The Bible and Bribery

In light of my previous comments on the eleven congressmen who switched their votes on the health care reform bill a day prior to being approved for $3.5 billion in earmarks, I thought it might be good to follow up with a few words from Scripture on the topic of bribery. Some will claim that a pastor should not name names in the political arena or address issues like earmarks. Look at the Biblical data, however, and ask yourself how anyone claiming to be a preacher of God's Word could be silent?

"Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds those who see and twists the words of the righteous." Exodus 23:8

"For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes." Deuteronomy 10:17

"Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous." Deuteronomy 16:19

"Cursed is the man who accepts a bribe to kill an innocent person." Then all the people shall say, "Amen!" Deuteronomy 27:25

"But his sons did not walk in his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice." 1 Samuel 8:3

"Now let the fear of the LORD be upon you. Judge carefully, for with the LORD our God there is no injustice or partiality or bribery." 2 Chronicles 19:7

"For the company of the godless will be barren, and fire will consume the tents of those who love bribes." Job 15:34

"Be careful that no one entices you by riches; do not let a large bribe turn you aside." Job 36:18

"A greedy man brings trouble to his family, but he who hates bribes will live." Proverbs 15:27

"A wicked man accepts a bribe in secret to pervert the course of justice." Proverbs 17:23

"By justice a king gives a country stability, but one who is greedy for bribes tears it down." Proverbs 29:4

"Extortion turns a wise man into a fool, and a bribe corrupts the heart." Ecclesiastes 7:7

"Your rulers are rebels, companions of thieves; they all love bribes and chase after gifts. They do not defend the cause of the fatherless; the widow's case does not come before them." Isaiah 1:23

He who walks righteously and speaks what is right, who rejects gain from extortion and keeps his hand from accepting bribes, who stops his ears against plots of murder and shuts his eyes against contemplating evil-this is the man who will dwell on the heights, whose refuge will be the mountain fortress. His bread will be supplied, and water will not fail him." Isaiah 33:15-16

"In you men accept bribes to shed blood; you take usury and excessive interest and make unjust gain from your neighbors by extortion. And you have forgotten me, declares the Sovereign LORD." Ezekiel 22:12

"For I know how many are your offenses and how great your sins. You oppress the righteous and take bribes and you deprive the poor of justice in the courts." Amos 5:12

"Her leaders judge for a bribe, her priests teach for a price, and her prophets tell fortunes for money. Yet they lean upon the LORD and say, "Is not the LORD among us? No disaster will come upon us." Micah 3:11

If the prophets of old were not silent about bribery, should those who proclaim God's word today be?

Now It All Makes Sense

Turns out that the eleven "pro-life" democrats who switched their health care vote hours before it was passed received $3.5 billion dollars in earmarks. They claimed that they were voting for health care because of Obama's promised executive order banning federal funds from paying for abortions. (This, of course, was a ruse...see article below.) These earmarks were approved on Monday, March 22, the day after their controversial vote. The timing seems suspect, right?

"The congressman's vote for health care has no connection to annual appropriations requests," spokeswoman Michelle Benoche said. "Appropriations requests were submitted on Monday, March 22, because that is the deadline of the Appropriations Committee."

Are we to believe that it is merely a coincidence that the day after abandoning their pro-life convictions, their districts are rewarded with billions of dollars? Without their eleven votes, the health care bill would have certainly failed. Are we to believe that these funds were never mentioned in the process?

You can call yourself a pro-life democrat, but if you're willing to sell your conviction for a price, you don't deserve the pro-life title. Some republicans are referred to as RINO's (Republicans In Name Only). Perhaps we should refer to these congressmen as PLINO's (Pro-Life In Name Only)?

Disappointment

I'll admit, I'm disappointed. The passage of the landmark health care bill by the House of Representatives is a setback for the sanctity of life in this country. I haven't spoken much about the issue of health care itself because I believe that much of the issue is political rather than biblical. As for whether or not the founding fathers would have wanted the federal government to have such authority over our lives is not a topic addressed in any book, chapter or verse of the Bible. When it comes to the issue of the sanctity of life, however, that is another matter.

I am particularly disappointed by Bart Stupak, the congressman from Michigan who initially led the pro-life democratic opposition. Stupak cited specific sections of the senate bill that did, in fact, provide federal funding for abortions, contrary to what the president and others said. Yet, after carefully and effectively articulating his point, he then walked away from it, voting for the bill anyway. He claims that he is accepting the president's promise that he will issue an executive order barring federal funds for abortion. It sounds good, but the problem is that the law passed by congress supersedes an executive order. The president does not have the constitutional authority to wish away a bill that was passed and signed into law. Furthermore, even if the president could do such a thing, all it would take is a swipe of his pen, or another president's pen later, to undo it.

Some will point out that the amount of money provided by the government to cover abortions is small. That is true. Others will point out that under the new law, an individual must pay for their own rider to receive coverage for abortions. This also is true. The threshold, however, has now been crossed. The principle that government funds do not pay for the destruction of preborn human life has ended. And once you cross that line, it is easy to adjust the numbers. The hard part is getting the first dollar.

We now have all the more reason to pray for revival in America and to fear the judgment that God may bring upon us.

Pray for the Brethren in India

It is reported that there have been 1,000 attacks on Christians or churches in the last 500 days in India. We need to keep our brothers and sisters over there bathed in prayer.

Already Taken

Imagine that I invented a new sport. This sport involves throwing darts at balloons. I'm very excited about this sport. I want to market it and make it a mainstream hobby in America. I hope that one day it will even become an Olympic sport. But first, I need to give my dart-throwing sport a name. Would I call it "Bowling?" Of course not. Why not? There is already a sport called bowling and it is nothing like the one I have invented. "Bowling" involves rolling a ball down a lane to knock down pins. Whatever I call my new sport, it can't be bowling. Bowling is already taken.

Likewise, there is an institution called marriage. The defining quality of marriage is fidelity. However, this is not so with so called "gay marriage." There's an editorial in today's Baptist Press about the nature of "gay marriage" that does a marvelous job of demonstrating just how different the traditional understanding of marriage is from what is being advocated by those who attack it. You can read the article HERE.

Here's Proof

My favorite movie is Casablanca. In it, there is a scene where Captain Renault says he is "shocked" to discover that there is gambling in Rick's saloon...just as someone hands him his winnings. Likewise, I am "shocked" by a quote today from a member of the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Ginsburg argued that the second amendment's right to bear arms is really not a fundamental right that should be honored and protected. To support her conclusion she said, "If the notion is that these are principles that any free society would adopt, well, a lot of free societies have rejected the right to keep and bear arms."

There you have it. Two things I bet you didn't know. First, because other societies oppress this right, it's not really oppression if we do as well. Secondly, international precedent can trump the constitution. Isn't that nice to know?

I'm shocked, but should I be? Here's what doesn't shock me...Ginsburg's quote is proof that you don't have to be a genius to serve on the Supreme Court.