Agape Veritas

DNA to predict criminal behavior?

2008-04-20T21:21:00.000-07:00

"Wall of silence broken at state's Muslim public school"

2008-04-09T13:45:00.000-07:00

Imagine the outcry if a public school was being operated by a Christian Pastor for the purposes of advancing Christian teachings and worship? That's what appears to be happening in Minnesota, except that the religion of choice is, of course, Islam: Wall of Silence Broken

Ist Amendment in the Balance in California

2007-08-03T12:12:00.000-07:00

By Laura Parker, USA TODAY
When does the freedom to practice religion become discrimination?
The California Supreme Court is being asked to answer that question when it hears a legal dispute between a lesbian mom and two doctors who refused to artificially inseminate her for religious reasons.Article here

Prohibition of Spanking Legislation in California

2007-04-25T19:34:00.000-07:00

JOINT LEGISLATIVE NEWSFLASH UPDATE - April 24, 2007
From: Roy Hanson's Child and Family Protection Association and HSLDA

Bill: AB 755 - Prohibition of Spanking
Author: Assembly Member Sally Lieber
Position: Strongly Oppose
Status: In Assembly

This is an UPDATE to our previous, April 11, 2007, Action Alert
regarding Assembly Member Sally Lieber's "Prohibition of Spanking"
bill, AB 755.

AB 755 continues to move through the Legislature. AB 755 was amended
and passed by the Assembly Public Safety Committee on April 17th. AB
755 is still a very dangerous bill for parents throughout California.

AB 755 would have the practical effect of making a non-injurious
spanking with an object such as a ruler, folded newspaper, paddle,
etc. illegal. After being arrested, charged, and tried in a criminal
court, parents could receive up to one year in jail and lose custody
of their children.

We updated our "AB 755 - Action Alert" and our 4-page backgrounder,
"AB 755 - Updated Alert Supplement" on April 24, 2007. Both the
Updated Alert and the Updated Alert Supplement are posted at
child and family protection.

These two documents are designed to help every concerned parent: 1)
to understand this bill and its implications for every family in
California and the nation, and 2) to be able to present the most
effective reasons why such a bill should not be passed by the
Legislature.

AB 755 is an incremental step toward the outlawing of all spanking,
which the author has publicly stated is her ultimate goal.

We will be issuing another Action Alert by e-mail on AB 755 within the
next several weeks, just before AB 755 is sent to the Assembly Floor
for a full vote by every Assembly Member. We are continuing to
monitor AB 755 daily, as we do with all legislation.

Permission given to reprint or forward this Newsflash unaltered to
your friends, church, school, and group.

Roy Hanson's HELP Tree
Child and Family Protection Association
P.O. Box 730
Lincoln, CA 95648-0730
Fax: (916) 415-9470

HELP Tree Director
P.O. Box 100
Somerset, CA 95684-0100
Fax: (530) 622-4717

he purpose of this communication is to present information and
express our position on the issues addressed. We encourage you to
research this for yourself and come to your own conclusions.
Regardless of your position, we strongly urge you to exercise your
constitutional right to express your position to your elected
representatives. We have included an example of how we have expressed
our position.

DISCLAIMER: We are not responsible for the accuracy of copies printed,
forwarded, or sent by any party other than directly from Child and
Family Protection Association.

The HSLDA E-lert Service is a service of:

Home School Legal Defense Association
P.O. Box 3000
Purcellville, Virginia 20134
Phone: (540) 338-5600
Fax: (540) 338-2733
Email: info@hslda.org
Web: http://www.hslda.org

The God Debate

2007-04-02T17:10:00.000-07:00

Armed with a first class intellect and stunning verbal range, Sam Harris is perhaps the most effective apologist for atheism since Voltaire or Bertrand Russell were in their respective times. In his two books End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation Harris skewers belief in God with admirable skill. Not that there's anything new here. Harris' unique brilliance is that he is able to resurrect the standard arguments against the existence of God with a freshness that make his ad hominems sound immenently self-evident. But as Solomon pointed out, "What the first man says seems right until his neighbor comes along and examines him (Proverbs 18:17)".

If you've not heard of Sam Harris you certainly will. I admit, having read his books, how effective they must be to the uncritical mind. And people are certainly reading them. Both are on the New York Times best-seller lists. But take heart, having heard Harris challenged by Dennis Prager and now Rick Warren of Saddleback and "Purpose Driven Life" fame, I have seen his confidence wither a bit. In this regard Newsweek has performed a valuable service.

You can decide for yourself whether Rick gave as good as he got....The God Debate Regardless, all this is good for the Kingdom. As our Lord assured us concerning the Church, "The gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18)". Debate about God is something to be encouraged. Join the fight!

Wailing at the Tomb?

2007-03-05T17:42:00.000-08:00

Christians Should Face the Facts in The Discovery Documentary

By Gregory Koukl

"The documentary “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” hadn’t even aired yet and many Christians were already in a panic. Just the suggestion that someone found Jesus’ bones in a limestone box had believers by the droves shaking their fists or sticking their heads in the sand in a don’t-confuse-me-with-the-facts posture.

Apparently, many Christians don’t even need to see the evidence to pass judgment. When one Evangelical web site polled its visitors with the question, “Do you believe the ‘Tomb of Jesus' documentary, which denies the resurrection of Christ?” 97% said no. This was three days before the documentary even aired. Blind faith is so convenient, isn’t it? You never have to actually confront your critics.

Then there’s the bullies. One media watchdog demanded Discovery “cancel this slanderous ‘documentary.’” Another prominent Evangelical organization composed this letter for their constituents to hammer Discovery with:

"I resent the Discovery Channel's attempt to demean and belittle Christianity by saying it is based on a lie. It is hard for me to believe that The Discovery Channel would dare do such a 'documentary' on any other religion.

"It may turn out that you have done Christianity a favor by awakening millions of Christians to your anti-Christian bias and bigotry. Perhaps they will no longer stay silent."

This kind of bullying is profoundly embarrassing to me, a follower of Christ, and should be discomfiting to every thoughtful Christian. It is not only a dismal retreat from a legitimate challenge that must be answered; it’s obscurantist.

Look, if the Bible says it and you believe it, that might settle it for you, but it doesn’t settle it for millions who might be interested in your ideas and are waiting to hear a thoughtful response to what appears on the surface to be a fair challenge.

There are good reasons to doubt the conclusions of this documentary, but no one will ever know them if Christians pull up the drawbridge and bellow from the parapet. Having seen the documentary, here are some problems that quickly come to mind:

1. Scholars have known about these tombs for over 25 years. There’s a reason they haven’t taken these names seriously. Only three have any direct biblical significance: Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. And that cluster of names is statistically unremarkable. In fact, it would be odd if a family with those three names was not found in a tomb together, given their common use (there are at least four ossuaries discovered inscribed “Jesus, son of Joseph,” and one in four women were named Mary, so it’s even money that one of these tombs would have that combination). And connection of Jesus to any of the other names? Wild speculation. So what you have here is a creative guessing game.

