Articles

President Trump's “1776 Commission” report, was rescinded by President Biden by an executive order on his first day in office.   In documents announcing Biden’s executive order, (Sec 10 (c)) administration officials said the panel “sought to erase America’s history of racial injustice.”

President Trumps Executive Order

Federal Register

by Jack Schmidt

WHAT IS GASLIGHTING? 

The term originated in the systematic psychological manipulation of a woman by her husband in Patrick Hamilton’s 1938 stage play Gas Light.   In the story the husband attempts to convince his wife and others that she is insane by manipulating small elements of her environment and insisting that she is mistaken, remembering things incorrectly, or delusional when she points out these changes 

Today we are living in a perpetual state of gaslighting. What we are being told by the media is at odds with what we are seeing with our own eyes…. e.g. those were not riots, they were peaceful protests.  And when we question what we are being told, we are vilified as racist or bigots or just plain crazy. You’re neither a racist nor crazy. You’re being gaslighted.

Example 1:  New York State has twice as many deaths from Covid-19 than any other state, and New York has accounted for one fifth of all Covid-19 deaths, but we are told that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has handled the pandemic better than any other governor.  But if we support policies of Governors whose states had only a fraction of the infections and deaths as New York, we’re called anti-science and want people to die.  So, we ask, am I crazy? No, you’re being gaslighted. 

Example 2:  We see the major problem destroying many inner-cities is all kinds of crime;  but we are told it is not crime and that the police are the problem.  We are told we must defund the police and remove law enforcement from crime-riddled cities to make them safer.  But if we advocate for more policing in cities, we are accused of being white supremacists and racists. So, we ask, am I crazy? No, you’re being gaslighted.

Example 3.  The United States of America accepts more immigrants than any other country in the world. The vast majority are “people of color”.  These immigrants are enjoying freedom and economic opportunity not available to them in their country of origin.  Yet we are told that the United States is the most racist and oppressive country on the planet and if we disagree, we are called racist and xenophobic. So we ask, am I crazy? No, you’re being gaslighted.

Example 4.  Capitalist countries are the most prosperous countries in the world.  The standard of living is highest in capitalist countries. We see more poor people move up the economic ladder to the middle and even the wealthy class through their effort and ability in capitalist countries.  But we are told capitalism is an oppressive system designed to keep people down. So, we ask, am I crazy? No, you’re being gaslighted. 

Example 5.  Communist countries killed over 100 million people in the 20th century.  Communist countries strip their citizens of basic human rights, dictate every aspect of their lives, treat their citizens as slaves, and drive their economies into the ground.  But we are told that Communism is the fairest, most equitable, freest, and most prosperous economic system in the world. So, we ask, am I crazy? No, you’re being gaslighted.

Example 6.  The most egregious example of gaslighting is the concept of “white fragility”. You spend your life trying to be a good person, trying to treat people fairly and with respect. You disavow racism and bigotry in all its forms. You judge people solely on the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. You don’t discriminate based on race or ethnicity. But you are told you are a racist, not because of something you did or said, but solely because of the color of your skin. You know instinctively that charging someone with racism because of their skin color is itself racist. You know that you are not racist, so you defend yourself and your character.  When you do, you are told that your defense is proof of your racism. So, we ask, am I crazy? No, you’re being gaslighted.

Gaslighting has become one of the most pervasive and destructive tactics in American politics. It is the exact opposite of what our political system was meant to be. It deals in lies and psychological coercion, not truth and intellectual discourse. If you ever ask yourself if you’re crazy, you are not. Crazy people aren’t sane enough to ask themselves if they’re crazy. So, trust yourself, believe what’s in your heart. Trust your eyes over what you are told. Never listen to the people who tell you that you are crazy, because you are not, you’re being gaslighted.

Sophocles said: "What people believe prevails over the truth." And that's what the media are trying to exploit.  They are trying to get you to believe something that is not true.

