Some of my friends “buy American” (Group A).

Some buy “fair-trade” coffee (Group B).

Some do both (Group AB).

And then there are those selfish guys who buy free trade (Group 0).

The first three groups pay a higher price for lower quality. How does that make sense? Don’t such acts promote waste of scarce resources around the world at considerable cost to the perpetrators themselves? Are such people a living proof that economics is based on faulty assumptions? Not at all!

Choices made by people in the first three groups are all examples of rational human behavior as much as the ones made in the last group. You make additional sacrifices because you attach additional value to a product based on location and/or method of production. As a supporter of economic freedom, I fight for your consumer right to make any choice without coercion—even if I see it as wrong (hurting the poor despite your good intentions) or inefficient. And I also fight for your right to engage in discussion for the purpose of finding out the truth and/or promoting your beliefs. So here are a few questions for you:

• Group A: We have heard arguments that free trade promotes the health of our national economy. I assume that your choice is a result of patriotic feelings and/or self-interest (preserving your own job). Shouldn’t you also buy only American coffee? We have millions of unemployed people—perhaps we should subsidize them to grow it for us even if it costs $10 per cup? How exactly does your behavior promote your goals?
• Group B: We have witnessed many distinguished economists’ efforts trying to convince us that free trade is a necessary condition for lifting people in the underdeveloped nations out of misery. I assume that your choice is a result of your desire to help the poor farmers in Third World countries. Do you also buy only fair-trade bananas? Clothes? Shoes? Laptops? Do you only fly on planes made by fair-trade parts? Do you think that this is the most efficient (it’s about Christ’s exhortation to us to be good stewards) way to spend your money to achieve your goals?
• Group AB: “The rarest of all human qualities is consistency,” wrote Jeremy Bentham. How do you reconcile in your mind doing both at the same time?
• Group 0: How can you sleep at night? Don’t your choices promote “exploitation?”

“What experience and history teach is this—that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it” (Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, The Philosophy of History, 1837).

Last week, the Newark Star-Ledger reported that New Jersey lost $70 billion in wealth over the past five years. The reason? Affluent people have moved to states with a lower tax rate or no income tax at all.

The findings are from a study conducted by the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College, the first study on interstate wealth migration in the country. The report found that wealthy New Jersey residents apparently grew tired of the state treating their success as an ATM for politicians and so they moved to Florida, Pennsylvania, and even New York, a state not known for low taxes, but its levies are not as high as New Jersey’s.

The study found that wealth migration is a relatively new phenomenon. In the five years preceding 2004, researchers discovered an influx of $98 billion into the state. That would have been during a period when New Jersey was enjoying tax cuts after a run of four successive Republican governors. The Democrats who followed raised taxes, some substantially.

Dennis Bone, chairman of the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, told The Star-Ledger, “This study makes it crystal clear that New Jersey’s tax policies are resulting in a significant decline in the state’s wealth.”

The problem in New Jersey and with the federal government under Democrats and some Republicans is that ideology has trumped history and common sense when it comes to taxes and spending. Politicians can see the results of lower taxes, which bring greater prosperity and higher revenue to federal and state governments because more people are working and earning money. But their liberal ideology is so frozen it cannot move from its desire to “tax the rich,” even though overtaxing the rich drives the rich to other states. Unfortunately, there is no escaping the long arm of the federal government, which may be why the Obama administration wants to cut back on space travel.

What can be said about politicians who refuse to see the obvious and stick, not to principle (a principle would make them change their minds), but to a rigid ideology that is cult-like in its refusal to accept reality? If you tax more, you will get less because businesses won’t hire, and in extreme cases—like New Jersey—people will move to other states.

The problem for New Jersey and other states—and Washington—is that governments are run by politicians whose main focus is their reelection. In this pursuit they don’t want to say “no” to anyone’s request for an earmark, a project, a program, or an “entitlement.” The result has been a growing addiction by too many people to government instead of reliance on self. As more become dependent on government, more vote to preserve the status quo. And rabid political opponents will set upon anyone who suggests a cut in spending.