2. The entire argument is based on the statistical significance of the names in a cluster. If Jesus was married, and if Jesus was married to a woman named Mariamne, and if Mariamne was also a nickname for Mary Magdalene, and if Jesus had a brother named Matthew, and if Jesus had a son named Judas, and if the now-famous James ossuary belonged to James the brother of Jesus, then you’d have all the members of Jesus’ family together in one tomb. But that’s a lot of “ifs.

3. Even though this is called the “Jesus Family Tomb,” there is no hard evidence that any of these so-called “family members” is even related. The only DNA testing that’s been done—between Jesus and Mariamne—came up negative. Let me repeat that: The DNA test came up negative. That is fact. The rest is speculation.

4. The documentary claims, “Jesus and Mary were married, as the DNA evidence suggests.” This is nonsense. Think about it. How can DNA evidence suggest someone is married? DNA can’t “suggest” anything about legal relationships, only biological ones. In this case, the DNA evidence showed Jesus and Mary were not related by a mother, not that they were husband and wife. The truth is, she could have been married to any one of the males in the tomb, or to none of them for that matter. The DNA “suggests” nothing.

5. The researchers claim they’re just trying to connect the dots? Fair enough. But why connect the dots the way they did? I’ll tell you why. Because it tells their story. There are many other legitimate ways to connect those same dots—some much more probable than the way the documentary connects them, but won’t give the story they’re promoting. But, of course, that wouldn’t create breaking news, would it?

6. Jesus’ family was a poor family from Nazareth, not a middle- to upper-class family from Jerusalem. So this tomb is the wrong kind of tomb located in the wrong city.

7. The documentary claims Jesus spoke in codes. This is false. Jesus spoke in parables, like many of the teachers of His day, not in codes that needed to be deciphered. They say Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ most trusted apostle. But you have to wait 400 years before this evidence pops up in any alleged historical record. They said that Jesus’ family members were executed because He was a pretender to throne of Israel. This is pure fiction. Notice what this accomplishes, though. All of these little exaggerations and inaccuracies make an unlikely tale sound more plausible when, on its own unembellished merits, it is not.

8. What we have here are two different characterizations of what happened to the body of Jesus of Nazareth 2,000 years ago. One is based on artifacts—the ossuaries—and one is based on documents—the historical records of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul. Now granted, these kinds of things are not entirely exact science, but all things being equal, which do you think gives us more precise information, bone boxes or written records? The written records, obviously.

9. The claim of Jesus’ resurrection, was part of the earliest, most primitive testimony regarding Jesus. And it was made by those very same people that the documentary suggests knew Jesus’ bones were actually secretly buried in Jerusalem. Why would so many of them die for this lie when they knew it was a lie? It doesn’t add up. But that’s what you must believe if you take seriously the conclusions of this documentary.

If Christianity stands or falls on the historical fact of Jesus’ resurrection, as the Apostle Paul said, then Christ’s followers have no liberty to retreat behind blind faith or hide behind an angry scowl.

No, if you’re a Christian you shouldn’t run, whine, scream, or have a religious tantrum. Instead, you should be thanking the Discovery Channel for giving you the chance to step up to the plate and knock this soft ball out of the park."

Check out Greg's site at: Stand to Reason

The Culture Wars

2007-02-06T20:51:00.000-08:00

FEB. 13 IN ST. LOUIS: 8th CIRCUIT TO HEAR APPEAL OF
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE’S RULING TO SHUT DOWN EFFECTIVE FAITH-BASED PRISONER REHABILITATION PROGRAM

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on Panel to Determine if Ruling against Faith-Based Program that Reduces Recidivism, Enhances Public Safety, & Cuts Corrections Costs Will Stand

WASHINGTON, Feb. 5, 2007—The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis will hear oral arguments on Tuesday, Feb. 13, in an appeal of a federal judge’s ruling against Prison Fellowship, the InnerChange Freedom Initiative (IFI), and the State of Iowa. Last June, in a lawsuit brought by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, Judge Robert Pratt ruled that the IFI program in Iowa is unconstitutional.

In the ruling, Judge Pratt found that IFI, a comprehensive, faith-based pre-release program for prisoners that is affiliated with Prison Fellowship, was “pervasively sectarian” and thus violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. He ordered that the Iowa IFI program be shut down and that Prison Fellowship and IFI repay the State of Iowa the $1.5 million paid to IFI under a contract for services over the past six years.

“It is troubling that at a time when the FBI has just reported an increase in violent crime for the second year in a row—and when two out of every three inmates are re-arrested within three years of their release—there are those who would try to shut down a voluntary program that transforms lives and helps reverse the destructive cycle of crime,” said Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley. “The IFI program has continued the historical tradition, dating back to the founding of our nation, of people of faith helping prisoners become productive members of our society.”

The appeal, set for 9 a.m. at the Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse, 111 South 10th Street in St. Louis, will be heard by a three-judge panel that includes retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Judge Roger L. Wollman, and Judge Duane Benton. The appeal is being watched very closely by legal scholars and others who consider it a landmark case regarding the viability of the concept of faith-based initiatives. Barry Lynn of Americans United hailed the June ruling as “a body blow to so-called faith-based initiatives.”

For more than a decade, the InnerChange Freedom Initiative has produced dramatic results in changing the lives of hardened criminals and stopping the revolving door of crime. The program, which operates in Texas, Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas, and Arkansas, and is set to launch next month in Missouri, presents viable solutions to challenges that state and local governments have struggled with for decades.

MEDIA NOTE: Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley and lead counsel Anthony Picarello of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty will be available to brief media outside the courtroom immediately after the Feb. 13 appeal hearing. To schedule an advance interview with Mark Earley, Anthony Picarello, or an IFI graduate, or for more information including broadcast-quality b-roll, a comprehensive media kit, and high-resolution, downloadable photos, visit www.DeMossNewsPond.com/IFI or contact Michelle Farmer (770) 813-0000 / (770) 757-4900 cell.

Michelle Farmer or Regina Lupoli
(770) 813-0000; cell (770) 757-4900
mfarmer@DeMossGroup.com
www.DeMossNewsPond.com/IFI

You Decide

2007-01-28T21:15:00.000-08:00

Akiane

The Watch Maker

2007-01-28T20:57:00.000-08:00

It's not just for kids

The World Loves Its Own

2007-01-13T15:52:00.001-08:00

If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own.

John 15:19

News Flash! "Christians sometimes act like jerks".

It's true. I'm thinking right now of a particular radio host who gives the faith a bad name. Not uncommon to "intellectual" wannabees, when he runs out of mental steam he raises his voice and talks over his guests in increasingly shrill intonations. Quick to speak, slow to listen, obstinate and loudly opinionated, I pray my non-Christian friends never stumble onto his frequency. It's embarrassing. I know he means well but I can only imagine what the "world" thinks of this brother.

Other Christians alienate the world through stunning lack of discretion. I can think of any number of authors peddling pop-theology with books about the rapture and fanciful versions of the world's imminent end. Or well known pastors paraded through the media because of their infidelities. Aside from the public figures are the many well meaning Christians who nevertheless bludgeon non-believers with spiritual platitudes that serve to alienate rather than woo. And who can ignore the televangelists, who year after year continue to line their pockets through the donations of the undiscerning. Is it any wonder why the world shows scorn for Christians?