I did not write the above and I am not sure who did.  I sent it to you because you are smart enough to understand what is being inflicted on you daily.  I do not care about your political affiliation.  Just think through what you are being told.  Question everything.  Question why you are being told whatever, by whomever.  Question their motives. Question who benefits. Question if there is a hidden agenda behind the propaganda.  Then do your own research, and use some of your own critical thinking skills to get to the truth.  Listen with your heart as well as your mind.   

Sadly, 95% of the masses don't even know that they are being gaslighted.  Now YOU do!

Adam J. MacLeod is an associate professor of law at Jones School of Law at Faulkner University in Montgomery, Alabama. I wanted to share with you an article he wrote about his struggle to get his students to think critically, and to "unlearn" their current process of deciding everything based on feelings. 

From the article:

I teach in a law school. For several years now my students have been mostly Millennials. Contrary to stereotype, I have found that the vast majority of them want to learn. But true to stereotype, I increasingly find that most of them cannot think, don’t know very much, and are enslaved to their appetites and feelings. Their minds are held hostage in a prison fashioned by elite culture and their undergraduate professors.
They cannot learn until their minds are freed from that prison. ...  So, a couple of weeks into the semester, I decided to lay down some ground rules. I gave them these rules just before beginning our annual unit on legal reasoning.

Click here to read the article:  https://newbostonpost.com/2017/11/09/undoing-the-dis-education-of-millennials/

I wanted to share with you my speech from the March for life event on January 16th:

My name is Jim Hochberg and I am a Christian, religious-liberty/pro-life, activist lawyer.  Since the 1980's I have included in my legal practice representing believers in religious liberty cases on a  pro bono basis.  My Christian ministries include working through the legal system to keep the way open for the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ - by you and other Christians.  

In addition to my law practice, between 2011 and 2016 I served as the President of Hawaii Family Advocates, and now again since January of 2019 I am serving in that capacity again.  HFA is a 501(c)(4) charity which means it is permitted by the IRS to publicly support and/or oppose candidates for public office.  HFA’s seeks to elect legislators that share our Christian values.  Christian values should form our individual world views as Christian people.  What does that mean?

“Religious faith speaks to the purpose of life, the meaning of death and the nature of the human person.  It’s a God-given right, inherent to human nature. It precedes the state.  It is not dependent in any way on any human authority for its legitimacy.  And any attempt to suppress the right of people to worship, preach, teach, practice, organize and peacefully engage society because of their belief in God is an attack on the cornerstone of human dignity.”  Archbishop Chaput, “tri-diocesan catechetical congress.” Victoria, British Columbia: Oct. 15 and 16, 2010. 

Religious Liberty is guaranteed in the First Amendment to the US Constitution and also in the Hawaii State Constitution. The definition of religious liberty has changed since 1789 when the US Constitution was adopted, and now it is becoming FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.  It will fully become freedom from religion if the Christians fail to defend freedom of religion when issues arise in their lives.  How can you prepare yourself for those instances where you may be called to defend religious liberty?  Let’s look at the old testament prophet Daniel.

What can we learn from Daniel about Religious Liberty Today?

Why is the Book of Daniel important for us today? Aside from prophetic themes that are of interest to some, it’s tells of how four young men, devoted to God of Israel, were thrust into a pagan and hostile cultures, but determined to serve God in those circumstances. Also a story of how they thrived in that culture and rose to positions of influence, without compromising their faith. Archer says, "the whole narrative in Daniel relates a series of contests between false gods of human invention and the one true sovereign Lord and Creator of heaven and earth."

Our culture is increasingly hostile to faith-inspired beliefs that contradict new state orthodoxy. We’re increasingly told our doctrine is discriminatory and our beliefs are biased, and that our religious motivations have no place in the public debate. The so-called separation of church has become a battering ram to pulverize religion out of the public square, and increasingly we are told we must abandon or even violate our beliefs as the cost of doing business or getting our professional license. 
The pressure on Daniel and his friends to conform to Babylon’s pagan culture was severe. They were only teenagers, and put under the instruction of elite but ungodly teachers who were regarded as the top scholars. 

How did they succeed?  PURPOSE

1. Purpose: Dan. 1: 8 says Daniel purposed in his heart he would not defile himself with the king’s food, which would have violated Jewish law. 