Welfare reform should have taught a valuable lesson. There were claims that people would starve in the streets if their welfare checks were ended and recipients were forced to get jobs. They got jobs and no one starved.

Government must begin weaning people from government. If it won’t, we the people must do it. All programs should be continually subject to reauthorization and justification. Social Security and Medicare should be means-tested with incentives for people not to sign-up for them. Families should take care of elderly parents, like they once did. Government should be a last resort, not a first resource.

Just as too many have been conditioned to turn to government, we must be reconditioned to turn away from government and embrace the higher virtue of liberty. We can’t go on taxing and spending ourselves into financial oblivion. New Jersey proves there are limits. Do the Obama administration and a Democratic Congress understand? Will they learn from history?

© 2010 Tribune Media Services Inc.

“For since in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe” (1 Corinthians 1:21).

We Christians read this and shake our heads at the philosophers of this world. We say, they can mind-screw all they want but they will never know God through philosophy. For God has wisely (and very cleverly too!) ordained that the knowledge of his secrets and of his Person cannot be gleaned through the overeducated conceptual gymnastics of Nietzsche and Sartre.

But a disturbing possibility arises in my mind. What if Paul is addressing us! What if he means to warn Christian academics, not just pagan academics? In our schools of Christian training, we do a lot of talking about the gospel. It’s as if we think that if we only fine-tune our descriptions enough, we can know God better at the end of it than if we imbibe the Word itself.

God, on the other hand, says plainly that he is not known through wisdom. He is known through “foolishness.” He says His foolish Word is power (2:4-5). Tough concept: Word as power.

Maybe our heart is in the right place. We want to mount a credible defense of the gospel for our colleagues in the Ivy Leagues—something they can understand. If we package it in their categories, maybe they’ll respect us. (And it feels so good when they respect us.). The way they talk over there is so fine. They have systems, they have pleasing complicatedness. I heard a lecture I didn’t understand a word of! It was wonderful! Whereas the bare gospel sounds so, well . . . foolish.

Before you know it, the “foolish” message of Christ starts to wrap itself in a kind of midrash. We do more midrash talking than “foolish” talking. Paul, he spoke like a fool (1 Corinthians 4:10). We always mean to go out there and speak like a “fool” too eventually. But somehow, when we adjourn from class and all file into the café, we’re still all talking midrash. We’re so used to it. No one dares pipe up and say, “Guess what the Lord is doing in my life!” It would be embarrassing.

To hear commentaries by Andrée Seu, click here.

When the Academy Award nominations were announced last Tuesday, two Christian-influenced films, Up and The Blind Side, surprised industry watchers by making the cut in the best picture category. Pixar’s animated blockbuster Up was written and directed by Pete Docter, a professing believer who moved adult audiences to tears with his tender themes of sacrifice and commitment in marriage. Though not produced by Christians, The Blind Side tells the true story of a Christian family that adopts a homeless African-American teenager and helps him develop his athletic talent.

What separates this pair of movies from typical Oscar contenders isn’t just their faith- and family-honoring content, it’s also their popularity. Whereas none of last year’s best picture nominees earned a spot in the top 10 for box office returns, both The Blind Side and Up can claim that achievement for this year. They ranked eighth and fifth, respectively, in 2009 box office earnings. As the Los Angeles Times noted, “They are precisely the kinds of movies hardly ever nominated for the best-picture Oscar.”

Apparently even the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences was shocked that its voters chose The Blind Side as one of the 10 films for the night’s biggest horse race. While announcing the nominees last week, they were unable to officially acknowledge the film’s three producers because the vetting process hadn’t been completed, suggesting that the Academy didn’t expect it to be a contender.

