statue sitting on a stump with his chin resting on his fist.  This is why I become so disturbed when he discusses the concept of "Gradation of Sin".  Basically, he feels that there is some sin that is worse than others.  In his view, to feel anger towards someone is far different than murdering them.  I have no problem with his premise.  How could a rational person not see the difference between some ill feelings and homicide?  What angers me is his complete dismissal of those who hold the view that all sin is equally bad as fools.  It is for this reason that I want to make an attempt to rationally explain the other side of the coin. 

When this issue is examined closely, it reduces to a matter of perspective.  In other words, by what standard are we judged.  Is it good enough to be better than most people on earth to obtain an eternal reward, or is the standard set higher than that?  I think that there are two possibilities, either we are judged against some moral average of all of the people currently on the earth, or we are judged against the righteousness of God himself.  It would not be fair to be judged against the conduct of individuals throughout all of history for two reasons.  The moral struggles of those in the ancient world were much different than those of today, and It would be unfair to hold us to standard of conduct that was appropriate for an ancient culture with a completely different set of circumstances surrounding them.  Also, those in Israel, for example, would have to be judged against our actions two thousand years before we performed them. 

So which standard is the most just?  It seems to me that the moral average of the world fluctuates throughout history.  If we are judged by the standards of the world around us, the definition of righteousness has to change over time.  This is profoundly unjust.  Those who live in a more righteous world would find the standard higher, and thus harder to get into heaven.  A good world would then be punished for their moral success.  Therefore, there must be a single standard of judgement. 

I believe that God is that standard simply because his nature defines what goodness is, but what are the ramifications of that belief?  Since God is infinitely righteous, we will never be able to be good enough to get into heaven.  Also, if we are judged against infinity, there is no difference between sin.  All sin is rendered the same because of the standard by which it is judged. For example, imagine that a man is standing in the middle of Texas.  The western border of the state represents angry thoughts directed towards an individual, and the eastern border represents murdering that same individual.  According to the perspective of the man, how far apart are those two sins?  Imagine that the man is standing on the moon looking down on Texas.  Now how far apart do those sins seem to him?  Finally, imagine that the man is standing on the complete opposite side of the universe looking down at Texas.  The sins will look like they are lying on top of each other. 

How can this be just?  It would be just if God had enough mercy on us to give us a means to bridge that gap between our level of righteousness and his.  I believe that he did so in his son Jesus Christ.  Jesus was without sin, and was willing to pay the price for our sin, namely death, by sacrificing himself on the cross.  By accepting that gift, we are shielded by his blood from God's judgement of us.  This is my belief, and reasonable people can disagree.  I also understand that this controversy is one of the biggest differences between Judaism and Christianity.   What I wish is that Dennis Prager would acknowledge that if gradation of sin does exist, then Christianity doesn't.  By insulting the idea that all sin is the same, then he unknowingly insults my savior and my God.

I have to admit it, I'm not a moderate. I'm not one of those swing voters that both parties try to reach every election. There is not one issue that I haven't made up my mind about, and I even know how I'm going to vote when the next opportunity presents itself. I know that there are people who advise against this sort of behavior. They say that there are good ideas on both sides of the political isle that warrant consideration and respect. I say to them, "Pick a side."

Our country is currently in a civil war of ideas. The conflict is over the prevailing worldview of the population, and for this reason there is no middle ground. Take a look at some of the major issues in the headlines today. The right wants to defeat a great evil in Islamo-Terrorism; the left blames American foreign policy for creating an environment that breeds discontent and rage against the west. The right believes that abortion is the murder of children; the left believes that abortion is a right guaranteed in the constitution. The right believes that gun ownership is allowed by the constitution to protect the population from a government that might overstep its authority in the future. The left believes that only governments should be allowed to possess firearms in order to protect the population from itself.

So what do these positions say about the worldview of the right and the left? The right believes that evil exists, and needs to be confronted. The left believes that people are basically good, and environmental conditions cause some good people to do bad things. The right believes that ultimate responsibility for ones actions reside in the individual and the consequences of those actions must reside on the individual’s shoulders. The left believes that people make mistakes, but that doesn't mean that they need to suffer for them. In fact, the government has a responsibility to minimize the suffering of individuals to the point of killing any child that was conceived at an inconvenient time for the parents. The right believes that the government was established to protect the God given rights listed in the constitution. They believe that any power that the government has is bestowed upon it by the people. The left believes that the government grants people rights, and therefore can freely redefine what those rights are to fit into the current values of the world.

In my opinion, these world views are completely opposed to each other. This means that the victor of this culture war will win the right to define the American identity. For this reason, there is no room for moderation. In war, you choose the side that you agree with most and fight until your side wins. Its time for all to see this conflict for what it is, and above all else; PICK A SIDE!

 Well, here goes nothing. After long deliberation, I have finally decided to through my hat in to the ring as an official blogger. I realize that my voice is a small whisper on the lips of our great country; however the time has come that such voices be heard.

I believe that we are at a fork in our history. To the right is the country of our forefathers. It is a county that is an example of freedom and strength to the world. It is a country run by the people for the people, which freely embraces and celebrates its Christian heritage. It is a nation that promotes self reliance, and realizes that strength of character inevitably comes from the struggle of carving out ones own place in the world. To the left is a path that leads to a nation that believes that equality above all else should be valued. It is a road that leads to a nation that has tolerance for all ideas, as long as these ideas do not promote standards, faith, self reliance, or hatred of evil. It is a direct route to a nation where all ideas must conform to a sense of political correctness, and the feelings of others trump the God given rights of Americans to freely express their ideas, no matter how pathetic and wrong they may be. In short, it is the path to socialism and tyranny.

This is why it is so important for voices like mine to be heard. We are currently fighting a war in a foreign land against an enemy that wants to destroy our way of life. But this is a fight that is not isolated from us by a vast ocean. It is also being fought at home on an ideological front, the outcome of which could be vastly more devastating to our way of life than any physical attack that might happen to us. Therefore, I pray to God to give us the strength to save our union and the will to withstand the storm that is to come.