What is this thing called...Government?

  A tragedy is staring us down today, we have lost our grip on a vital part of our world: what is the true purpose of U.S. government anymore? But, backing up farther, why is government such an important part of our world? Why has it become something we all should care about?

  Foremostly, look at this issue in light of all the people it affects. Who is under government, here in America? Everyone. Nationally and personally, everyone faces the results and lives in the midst of the type of government we have. Our society and culture swiftly shapes to either what we believe about government, or what we let others believe about it for us. Does that make sense? We either come to an understanding about what we believe, and find where to go from there, or we let other people decide what we should believe, and they choose where we move from there.

  Only once we have this under our belts, knowing what we believe and, therefore, where we stand, can we move forward. Finally, the moral, social, political and economical issues that need answering and fixing can be addressed. Yet, until we know where we stand, we will never know what we are fighting for. Firm beliefs are half the battle.

  I would guess almost everybody has heard of what other people think about this issue. We know many of the opinions. We’ve seen, or even been in the arguments. And, due to that, we remain distant from the issue, because, quite simply, it’s confusing and controversial.

  Thankfully, two categories seem to emerge from the governmental brawl. Generally put, they are less or more government. That is, the government either acts as a limited power, purely to protect citizens, or as a broader power that defines and enforces the conduct of its citizens.

Let me demonstrate:

   Beginning with our very own Constitution, this governmental establishment is rather narrow. It gives us a military, head of military and a federal law-making system regulated by the states through representation. This establishment also allows citizens vast freedoms compared to the rest of the nations. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “...We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” and it remains clear that the Constitution was written to follow-up with those thoughts. It lands in the first category, being purely meant to protect the people under it.

  An even older form of government presented in the Bible, has the support of some of our fellow citizens as the true role of government. It established laws on how to worship, what to wear, what to eat, when and how to do business, how to get married, etc. It was established to protect its citizens, true. But it mainly focuses on moulding people’s conduct. The government presented in the Old Testament of the Bible falls in the second category; larger government.

 That could be labeled an aging document however, so let’s consider more modern ideas. Richard Ebeling, president of the Foundation of Economic Education, discussed a more recent view on American government, “...Modern American liberals, [Michael Medved ] explained, are all about government solving problems of “victimhood” and alleviating the effects of...private-sector oppression of the poor and the weak. They wish to use the power of government to redistribute wealth from the rich to the...needy and deserving. They want to use the regulatory power of the state to assure certain ‘ethically desirable’ patterns of employment and to divert business from producing things without ‘real’ social value.” This is an example of the second category: government is given a broad duty of shaping its citizens’ behavior.

  From the more conservative standpoint, Republican New Hampshire Rep. Josh Moore explained, “...Simply...the role of government is to protect the God-given rights of every individual. When Thomas Jefferson first drafted the Declaration of Independence, he enumerated those rights; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Then those rights are to be protected by our government, bound by the Constitution.” When interviewed on this same subject, Tracy Menard, a stay-at-home mom, stated her belief on the role of government was along these same lines. However, she saw that neither small nor large government is good or bad. She pointed out, either form of government is placed in the hands of fallible humans, so either way can become corrupted.

  This raises to the forefront the primary issue, again. It must be determined in our minds, where we stand on this. We cannot fight corruption. We cannot preserve freedom. We cannot wade through these muddied waters without making a decision.

So, what should you do?

   You have to choose. Simply and honestly put, you have to decide what you believe. Otherwise, someone else will do it for you, then they will tell you what to do, how to act, who to be, what battles to fight. Yet, we were by no means made to be mindless creatures like that.

   This is your challenge, then. Decide where and on what you stand. Then, fight for that belief. Fight for what you know to be noble, wise, right and true. Preserving our culture, society, families, in short the world, revolves around our vigilance and endurance. 

So, now, what is the role of government, to you?