How could Daniel (modern Christians) have rationalized his decision? Some possibilities:

· Under “normal” circumstances we would have to obey God’s law, but this is abnormal. God can’t expect obedience to his law under these unique circumstances. 

· God is to blame for all this. If He had not exiled us, we wouldn’t have to break his law. 

· If we eat the king’s food, we’ll be placed in government posts, and think of all the impact we can have for God in those positions! God has to think that serving him in a big position is ore important than obeying his law. 

· If we disobey the king, it may cost us our lives. Surely God values the preservation of human life more than obedience to him.

· If we don’t eat the King’s food, it may cost the life of the official watching us. Doesn’t love dictate that we eat the food to save that official’s life? Isn’t love more important than obedience to a divine command? 

Daniel was willing to trust God and take him at his word; he was called to obey God, and he purposed – he determined beforehand – that he would do so.  He didn’t know what the outcome would be, but he went to the head servant over all the captives and asked for a ten day test. But if he hadn’t reached out in faith and a determination to obey God, he would not have seen the miraculous answer. 

So how do we know we can successfully purpose in our hearts in advance of adversity to obey God?

1 Cor. 10: 13 - No temptation (test) has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation (test) will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.

We may be facing difficult times ahead, even in choices we are called to make in our profession. 

CONVICTIONS ARE SETTLED IN ADVANCE 
Daniel made a commitment in his heart that he would not defile himself, and this kind of conviction does not happen overnight or in the midst of difficult circumstances. Purity is a matter of the heart, and is independent of the external pressure a culture exerts to change our beliefs.  Daniel had to leave all his possessions behind, but not his convictions – the most possession he had went with him to this new world.

Story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego
Background: The king had built a figure of gold, and commanded that on a given signal, the playing of musical instruments, everyone was to bow down and worship that figure.  
For the Hebrew children, the figure was an Idol.  The King’s pride in the idol was evident.  And that pride turns to anger – and demands the three worship – value and affirm – what the king wants. The king offers the three one final chance – they must bow, or they will be destroyed. 

How like what we still face. A feature in so many of religious liberty cases is the push for re-education.  
· Julea Ward at Eastern Michigan University – counseling program – values conflict (offered remedial training) 
· Jack Phillips – CO Baker, forced (with his staff) to undergo sensitivity training and submit quarterly statements on his progress

We will continually face the demand that we bow and worship before the idols of society – and we will face punishment if we refuse to figuratively bow and affirm the activity.

The three Hebrews would not bow before the figure, since it would have violated the first two commandments. 

The king gave them a second chance.  

How might we have responded: I’ve got a plan – when the music sounds, we’ll bow down – but we won’t really bow down in our hearts. When everyone else is bowing and you are not, it’s not hard to see who you are. They answered quickly, which shows they had already considered the matter and (like Daniel) purposed in their hearts what course they would take. 

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. 17 If that is the case, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. 18 But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up.”

We know the result for those young Hebrews.  We, ourselves, all hope for a timely miracle, and the three didn’t know if they were called to die for their faith, or be delivered. They likely hoped for deliverance before getting thrown in: This would be a good time to do something, Lord.  But sometimes deliverance comes through the fiery-test, and not before it. 

See the king’s reaction; he is his usual blustery self (no half-hearted punishments for this king!). Although civil government is instituted by God (Rom. 13), officials can abuse that authority and command things that violate God’s law. But when we choose to obey God instead of man (John and Peter – Sanhedrin) we accept the penalty. 

Knowing that God was in control of all things caused Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to respond with perseverance. They were not going to give in and conform to the king’s standards when they knew that those standards were against the law of God. Their decision to remain faithful is that it was settled beforehand.

  Convictions like these are not decided in the heat of the moment. They resisted the temptation to be like everyone else. How do you think these three felt when everyone else around them was bowing to the image? No doubt they felt strange, out of place, and different. No person, no matter how godly they are, likes the feeling of being different. 

Standing up for what it right is often lonely and painful, and as we shall soon see it can be downright dangerous.

