Justin Jelincic

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Archive for the ‘Spiritual musings’ Category

Keeping the government out of Religious activities

leave a comment »

It seems to me that many of the progressives speak out of both sides of their mouth.

With one side they say there needs to be a strong, clear line of separation of Church and State,  but then they champion the government taking on Religious activity, and weakening the houses of worship in the process.

Perhaps their motives are pure, and reflect their view that the Religions in America are failing in their obligations to show charity, but their actions undermine the very institutions that should be providing charity.

When Pastors, Bishops, Rabbis, or other religious leaders ask their flock to get aid from the government, instead of , or in addition to, the religious family, something is wrong.   Wrong with religion, and wrong with government.

The government plays a valid role in creating insurance pools to share risk, but not in offering charity.  Call the subsidies what you will, but if they are handouts of cash, to, or on behalf of, individuals or companies, based on need, and not insurance contract, it is charity.   Payments in excess of the contract obligations, are charity.

FDR provided employment opportunities in the WPA and other programs to give dignity and pay for work, not handouts of charity.  Today the progressives give charity, not dignity, and they borrow from the grandchildren to give that charity.

I for one think that families and the houses of worship are better suited to give intelligent, and appropriate charity.

Government programs should offer compensation for work, or payouts that are supported by insurance purchases.  The government should not steal the dignity of the citizens by telling them they can’t survive without government handouts.

In the extreme, when the government becomes a charity institution,  it has established itself as a religion. When the Federal government establishes itself as a religion, it violates the first amendment prohibition.

Free citizens should be told to put their faith in God,  family, or humanity, but not in the government.

Advertisements

Written by Justin Jelincic

May 8, 2014 at 8:51 pm

Freedom to Serve

leave a comment »

From my morning devotional reading.   

For you have been called to live in freedom, my brothers and sisters. But don’t use your freedom to satisfy your sinful nature. Instead, use your freedom to serve one another in love. –Galatians 5:13, NLT

 This is a principle that, when applied, makes for a better society.   We can choose to make everything self-centered, or we can choose to make everything others centered.   One satisfies the sinful nature and delights the flesh, the other satisfies the soul and delights the heart.

I choose to serve others.

 

 

Written by Justin Jelincic

March 30, 2014 at 7:37 am

State can corrupt Religion, Religion can improve State

leave a comment »

State involvement in religion corrupts religion, Religious thoughts of statesmen can improve State

My devotions this morning reminded me that those who surrender to the Truth of the Word will see that all men/women are created EQUAL and in God’s image.  They will therefore seek to ensure equality for all.  Such Religious engagement  improves statesmanship, and State.   I will qualify that statement  by saying religious thought that does not demand that ALL men and women are created equal and must be treated equally, does not lead to better statesmanship.  

I am aware that some wear religion like a cloak, to hide their evil intents.  I am not saying Religion is the answer, but those who submit to higher authority than man, particularly true followers of Christ (what I have seen), will generally seek the good and welfare of all, and not their self-interest.

On the reverse, when the State wants to ensure Religion has no place in the thoughts and theory of state, men will set laws based on whatever is right in their own eyes, perhaps according to evolutionary progression, and will see some as more fully evolved, and superior to others. 

Men and women who follow their own mind, and reject absolutes, will come to false conclusions.  They will listen to men, and not to God.  When the State has the power to define truth, or declare its position as absolute, it corrupts religion.  State ordered belief, or State ordered non belief, removes the voice of divine equality, and establishes the voice of self-interest.  When people join a house of worship to fulfil an obligation of the State, the State corrupts religion.  Houses of worship should be filled by those who seek, of their own accord, to worship.

Symbols of truth call mankind to account.  When we want to hide the 10 commandments from public view (at the Oakland Zoo), as was reported on the local news last night, we invite people to be free of moral standards.  Placing on public display, statements of high moral standards, does not corrupt the citizenry, but calls upon them to consider their accountability to the high standards.    Limiting the display of offensive images, or hate filled words, makes sense, but limiting calls to high standards, only serves to lower standards.

I think we need to raise our standards, and should look for ways to encourage honorable living.  

That’s what I’m thinking today.

Written by Justin Jelincic

May 29, 2012 at 9:44 pm

Good words to live by, but not by force of law

leave a comment »

Good words to live by:

1 Corinthians 10:23-24  All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify.  Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being.

These words are spiritual.  They are religious words.  They are true words.  But they should not be government enforced words, when we have a first amendment prohibition on the establishment of Religion.

Citizens should be free to make choices.  They should be accountable to their Creator for the choices they make, but the US government should not make these choices for them, nor punish them when they choose to be selfish. Fair and equal treatment under the law, not unequal treatment under the law, should be the measure and standard of our democracy.

American’s have shown that a great many of us live with generous hearts, and think of the common good.  Some are selfish.  But to say only the rich are selfish is to ignore the truth.  Some want what others have, and want the government to take it away from those who have, to give it to those who do not have.   In a communistic society that would be expected to be law.  In a FREE society, that is not expected. 

We should think about what we can do to increase the number of people who do not  ”seek his own” but instead embrace the ideal of:  ”but each one (seeking) the other’s well-being”.  When we force this by law, it is resisted.  When we encourage this by example, and public discussion, and even preaching, we call upon all to examine how they ARE living and challenge them to think about how they COULD live. 

Obama has let us know that Warren Buffet says he should pay more in taxes, and uses that statement, to say all highly compensated people should pay more taxes.   Obama could remind Warren and any other wealthy person that they COULD give more to the government, or to charity, without the government needing to take it.  No one needs to wait to have it taken from him, the door to charity is open.  I am not sure if what Warren is really saying is:  IF you TAKE it from others, I will go along, but I will not GIVE it of my own choosing.   

