The current debate about Obamacare provided a teachable moment on the nature of the political system in our country. No doubt you have heard many

people say that we have a democracy in this country. We do not have a democracy. We have a republic. That is what the Founding Fathers intended.

John Hayward wrote about an interchange between talk show host Al Sharpton and Representative Doug Collins. Their conversation took place as the

House was about to vote on a continuing resolution that would keep the government open but defund Obamacare.

Sharpton said: “What the people don’t understand, congressman, is how we pass laws the Supreme Court upholds and you guys come in and say, ‘Were

not going to fund it and even worse, if money goes there, we’ll shut the whole government down.’ We thought we lived in a democracy.”

Representative Collins replied, “Hey, Al, just a reminder, this isn’t a democracy. This is a republic.” That caused Reverend Sharpton to respond with the

following. “I really hope the people in the 9th District know in the next election they should not vote thinking this is a democracy. That Doug Collins says this is

not a democracy. I’ll even send you the clip so you can play it in your next campaign.”

For the record, Collins is right and Sharpton is wrong. I would hope most people would know this simply by saying the Pledge of Allegiance. We pledge

ourselves to the republic not the democracy.

By the way, if we did live in a democracy where the majority rules, we wouldn’t have Obamacare. A majority of Americans oppose it. And we might have lots

of others things. A majority of Americans support such things as prayer and Bible reading in the schools. A majority of Americans support a balanced budget. A

majority of Americans want to cut corporate welfare. A majority of Americans support lots of common sense restrictions on abortion. The list goes on and on.

I’m glad we live in a republic and not a democracy. But someone needs to send an email to Al Sharpton. He thinks we live in a democracy.

Over the last year, we have been reading lots of stories about crimes committed by NFL players. There is good reason. The number of arrests of NFL players just in the off-season reached an all-time high.

Commentators have put forth all sorts of explanations. Professional football is violent, so some argue that the violence on the field naturally spills out into society. Others blame the violence of NFL players on concussions, performance drugs, or the so-called “gun culture” of America.

Gary Bauer has a different explanation: broken families. He writes that of the 26 players whose family histories he could glean from research, 21 of them grew up in homes in which at least one biological parent (in most cases the father) was absent. He is quick to add that this is not a scientific analysis, but it does point to a possible discussion and evaluation.

Broken families are a nationwide problem. The Marriage and Religion Research Institute estimates that 45 percent of American teens grow up in families in which both biological parents are present and have been married since their child’s birth. Fewer than 20 percent of black teens grow up in such homes.

Brad Wilcox is the director of the University of Virginia’s National Marriage Project. He observes that: “boys who grow up in fatherless homes are less likely to get supervision and modeling they need to steer clear of trouble with the law.” One study published in the Journal of Research on Adolescence found that boys who grow up apart from their father are two to three times more likely to be jailed by the time they turn 30. A British study published this year found that boys 14 and younger whose parents split were twice as likely to be convicted of a violent crime later.

Gary Bauer is quick to remind us that correlation does not imply causation. But we cannot ignore the growing research that shows the correlation between broken homes and subsequent crime. Perhaps the commentators looking for reasons for so much crime committed by NFL players should look first at their families of origin. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Os Guinness has been reminding Christians of the need for civility in the public square. He made that case in his previous book, The Case for Civility. And the theme surfaces once again in his new book, The Global Public Square. He talks about the concept of “soul freedom” and laments the loss of the first liberty (religious liberty) here and around the world. He sets forth a constructive vision for how society can address the issue of human dignity and justice for all.

In the course of the radio interview, we talked about the need for civility in our public discourse. I added that often people think civility means that we must be “wimps for Christ” and never make a strong, robust argument. We talked about one illustration that Os Guinness uses to illustrate how a robust but civil debate can and should take place.

Up until the 19th century, boxing was a brutal sport. In 1867 the Marquis of Queensberry lent his name to regulations that today are known as a Queensberry rules. Boxers touch gloves to begin and don’t punch below the belt. They still fight until someone loses, but the rules changed the sport.

During the interview, Os Guinness used the example of William Wilberforce. He entered the ring in 1787 by arguing for the abolition of slavery. He was defeated every year for 20 years. But he was willing to continue to enter the ring of political opinion and fight with everything he had to persuade until he was able to prevail.

Through it all Wilberforce was gracious. He was humble and loving. Twice his opponents attacked him in the streets of London. Nevertheless, he remained strong but gracious.

Wilberforce is a model for speaking truth in love. He had strong opinions. He was an eloquent debater. But he was also gracious and civil. We need to adopt Wilberforce’s model of civility today, especially since so many in the political arena have become shrill and contentious. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Is there a connection between what happened in Benghazi and what is happening in Syria? That is a question that one member of Congress raised with the Secretary of State. His question was quickly dismissed.

Some guests who have appeared on my radio program believe there is a connection that the administration doesn’t want disclosed. They believe the administration is trying to bury the Benghazi scandal and run out the clock. That strategy may be working since we are now a year removed from what happened in Libya.

More than a year later there are still many unanswered questions. Why, for example, did the State Department blame the attack on a YouTube video when there are documents that show that within hours of the attack, the administration knew it was a coordinated terrorist attack?

A related question is who was responsible for inserting the YouTube explanation into the talking points? Was it a person in the State Department or the White House? The Libyan president was saying days after the attack that is was planned and premeditated. But the administration continued explaining that it was due to a YouTube video.

Members of Congress want to know why commandos were denied permission to go to Benghazi. The only response was they would have arrived too late to make a difference. Yet at the time, no one knew how long the attacks would last.

Why was a Foreign Emergency Support Team denied permission to go to Benghazi? Supposedly the conditions were “too dangerous.” If that is so, why was the ambassador and others in the area? And why wasn’t embassy security strengthened if the area was so dangerous?