Then Daniel in the Lion’s Den had the same predetermined purpose to serve God no matter what. What were Daniel’s options? He could have taken the easy way out – stopped praying for 30 days? Or less drastic, prayed away from his window – or prayed silently while standing and not kneeling. But he would not compromise. 

The point of this verse is to show the reader the law had no effect on Daniel; nothing changed. He was not a secret disciple but a man who was not ashamed to let others know that his allegiance was to the God of Israel; he would not compromise, even in the face of death. Daniel was trusting in the Lord to take care of what would happen if he were caught breaking the law and this seems to be exactly what he did.

MODERN DAY DANIELS
More like the Green and Hahn families of the Hobby Lobby cases, who told the Obama administration that they were required to worship a certain way – and to act on those beliefs. Why was it important to the Greens and Hahns to live according to their faith? 
Why was it important for Daniel to pray (act on his beliefs)  at a particular window where he was visible to the public? 

His beliefs dictated how he lived in society, not the rituals he performed on the Sabbath, but how he conducted his entire life.  
Has your God been able to deliver you from the lions?

When we are witnesses for Jesus Christ in this life, the world asks the same question: Is your God capable of bringing you safely through this life? Is he truly sufficient to rescue you from the emptiness of life and suffering and to bring you the peace, meaning, and purpose that nothing in this world gives?  Is he able to deliver you – ultimately – from death?

God has a purpose in every experience that we endure, and He did not say it was going to be easy or comfortable, but the end result is always for our good: This too is an important point for us to understand. God is not committed to our comfort. He is not committed to making our path through life smooth. He is committed to sanctifying us and demonstrating his own glory in and through us; and, very often, that commitment means he will subject our earthen vessels to pressures that would certainly shatter us, were his grace not sufficient for us.

Today’s Daniel can be found throughout ADF cases.

I. Abortion

A. Hobby Lobby successful challenge to the HHS mandate that every pay for abortion via their medical insurance.
B. President Trump’s “Protect Life Rule” mandating that Title X Family Planning grant recipients not be co-located with abortion clinics and not refer for abortions.  Planned Parenthood challenged the rules but later withdrew from the grant program instead.
C. Pregnancy Center in the states of California and HAWAII, and in the cities of Hartford, Connecticut, and Rochester, NY, have been mandated by legislative bodies to: 1) post signs and verbally share messages in support of abortion availability; or 2) hire employees who disagree with the fundamental beliefs and mission of their organization.   In California and Hawaii, the Federal Courts have struck the legislation.  In Rochester New York and Connecticut, the lawsuits were filed last year to challenge those laws. 

II. Gender Identity and Expression

A.  Athletics
B.  Locker room shower access
C.  Employment Harris Funeral Home case
D.  School curricula demanding that transgender issues be taught as normal.
E. Pastor Andrew Brunson published a memoir  “God’s Hostage” recounting his captivity for two years in a Turkish prison.  He reminds his readers that religious persecution is very normal throughout history and the last couple hundred years without religious persecution is abnormal.  Because in the west we are just now beginning to see it we are not prepared for it.  

III. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THE USA IS THE FIRST FREEDOM.

Religious liberty has always been “the first freedom” in our Bill of Rights and in our national identity.  Our country’s founders recognized that religious freedom is a RIGHT ENDOWED BY GOD, not a privilege granted by government.  And they respected that what God has given, no one - not a court, a legislature, or any institution - can rightly deny.

CONCLUSION:

It is up to you to purpose in your heart to serve God no matter what in this world.  Alliance Defending Freedom will be here to assist you should that be appropriate.  Work with us in advance and we can make sure your case is set up the right way.

In addition, you must not leave government to non-believers.  You must be involved in your government processes enough to know what changes are being proposed that will change your ability to maintain Freedom Of Religion.  You have to sign up with Hawaii Family Forum during this current legislative session in the Hawaii state government.  Eva Andrade will then send you via email updates on what the legislature is doing and give you the information you need to participate.  Make your voice heard to support religious freedom.