But it's not the whole reason. Christians, after all, don't own the market on stupidity. The world has no lack of its own fools. In fact it loves them. Check out any magazine rack. Media companies make billions feeding the world's appetite for the details of celebrities' lives. No excess of sexual license, financial squandering, drug abuse, or public intemperance can diminish the world's worship of its cultural icons, from Madonna to Howard Stern. Among youth culture, particularly, the lemming like clamor to mimic the "I'm bad" look is so pervasive that exposed underwear, disheveled hair, butt tattoos, and pierced body parts are now just the standard. Its becoming unusual to see anything else. The absolute worst thing is to look non-threatening or meek.

The reason you never hear anything about the millions of believers humbly following their faith is because quiet character is not what gets the world's attention. It's true that a fair number of us are hypocrites, but there's a better answer of why the world rejects Christians.

The real reason, as Jesus pointed out, is because when someone decides to follow Christ, they are at the same time deciding not to follow something else. To borrow an apt metaphor, they decide to break free from the Matrix. Just as in the movie, its a decision of enormous consequences. Whatever the world's exhortations for tolerance there's a limit and Christians have definately crossed the line. As in the Matrix, Christians may look like the world, act like it, and sometime wish they were again part of it. But they're not and it's only a matter of time before the world catches on. The moment a man or woman identifies with Christ everything changes: values, perspective, allegiance, identity. ("Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" (2 Corinthians 5:17). The simple admission, "I'm a Christian" can be enough to repulse those around you. In fact the more you identify with Christ the more rejection you are certain to face.

Before the world crucified Him Jesus said to His disciples, "The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil" (John 7:7). Expounding on this theme James in his epistle declared, "friendship with the world is enmity toward God". James knew that you can't have it both ways. You're in one camp or the other. Jesus said that if you belonged to the world it would love you. By converse, not to belong to the world is to incur its suspicion and potentially much more harmful emotions.

If you've not already figured it out the "world", as Jesus used the term, stands for a system or culture in natural rebellion to God. That system is global. Like the Matrix it controls all human activity, embracing every tribe, tongue, and culture on earth despite their cosmetic differences. Sure the world identifies itself with a great variety of human endeavor, but underlying all of them are two common compulsions: Pride (self worship) and rejection of God. Consider the following list:

Gratuitous foul language,
Self promotion,
Crude Humor,
Belligerence,
MTV,
Slasher Movies,
The almost universal admiration of violent men,
Porn,
Disobedience to parents,
The worship of money, intelligence and power,
Greed,
Smugness,
Ingratitude,
Unforgiveness,
The belief that God thinks you're a good person,
The teaching that there are many paths to heaven,
Lusting after what you don't or can't have,
Terrorism,
Class distinctions,
Jealousy,
Gossip,
Arrogance,...

... are all earmarks of the world system that elevates pride and rejects God.

Pride assumes that the self is deserving of all that it desires. In this it elevates self beyond reason. Pride resists anything that would undermine its preeminance. It always seeks to satisfy its own appetites. It is easily offended and quick to seek reprisal. Pride is what most animates the "world". And rejection of God is what most animates pride.

This explains why prideful Christians, like that radio host, are particularly distasteful. Despite the world's antipathy for Christians it does look to them to behave differently, more like their Master, less prideful. The world is quite right to have this expectation and Christians are called to oblige. Just don't expect to world to love you for it. It never will. If you're a Christian, you've left the Matrix.

Whose Values, Rome's or Jerusalems?

2006-12-10T14:27:00.000-08:00

One thing you can be sure of as the 2008 election heats up. We'll be hearing a lot about family values, from both sides of the political spectrum. But is there any difference? As Democrats and Republicans prepare to face off it's an important question.

The cover article inside this month's Newsweek sheds light, though perhaps unwittingly, on the chasm that already exists among today's American body politic. In examining the roots of our fragile, Judeo-Christian, values the writers look back to the time of Christ.

The values of Jewish families were unique given the circumstances of the time. It is true that Romans of the first century had some regard for family, too (in his book "Jewish Marriage in Antiquity," Brown University professor Michael Satlow points out that Roman law esteemed married men with children above married men without children and unmarried men as part of the social order).

But Jewish devotion to family predates the Romans by thousands of years—think of all those begats—and by the time of Jesus, Jewish family values were noticeably different from those of their neighbors. A Roman father could, for any or no reason, choose to kill his newborn infant either by cutting the umbilical cord too close or by leaving the baby outside, and the Jewish refusal to do so was seen as peculiar. "The Jews see to it that their numbers increase," wrote the historian Tacitus around A.D. 100. "It is a deadly sin to kill a born or unborn child, and they think that eternal life is granted to those who die in battle or execution—hence their eagerness to have children, and their contempt for death." Herod himself executed two of his own sons, leading Augustus Caesar to remark that "I'd rather be Herod's pigs than Herod's sons.

In a culture so devoted to children, married sex was a blessing. "The harmonious coming together of man and woman and their consummation is figuratively a house. And everything which is without a woman is imperfect and homeless," wrote the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (20 B.C.-A.D. 40)."

In ways increasingly similar to first century Rome we are witnessing in America a widening gulf between the secular values of liberalism and those of religious Jews and Christians. In Rome, abortion, whether inside or outside the womb, was legal and accepted; in Jerusalem the unborn life was sacred. In Rome sexual deviancy was afforded unfettered license. In Jerusalem, sexual intimacy was representative of the union between God and His people and, therefore, a holy pleasure reserved for husbands and wives within the bounds of a covenant relationship. In Rome the people derived their values from Jupiter and Zeus, gods whose fickleness was exceeded only by their proclivity for sensual self-gratification. Yet in Jerusalem the source of values came from the unchanging LORD, the one true God whose character demanded purity over personal satisfaction.

As the contest for America's future plays out in stump speeches and town hall meetings all across the country listen carefully to whose values are being espoused, Jerusalem's or Rome's. It may sometimes be hard to tell. If you're one of those, however, drawn to the values of Rome bear in mind that the greatness of that empire was followed by the slow but inevitable death of a people that collapsed by the obesity of their own morbid excesses.

Multiculturalism run amok

2006-12-04T09:15:00.000-08:00

by Dennis Prager

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Quran.
He should not be allowed to do so – not because of any American hostility to the Quran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism – my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath... Get Rest of Article here

Life Under the Taliban

2006-11-30T21:06:00.000-08:00

Disembowelled and murdered for teaching girls

Thursday November 30, 2006
By Kim Sengupta

GHAZNI - The gunmen came at night to drag Mohammed Halim away from his home, in front of his crying children and his wife begging for mercy.

The 46-year-old schoolteacher tried to reassure his family that he would return safely.

But his life was over.

He was partly disembowelled and then torn apart with his arms and legs tied to motorbikes. The remains were put on display as a warning to others against defying Taleban orders to stop educating girls.

So begins the story from the New Zealand Hearald chronicling life as it is under the Taliban in those parts of Afghanistan where they still rule. Full Article

As Americans debate whether to continue the sacrifice in Iraq here is yet another example to ponder, as if we needed one, of the nature of the threat we're opposing. It's a world where freedom is denied for all but the Mullahs, who are privileged so as to take prepubescent girls from their parents and enslave them for their own sexual pleasure. It's a world where men are taken in the night and beheaded for percieved slights and affronts. And it's a world where devils in the form of human beings disembowel fathers simply for trying to teach their daughters about the world around them.