Sources:

The US Constitution
The Federalist Papers
The New Hampshire Constitution
Ebeling, Richard. 2007; https://fee.org/articles/freedom-and-the-role-of-government/
Palmer, Stephen. Unknown date; http://stephendpalmer.com/proper-role-government/
Benson, Ezra Taft. 1968; http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/benson.htm
Benson, Ezra Taft. 1968. (audio version); http://www.properroleofgovernment.com/
Lipford, Jody W. and Jerry Slice. 2007; http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2085
The Bible

Yet more Symptoms: Part 2

So, what should we do?

  When we overcriminalize, we suddenly have incarcerated masses to deal with, whether it be rehabilitating, feeding, housing, or having on parole. Someone must be paying for that. The answer? Taxpayers.

  Finally though, the incarcerated masses are released. It’s all better right? Not at all. Now, with such an untrustworthy background, there is little opportunity for them to find work. The formerly incarcerated will find it easiest to return to what they have done before.

  In short, our whole society is suffering in this issue, we must find a remedy. But what everyone else has done isn’t helping us get anywhere, so, again, what should we do?

   We need to realize the root of our problem is not overcriminalization. It is not the “tough on crime laws”. It is not the massive passage of more of those laws. It is not the passage of time, or the growing fear in our nation. It is not because of any of the plain or obvious surface reasons. It has everything to do with the problem with everything in our country and government. It is called morals.

We are not a moral or righteous people anymore.

  There was once a Book, claiming what is good and right, denouncing what is evil and immoral. Back in the pages of history, the United State of America was founded by men and women who saw that the moment we threw away that Book and the Author, our government and country start to crumble. Now, we are in that moment. This Union cannot function as it was established to, unless we are a body of people who stand with morals.

And that is how we fix this.

  It all comes from the heart. We have moved away from God and living as He has shown as good, and until we move back towards Him, in our hearts and behavior, there is no hope for our nation. Christians must infiltrate our society, culture, and government because we are the ones who see this crippling disease and know the One who can heal it. The Church is vital in changing our criminal justice system, just as it is vital to changing our society and government back to a nation of free men and women.

   We can certainly work to stop the vast amounts of new laws that are putting people in prison left and right. We can definitely push for our Congress to start repealing laws, which is something that they seem to have forgotten was allowed. We should clarify the lines between civil and criminal law and re-evaluate our laws to have them align with the definition. We should certainly do what we can to move our country away from this criminalization epidemic. Yet, we will not go anywhere until we address the fact that our hearts and beliefs must change. First in us, as Christians. Then, through us, and with God’s help, into all our nation, and all the world. If we run this direction, we will watch or country heal and grow great again, because we will finally acknowledge Who ultimately must have the authority in our government, criminal justice system, society and lives.

  When we return to the great Lawgiver, we will know and see true freedom again. Let us begin now. We must begin now. We are our country’s remaining hope.

Sources:
Population Reference Bureau; http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/us-incarceration.aspx

The Washington Post;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/07/yes-u-s-locks-people-up-at-a-higher-rate-than-any-other-country/

The Sentencing Project; http://www.sentencingproject.org/detail/news.cfm?news_id=1987&id=107

The Wall Street Journal; http://www.wsj.com/articles/robert-rubin-and-nicholas-turner-the-steep-cost-of-americas-high-incarceration-rate-1419543410

The Heritage Foundation; http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/04/overcriminalization-an-explosion-of-federal-criminal-law

Right on Crime; http://rightoncrime.com/category/priority-issues/overcriminalization/

Diffen; http://www.diffen.com/difference/Civil_Law_vs_Criminal_Law

CBSNews; http://www.cbsnews.com/news/once-a-criminal-always-a-criminal/

Yet more Symptoms: Part 1

What is wrong with our country? Why is it that, no matter where we try to divert our attention in our government, there is something more to discourage us? In our elections, in our legislature, in our legal system, it lays in whatever path we go towards. ~ This is a TeenPact assignment I wanted to share with you. The issues we see throughout our government are grave, however, it is far more essential for us to realize that the fault lies in us, the Church. We have failed to fight for and preserve our nation and fellow citizens as we aught. The failure lies in us.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There used to be a process in our criminal justice system that went as follows:

  One person commits a misdemeanor; he accidently uses and destroys another person’s property, for example. The other person finds out about his destroyed property and demands payment for it. If taken to court, this is called a civil case. The arbitrator must give compensation for what damage he has caused because he has violated a civil law.