That snafu notwithstanding, Oscar producers say they see the two films’ nominations as gifts and hope they will draw more viewers to the award broadcast, which in recent years has seen a steady decline in ratings. “We’ve actually spent the last three-and-a-half or four months planning for disaster if we had 10 art films,” said Oscar telecast producer Bill Mechanic at a press conference. His co-producer Adam Shankman added, “I was blindsided by The Blind Side. But that’s a good thing.”

However, some are speculating that if the best picture category hadn’t been expanded to include 10 films instead of the usual five, it’s unlikely either crowd-pleaser would be competing. And many doubt their chances of winning because neither Pete Docter nor The Blind Side director John Lee Hancock were honored with a best director nod, traditionally a bad sign. Making the odds worse for The Blind Side, it was passed over for best screenplay, as well. As Los Angeles Times’ entertainment expert Patrick Goldstein said, “As virtually every breathless Oscar prognosticator will tell you, there are only four movies that have even a remote chance of winning best picture, and all four of them—Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, and Up in the Air—would’ve made the final cut anyway, regardless of whether the academy had five or 10 best picture nominees this year.”

Do you ever feel forgotten, overlooked, or helpless in a world that seems increasingly confusing, rancorous, and on the brink of even more uncertainty and lurking disaster? Maybe you long for someone to come along and say, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself” or, “It’s morning in America again.”

Striking a Great Depression nerve in the 1932 presidential campaign, Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke to the nation soothingly about the “forgotten man.” Roosevelt was confident and reassuring in his radio address. Known earlier as a great humanitarian, the sitting president in 1932, Herbert Hoover, seemed increasingly distant and cold. Weeks after Roosevelt’s hopeful national address, Hoover sent the army to deal with World War I veterans camped out in Washington, D.C., in protest over a pension dispute. In July, Gen. Douglas MacArthur moved aggressively against the impoverished men who had defended their nation in the “war to end all wars.” The result: A burning makeshift encampment became a symbol of the Hoover presidency.

Most Americans wanted someone who would help the forgotten man—not trample him—and they gave Roosevelt a landslide victory in November. They believed the national nightmare would end and joy would return to America.

Do you groan, even ache, to feel like Americans must have felt when Roosevelt won?

Today, if you’re a conservative you may be wondering when the current political nightmare will end. If you’re a liberal, you’re probably disappointed that President Obama is not pushing hard enough.

Is anybody ever truly happy with politics? Remember, when Roosevelt won, the United States was in big financial trouble and his policies had not worked by the 1938 mid-term elections. By then, Hitler was a growing threat and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor three years later. Likewise, when Ronald Reagan took office after the 1970s malaise, he too had serious economic challenges, a deep recession, a critical press, and the Soviet nuclear menace to confront.

This year we’re in the midst of a mid-term election season. The Republicans smell blood and are relying on Scott Brown’s 41st vote. Democrats want to make the most of their majority status, and President Obama hopes to recover his lost magic. However, no matter whether we’re Republicans, Tea Partiers, conservatives, Democrats, or progressives, the question to ask ourselves is, “Where do we place our hope?”

Take a moment and remember the Christmas season just past. To all you who feel forgotten and overwhelmed, cast your lot with Christ: “For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder. … Of the increase of His government and peace, there will be no end. . . .”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer said it, and it is not neo-orthodoxy or bad exegesis but good sense: Whenever you read Scripture, Old Testament or New, you should ask yourself, “What is God saying to me?” This has many benefits, not the least of which is as a safeguard for you, keeping you from the subtle and dangerous alchemy that turns the Word of God into discussable theology, rendering it ineffective in your life. Scripture illustrates:

“As for you, son of man, your people who talk together about you by the walls and at the doors of the houses, say to one another, each to his brother, ‘Come, and hear what the word is that comes from the Lord.’ And they come to you as people come, and they sit before you as my people, and they hear what you say but they will not do it. . . . You are to them like one who sings lustful songs with a beautiful voice and plays well on an instrument, for they hear what you say, but they will not do it . . .” (Ezekiel 33:30-32).