You also need to sign up with HFA to get the information you crave about the candidates that do and don’t share your values.  Often pastors  don’t discuss that topic in order to stay within the tax exemption limitations of the church.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Note: The "Aikea" Series will continue after the legislature opens.

By: James Hochberg, Attorney At Law 

President, Hawaii Family Advocates

Socialism as an economic and political philosophy contradicts the economic and political philosophy upon which this nation was founded and upon which it has grown its wealth and power.  For that reason alone, the current political efforts to push the United States into wholesale socialism favored by our younger citizens must be rejected.  
  
The creation of the United States on July 4, 1776 expressed the central foundation for creating a new nation in the famous phrase that included both economic and national government implications: 
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --" 
  
Importantly, the reference to the “pursuit of Happiness” meant something very different then: it meant the right to free use of one’s property to pursue success and prosperity.  Socialism contradicts these ideas that the government’s role in society is to protect those rights based on the consent of the people. Socialism’s success demands interfering in those rights without the consent of the people who oppose the actions.  
  
The founders’ public debates that preceded the 1789 enactment of the U.S. Constitution are quite telling.  The debating parties were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.  The competing arguments addressed the economic failures of the Articles of Confederation which served as the written document that established the functions of the national government of the United States between 1777 and 1781.  The effects of the Articles of Confederation saw the separate state governments engaging in economic battles against one another. 
  
The Federalists argued that “[w]hile the Confederation was powerless to stop these damaging policies, the Constitution by specific prohibitions on the states, would establish stable economic conditions that would protect and attract capital, thereby encouraging the growth of the American economy and restoring prosperity.  The poor were hardest hit by the policies of the states, and it was the poor who would benefit the most from a rigorous government and the prosperity it would bring.”   
  
On the other hand, the “Anti-Federalists were so leery that the Constitution would be used as a tool to crush individual liberty that they insisted a Bill of Rights be attached to it – an act to which the Federalists only reluctantly agreed.”   

One of the major concerns debated at the time, involved how the federal government might be involved in paying off government debts incurred between 1776 and 1789.  Patrick Henry argued against the idea that changing the structure of the federal government would result in reduced national debt. Arguing that the new national government had to encourage industry he said “[t]he evils that attend us, lie in extravagance and want of industry and can only be removed by assiduity and economy.”    This described the culture that would grow the U.S. economy in the coming centuries. 
  
The U.S. Constitution excluded direct taxation of the people by the national government.  Not until WWI was the 16th Amendment passed to provide the national government with the power to directly tax individuals.  In 1909 when the proposed 16th Amendment was being debated, the income tax was proposed to be only two percent.  The argument in favor of the amendment included the need for a modern standing military, one of the main objections of the Anti-federalists to creating a strong national government.   

The application of taxing income to provide a national social safety net for the less fortunate in society began in the 1940’s under FDR and continued in the 1960’s under LBJ.  Those meager efforts did not call for the elimination of the industry necessary to generate the taxes.   

Now, in the 2020 presidential election cycle, several presidential candidates argue for actual socialism under our system of government. It is now, more than ever, that we need to remember what our system of government requires of each of us.  
  
The only fair way for a society to adopt socialism must not require citizens to pay for the system if they do not support adoption of socialism.  That means that the only fair way to adopt socialism in the US is to start very small with a group of citizens who agree to the experiment.  

Adopting socialism on a grander scale than that must be rejected.  Historically, socialism has been adopted by force, at the end of a gun barrel by political leaders in charge of existing political structures.  There is a practical reason for that: socialists use other people’s money, that those other people would prefer to keep.  Force is the only operative mechanism.

By: Jim Hochberg, President & CEO 

Greetings from Hawaii Family Advocates for the third installment in a series entitled, “Aikea” that I promised to share with you over the course of this calendar year. 

The first two asked us to consider (1) our individual values, and then (2) which one we value the most. That second email also explored what it means to value something (as in to consider or rate highly: prize, esteem; to rate or scale in usefulness, importance, or general worth). We asked what, as members of the same population living in Hawaii, as part of the United States of America, we likely share as basic similar, highly valued aspects of our existence.  Because many of us have no idea of the breadth and scope of Hawaii state laws, we have little idea about how our values are impacted by the government. When an issue we care about is attacked by a proposed change in the law, we may get active, or even show up at the Capitol to attend a committee hearing. That is a good start. What we’re addressing today, is the breadth and scope of Hawaii law.