  Another person commits a misdemeanor; he knowingly harms another person and flees the scene, for example. If caught, the harmed person can bring this case to court, where the lawbreaker will receive a punishment for his actions. This is a criminal case and laws that make this a crime are named criminal laws.

  The lines may seem rather blurred when trying to see the true difference between these two law types, so here are the major clarifications. Violations of a civil law are instances of negligence, misuse, or misconduct. Violations of a criminal law are, rather, instances of large cases like murder, and also burglary, or assault. In other words, there are two ways justice is dealt out, either by punishment or by retribution. And one important factor to remember, is that criminal cases are the only ones that land someone in prison.

  Alright, so don’t we still have these two types of laws and cases? What is the problem? Why should I be concerned?

  Yes, but the trouble is, our country progressively sees only one type of person when a law is broken: the criminal. Our government has and continues moving to only one side of the spectrum. We are finding vast amounts of criminal laws, where morality, discretion, and, if necessary, civil laws once stood. What I am leading to, is that we have a terrible case of overcriminalization here in America.

  Hold on, now that’s a big word. What and why on earth are you trying to use that word? Simply because it means that we and our legislators have begun to view almost all instances of broken laws as prison worthy, and began legislating it as such. Overcriminalization is that increasing trend to putting more people behind bars than is necessary.

Really? That seems strange. Why would we start making more things a crime?

   Interestingly, most of the countries of the world began making more issues a crime in the past 40+ years. In the 1970’s there began a spike in incarcerations and laws nicknamed, getting “tough on crime” laws. They were a worldwide movement, mind you, but the US took it much further than everyone else. And, strangely, we have never gone back.

   We stand as 1/20 of the world population with 1/4 of the world inmates. No matter how many surveys are done, our country remains the greatest incarcerator on the face of this planet, and no one seems to deny it. “Though only 5 percent of the world’s population lives in the United States, it is home to 25 percent of the world’s prison population. … Not only does the current overpopulated, underfunded system hurt those incarcerated, it also digs deeper into the pockets of taxpaying Americans.” Sen. Rand Paul once said, while Hillary Clinton states, “It’s a stark fact that the United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population, yet we have almost 25 percent of the world’s total prison population. The numbers today are much higher than they were 30, 40 years ago despite the fact that crime is at historic lows.”

   It’s obvious both Republicans and Democrats see there is a problem, but they don’t seem to know what to do about it. We still have the best criminal laws of all the nations in the world. Other countries incarceration rates are going up too, so is there really a problem?

   To begin with, let’s mention the thing that our whole government is so deeply concerned for: children, children in the United States. Did you know 1 in every 100 of them have a parent with a prison record, or currently in prison for that matter? But that’s not a big deal, right?

   Next, our Congress continues passing criminalizing laws at the rate of one per week. They have been doing it for decades. Everyone sees there is an issue, yet “...From 2000 through 2007, Congress enacted 452 new criminal offenses.” (Overcriminalization: An Explosion of Federal Criminal Law) We could do something to petition or protest against these law passages, but the truth is we don’t have the knowledge or time to gain all the knowledge we need to request a change.

   Strangely, the US sends all the convicted criminals to prison. Where other countries send their mentally unstable and drug offenders to institutions, our criminal justice system doesn’t do that. Does that protect us from more unknown dangers, or does it simply compound the overcriminalization issue?

The unemployment rates of former prisoners stands so great, the Labor Department does not even record them. So, returning to crime looks like the best way to survive for many ex-convicts. It’s only logical that they would return to the way they know, even though the whole process of punishment was meant to discourage and change their views on committing crimes.

  More than half of those formerly in incarcerated will return within a few years. Almost 80% will return to crime. It’s called recidivism. Think about that from a criminal’s point of view. It’s almost a guarantee that you will be back in prison before five years is up. So, why even try to change?