These are people like you and me, who show up to church and to retreats and who take copious notes in their notebooks.

I have discovered a disturbing principle of communication that specifically applies to the Word of God: When you hear a message from Him, if you receive it as interesting information rather than personal command, it not only does you no good, but further hardens you in your ability to receive revelation. This is why Jesus solemnly warns, “Take care then how you hear, for to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he thinks he has will be taken away” (Luke 8:18). This is also why He tells the story of the seed that fell to the ground and was immediately snatched away by birds (Luke 8:5,12). Use it or lose it.

“And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it” (Revelation 12:4). Even at the birthing stool, Satan was present with talons sharpened, to render the Christ child dead on arrival. Having failed at that manger scene, he now contents himself to render God’s Word DOA in our hearts as it comes to us in sermons or in our private devotions. Behind the sensate curtain of reality, a dark presence hovers over the place of most promise, the imminent birthings of new life and insight in Christ. The only antidote I have found to the poison is to pray over God’s Word even as I am reading it, to thank Him for the truth I am hearing, and to put it into practice at once, either by doing or by praying my assent.

To hear commentaries by Andrée Seu, click here.

Two stories of redemption interlaced at the New York City Rescue Mission last Monday: one in the lives of destitute men who depend on the luck of the draw for a bed at a mission, and one in the life of a man who made $65,000 a week at the height of his pro football career.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg declared last week “Souper Bowl Week” to highlight the work of homelessness organizations, and The New York City Rescue Mission brought in former New York Jets All-Pro defensive end Mark Gastineau to help serve food.

The people who come to NYCRM can have a meal with no strings attached, but if they want a bed they have to sit through a chapel service. The mission feeds people for as long as its food supply lasts. But because of its limited space, it has to have a lottery to determine who will stay the night. If it’s below 32 degrees, the city authorizes the mission to provide emergency services. Then staff can spread cots and blankets in the chapel, a room with walls adorned with Scripture like “How can we neglect so great salvation?” If it’s 33 degrees, the many homeless are out of luck.

Monday’s menu included  Italian wedding soup with spicy meatballs and vegetables bobbing in broth, chicken noodle soup, roast chicken, and salad. The soup was courtesy of the “Original Soup Man,” the company begun by Al Yeganeh,  the inspiration for the “Soup Nazi” of Seinfeld fame—a crotchety character on the show but known in real life as a generous man who gave soup away to the homeless and hungry.

One woman, who was impressed, asked if they fed people every night. A regular named John said, yes, “but they don’t feed like this every night.” Sometimes there is just macaroni and cheese, he added. He said he was a carpenter who had made mistakes but knew it. Just out of detox and now staying at the mission, John spoke of forgiveness and faith: “I’m not religious, but I follow Jesus.”

Gastineau has a rocky history himself—a player known for his cockiness on the field, his domestic struggles off the field, and his use of steroids. He spent 11 months at Riker’s Island prison. Then, according to ESPN, he attended Times Square Church in New York City as part of a church-sponsored program for first-time offenders. He found Christianity and said, “God gave Mark Gastineau his son Jesus. . . . He died on the cross and I’m forgiven for everything. I could not go on if it wasn’t for that. ”

But he tells me that he encountered God for the first time much earlier, when he broke his leg at age 10. It got infected—”I could see right through it,” Gastineau remembers—and the deep scar is still there. Doctors were afraid he would never walk again, but his mom, who was attending a Baptist church, told him the congregation was praying for him. He went on to walk again—and then become one of the quickest and most-feared pass rushers in the NFL.

“I thought I was God,” he said—until he lost his rich accoutrements and found his way back.

And here Gastineau is now, sitting across from a group of homeless men and reminiscing about his glory days on the gridiron. Some of the men are camera-shy but others are thrilled have their pictures taken with him and ask the photographer to send them the photos.