Another question involves then-Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Why didn’t the Accountability Review Board interview her? After all, she said she took “full responsibility” for the attack.

The American people deserve answers to these questions before we put more Americans (both troops and ambassadors) in harms way. But a year after the attack, I fear that most Americans are willing to move on rather than get answers. I hope that I am wrong. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Is there a connection between what happened in Benghazi and what is happening in Syria? That is a question that one member of Congress raised with the Secretary of State. His question was quickly dismissed.

Some guests who have appeared on my radio program believe there is a connection that the administration doesn’t want disclosed. They believe the administration is trying to bury the Benghazi scandal and run out the clock. That strategy may be working since we are now a year removed from what happened in Libya.

More than a year later there are still many unanswered questions. Why, for example, did the State Department blame the attack on a YouTube video when there are documents that show that within hours of the attack, the administration knew it was a coordinated terrorist attack?

A related question is who was responsible for inserting the YouTube explanation into the talking points? Was it a person in the State Department or the White House? The Libyan president was saying days after the attack that is was planned and premeditated. But the administration continued explaining that it was due to a YouTube video.

Members of Congress want to know why commandos were denied permission to go to Benghazi. The only response was they would have arrived too late to make a difference. Yet at the time, no one knew how long the attacks would last.

Why was a Foreign Emergency Support Team denied permission to go to Benghazi? Supposedly the conditions were “too dangerous.” If that is so, why was the ambassador and others in the area? And why wasn’t embassy security strengthened if the area was so dangerous?

Another question involves then-Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Why didn’t the Accountability Review Board interview her? After all, she said she took “full responsibility” for the attack.

The American people deserve answers to these questions before we put more Americans (both troops and ambassadors) in harms way. But a year after the attack, I fear that most Americans are willing to move on rather than get answers. I hope that I am wrong. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

While Congress and the president debate whether to use our military to strike Syria, there has been a basic question that Representative Buck McKeon wants answered. How is the military going to be effective if we keep cutting their budget?

The military budget is being cut every year due to sequestration. During the last five years the defense department budget has been cut three times. The reductions total $1.2 trillion. Here is how Buck McKeon explained it.

“President Obama surged troops to Afghanistan as he cut the military’s budget. He sent the Air Force on bombing missions over Libya as he cut the military’s budget. He initiated a pivot to Asia, focusing the Navy there, as he cut the military’s budget. And now he is asking Congress to authorize military strikes against Syria while cutting the military’s budget another $50 billion in the next fiscal year under sequestration.”

Buck McKeon compares it to your car. “If you put 175,000 miles on your Chevy and spend less on maintenance as time passed, soon that Chevy’s going to up on blocks.” We are not only cutting back on weapons, we are cutting back on military salaries. The day before the president asked Congress to authorize the mission, he told the troops that their salaries will be less next year.

We can have a robust debate about whether we should use military and how we should use the military. But an important question that deserves to be part of the debate is whether we should commit a depleted military to combat missions. We should make sure that our troops have the salaries, equipment, and support so their mission is successful.

Some who call into my radio program ask why we are talking about another military action when America is nearly $17 trillion in debt. Other ask why we want to spend more money and engage in another military action when we have problems that need to be addressed at home. These are good questions that deserve a hearing.

Buck McKeon is asking the most basic question. Can we expect the military to be successful with a depleted budget? I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Many social commentators warn us of the dangers of media overload. We have so many messages and so many digital devices vying for our attention that sometimes we can’t think straight. Some saw this coming.

I was reminded of that when a staff member recently read from the preface of Neil Postman’s book, Amusing Ourselves to Death. He was talking about the difference between two books warning us of the future: George Orwell’s book 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s book Brave New World. Here’s what Postman said:

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.”

“Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture. . . . In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear would ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire would ruin us.”

Postman concluded by saying that his book was “about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.” And he was correct. While there is certainly a real fear of government control in many totalitarian countries, our greatest threat in this country comes from the freedom to fill our lives with information so that the truth “would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.”

I think this poses one of the greatest threats to the gospel. The Bible and biblical truth have become just one of many ideas in a sea of worldviews.

Whenever I speak on the subject of economics, I almost always tell the story of Thriftville and Squanderville. Let me give due credit to Warren Buffett who first told the story of two side-by-side islands of equal size: Thriftville and Squanderville.

On these islands, land is a capital asset. At first, the people on both islands are at a subsistence level and work eight hours a day to meet their needs. But the Thrifts realize that if they work harder and longer, they can produce a surplus of goods they can trade with the Squanders. So the Thirfts decide to do some serious saving and investing and begin to work 16 hours a day. They begin exporting to Squanderville.

The people of Squanderville like the idea of working less. They can begin to live their lives free from toil. So they willingly trade for these goods with “Squanderbonds” that are denominated in “Squanderbucks.” Over time, the citizens of Thriftville accumulate lots of Squanderbonds. Some of the pundits in Squanderville see trouble. They foresee that the Squanders will now have to put in double time to eat and pay off their debt.

At about the same time, the citizens of Thriftville begin to get nervous and wonder if the Squanders will make good on their Squanderbonds (which are essentially IOUs). So the Thrifts start selling their Squanderbonds for Squanderbucks. Then they use the Squanderbucks to buy Squanderville land. Eventually the Thrifts own all of Squanderville.

Now the citizens of Squanderville must pay rent to live on the land which is owned by the Thrifts. The Squanders feel like they have been colonized by purchase rather than conquest. And they also face a horrible set of circumstances. They now must not only work eight hours in order to eat, but they must work additional hours to service the debt and pay Thriftville rent on the land they sold to them.

Sound familiar? It should. In many ways, Squanderville is America.