What you and I choose to do, in the privacy of our own homes, should be our business.  What we do outside of our homes becomes our communities business.  Regulating what we do in public, for the public good, is what community laws are intended to do.  To regulate and clearly define the consequences of our public choices, so that we can choose what to do, or not do, in public, should be the act of government.   Clarity of what is helpful for others, and builds up society should be clearly understood.  Those public acts that are not helpful, but rather tear down, instead of building up society, should have consequences clearly defined. 

That’s what my daily devotional reading had me thinking today.

Written by Justin Jelincic

May 23, 2012 at 6:00 am

The People vs. the Party

leave a comment »

When the Party leaders defend our rights, because the agree with us, and remain silent to defending our rights because they disagree with us, WE THE PEOPLE must take note of their hypocrcy, and call them on it.  If we do not, then they remain free to DO TO US what they wish, rather than DOING FOR US what we wish.

Last Friday (05/11/2012) I listened to Barbara start a League of Women Voters forum with praise for the President for supporting homosexual marriage, which the people of CA voted against (twice), but on this video clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXhA_9YSgMI) (posted the day before) she defends our vote for medical marijuana.  Why is one vote to be defended, and the other vote not defended?   I think the simple answer is:  The Party platform, not The People’s choice.

I have said I will not attack anyone on a personal level.  That is the poison of politics.  But hypocrisy needs to be pointed out.   It is biblical to point out hypocrisy. As noted in Galatians 2:14-16 hypocrisy should even be called out between leaders:

But when I (Paul) saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?  We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,  knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

I am not asking Barbara to defend herself,  I am asking Barbara to defend US.  I am asking her to represent US even when she does not agree with how WE THE PEOPLE have chosen to vote. 

Whoever we have as a Representative should be CONSISTENT in that representation.  If our Representative disagrees with WE THE PEOPLE they should try to convince us to change our position, but they should not only support us when they agree with us.

WE THE PEOPLE can choose someone who is committed to being a voice for us, or we can choose someone who is committed to being a voice for the Party.   It is our choice, because some of your neighbors put my name on the ballot.

Written by Justin Jelincic

May 16, 2012 at 7:22 am

Today’s spiritual thought and application

leave a comment »

I do not post my devotions on most days, but today’s just needed to be commented on as it is so necessary for the general population to understand.  It applies in spiritual matters, and in political matters.

Matthew 6:24 No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

The American dream must not be about serving mammon (money) as that is a master that will consume those who seek to serve it.  I have chosen to serve The Living God.  I have possessions, but they do not have me.  Those who seek to die with the most toys, do not win, they die.  Those who seek to serve the Lord, may take their last breath, but they live.  Serving God, and those that HE loves, is a fulfilling life.

As I think about being on the ballot to offer to serve my God and Country, I can see that this principle applies to politicians.   In the political arena, I think it is also true that you can not serve two masters.  You will either serve the Party and those who contributed to your election, or you will serve the people who voted for you to be their Representative.  

I do not think you can serve the Party and The People.   The parties are polarized, The People are not.  The People have a great degree of variation.  The People can look for ways to get along, and work together.  The Parties need to win.  The Parties want to keep the money coming.   They will say what they need to to raise money, and then are stuck serving their financial backers.  I think the polls show the approval rating of the members of Congress is low, because only their financial masters are happy, and that is a smaller percentage of the total population.

I am not raising large amounts of money (really none to date) so that I can be free to Serve the Lord, and those HE would have me serve.  HE is my master, and I will happily serve HIM and those HE loves.   And just in case you do not know it:  HE loves all whom HE has created.  HE desires none to perish, but all to come to HIM in a right relationship. HE has made my life worth living, even in tough times.

Written by Justin Jelincic

May 14, 2012 at 10:11 pm

When did Presidents become dictionary authors?

leave a comment »

I originally placed my name on the ballot two years ago because I thought that the Powers that control the Democratic Party had turned deaf to the interest of all Democrats who were not like them.  

The Powers that control the party  call themselves “Progressive”.  From Webster’s dictionary   “a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress  b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities c : of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression

 By their actions, some would call them “socialists”. From Webster: “one who advocates or practices socialism”  where socialism is defined as “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods”

Government (not religious) control of Health Care, Welfare, Charity, To Big to fail enterprises, and more, are why some would see the Democratic leadership as Progressive Socialists.

Years ago I was offended when “the meaning of the word ‘is” was needing to be defined in a tortured way by the President to defend his actions.  Now Barack wants to torture the meaning of the word marriage.   “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.”  Because the states keep enacting legislation to preserve the original intent of the word, against an effort to add “same sex” to the definition.

Calling for the freedom to enter into “a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law” is understood, but to call it marriage is only an effort to redefine a word for the sole intent of defrauding the other party reading, or hearing the word.  

 They hear marriage, and by definition learned in grade school, and at their religious house of worship, they understand that an opposite sex relationship is being discussed.  They hear civil union and they understand a same sex relationship is being discussed.

Choosing to use the word “married” or “marriage” to refer to a same sex union, may make a same sex loving partner feel less vulnerable for their live style choice, but that does not justify the government entering into an effort to defraud.

If the government wants to reclassify all “consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law” as civil unions, for use in the legislative code, then that is fine.  But to confuse the truth, by altering the definition of marriage should not be an objective of the government, or any politician.

I am thinking that part of the reason the White House, and the Congress has such low approval ratings is because they are not trusted.  Citizens have learned they need to parse the words that politicians use, in to order to understand what is really being said.  

Plain speaking, truth-speaking, should be the example set by all elected officials.   Like the founding fathers, I hope we can find and elect, men and women with “Sacred Honor”, who speak the truth, in love.

Written by Justin Jelincic

May 14, 2012 at 7:07 am