Isn’t it time to privatize welfare? That is a question that John Goodman (National Center for Policy Analysis) asks in a recent column and in his book, Privatizing the Welfare State. He explains the reason by asking other questions.

Have you ever given money to the food stamp program? Do you know anyone who has? Why doesn’t United Way give to government welfare programs? United Way in Dallas last year donated $50 million to 90 private charities. The food stamp program was not among them. Why?

The answer is simple. The federal welfare programs are not very efficient (to put it mildly). Private sector anti-poverty programs do a better job of getting aid to the needy and are better at encouraging self-sufficiency and self-reliance. They also use resources more efficiently than the government.

For people who are skeptical, Goodman proposes a market test. Let the food stamp program compete on a level playing field against every other anti-poverty program, private or public. American donated almost $300 billion last year to private sector charities in addition to volunteer time valued as $158 billion.

Actually he proposes more than just a simple test. His proposal for government would work like this. Each taxpayer would be able to allocate up to $2,000 of taxes owed to any qualified charity providing assistance to indigent people. He would even let the food stamp program get all the default money (if a taxpayer doesn’t claim a private charity credit). But every dollar that taxpayer gives to a private charity is a dollar the food stamp program must forgo.

He would eventually like this to apply to all welfare programs. And he is aware of possible objections and responds to the 21 possible objections. He believes it is time to privatize the welfare state. Frankly, I think we should have done this years ago.

Mention the name of God, and you can lose government funding. That’s what one sheriff in Louisiana learned recently. The Department of Justice (DOJ) cut $30,000 for two Sheriff’s Office youth programs, including the Bossier Young Marines. The reason? The program’s oath placed “special emphasis on the love of God and fidelity to our country.”

Sheriff Julian Whittington said they “were informed that these are unacceptable, inherently religious activities and the Department of Justice would not be able to fund the programs if it continued.” He added that the government demanded a “letter from me stating that I would no longer have voluntary prayer and I would also have to remove ‘God’ from the Young Marine’s oath.”

Let’s put this in perspective. The DOJ receives its funds from a Congress that opens every session in prayer. Those funds are denominated in currency that has the words “In God We Trust.” By the way, this is the same government that has no problem sending billions of dollars to groups like Planned Parenthood, that don’t do the good that Young Marine Initiative does every year.

We don’t need to feel too sorry for the sheriff and his programs. Donations have been pouring in. Politicians have taken up their cause. Representative John Fleming has defended them and criticized the DOJ. Governor Bobby Jindal attended their “In God We Trust” Rally on July 4 and called on the government to reinstate funding for the program. He said it “has helped a number of Louisiana youth better themselves and be successful, contributing citizens of this great state.”

Liberty Institute is also involved. They sent a letter to the DOJ last week, informing officials that the denial of funds to the youth programs violates the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause because it constitutes unlawful viewpoint discrimination. Liberty also demands that the DOJ restore funding without delay or special conditions.

The Sheriff is moving ahead with or without the government’s help. I applaud his courage and work to help troubled youth.

It doesn’t take much to get on the wrong side of the politically correct military. Just ask Air National Guardsman Layne Wilson. This 27-year veteran wrote a letter to West Point objecting to the lesbian wedding ceremony held in the cadet chapel. At the time he wrote the letter, the Defense of Marriage Act was still in effect. So not only was he defending traditional marriage, he was defending the law of the land.

Nevertheless, he was reprimanded. Lt. Col. Kevin Tobias wrote: “As a noncommissioned officer, you are expected to maintain a standard of professional and personal behavior that is above reproach.” He encouraged Wilson to move on “because we’ve been ordered to not have an opinion about gays in the military.”

It got worse. Wilson’s superiors decided to rescind his six-year contract. That would have ended the health coverage for his wife, who is currently suffering from stage-four breast cancer. Then they stated that Wilson could receive a one-year extension. When he threatened to sue, the military backed down and finally agreed to reinstate his original six-year enlistment contract that included health insurance.