One older man looks at him in wonder: “You got old,” he says. “Yeah I did,” Gastineau replies. “I grew up.”

Focus on the Family isn’t the only Christian group making news over Super Bowl TV commercials. Mosaic, a Los Angeles-based church, is one of six finalists in Doritos’ “Crash the Super Bowl” challenge, a contest where three winners’ ads will air during the Super Bowl.

Associated Press writer Gillian Flaccus reports that Mosaic’s submission, titled “Casket,” is a “lighthearted spoof that plays off the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Having seen it, that seems like a massive overstatement if not an outright misstatement (click here to see for yourself). No part of the ad concerns Jesus or his resurrection. What the commercial really does is play on the eons-old trope of “playing dead” (or playing sick, playing hurt, playing possum, etc.), then proclaiming “it’s a miracle” when the jig is up. It’s the same scenario we’ve seen on Seinfeld, Friends, and countless other sitcoms, and there’s very little original (or, to be fair, offensive) about the church’s entry.

But given that the ad makes no mention of God, Jesus, grace, forgiveness, or any other biblical concept, is there any point to Mosaic’s participation? As pastor Erwin McManus freely admits to the Religion News Service, “We didn’t sit there and go, ‘How do we sneak our message into the commercial?’ We actually asked the question, ‘How do we create for Doritos the best commercial possible?’”

Does the church’s involvement in the contest undermine its witness? Or is it simply a question of harmless fun? The ad may do nothing to advance the cause of Christ or even this particular church, but it’s easy to imagine that the church members—many of them part of the filmmaking community—had a good time creating it.

Many of my conservative friends long ago gave up their subscriptions to The New York Times because reading it simply drove them crazy. With all the other sources of news available to them, they decided they didn’t need to start their days with stomachs churning. I can relate. The bias in the Times is staggering at times, but I (try to) read it regularly. It gives me a sense of where the cultural elite is coming from, so to speak, and often provides grist for commentary. The Times, like so many other mainstream media outlets, is biased not only in its reporting, but also in what it chooses to include (and not include) in its pages.

The Sunday magazine section has a regular feature called “The Ethicist.” Yes, I hear your groans and I feel your pain. Nonetheless, if one isn’t prone to ulcers, this question-and-answer-style column often provides a window onto a brave (or should I say brazen) new world.

The most recent installment included the following question from a reader in San Francisco:

“My husband and I practice polyamory, aka ethical nonmonogamy. We are open about this to friends but are unsure what to disclose to others. Our housekeeper might have seen me in bed with my boyfriend. Must I explain? When I travel for business, I sometimes take my boyfriend. Must I fill in a co-worker I see only occasionally? I don’t want to hide my affection for my boyfriend or make anyone uncomfortable.”

Starting with the obvious here, if this woman has no ethical qualms about being unfaithful to her husband, why should she care in the least what her housekeeper and co-worker think? She’s obviously decided to live life her way and not according to societal norms.

But the ethicist is obviously much further “evolved” than I am. The issue of her polyamorous relationships is of no interest or concern to him. It’s a given, an accepted, acceptable given.

He advises “name withheld” to “act as comfortable as possible” to help put others at ease, and to close the bedroom door on days when the housekeeper comes.

Problem solved!

President Obama attended the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington yesterday. His own denomination—the United Church of Christ—has been teasingly described as “Unitarians considering Christ.” I don’t know how much he is considering Jesus, but he sure is quiet about it if he is. Even among Christians, the president seems to believe in a Christless Christianity.

He quoted President Kennedy’s inaugural—always a good idea. “Civility is not a sign of weakness,” he said. But as with omitting Jesus, the president skipped the rest of the JFK quote: “. . . but sincerity is always subject to proof.”

We are seeing little proof of his sincerity these days. Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson recognized Barack Obama’s great gifts—as all Americans once did. When he first appeared on the scene, it seemed Obama could be eloquent reading the telephone book. Of late, Gerson points out, more and more Americans think the president is just reading the telephone book.