I do not pretend to divine the course of action our nation should take in Iraq. But that we are struggling against the most viscious form of evil since the holocaust I do not now question. Western civilization downplays this threat at its own great peril. Islam is the second largest and fastest growing religion in Europe, right behind Atheism. As Pope Benedict rightly pointed out, while Atheism denies all faiths - Islam denies all reason. The distant thunder of future conflict can already be heard in Britain, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. But it will not stop there. For the western powers it will be a titanic struggle, if it is taken up at all, and last very possibly for decades.

And what will there be at the end? I shudder to think if men of good will lose heart.

Abortions of Convenience

2006-11-21T17:33:00.000-08:00

It is well known that the vast majority of abortions in the U.S. are not performed because of health reasons, but becuase it is inconvenient to have the child. A recent study indicates that about half of these are repeats: Repeat Abortions, a literal, if not ghastly, "testament" to a throw away society.

Mubarak: Regional war could break out

2006-10-07T08:49:00.000-07:00

By AP AND JPOST STAFF

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak called the recent Lebanon war between Israel and Hizbullah a "warning sign" that another regional war could soon break out.

"The Middle East is on the verge of exploding," Mubarak said in an interview marking 33 years since the Yom Kippur War (known to Arab nations as the "October War.)

What's new on JPost.com

In another interview, Syrian President Bashar Assad said Friday that Syria has begun preparations to counter an Israeli attack, and that his country was prepared for an Israeli attack "at any moment." The president told the Kuwaiti daily Al-Anba that Israel had given up on the peace process, even though most of the issues of contention between the two countries were resolved.

Assad also said that if Iran attacked any Arab country, Syria would send armed forces in response as required by the Joint Defense Treaty. Get full article here

30 Million Evangelicals Pray for Israel

2006-10-01T18:51:00.000-07:00

by Joel Rosenberg, October 01, 2006

With Iran threatening to wipe Israel "off the map," and few countries moving decisively to stop Iran from obtaining the nuclear weapons they need to acccomplish their objective, an estimated 30 million evangelical Christian supporters of Israel in some 100,000 churches in more than 100 countries are taking part today in a "Day of Prayer for the Peace of Jerusalem," reports the Jerusalem Post. The event is timed to coincide with the High Holidays in Israel and has been organized by evangelical leaders in cooperation with Israel's Foreign Ministry and Ministry of Tourism, along with the Knesset's Christian Allies Caucus. Participating in a prayer broadcast from Jerusalem are Natan Sharansky, Yuri Shtern and Benny Elon, all Knesset Members.

This is by no means the first event of its kind. Indeed, such large and growing evangelical efforts to bless the Jews are dramatic and historic and worthy of more investigation and discussion by the Jewish community, writes David Brog in his fascinating new book, Standing With Israel: Why Christians Support The Jewish State.

Brog -- a Jewish lawyer who says "I am not a Messianic Jew or a Jew for Jesus -- I don't believe that the Messiah has ever appeared on Earth" -- worked for Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) for seven years, first as his chief counsel and later as his chief of staff. He describes himself as not a member of the Religious Right "but as one who has seen difficult combat with the Christian Right" through the years over issues such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research. But during his years on Capitol Hill, Brog found himself intrigued by "Christian Zionists who impressed me by their devotion to Israel and their apparent love for the Jewish people."

"If there is one great theme to Jewish history," Brog writes, "it is our lonely walk through the centuries. The Jews have known no great allies, no stalwart friends -- we have lived and died facing a hostile world alone. Thus I found it intriguing to think that, finally, we had some very big friends standing on our side" in the growing movement of evangelical Christians....Television, newspapers, and magazines all informed me that Christian Zionists were not real friends of Jews but enemies in disguise who supported Israel out of a sick desire to see the Jews killed or converted at the end of days. I started researching this book in a simple quest to discover the truth, to see if these purported friends were what they claimed to be."

"What I learned in the course of my research," Brog continues, "far surpassed what I had expected to find. I became convinced that the evangelical Christians who support Israel today are nothing less than the theological heirs of the righteous Gentiles who sought to save Jews from the Holocaust."

In his excellently researched and highly readable history of evangelical-Jewish relations, Brog painstakingly details the deep roots of evangelical love for the Jewish people and the practical ways evangelical leaders and rank-and-file church goers have helped Israel over the years. Example: Brog documents how one of earliest and most passionate allies of Theodor Herzl -- the founder of the modern Zionist movement -- was an evangelical named William Hechler who "formed a committee with other Christian Zionists to raise money to resettle...Russian Jewish refugees in Palestine" and who "traveled to Russia in 1882 to meet with Jewish leaders" where "he encouraged them to return to their ancient land," based on his understanding of Bible prophecies that said one day Israel would be reborn as a nation in the "last days." Brog also notes that when Herzl lay dying in 1904, "the only nonfamily member permitted to sit by Herzl's bedside" was William Hechler, so close had they become in their common mission of saving the lives of Jewish people in the Diaspora.

I can't recommend Brog's book highly enough.

President's Speech to the U.N.

2006-09-19T17:54:00.000-07:00

Whatever your opinion of President George H. Bush, this is a very courageous speech given to a body of political cowards and tyrants.Get the speech here

Benedict the Brave

2006-09-19T17:48:00.000-07:00

The pope said things Muslims need to hear about faith and reason.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:01 a.m.

It's a familiar spectacle: furious demands for an apology, threats, riots, violence. Anything can trigger so-called Muslim fury: a novel by a British-Indian writer, newspaper cartoons in a small Nordic country or, this past week, a talk on theology by the head of the Roman Catholic Church.
In a lecture on "Faith and Reason" at the University of Regensburg in Germany, Benedict XVI cited one of the last emperors of Byzantium, Manuel II Paleologus. Stressing the 14th-century emperor's "startling brusqueness," the pope quoted him as saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Taken alone, these are strong words. However, the pope didn't endorse the comment that he twice emphasized was not his own. No matter. As with Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses," which millions of outraged Muslims didn't bother to read (including Ayatollah Khomeini, who put the bounty on the novelist's life), what Benedict XVI meant or even said isn't the issue. Once again, many Muslim leaders are inciting their faithful against perceived slights and trying to proscribe how free societies discuss one of the world's major religions....

Go to full article here

That's My King!

2006-08-22T22:03:00.000-07:00

"Because I'm a good person"

2006-08-08T16:58:00.000-07:00

This is the answer most people give when asked why they think they are going to heaven after they die. That God would send them to hell, a place of unending separation and suffering, is unimaginable. What minor peccadilloes they admit to having committed during their lives, the white lies, thefts, sexual transgressions, and so on, are only things that are common to all people. God understands. He'll weigh their little imperfections against the all the good they think they've done and heaven's doors will open.

Or not. Because God doesn't see things they way we do. In Isaiah He warns...

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.

As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

The sobering news is that God will not judge you according to what you think of your "good" works, but what He thinks. Care to know what He thinks?