  Also, if these rates only continue to climb over the decades, it only seems logical to conclude that whatever measures are being taken now to rehabilitate, discourage, or stop these massive incarcerations has not been very effective at all. What needs to change? Why do we keep doing this?

   Here festers yet another wound to our civil government. Messy, controversial, powerful, even massive, our criminal justice system and the faults found in it are starting to look irreconcilable. Like the rest of our government, it looms as a black hole that most citizens of our country run from, or the most discouraged ones just sit and wait until it swallows them up. There are many things that we are immensely grateful for in our criminal justice system and the protection it provides for us, but honestly, when we look closely, it’s just as frightening and foreboding as the direction we feel all the rest of our government and country is heading.

So, what should we do?

Freedom of speech!...or, maybe not?

  I don't know what to say. The truth is, history proves that whatever freedom of speech is, we have never had an easy time defining it. When is it right to share something because it is true? And when do you withhold something because it is...something else...personal feelings, offensive, slander, hysteria, or would cause some of these things?

  The US, Supreme Court case Near v. Minnesota of 1931, was such a issue where multiple people of the state of Minnesota claimed that a newspaper, The Saturday Press, was publishing libel about public officials of the state. The Minnesota state court upheld this, saying that The Saturday Press must stop printing such "defamatory and scandalous" articles. (Case Briefs) However, some saw this court order as contrary to the freedom of speech, and brought the case to the Supreme Court. In their review, the Supreme Court stated that the Minnesota court order was a "previous.." or "prior constraint" on the newspaper's publication, it was, therefore, unconstitutional in light of the First and Fourteenth amendments. (Notable First Amendment Court Cases)

   This "prior constraint" or prior restraint is "Government prohibition of speech in advance of publication." (Prior Restraint) Can you imagine what would happen if this was allowed? Historically, people understood that freedom of speech meant no government entanglement at any level, but this case, if decided otherwise could have lead to a greatly censored and different press and media than what we know. Basically, government would have an opening to change what we hear, see, and know about; we would be ignorant about things, not because we don't have time for it, but because we aren't allowed to know. Eventually, we would look like the countries around us, where the government has almost no checks from the civilians.

   Following this case, there have been instances where the government thought it would be best to keep information from the public to keep them from hysteria. Should they do that? Presidents F. D. Roosevelt and Truman both kept the atomic bomb a secret from the public for more than a year. Was that in the people's best interest, or was it restricting freedom of speech? Again, what is the definition of our freedom of speech?

    Quite frankly, we will probably never have a clear, well-written, or word-for-word definition. But, that is the way a freedom works. If we let it alone, or let it go, we will see it morph into whatever our superiors(or self-allowed superiors, as is the case with our government) want it to be. Yet, when we remain vigilant to see that we are free to share what is true as well as gracious. And we rebuke those who would abuse it by slander, trying to scare others, silencing opposition, etc. When we do this, having such a clear definition will not be necessary, we will know what is right without governmental instruction, and we will have real freedom of speech.

Works Cited:

Near v. Minnesota. Case Briefs. website; http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-sullivan/freedom-of-speech-how-government-restricts-speech-modes-of-abridgment-and-standards-of-review/near-v-minnesota-3/

Prior Restraint. The free dictionary.com, website;
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Prior+Restraint

Notable First Amendment Court Cases. American Library Association. website;
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorshipfirstamendmentissues/courtcases#fes

Code Living

  Who wants to listen to someone who changes his or her mind for every whim? How can we trust people who say one thing and do something else? Is there any way to believe someone when we don't know what they believe and watch them stand up for it?  The answers are no one. We can't. And no.

 We all tend to want to live without rules, or at least outside of them in some way. But how can we ever really live this way? To wander with no moral compass, no thought to rules, laws, ethics, or God whatsoever only leaves us lost. Just because that is the way we are prone to be, has no bearing on the fact that we cannot and should not live that way, because it is so far from what God has desired for us. We are supposed to be law-abiding people. Strange? It is sort of surprising, I'll admit. Yet, it's the only thing that makes sense in light of what happens to us, our families, our countries, our cultures when we undermine laws, morals, and rules.