Obama has told the world he is a Christian, not a Muslim. We have his word on it. We even have the word of his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, on it. There has never been a religious test for any federal office, including the presidency. In fact, the candidate elected in 1908—a full century before Obama—was not a Christian. William Howard Taft was a fine president. But as a Unitarian, Taft rejected the Holy Trinity; he rejected the divinity of Jesus Christ.

When President Obama took the oath of office last year, he made a stunning rhetorical shift in his inaugural address. He described America as a nation of “Christians and Muslims, Jews, Hindus and nonbelievers.” Where did that come from? This was the first time in U.S. history that the Jews had been so displaced.

Jews first arrived in America in 1654, in the New Netherlands colony that was then owned by the Dutch. Jews have been an integral part of our history as a people ever since. They have fought in all of America’s wars.

Though a small minority, the influence of the Jews has been great. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin wanted the official seal of the United States to depict Moses leading the Children of Israel out of bondage in Egypt. My fellow black Americans took inspiration from the Hebrews in our own 300-year struggle for freedom.

Even though a small percentage of America today, the Jewish people are by all counts a larger percentage of the American population than Muslims. And since Jews are, in the phrase of Pope John Paul II, “our elder brothers in the faith,” Jewish ideals and the Hebrew Scriptures have animated Christians in this country from the time the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock.

So why has President Obama pushed them aside? It’s not just a rhetorical slip. A president’s inaugural address is freighted with meaning.

The president ventured deeper into theological confusion in his Cairo address. He referred to “the Holy Koran.” He described the Middle East as the region “where Islam was first revealed.”

Muslims are certainly free to believe these things. But Christians cannot regard the sacred books of any other religion as holy or revealed. If they do, they are denying their own faith.

No one expects the president of the United States to use his state powers to Christianize the world. Previous attempts to advance Christianity with the sword have led to great discredit to the Church.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first U.S. president to meet with the King of Saudi Arabia. FDR met Abdul Azziz aboard the U.S.S. Quincy on Feb. 14, 1945. Because of this historic meeting, the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, is known as Quincy House to this day.

Roosevelt was described by his son Franklin Jr. as “a very religious man.” FDR found no need to bow to the Muslim king. The president attended Christian services on board the Quincy and made no apologies for his faith.

When President Obama makes theological statements about Islam that no Christian can believe or accept, he is not reaching out or simply engaging in diplomatic niceties. He is sending a most confusing message.

I am not questioning his beliefs, but I think the mixed messages he has sent only fuel speculation about those beliefs. These speculations then fly around the internet and undermine the sincerity of his own professions of belief. This has created a credibility gap for him with millions of Americans.

You can be diplomatic and culturally sensitive without surrendering your Christian faith.

I spent years meeting with Arab and Muslim diplomats when I served as U.S. ambassador to the UN Human Rights Commission. I never sought to give needless offense to those with whom I was meeting. Neither did I ever give up one iota of my own Christian beliefs.

President Washington set the pattern. He wrote in 1790 to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport, R.I. He welcomed the messages of support the American Jewish community had sent to him and to the new government. We should be proud, as Washington wrote, that “the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance,” has set the highest standard for religious liberty in the world.

The Muslim-dominant states to which President Obama was reaching out have no such example of liberty. In none of the states where Islam predominates are the basic tenets of religious liberty honored. This is undeniable, as the president’s own State Department’s reports on religious freedom confirm year after year.

Washington was the first ruler in history to address the Jews as equal fellow citizens. His example helped to make this country a beacon for religious freedom. Our free churches and synagogues led the fight to end slavery, to stop segregation, and to protect human life.

In this, we have nothing to apologize for. No American should bow to any monarch. And no one on earth should bow to the persecuting King of Saudi Arabia. Instead, let us stand tall for liberty.