Click here: The Good Person Test

The Million Dollar Machine

2006-07-22T22:09:00.000-07:00

- By Ray Comfort
June 2006

After Kirk got some chickens, I was flooded with joy-filled memories of collecting fresh eggs back in New Zealand, before we moved to the States. After some reasoning with my loving wife, we now have five chickens. I love them, and I've even give them their own names: Crispy, Tender, Finger-licking, Original and Roast. I printed their names out and put them on the wall of their coop to help them to remember why they were part of our happy family.

Chickens remind me of myself. Whenever I have someone turn down a tract, the tenderness of my flesh becomes very evident. Rejection cuts to the bone. But I have found that there is something I can do about my tenderness. I get into the mindset of being a pre-programmed machine. I say to myself, "I am a machine. I am pre-programmed to have a love and concern for the lost. Fear has no part of me. Rejection bounces off me. I am a machine."

After the Secret Service seized our Million Dollar Bill tract in Texas early in June of 2006, and then took a supply from a brother with Muscular Dystrophy as he passed them out from his wheelchair in Las Vegas, my appreciation deepened for the fact that the tract had helped me to be like a machine. Our ministry has about seventy different titles of tracts, but for me the Million Dollar Bill is number one, and the thought of losing my first love made my heart grow fonder. So I decided to have one blown up and put on the wall of our ministry, as a kind of trophy or (if the Secret Service had their way) a fond memorial.

As I walked though the store, I handed them to different people who were standing by printers and computers. No rejections. Not one. As usual, the recipients looked startled for a moment, then laughed and made jokes about how they could now quit work.

As I stood at the counter two females (in their early 20's) lined up behind me. I was pre-programmed. I turned around and with a friendly voice said, "Hello. Did you get your million?"

"Huh?"

"It's a million dollars. It's great when you get the change."

"Thanks."

I followed up with a Department of Annoyance card for each of them and said, "This is where I'm from--'The Department of Annoyance.'"

One of them laughed. The other for some reason handed the card to her friend and clutched her million. So I gave her a "Smart Card" and said, "Don't give this one away."

She looked at it and said, "I am a good person."

"There's a four question test you can do to see if that's true. Let's do it. Have you ever told a lie?"

"Yes."

"What does that make you?"

"A liar."

"Have you ever stolen something?"

"No. Never."

She had used God's name in vain, but she maintained that she had never lusted. Not once.

"You've never looked at a guy with sexual desire, with lust? You have a pure heart?"

Suddenly another woman arrived at the counter and said, "Whatcha talking about?"

I handed her a bill.

Miss Pureheart said, "Lust. You know, when you look at a guy, and you know . . . ."

It turned out that she had lusted for her boyfriend before they got together, and that she went to church but wasn't born again. I told her to read the rest of the tract.

I then noticed that three more women were standing behind me. One of them was staring at me so I gave her my last Million Dollar Bill, and apologized to her friend that she didn't get one. She gave an understanding smile.

Then the lady in front of her indignantly said, "How come you passed me by?"

I apologized to her also, and told her that there had been a run on the bank, but that there was a reserve supply in my van. I turned back to the counter and placed the order for the banner for my favorite tract.

Behind me I could hear the woman who had the bill begin reading it out loud--"Have you ever told a lie, stolen anything, or used God's name in vain?"

Then a heated discussion began, "You do that!"

"No I don't!"

"Yes you do."

"I do not use God's name in vain!"

"You do! All the time."

"Okay then, so do you!"

I smiled as I listened to them, then finished ordering the banner and went out to my van.

Suddenly there was a loud honk. It was Mrs. Indignant. She wanted her Million Dollar Bill! I grabbed three or four and a "What Hollywood Believes" CD and handed them to her through her car window. She was ecstatic.

When they were preparing a deposition against the Federal Government for seizing private property without a warrant, our lawyers asked me how many copies of the tract I had personally given out. I gave a conservative estimate that to that point it was around 30,000. It was then that I realized how much this little tract had helped me conquer my fears. It took millions to change me from a chicken into a machine. So I'm going to hold onto my millions like a stubborn rich man in an unarmed robbery, and if the Federal Government does take them from me, God-willing, they're going to have a fight on their hands, right up to the Supreme Court.

How to identify American totalitarians

2006-05-25T21:25:00.000-07:00

by Dennis Prager
May 2, 2006

In the Soviet Union, the future is known; it's the past that is always changing.
-- old Soviet dissident joke

As a graduate student in international affairs at Columbia University, I specialized in the study of totalitarianism, especially, though not only, the communist variety. I found the subject fascinating, but I never for a moment imagined that any expertise gained in this field would prove relevant to American life.

Sad to say, it has turned out to be the most valuable subject I could have studied. The totalitarian temptation is not confined to Nazis and communists; it can rear its head in any society and gradually destroy it. And as the Soviet dissident joke notes, one quick way to identify totalitarian threats to liberty is to identify those who falsify the historical record on behalf of their cause.

In America today, two groups are most actively engaged in falsifying history: the ACLU and the anti-smoking movement.
Get rest of Article here

Teaching Johnny About Islam

2006-05-22T20:44:00.000-07:00

from the Investors Business Daily

"Education: In our brave new schools, Johnny can't say the pledge, but he can recite the Quran. Yup, the same court that found the phrase "under God" unconstitutional now endorses Islamic catechism in public school.

In a recent federal decision that got surprisingly little press, even from conservative talk radio, California's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it's OK to put public-school kids through Muslim role-playing exercises, including:

Reciting aloud Muslim prayers that begin with "In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful . . . ."

Memorizing the Muslim profession of faith: "Allah is the only true God and Muhammad is his messenger."

Chanting "Praise be to Allah" in response to teacher prompts.

Professing as "true" the Muslim belief that "The Holy Quran is God's word."... Get rest of Article Here

Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God

2006-05-17T14:50:00.000-07:00

Peter Kreeft & Ronald K. Tacelli

Many Christians have difficulty defending their belief in God. Too often I've overheard exchanges where Christians rely on pure emotion or, worse, platitudes. The first response is overly subjective; the second is counter-productive. Jesus always had an incisive response that was personal depending on the intent of the questioner. So should we. When challenged about our faith our response should always try and address the true need of the questioner. In some circumstances what's needed is a unflinching intellectual response. It's very difficult to argue with facts, and logically sound arguments have real potency.

The good news for Christians, and theists in general, is that the arguments for the existence of God are myriad. The classic ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments are particularly powerful and time tested.

If you're not familiar with these, Peter Kreeft and Ron Tacelli have provided an invaluable compendium that's quick to read and relatively simple to follow. I urge you to spend some time following the logic of these arguments. On one level it will provide real grist for your encounters with all true seekers of the Truth. On another it will boost your own faith. I've found great comfort in times of doubt by reviewing these timeless jewels. So will you. - MS

Get "Arguments" here

‘Da Vinci’ undermines faith, survey claims

2006-05-16T10:14:00.000-07:00

"...readers of Dan Brown's blockbuster novel are twice as likely to believe Jesus Christ fathered children and four times as likely to think the conservative Catholic group Opus Dei is a murderous sect."

As the "DaVinci Code" frenzy demonstrates once again, facts matter far less in determining the course of human conduct than do the passions of the people. History demonstrates that people will seek out reasons to believe a lie if it feeds their appetites. Here we go again.