This story is representative of many others in which Christians in the military feel pressured to accept the political correctness that has become part of the armed services. In this case, Layne Wilson was expressing a view that is still held by a majority of Americans. It is the stated policy in a majority of states that have passed an amendment defining traditional marriage. And of course, it is the biblical perspective on marriage.

This story also reminds us that there are consequences to military policies and Supreme Court decisions. When Congress repealed the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy, it eventually opened the door for homosexual weddings in military chapels. When the Supreme Court declared that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, it made it even less likely any other officer (like Layne Wilson) would express his or her opinion about gay or lesbian weddings in military chapels. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view

It doesn’t take much to get on the wrong side of the politically correct military. Just ask Air National Guardsman Layne Wilson. This 27-year veteran wrote a letter to West Point objecting to the lesbian wedding ceremony held in the cadet chapel. At the time he wrote the letter, the Defense of Marriage Act was still in effect. So not only was he defending traditional marriage, he was defending the law of the land.

Nevertheless, he was reprimanded. Lt. Col. Kevin Tobias wrote: “As a noncommissioned officer, you are expected to maintain a standard of professional and personal behavior that is above reproach.” He encouraged Wilson to move on “because we’ve been ordered to not have an opinion about gays in the military.”

It got worse. Wilson’s superiors decided to rescind his six-year contract. That would have ended the health coverage for his wife, who is currently suffering from stage-four breast cancer. Then they stated that Wilson could receive a one-year extension. When he threatened to sue, the military backed down and finally agreed to reinstate his original six-year enlistment contract that included health insurance.

This story is representative of many others in which Christians in the military feel pressured to accept the political correctness that has become part of the armed services. In this case, Layne Wilson was expressing a view that is still held by a majority of Americans. It is the stated policy in a majority of states that have passed an amendment defining traditional marriage. And of course, it is the biblical perspective on marriage.

This story also reminds us that there are consequences to military policies and Supreme Court decisions. When Congress repealed the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy, it eventually opened the door for homosexual weddings in military chapels. When the Supreme Court declared that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, it made it even less likely any other officer (like Layne Wilson) would express his or her opinion about gay or lesbian weddings in military chapels. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view

Yesterday I talked about a book produced by Barna Research entitled, UnChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity. This book helps us understand why non-Christians seem so cold to the claims of Christianity.

The book lists six common perceptions that non-Christians have about Christians and Christianity. Yesterday we talked about the first three: that Christians are hypocritical, that they are too focused on converts, and that they were anti-homosexual. Let’s now look at the next three.

4. Sheltered – outsiders feel that Christians often offer simplistic answers to the complex and troubling aspects of modern life. They perceive us an old-fashioned, boring, and generally out of touch with reality.

5. Political – often outsiders perceive Christianity as merely an extension of right-wing politics. They feel Christians are too political or are motivated by political interests. That doesn’t mean Christians shouldn’t be salt and light, but they should be aware that this is a connection that non-Christians often make.

6. Judgmental – nearly 90 percent of outsiders say the term “judgmental” accurately describes Christians today. Only 20 percent of outsiders view the church as a place where people are accepted and loved unconditionally. Christians sadly are known more for their criticism than for their love. And we may be so fixated with sin that we cannot really love broken people.

As we look at the six perceptions, we should admit that some of these criticisms would surface no matter how well Christians try to be loving and gracious. After all, many of these same people would probably call Jesus judgmental. So some of these perceptions will be with us no matter what we say or do.

But I think it is important for us to be real and authentic rather than hypocritical. And we should be relevant rather than sheltered. So there is some work for us to do if we are to effectively reach the next generation.

If you have ever wondered why non-Christians reject the gospel and turn down your invitation to attend your church, then I have a book for you. Barna

Research has produced a book entitled, UnChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity. This book helps us understand why non-

Christians seem so cold to the claims of Christianity.

The researchers found that a minority of young people believe that labels like “respect, love, hope, and trust” describe Christianity. But the rest have lost

respect for Christianity. David Kinnaman, President of the Barna Research Group and one of the authors of the book, says we need to resolve this perception

problem if we are to connect with the youngest generation.