  Every journalist must also have guidelines and rules to hold himself accountable to, otherwise, how can he be trusted? How do you really believe, respect, rely on someone who doesn't have a standard they follow? How do you know what that standard is?

 If you are in the business of sharing truth with others, you are making yourself accountable to your audience that you will tell the truth. If you claim to tell the truth, you are claiming to be honest, trustworthy, ethical. So you must clarify how you will and must be ethical. Write a code.

  No. I don't mean something cryptic. Establish a code of ethics for yourself, and share it with your audience. This will help them keep you accountable. This will help them trust you. This will help you learn and become more reliable. And, as a journalist, shouldn't that be our aim? To grow in knowledge and truthfulness in every step of the way?

 This journalist - or at least aspiring one - therefore puts forward my own code of ethics:

Code of ethics 

1.    No stealing ~ Mainly, do not take credit for another's work. It is rather simple, do not take or claim anything that does not belong to you.
2.    No lying ~ This has to do with having others believe someone else's work is your own. However, it also extends to altering images, quotes, etc. to make it appear different than the original intent or event. Basically, do not be deceptive in any of the work you do.
3.    Be respectful of other people ~ Be gracious and thoughtful of others' feelings and rights. Share the truth, yet with grace. Be aware and concerned for your sources as well as your audience.
4.    Be honest and comprehensive ~ Do not present opinions without clarifying that they are such. Give more than one side of an issue to be objective and acknowledge the fact that everyone is biased in some way. Write in a way that will not be confusing to your audience, or will be least confusing.
5.   Always be truthful ~ This applies to every point already listed, but it should always be reiterated. Journalists must first and fore-mostly tell the truth. They must avoid situations that will cause people to question their integrity. They must show respect to all, but be very careful and clear when they show favoritism to any. 

   I did use some of the guidelines from https://nppa.org/code_of_ethics and http://www.journalismdegree.com/ethics/, as well as ideas from the course. They are not especially obvious though, and no quotes were used.

What about TV journalism?

   How do I keep ending up interested in the left-leaning news reporting? Oh, wait....It's right leaning this time! I promise, I'm not trying to be an instigator, it's just intriguing to hear both sides. At the same time, it is frustrating to hear both sides. They are clever, both the right and left understand that we like the controversial, strange, or flashy news. As some have said "Good news is no news." So they give us what we like. But in the midst of that, we are quietly pushed to think what they think, or see a very different picture than the real one.

 Truthfully, CBSN news presents what they choose to present rather honestly, making sure there are at least two opinions of a story in their broadcast. They may not be forthright with those opinions, but looking carefully, you can tell they are present. Over an hour of their news program I was informed on numerous types of news: weather, political, economic/stocks, entertainment, disaster. But what one showed the bias of the reporters and the CBSN news station, do you think? If you thought political, you're correct.

 You see, things like the weather, sports, business, entertainment, we generate our own opinions about each of those things, and they are important to us in our daily lives to some degree. But politics stands apart. It has it's foundation in what we believe and how we live. Our opinions about who should run our country and how they should do it, that extends to our beliefs on what is moral. Basically, it extends deep into our hearts and minds. That's why politics becomes such a battle-ground. We're supporting what we believe in, whether we see it that way or not.

 All that to say, the hour of news I viewed was plastered with discussion about Donald Trump's boycott of the last Republican GOP debate before the primaries. Repeatedly, as they discussed why he would skip the debate and whether it would effect him in the presidential race, the news reporters showed negative leaning clips of Trump and shows mocking him. Statements such as, "There has not been the scrutiny for Donald Trump as the front-runner as the front-runner has historically had." Or simply using negative words to talk about his boycott, "I am very confident if he[Trump] was five points lower he wouldn't be bailing."