The entire Hawaii state law collection (not county or federal) is available online. The Table of Contents is also available online.

The Table of Contents itself consists of sixty-nine pages, each of which looks like this:    

Listed are both the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Hawaii and each generally describe the government’s powers. However, the statutes, which we are looking at today are much more specific and are all enacted by your legislature. Each one is debated in public hearings and then on the chamber floor before final passage. Most of the time we are not paying attention and they pass without our awareness. We expect state laws to explain how the state government is going to work between the three branches of government. Sometimes we don’t realize that some of the areas covered greatly affect us, even when we are not interacting with the government. Some of these subject areas include:   

As you can see, the things we value most are greatly affected by those we elect to make these laws. I hope you agree. So, as a reminder, the overall purpose of these messages is to help explore what it is in our life in Hawaii that impacts, negatively or positively, the things we value. Then, it asks us to consider what, if anything, we might be able to do to support the positive ones and turn the negative ones into something more beneficial, and valuable, to the people who live in Hawaii.

By Jim Hochberg, President & CEO   

Greetings from Hawaii Family Advocates as I share the second installment in the “Aikea” series I promised to complete during the rest of this calendar year. As a review, the first installment asked us to consider what it is that we individually value. That discussion explored what it means to value something as in to consider or rate highly: prize, esteem; to rate or scale in usefulness, importance, or general worth.

Today, I want us to ponder what it is that you value the most. For each person the answer is likely different, particular to individual situations. But as members of the same population living in Hawaii, as part of the United States of America, we likely share some basic, similar, highly valued aspects of our existence. Perhaps we can agree that we highly value some of those other human beings that share their lives closely with ours. We value the beauty of the natural environment on a daily basis. However we each ended up living in Hawaii (by relocation or birth), we share those blessings.

Perhaps we also highly value our availability to devote our time and talents to pursue hobbies, interests, and activities that we either enjoy doing or at least receive satisfaction in completing. We highly value our income earning opportunities that feed our other interests with the money it takes to enjoy them. If we were to stop and think about it, there are communities around the globe where the people do not have the freedom or resources to develop those kinds of interests. I imagine there are people who live in places where they are not able to freely share their day-to-day lives as closely with others as they would like. They may lack the necessary resources in time, money or other things they need to be able to enjoy the things we value so highly.

If we all stopped to consider the value of the freedoms we do enjoy in Hawaii, being part of the United States of America, we would likely put our freedom on the top of the list of the things we value most. And we should because our exercise of our freedom often occurs on a daily basis with little or no fanfare or even any notice at all. Perhaps we just take it for granted that tomorrow we will continue to be as free to interact with our loved ones and do the things we like to do.

The real question is whether you are lucky at this time in history you are able to enjoy valuing these particular things, or whether there is a structure ungirding your ability to enjoy them? Perhaps it is time to begin to think about these things in a purposeful new way so you start to consider what kind of sure foundation supports your expectation to continue to be able to enjoy these things.

The overall purpose of these messages is to help us explore what it is in our life in Hawaii that impacts, negatively or positively, the things we value, and what, if anything, we might be able to do to support the positive and make the negative more positive so we can strengthen the things we value in the face of living in Hawaii.

Aloha Friend: 

My name is Jim Hochberg and as the current president of Hawaii Family Advocates (HFA), I want to use this communication resource to reach out to you and share my thoughts on what it is that HFA is here in Hawaii to do for you.  Periodically, HFA will send you an email from me that further describes my thoughts to help you see your role as an HFA supporter.  I asked myself a series of questions and will use those questions to address what HFA intends to do and why HFA developed that plan of action.

To explain the foundation upon which HFA plans to build in the coming election year, I will start at the beginning of my thought process for this series. The first question, and the subject of this first email is “What do we value?”  I want to explore that question because once we actually think about that and put those ideas at the forefront of our thinking, we can explore what it is in our life in Hawaii that impacts, negatively or positively, the things we value, and what, if anything, we might be able to do to support the positive and make the negative more positive so we can strengthen the things we value in the face of living in Hawaii.