Read article here

The Da Vinci Code

2006-05-15T21:17:00.000-07:00

Well it's here, the movie based on Dan Brown's runaway best seller The Da Vinci Code. In a sort of Orwellian twist, the promos for the film admonish the viewer to "Seek the Truth". Only you don't have to. Brown provides all the answers. The gospel stories were made up by Constantine. Jesus was married and had kids. Their descendants are still around. You may have had espresso with one of two of them in Paris, facts the Vatican has been hiding from Christian ignoramuses for almost two thousand years.

Boy I'm glad Dan Brown wrote his book and showed us the light. You laugh, but many actually believe this drivel. It's truly amazing the masses of people that are ready and willing to believe falsehood, even in the information age, on the slimest of evidence imaginable. Frightening really.

You think Iranian President Ahmadinejad really believes the holocaust took place but just says he doesn't to identify better with his fellow Muslims? You'd be wrong. He really doesn't believe the holocaust happened, and neither do millions of other Muslims around the world who've been sold the same pack of lies despite overwhelming and uncontroverted evidence, including tons of tangible evidence, government files, film footage, photographs, the direct testimony of thousands of survivors, confessions from the perpetrators, myriads of eye witnesses including Allied soldiers, German and Polish citizens.

All made up says Ahmadinejad. A conspiracy, just like the Christian gospels. Dan Brown told us so.

Well, for those of you who encounter Brown's true believers I have two suggestions: 1) Don't pass the opportunity to challenge such a blatant lie, and 2) learn the facts. There are plenty of good resources around. Here are a couple of good examples you may want to refer to. The first comes to us from the Catholic Communication Campaign. The other site comes courtesy of Ron Rhodes. Both are excellent sources of information.

Crash the Da Vinci Code
Jesus Decoded

In these days it is well to remember the thoughts of Edmund Burke: "All that’s necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing".

Do something.

Socialism makes people worse

2006-05-08T09:52:00.000-07:00

by Dennis Prager

(Note: this story is a little dated but still right on point)

Throughout much of last week, hundreds of thousands of students in France were angrily protesting. They have been joined by the major French labor unions, which are threatening a general strike.

And what is this all about?

It is all about a new law in France that allows a company to fire a person under the age of 26, without cause, within two years of being hired.

Wow. Imagine that. You might get fired from your first job. Get rest of Article here

Don't Waste Your Cancer

2006-02-20T12:03:00.000-08:00

John Piper, beloved Reformed Paster and widely read author, was diagnosed awhile back with prostate cancer. Read his reflections on what this disease means for believers.

February 15, 2006

I write this on the eve of prostate surgery. I believe in God’s power to heal—by miracle and by medicine. I believe it is right and good to pray for both kinds of healing. Cancer is not wasted when it is healed by God. He gets the glory and that is why cancer exists. So not to pray for healing may waste your cancer. But healing is not God’s plan for everyone. And there are many other ways to waste your cancer. I am praying for myself and for you that we will not waste this pain.

1. You will waste your cancer if you do not believe it is designed for you by God. It will not do to say that God only uses our cancer but does not design it. What God permits, he permits for a reason. And that reason is his design. If God foresees molecular developments becoming cancer, he can stop it or not. If he does not, he has a purpose. Since he is infinitely wise, it is right to call this purpose a design. Satan is real and causes many pleasures and pains. But he is not ultimate. So when he strikes Job with boils (Job 2:7), Job attributes it ultimately to God (2:10) and the inspired writer agrees: “They . . . comforted him for all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him” (Job 42:11). If you don’t believe your cancer is designed for you by God, you will waste it.

2. You will waste your cancer if you believe it is a curse and not a gift.
“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1). “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13). “There is no enchantment against Jacob, no divination against Israel” (Numbers 23:23). “The Lord God is a sun and shield; the Lord bestows favor and honor. No good thing does he withhold from those who walk uprightly” (Psalm 84:11).

3.... Read the rest here

Murderers must die: Judeo-Christian values: Part XVIII

2006-02-04T11:46:00.000-08:00

by Dennis Prager

One should not confuse Jews or Christians with Judeo-Christian values. Many Jews and many Christians, including many sincerely religious ones, take certain positions that are contrary to Judeo-Christian values (which I have defined at length: In a nutshell, they are Old Testament values as mediated by Christians, especially American Christians).

One clear example is the death penalty for murderers. Many Jews and Christians believe that all murderers should be kept alive, that it is not only wrong to take the life of any murderer; it is actually un-Jewish or un-Christian. Get Rest of Article Here

"Drawn into a religious conflict"

2006-02-04T11:34:00.000-08:00

by Tim Rutten of the Los Angeles Times....

THERE'S a difference between a piece of journalism that unavoidably provokes and one that is merely provocative. So which were the cartoon caricatures of Muhammad published in European newspapers from Bulgaria to Madrid this week?

The cartoons, which really are rather mild little doodles, first were published in a Danish newspaper last fall. Outraged Muslims in the Persian Gulf states launched a boycott of Danish goods that lead the government in Copenhagen to express regret for the offense, but to defend the paper's right to publish. By this week, the Danes were facing not only violent protests in the Islamic streets but also mounting demands from governments in the Mideast and elsewhere that they apologize and do something to the paper. Get Rest of Article Here

'Divine mission' driving Iran's new leader

2006-01-24T16:31:00.000-08:00

By Anton La Guardia

As Iran rushes towards confrontation with the world over its nuclear programme, the question uppermost in the mind of western leaders is "What is moving its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to such recklessness?"

Political analysts point to the fact that Iran feels strong because of high oil prices, while America has been weakened by the insurgency in Iraq.

But listen carefully to the utterances of Mr Ahmadinejad - recently described by President George W Bush as an "odd man" - and there is another dimension, a religious messianism that, some suspect, is giving the Iranian leader a dangerous sense of divine mission.

Get rest of Article here

The ID Ruling -- Any Positives?

2005-12-23T10:04:00.000-08:00

By Stuart Orr

As most of you know, a federal judge has ruled that Intelligent Design (ID) cannot be mentioned in biology classes within the small Pennsylvania school district of Dover. On the surface this may appear to be a devastating defeat, yet taking a broader view of the ruling, and putting it in context of the on-going creation/evolution debate, it seems to me that the positives are far outweighing the negatives. Consider --

> Fifteen years ago I could hardly get anyone other than the most science-minded interested in the creation/evolution debate. Now even my Soccer Mom friends are talking about it.

> It was only ten years ago that Michael Behe published his ground-breaking work Darwin's Black Box, and only a few years before that Phillip Johnson started the whole Intelligent Design movement with his book Darwin on Trial.

> Ten years ago ID scientists Stephen Meyer, William Dembski and others were just young upcoming brilliant minds who were captivated with Johnson's and Behe's work. Today they are formidable frontline advocates of ID.

> Only since the Dover trial began several weeks ago have we seen in the media any differentiation and acknowledgement that there is an important difference between how science works and the basis on which its conclusions are considered valid (philosophy). It is crucial to continue to drive a wedge between these two constructs if we have any hopes of making intellectual progress in the debate. For example, in the AP report today, the new Dover school board president acknowledges the legitimacy of discussing Intelligent Design in other classrooms.