He lists six common perceptions that non-Christians have about Christians and Christianity. Today we will look at the first three.

1. Hypocritical – outsiders to Christianity believe that Christians say one thing and do another. They found that 84 percent knew a Christian, but only 15

percent believed that the Christian they knew acted consistently with his or her beliefs.

Hypocrisy is not just a 21st century phenomenon. Lately I have preached on the subject of hypocrisy and have been reminded how Jesus spoke so strongly

against hypocrisy in the 1st century. But this survey shows that Christians must be authentic and acting consistently with Christian beliefs.

2. Focused on converts – outsiders often feel more like targets. Christians want to get them saved, but they don’t listen to them and these outsiders don’t

feel truly loved.

3. Anti-homosexual – the younger generation is less likely to see homosexuality as sin so they equate Christians with being anti-homosexual. There is a

real need for us to show biblical compassion as we address this issue with our biblical convictions.

There are three other perceptions that I will address tomorrow. These six are key issues that Christians need to address if we are to effectively reach the

next generation.

Americans may not like the fact that the National Security Agency has seized data on their phone and Internet usage, but feel like there is nothing they can

do about it. Constitutional law professor Randy Barnett (Georgetown University) believes Congress or the courts can put a stop to these data seizures. He

argues in a recent column that, “The NSA’s Surveillance is Unconstitutional.”
He also adds another concern to this invasion of our privacy. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (created by the Dodd-Frank financial reform) is

compiling a massive database of citizen’s personal information and financial transactions.
Randy Barnett says all of this violates some of the foundation principles of our government. The Fourth Amendment bans unreasonable seizures of a

person’s papers. It also protects what we today call “informational privacy.” The real question is whether seizing the records of private communications

companies is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. He argues that it does because of the way in which the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court routinely

approves the blanket seizure of every American’s metadata.
That raises a second constitutional question. The Fifth Amendment stipulates that no one may be deprived of property “without due process of law.” The

secret judicial proceedings, he believes, is the very “antithesis of the due process of law.” The secrecy of these meetings makes it impossible to hold public

servants accountable.
He also points to the future abuse of these records. Gun rights advocates oppose gun registration because gun registries would make it feasible for gun

confiscation to take place in the future. Likewise, these massive databanks make it feasible for government workers to download and use the private contents

of our electronic communication and financial transactions without our knowledge and consent.
Randy Barnett calls on Congress or the courts to put a stop to these unreasonable blanket seizures of data. I hope one of these bodies takes his advice.

Speeches at graduation are usually quickly forgotten. Many deserve to be forgotten. Others were of note but get lost in all the commencement activities. Senator Ted Cruz delivered the commencement address at Hillsdale College. We are fortunate the school reprinted his speech in the May/June issue of Imprimis.
He spoke about the “Miracle of Freedom” and reminded the students that in the history of mankind, freedom has been the exception. Kings and queens, dictators and tyrants have governed most of humanity that has ever lived on this planet. Power flows down from them.

The British started a revolution against this thinking with the Magna Carta. “That revolution reached full flower in Philadelphia in 1787 in a Constitution that began from two radical premises.” First, our rights do not come from kings (or even presidents) but from God. Our Creator endows us with certain unalienable rights. Second, that power comes from “We the People.” It also put together checks on government. Thomas Jefferson said they were “chains of the Constitution” that would bind the mischief of government.

Ted Cruz also talked about the American free market, calling it the “greatest engine for prosperity and opportunity that the world has ever seen.” It has provided a means to raise so many from poverty to prosperity. One statistic is worth mentioning. “Over the last two centuries, U.S. growth rates have far outpaced growth rates around the world, producing per capita incomes about six times greater than the world average and 50 percent higher than those in Europe.”

Freedom also produces opportunity. Citizens can climb the economic ladder and pull themselves up one rung at a time. You are free to use your talents, pursue your passion, and persevere until you are successful.

This truly is the miracle of freedom. Freedom works. It’s a message I encourage you to share with others.