 Between this onslaught of Trump news, the reporters talked about the Democratic race, giving a good portion of the time to a Bernie Sanders supporter. In fact, they did so well presenting Hillary, Sanders, and the other candidates that I had to do some research to check on whether they are liberal or not. It seems the overall view is that they are right-leaning, plus they allow Republican advertisements for Rubio, Cruz, and others, but they don't seem to like Mr. Trump in the least.

 Sadly, it is understandable that they would make fun of Trump. He can be laughable and ridiculous , that is my bias at least, and I get why they would use Trump to get people's attention.  However, that is by no means the way journalism should be. It is the kind of business that is protected by our Constitution to promote the truth, not ridicule or serve as entertainment primarily. We may have more news now, but I don't know if I can honestly say it's as fair and truthful as we like to think. Keep on your guard. There is much to learn, hear, and see, but there is also ways to be mislead in all our learning.

Radio News Today

  In all honesty, I don't know what to say. As I listened to this broadcast, I thought it sounded founded and credible. Mara Liasson seemed to present both sides of the issue briefly and factually. Yet, as I dug deeper, I found something that seemed deceptively simple and honest was only a front for a common story.

  Mara Liasson reported on the latest Republican GOP debate in a broadcast by NPR Media on January 15, 2016. She listed a few of the issues presented to the candidates on the platform, Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Christie, Bush, and Kasich. Catching an otherwise bored audience, she drew attention to the scuffle, or rather "the brawl" as NPR put it, between Trump and Cruz. While Mrs. Liasson later pointed, that "...The spotlight remained on Trump and Senator Cruz...".

  Searching for background about her, the news station, and the debate she reported on, I found it interesting that Mara Liasson is more Left-leaning in her opinions. This also goes for NPR. But surprisingly, they reported on a Republican debate. This made it clear that I needed to find other opinions about this issue to see if she was as credible and unbiased as she seemed. A long story short, I only ran into more bias wherever I looked, so I watched the Republican GOP debate myself. Surprisingly, but sort of sadly, I watched the debate run almost smoothly. Each candidate received questions and chances to speak on important issues applying to our country, and though it is obvious they are each competitive and dislike each other (to a degree), they generally held to the rules of the debate.

 I suppose I shouldn't have been this shocked about this stretched version of the story, but the truth remains that we should not trust everything we hear, or watch, or are told. Be informed, wise, thorough people. If possible, look at things first hand to generate your own views. As much as our news and news reporters project themselves as only giving the facts, it is only honest to admit that we still like the exciting, unique news from them. This leaves our informers an open door to stretch the truth to make it interesting or pertaining to certain people groups. And we must realize that everyone is biased to a degree. The only way to truly understand and learn from the news is by looking at it from a variety of opinions, and thinking critically about them. It takes more effort, more time, more work, yes. But, an informed and educated people is what we must strive to be, nonetheless.

  Simply challenge, even the things you think or know are truth. You will find it either flawed and shaky, or you will find what you believe founded and something to stand even taller upon. Analyzing things for truth is never a wasted effort.

Here is the link for the radio broadcast by NPR.
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=463146182&m=463146183&live=1

Words of history....

My TeenPact Story...Or something like that...

I found this as I was preparing for my presentation the other day. Apparently I had written in the weeks following the 2015 TeenPact State Class and completely forgotten about it's existence. It's rather lengthy, but I had no idea how inspired I was by attending TeenPact.....Perhaps it will inspire someone else as well....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   Did you know a chimpanzee once ran for the Presidential Primaries in New Hampshire? Did you know New Hampshire is the only state to have a Governor and Executive Council? Did you know the first battle in the American War for Independence was actually fought in Northern NH?.....Did you know New Hampshire established the first free government in the world?

   New Hampshire is one of the freest and most unique states in the US. Despite our small size, we have more Representatives in our State House than almost any other state. This means each of us have some of the best representation in the world. We have more freedom than some people even dream of having, but so few of us realize this. So few people of this generation understand the gift they have. And so many of this generation don't want to know or care either.

