Volume 5, Issue 28
In the conflict of international discussion, attention given only to the government’s role reduces the concept of globalization to a confrontation of cultures. This then appears to be nothing more than cultural wars. It is much more involute.
President Trump was criticized for his remarks in a speech made in Warsaw, Poland, for the statement, “The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive.” This admonition was taken by many liberal editorial writers to mean support for a Judeo-Christian system of values. To a globalist, such values are an anathema. Why? Because Judeo-Christian doctrine is based on the belief that God is sovereign over man and man is sovereign over government. Secular humanism, supported by progressives, is based on the philosophy that government is paramount in the equation for ensuring equality. And, therefore, government is sovereign over man. In other words, Judeo-Christian precepts, that men acting freely under and through the laws of the Ten Commandments, best serve the diverse needs of society for equality. Christian principles are based on an eternal source. Secular humanism’s world view is that government must design and control all resources and activity to ensure that a moral code of equality is met as a standard for society. This moral code is undefined in the aggregate, without source, and evolving.
The two world views are in absolute conflict.
Why is it that Judeo-Christian principles cannot, in part, be seriously considered as meritable attributes for the advancement of individual character contributing to society? Often, other cultures, historic or present, are highlighted for certain positive elements.
Let’s consider a simple application.
A recent research study entitled “The Millennial Success Sequence,” published by the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Family Studies, graphically points out that a sequence of three choices by individuals results in 97% of those individuals escaping poverty. The three choices are: 1. Achieve a high school diploma or vocational-technical certificate equivalent. 2. Obtain a job. 3. Marry before having children. This study focused on Millennials ages 28 to 34. Eighty-six percent who put marriage before having children achieve incomes in the middle or top third of all incomes. Forty-seven percent who did not follow the sequence are in the bottom third of all incomes. Regardless of your opinion on marriage, the facts speak for themselves.
Each of these choices embrace Christian values – education, work, family.
Let’s now consider this in reference to government programs. Health care is currently a raging topic of debate. There seems to be no answer on how to equitably provide and pay for the critical needs of America’s health care. Medicaid spending has risen since 1970 as 1.4% of the federal budget to a projected 9.8% in 2017. Medicaid services are expanding faster than the growth of the population, and costs are increasing at a rate greater than inflation. An increased number of Medicaid recipients means, on its face, increased poverty as a percent of the population.
One option for addressing the funding crisis of health care is for a greater percent of the workforce population realizing a middle-class income. Young people choosing the Success Sequence would reduce the number of people on the Medicaid rolls, and therefore, the need for government provided Medicaid.
“The Millennial Success Sequence” therefore confirms that, more times than not, depending upon Medicaid is a series of choices, not a circumstance. Progressives scream that all who are in poverty are victims. They discount any citizen responsibility to make proper choices.
In the reference to President Trump’s statement, “The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive,” who is the West? The answer depends on what a government and the resulting culture believes in the context of whether man is sovereign over government. In 1776, by the Declaration of Independence, the United States stood alone in this identity and in this confirmation that mankind was sovereign. In one sense, the United States stood alone against the world. Today, commitment to this principle largely depends upon a Judeo-Christian world view versus a secular humanism world view. It brings the debate full circle. For distinct world view goals to be met, in Judeo-Christian values, man must be sovereign over government, and in secular humanism, government must be sovereign over man.
A further guidepost for the cooperative partnership between government and a free society is that established by the Founding Fathers. Not all leaders totally entrusted the Constitution to a biblical world view. Some in fact may have been Diests, but most believed in an eternal God as a source of eternal principles. They did not fear drawing on Judeo-Christian values as part and parcel for the total equation of governing structures.
If in fact God is sovereign over man and man is sovereign over government, mankind has a responsibility as to its ordination of sovereignty. Sovereigns have duties. Absent in the debate at the G-20 meeting, and among globalists generally, is this recognition that citizens are sovereign over their governments. And further, that citizens have responsibilities to make proper choices which contribute to their own prosperity. Many progressives take the view that Elites are destined to lead the general population as wards of the state. History is replete with examples of such failed doctrine.
The founding principles of the United States of America limited government and its control over the citizenry. Freedom belonged to the citizen at birth. Freedom did not belong to the government to dispense as it saw fit for the good of the order of standardization. Judeo-Christian values agree with the premise that individuals have responsibilities to obey the law and provide for themselves and others through mutual love and respect.
The world today finds itself in an indirect war of cultures. Cultural war results because of the intractable conflict on the definition of the ultimate source of freedom. This conflict of definitions is a conflict of belief systems that then renders cultures at war on each side of a great philosophical divide. This unbridgeable chasm is the reality of Judeo-Christian values versus secular humanism. And the essence of this irreconcilable contention is how each one’s creed treats and respects freedom.
Most countries in the world measure their identity based upon hundreds, if not thousands of years, of cultural evolution. However, the United States stands alone in that its only measurable identity has been its unique definition of freedom.
Only Judeo-Christian values hold in account the responsibility of sovereign citizenship in balance with the government’s obligation to facilitate the freedom of the individual in his or her pursuit of happiness.
These values are no less important today than they were when they were consummated in 1776. In fact, they are eternal, as is the Creator who ordained them.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?