> Today's AP report separated, for the first time that I've seen, "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism" into different categories of thought. Up until now, creationism was widely scorned as "biblical creationism" and ID was deviously conjoined into that category. Even in the Dover ruling, Judge Jones stated that intelligent design, "is a religious view; a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." The judge appears to be have been more influenced by ACLU categories than by trying to understand the scientific concepts contained in ID, e.g., the "information content" contained in DNA; the complexity of the cell as a miniature computerized manufacturing plant; the fine-tuning of the laws of the universe, etc.

> There are scientists today all over the country who are developing serious scientific research programs that will give an experimental basis to ID. These programs are just beginning to bear fruit. In the next ten years the scientific community will not be able to avoid the scientific truths coming from intelligent design theory.

> The tone and ridicule heaped upon those courageous, even if legally unsophisticated, former Dover school board members will only ignite fires of indignation around the country. Going way beyond legal reasoning, the judge pronounced moral judgments on those well-intentioned citizens. He said the board acted with "breathtaking inanity;" that members of the board "would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID policy;" that their actions resulted in an "utter waste of monetary and personal resources." He further directed that they pay the costs of the ACLU attorneys who prosecuted the case. This kind of vilification will only energize supporters of ID and creationism -- including me, and many others within the vast community of Americans who believe in creation.

> There were many "lessons learned" from this trial, and the next school board action and the next lawsuit will be handled with a lot more sophistication. For example, the nation's leading ID think tank -- the Discovery Institute out of Seattle WA to which Meyer and Dembski belong -- wasn't involved in the Dover case. They, along with the father of the ID movement, Phillip Johnson, saw the legal flaw in the Dover schools board's approach, i.e., requiring the reading of a statement about ID by a biology teacher in the classroom -- this just politicized the debate. Discovery advised Dover accordingly, but their advice was rejected. Discovery knew the ACLU would try to convince the judge that ID is religion, even though there is not an element of religion anywhere in it. (Just because we can infer a creator from ID does not make it religion anymore than inferring a creator from big-bang theory (with its creation event) makes cosmology a religion.) Once that was accomplished, the ACLU would use their insufferable separation of church and state argument to lead to victory in today's judicial climate. As Christians our primary goal is to win minds and hearts with truth, more so than winning legal cases with sophisticated tactics. However, in being as innocent as doves we also need to be as shrewd as serpents and use the best tactical approaches available. In my mind that includes attracting the participation of the Discovery Institute, Johnson and others with their scientific and legal sophistication.

> We are getting much smarter with how to formulate public education science standards. Last month, the Kansas Board of Education established standards that will differentiate the philosophical presuppositions of evolution from its scientific methodology. This will serve to expose the reason why Darwinism holds such a juggernaut on the American biology classroom. The standards will give Kansas students a deeper understanding of the nature of science, and at the same time open the doors to showing the flaws of evolutionary theory.

> Debate about evolution as an academic freedom issue has begun on campuses across the country -- and we need to jump on that bandwagon. For years we been held hostage by the ACLU which wants to prevent even voluntary discussions of the flaws of evolution in the science classroom. The scientific community says that the history and diversity of life on earth are "best" explained by evolutionary theory. It doesn't say there cannot be competing theories. It cannot say there are no flaws in the theory. In fact, by its very nature of being a "theory" it admits it is tentative and subject to error. It is only through bullying by the ACLU and the scientific elite that evolution has not been subjected to cross-examination on the campuses and has not had to defend itself against competing views.

> The public debate will intensify and this will give us new opportunities to introduce non-believers and marginal believers to the Creator. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could get a hearing of these matters on national television? I'm still praying that God will open up such a door, e.g., a C-SPAN debate on the subject of The Creator - Faith or Fact? Americans don't like censorship. Americans overwhelmingly do not endorse the anti-common-sense conclusions of evolution. And, Americans like a good debate. So, let's give them one and in the process glorify the Creator.

M E R R Y C H R I S T M A S,
Glory to our Creator

Stu

A Christmas Greeting From A Jewish Brother

2005-12-22T10:23:00.000-08:00

This greeting comes by way of Jewish Rabbi Marc Gellman. As he makes clear, he is not a Christian...yet. But like Nicodemus he shows a deep love of brotherhood, of the common bond between Jews and Christians, and for the truth - wherever it may lead. As I've said many times in this blog, I love and marvel at the growing unity between our two faiths. Merry Christmas indeed Rabbi Gellman! MS

Jesus’ Miracle:
A Christmas greeting from a Jewish brother

"My Soul's Dark Night"

2005-12-11T19:31:00.000-08:00

My Soul's Dark Night
The best of evangelicalism didn't prepare me for this struggle.
By Charles Colson with Anne Morse

I am a product of the best in evangelicalism: converted 32 years ago in a flood of tears after hearing the gospel, discipled by a strong prayer group, taught by great theologians. I know the strength of evangelicalism in bringing people to an intimate relationship with Jesus.

But what happens when you have relied on this intimacy and the day comes when God seems distant? What happens in the dark night of the soul? Get the rest here.

More Britons believe in ghosts than in God, poll says

2005-11-02T16:33:00.000-08:00

This just goes to show that logic is rarely a guide to what people believe when it comes to the metaphysical. Is it reasonable to hold a belief in spirit beings for which some evidence exists but reject belief in the Spirit Being for which overwhelming evidence exists? What do you think? MS

Associated Press
Oct. 31, 2005 10:31 AM
LONDON - Here's one to ponder on Halloween. A new survey says more people in Britain believe in ghosts than believe in God. Get Article Here

Danger: Right Wing Radical Extremists

2005-10-28T16:51:00.000-07:00

According to a piece by the Associated Press: "Nearly 1.5 million babies, a record, were born to unmarried women in the United States last year, the government reported Friday. And it isn’t just teenagers any more".

Does that trouble you? If so, it probably means you're a right wing extremist.

Would you prefer to legally limit abortion? You would!? You must be a radical. Are you also one of those nuts who wants to keep marriage between a man and a woman? You're kidding? You're definitely a far right extremist with views that are dangerous to society.

According to Senator Charles Schumer, and I assume his many like minded colleagues, the withdrawal of Harriet Miers for consideration to the Supreme Court Schumer was orchestrated by conservative forces he labeled as "extremist" and "radical", forces who are jeopardizing American society with their odious agenda. But who is he referring to, exactly? Well, certainly one of those forces is Concerned Women for America, who the day prior to Mier's withdrawal came out publicly against her confirmation on the grounds that she made speeches soft on abortion. So what are the beliefs of CWA that Schumer finds so "extreme". Let's see, I went to their web site and pulled down the following issues CWA sees as "core." Here they are:

Definition of the Family
CWA believes the traditional family consists of one man and one woman joined in marriage, along with any children they may have. We seek to protect traditional values that support the Biblical design of the family.

Sanctity of Human Life
CWA supports the protection of all life from conception until natural death. This includes the consequences resulting from abortion.

Education
CWA seeks to reform public education by returning authority to parents.

Pornography
CWA endeavors to fight all pornography and obscenity.

Religious Liberty
CWA supports the God-given rights of individuals in the United States and other nations to pray and worship without fear of discrimination or persecution.