  That is just how a society crumbles. That is exactly how freedom is taken away. In fact, it isn't really taken at all. We are giving our freedom away. Or, probably a better analogy, we're throwing our freedom away. 

   To me that is a crushing thought. To realize that we are throwing away one of the greatest gifts we could ever have so we don't have to be inconvenienced. Do we really think so little of all the freedom we enjoy that we aren't willing to work hard to keep it?

  This past week I met, talked with, and listened to so many men and women who challenged me not to be that type of person. People like Rep. Dan Itse, Rep. Josh Moore, Secretary of State Bill Gardner, and Executive Councilman Dave Wheeler expressed to me and the other young people I was with the need in NH for young men and women to rise up and become involved in our government. While a group of TeenPact staffers encouraged us to learn more about our government and prepare to become the men and women our country needs. And I watch dozens of young people walk away inspired to be whatever God planned for them to be.

  The program that made it possible for me to meet and learn from these people is called TeenPact. I attend their four-day State Class for NH terrified about what I would be pushed from my comfort zone into doing. And I left, still terrified of the great job that I now realized loomed before me. But, you know what? I also left those inspiring days behind to become a much braver young citizen of the United States. 

   Over and over again, I used to get discouraged by the way I saw our towns, state, and country heading. Honestly, that discouragement makes it hard to hear or learn anything more about government, politics, etc. However, slowly, I realized though how accessible our state government is, how well represented we could be, how much freer we are than the rest of the world...Suddenly, that little seed of hope my mind was watered. It's just a seed - a tiny thing really in light of the great world we live in - but it was watered anyways. And it grew; I grew. God still has hope for this nation. So, I pray, He will continue instilling that hope in other hearts, like He did in mine.

Thoughts on Government...Part 1

A friend challenged me with these questions about myself and what I believe, so I decided to think through them here. After all, I've found talking to someone else is the best way to clarify what you have jumbled up in your heart and mind. And, in other words, my brain works better than my mouth.

***What is your stance on a Christian's role in government?***

   We live in a culture that wants to remain kids. Meaning, they want all of the privileges of freedom and liberty, just like children want all of the privileges of adults, but few of them are willing to shoulder the responsibilities of freedom and liberty. We need an army of men and women, not children, because those are the people mature enough to take responsibility for our culture, government, churches, and homes. God again and again calls us young men and women in His Word because that is what He desires us to be, that is what the world and Church need us to be, and that is what we must be. We must also be humble, knowing we are prone to be childish and that only the Lord can work in us the maturity to be adults in this world. We must not be naive, pleasure-loving, irresponsible children - God would never have us be so “humble” that we become these kind of people. We must show true humility and maturity by stooping to shoulder the great burden of responsibility in our government, church, and homes. God chose us out of this world to be salt and light, to preserve it. And how can we preserve it if we are either beating it down from the inside or sitting aside, ignoring it as it crumbles. Between those two options there is a balance of standing out, taking responsibility, and preserving our government and culture. And the only way to find that perfect balance is to look to the perfect God.

  Therefore, a Christian's role in government is to stand up and fight for that balance, to point others to God who has made a perfect balance. It's true, we must not force our religion on others. We must proclaim Christ, but this earthly government was not given for us to enforce our religion.

  Still we must also follow the pattern of the Founding Fathers who knew that to have a free and moral country we have to base our moral principles on the ones that Divine Providence has established. In essence, no free government can stand without holding on to morals-what is right and what is wrong-and the moment we begin removing God from our lives and government we begin losing our morals. And what is graver still is the thought that the only form of government that thrives on a lack of morals is a tyrannical one: an unjust, oppressive, arbitrary government. Does that sound anything like our government now?

  So there is, again, the fine line, perfect balance, narrow way we as Christians must walk in. We must preserve our government; it is our duty as Christians to be salt, to preserve. But it is also our duty to be light; we must fight the darkness that is so prevalent, especially in our government. We are soldiers of Christ's Kingdom! We are not allowed to give up! Unlike the rest of the world, our duty before God requires us to influence, work, and learn about our government, so long as we are able. Christians have to care about government!