March 30, 2007
Easter and Spring Right on Time

by Donald G. Mashburn

Spring is the seasonal tonic that draws our attention to the always-new wonders of life springing up from what was dead. For many, it’s a time for sober reflections on our life and future, and on the works of our Creator. The reflections are more sobering than usual this spring because they include images of the horrors of war, crazy people blowing themselves up to kill innocent people, including children, and of our service men and women serving in places called Afghanistan and Iraq,

Here at home, the drumbeat of partisan strife makes it apparent that Democrats in the new Congress will seize every opportunity to sew and fertilize the seeds of hate against that symbol of all that’s wrong: the administration headed by our president, George W. Bush.

The liberal media, ever eager to fertilize the hate seedbed with their own contributions of journalistic manure, see to it that the public doesn’t entertain positive thoughts for very long. We are inundated with unwanted detail of Anna Nicole Smith’s death, and the gagging gaggle of gigolos who claim to be the father of her child.

With no “confirmed” sightings of Elvis or other news brighteners, we could easily sink into a blue funk deeper than the bottomless well of red ink dug by our pork-polluted tax and spend Congress. But then, just in time, we realize Easter is coming, the tonic of tonics that lets us know that Spring has won its tug of war with Winter.

Spring lets us witness the miracle or the renewal of life. Easter reminds us of the miracle of that first Easter, and the Christ of Easter, the Giver of new life to those who know and believe in what Easter is all about.

You would think that, worldwide, people would welcome the redemption message of Easter. But you would be wrong. “Easter Break” for some is a time of orgiastic self-indulgence. These, and others, would be hard pressed to explain the true meaning of Easter – that Easter is the story of a perfect, sinless Savior, who suffered and died on the cross to pay our sin debt.

Worse than this neglect born of ignorance and unbelief, are the anti-Christian forces that want to tarnish the holiness of Easter with the ugliness of commercialism, and have grown openly opposed to the Christ of the Cross, or even the mention of His name in public places.

The enemies of Christianity want to get the Christ of Easter out of the public consciousness. They flood us with commercial messages that try to reduce God to myth, and Christ to a carnal man. And Believers to “right wing” religious fanatics. But God and Christ are realities that all must ultimately face, when the Christ of Easter will judge the world.

The Easter Story is about a perfect, sinless Man dying on the cross to reconcile us to God, followed three days later by the earth-shaking event of that Man walking out of the grave. This man, Jesus Christ, Son of God, could have avoided dying, and had the power to destroy all those who conspired to have Him crucified.

But the glory of Easter is that Jesus stayed on the cross. He chose to do His Father’s will, to pay our sin debt so that we might know, and through faith believe, that He is indeed the Son of God.

In the secular media, there will be reports of Easter egg hunts and televised parades. But notice how many in the media work to avoid mentioning Christ and His resurrection. They will mention only casually, if at all, the one fact makes Easter the story of all history, and special for all mankind: On that first Easter morning, the tomb was empty! Right on time.

When Believers sing, “Hallelujah, Christ arose!” their confidence is in the resurrected Christ, and His free gift: “The righteousness of God which is through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all who believe” (Romans 3:22 NKJV)

And for “All who believe,” there’s no room for war worries, “winter willies” or “spring blues.”

Ah, Easter! A glorious time of hope and renewal. And right on time.

The Constitution vs Liberalism’s Moral Relativism
by Thomas E. Brewton

Between the Constitution as written and the liberal paradigm, no compromise is possible. Every concession to liberal policies entails sacrificing individual political liberty. When people share common principles, compromise is possible. But when the founding principles of society, expressed in the Constitution, are attacked by liberal moral relativists bent upon destroying those principles, acceding to their demands is not compromise but surrender.

For that reason, demands by liberal media and by voters that Congress compromise and “get something done” are really demands that we continue slowly to dismantle the Constitution. The analogy is to heat yourself in the winter by tearing your house down, piece by piece, to burn in the fireplace.

The Constitution created a government of limited power for a religious and moral people. Political power was to be curbed by citizens’ God-given, inalienable, natural-law individual rights to life, liberty, and private property. As the English Glorious Revolution of 1689 established, when a ruler arbitrarily contravenes those rights, he has broken the social compact and thereby forfeited his right to rule.

The paradigm of American liberal-progressive-socialists, in contrast, is an authoritarian government that has both the right and the duty to determine how people should live their lives, and even what thoughts are to be permitted expression in education and public forums.

In the government envisioned by liberals, the “public good,” as defined by liberals, always trumps individual rights. In this liberal paradigm, political-state planners are the source of economic and social well-being. The welfare state is thought to be essential, because private individuals and private businesses are, according to liberal theory, incapable of doing the job.

Liberals are atheists or agnostics (including some who think of themselves as Christians) who believe that Judeo-Christian religious beliefs should be eliminated from government and education. Many liberals insist that the First Amendment’s ban on establishing an official religion means that the United States should be free from spiritual religion altogether. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., our first socialist Supreme Court member, wrote that morality should play no role in the law. This, despite Tocqueville’s observation in 1832 that Christianity was the most influential single factor in America’s uniquely successful republican democracy.

At the same time that individual political liberties are steadily curtailed, liberalism advocates no-holds-barred personal hedonism. Liberals want an amoral society that accepts, even welcomes, foul language, flouting social custom, abortion, sexual promiscuity, same-sex marriage, and an endless list of things designed to corrode and erode the social compact upon which the Constitution was based. Imposing hedonism, usually by judicial fiat, is a curtailment of individual political liberty.

Compromise with liberals thus necessitates accepting moral relativism, the idea that there are no timeless, religious or philosophical principles of morality flowing from the relationship between humans and God, the Creator of the universe. One might as well say the 2 + 2 = 4 equality applies as a principle only when that answer serves the interests of the observer.

Historically, political societies that abandoned their early core beliefs, and pursued the course of moral relativism, thereafter fell victim to outside aggressors, or slowly declined in economic well-being.

Not content with that inevitability, liberals want to accelerate the process by subordinating the Constitution to so-called international law and a world government under the United Nations.

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.