What do we value?  What  do we mean when we ask that question?    Defining “value” is a good place to start.  I looked here.   The use of the word value that I am referring to is defined as: to consider or rate highly: prize, esteem; to rate or scale in usefulness, importance, or general worth.

That helpful Merriam-Webster webpage also provided these synonyms and examples for value: appreciate, prize, treasure, cherish, to hold in high estimation. Appreciate often connotes sufficient understanding to enjoy or admire a thing’s excellence; it implies rating a thing highly for its intrinsic worth; implies taking a deep pride in something one possesses. Americans prize their freedom.  Treasure emphasizes jealously safeguarding something considered precious  like a treasured memento; cherish implies a special love and care for something like cherishing children above all.

Do we value many things?  Yes.  Some more than others? Yes.  But I believe we would all probably list these as things we value: our family, our faith, our ability to provide what it takes to live in Hawaii, our hobbies, the things we enjoy, and the freedom to continue to value, to prize, to cherish and to treasure those things.

The point of today’s installment is to ask the question what do you value in particular; and to ask you to begin to think about those things in a purposeful way so you start to consider what kind of sure foundation upholds your expectation to continue to be able to value these things.  Are you lucky that at this time in history you are able to enjoy valuing these particular things, or is there a structure ungirding your ability to enjoy them?

The next election may decide how people of faith, or just people of sound reason, can bring their deeply held convictions to the public square. A recent article published by The Federalist is just ONE example of what could happen if people of faith don’t raise their voices by participating in the next election.

From the article ...

O’Rourke Shows Left’s Trajectory on LGBT Issues

This is something presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke demonstrated in a recent CNN forum on LGBT issues. When Don Lemon asked him if churches and religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage should lose their tax-exempt status, O’Rourke replied with a firm “Yes.”

Then O’Rourke explained his position by stating, “There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America, that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us. So as president, we’re going to make that a priority, and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans.” ...

Yesterday the state said homosexuality is neutral. Today the state says homosexuality is good. Tomorrow the state will say opposing homosexuality is bad and must therefore be punished. While O’Rourke’s position may be too hot for the eventual nominee to embrace right now, don’t be surprised if it becomes the official platform of the Democratic National Committee the moment it becomes clear they can win the presidency while giving churches, synagogues, and mosques the sin tax treatment. ...

Sure, O’Rourke’s vindictive tax policy would likely be ruled unconstitutional by today’s Supreme Court. But the more comfortable our culture becomes with the idea of destroying dissenting churches via the power of taxation, the less confident we should be that future justices will maintain today’s understanding of the First Amendment. After all, if the Supreme Court, high on elitist zeitgeist, can stick its hands into the void and invent a constitutional right to abortion or to marry anyone, it can also invent a constitutional right to a clean conscience, which can only be preserved by silencing those repentance-preaching pastors and priests.

Quite simply, conservatives need to win converts to prevent progressives from devouring us. And that won’t happen if we refuse to carry our beliefs to their logical conclusions. So at the risk of rekindling the Ahmadi-French debate, when conservatives express discomfort with the concept of obscenity laws, see drag queen story hour as a "blessing of liberty," and won’t scream in defense of gender-confused children who are being abused by the people who are supposed to protect them, we aren’t clinging to our first principles. Rather, we’re forgetting the very first principle — namely that earthly governments are instituted by God to punish the wicked and reward the good (Rom 13:1-7) in order to give us a peaceful and quiet life (1Tim 2:1-2). 

Because of this, we shouldn’t hesitate to use the state’s power to defend ourselves and our children from the kind of metastasizing libertinism that rots every brick of the public square it touches. If we don’t, as the journey from Lawrence v. Texas to Beto v. Traditional Christians, Jews, and Muslims shows, those who have gotten comfortable using the state to impose their perverse morality on us won’t tire of doing so any time soon.

Link to the full article