National Sovereignty
CWA believes that neither the United Nations nor any other international organization should have authority over the United States in any area, including economics, social policy, military, and land ownership.

Sound extreme? I've got new for you. If you align with any of these, the odds are that you too are viewed by a growing number of Americans as a dangerous "radical". Read these core issues again. Do you find it hard to believe that Senators Schumer, Reid, Boxer...et-al, and the millions that vote to keep them in office find such beliefs so viscerally offensive? Well, they do. But they despise these views what is it that they want to promote? Well, since the CWA's core issues are "extreme", it's logical to conclude that the Democratic Party supports the opposite position:

1) Sanctity of Human Life. The Democratic Party does not believe in the sanctity of human life and wants no limits against abortion.

2) Education. The Democratic Party wants to keep educational authority in the state and out of parent's control.

3) Pornography. The Democratic Party does not want to fight pornography and obscenity but rather seeks to support and promote it.

4) Religious Liberty. The Democratic Party apparently does not like religious liberty but seeks to discriminate and persecute religious observance.

5) National Sovereignty. The Democratic Party believes that the United States should cede authority, by one degree or another, to the U.N, and other world bodies, like the International Criminal Court in Belgium.

Hyberbole? I wish it were, but on issues small and large the Democratic Party has fought for and defended each and every one of these platforms. But they are not the radicals; you are.

Mark

"Offenses" All Around

2005-10-23T19:46:00.000-07:00

by Mark Schneider

Among the many benefits society derives from its children one is, perhaps, not so obvious. Children instinctively, unless prematurely jaded, understand the difference between right and wrong and in this regard offer adults a reliable barometer of good and evil.

This observation hit me not too long ago when my eight year old son was riding with me in the car one afternoon. I was half listening to the radio. The station was NPR when suddenly the topic changed to a frank discussion about abortion. I quickly changed the channel. Why? Because I am not yet ready to introduce my child to the grim reality that people in America legally kill children in the womb. I know with certainty, from discussions we've had on other moral subjects but far less ominous, that my son would understand immediately that abortion is a great wrong. But much worse for his vulnerable soul would be the moral dissonance he would undoubtedly experience upon learning that such an act was the law of the land.

The same sort of thing has happened - me having to take steps to shield my children - concerning the subjects of homosexuality and gay marriage. How am I to explain such things? It is a terrible irony that adults are much better equipped to exercise the ethical malleability required to confuse in subtle shades of gray moral distinctions that to a child are simple and easily understood.

Now my eight year old is certainly aware that people lie, cheat, steal and murder. But he can already reconcile these things. There is less dissonance because, like him, at least for these sins the rest of society is in accord with his own moral conscience. He knows that the people that do these things, if caught, pay consequences. It makes sense to him that society condemns these acts and punishes them. That's why, in his mind, we need the police, whom he views with an appropriate measure of fear and reverence. The dissonance arises when society protects and even celebrates acts he knows by nature to be evil.

Try this test. Think about how you might feel explaining why the Allies during WWII had to kill Axis soldiers. Would explaining this historical fact present a moral dilemma to you? Is it something your child would struggle with emotionally? Probably not. But what about having to explain the topless nightclub or bath house downtown?

We can usually know something is wrong (that adults call right) when it becomes distasteful and unnatural to explain it to a child. A bad omen for our society is that it's getting much more difficult to avoid these unnatural conversations. Today, for instance, while watching a golf match on ABC I dared not abandon the remote during the commercials becuase of the constant bombardment of Sunday afternoon sports with commercial teasers from Desperate Housewives, the latest horror flick and other raunchy material. Dissonance. Neither can I allow my child freely, without vigilance, to look over my shoulder when I read the newspaper due to its inescapable and lurid content. Dissonance. In the mall on Saturday, I had to guard against walking past certain advertisements and stores that predictably parade and celebrate the sensual, grotesque and evil manifestations of Halloween. Dissonance. Confusion. It's everywhere these days.

For good reason our Lord cautioned...

"It is impossible that no offenses should come, but woe to him through whom they come. It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones" Luke 17: 1,2

Increasingly, it seems, the fear of millstones is going away.

The devil in the details

2005-10-10T10:42:00.000-07:00

Never say never. Here I am, posting a link to an OP-ED piece that ran today in the Los Angeles Times, a paper renowned for its intolerance on non-leftist philosophy. But the season may be a changing, for I have noticed a change since the annoucement of Michael Kinsley's deparature. Here's an example, a compelling article on the postmodernism's assault on truth by Amos Oz.

By Amos Oz, Israeli novelist AMOS OZ is the author, most recently, of the memoir "A Tale of Love and Darkness" (Harcourt, 2004). This article is adapted from a speech he gave when he received the Goethe Prize in

JUST AS IT IS immensely difficult to define the truth, yet quite easy to smell a lie, it may sometimes be hard to define good, but evil has its unmistakable odor: Every child knows what pain is. Therefore, each time we deliberately inflict pain on another, we know what we are doing. We are doing evil. Ever since the Book of Job, and until not so long ago, Satan, man and God lived in the same household. All three seemed to know the difference between good and evil. God, man and the devil knew that evil was evil and that good was good. God commanded one option. Satan tried to seduce the other. God and Satan played on the same chessboard. Man was their game-piece. It was as simple as that. Get rest of Article here

Worldly word

2005-10-07T17:35:00.000-07:00

New Bible texts translate the Bible away | by Gene Edward Veith

As evangelicals debate the inclusive-language Today's New International Version (TNIV), many liberal mainline churches have slipped far down the slippery slope in what they have done to the Bible. Get rest of Article here

Don't Misunderstand Miers

2005-10-06T20:30:00.000-07:00

by Thomas Lifson

President Bush is a politician trained in strategic thinking at Harvard Business School, and schooled in tactics by experience and advice, including the experience and advice of his father, whose most lasting political mistake was the nomination of David Souter. The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court shows that he has learned his lessons well. Regrettably, a large contingent of conservative commentators does not yet grasp the strategy and tactics at work in this excellent nomination.

Get rest of Article here

Remote Control

2005-10-06T11:06:00.000-07:00

The Supreme Court's greatest failing is not ideological bias—it's the justices' increasingly tenuous grasp of how the real world works

by Stuart Taylor Jr.

.....

I've been working on some questions in case the makers of Trivial Pursuit ever decide to put forth a Supreme Court edition: Now that Sandra Day O'Connor has announced her retirement, how many remaining justices have ever held elected office? How many have previously served at the highest levels of the executive branch of government? How many have argued big-time commercial lawsuits within the past thirty-five years? How many have ever been either criminal defense lawyers or trial prosecutors? How many have presided over even a single criminal or civil trial? The answers are zero, zero, zero, one, and one, respectively. (David Souter was a New Hampshire prosecutor once upon a time, and later served as a trial judge.) Get of rest of Article here

The Earth's Beauty

2005-09-30T20:10:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago my family and I were fortunate to spend a week in Maui. Looking over the pictures of that trip I'm reminded at how stunning the place is....the mountains, the forests, the ocean and the way water meets sky. I have often pondered the nature of beauty. Why does it illicit such strong and sanguine emotions? Why is sitting in a beautiful garden or looking out over a stunning vista such a balm for the soul? My own conclusion? Beauty is a pointer to God, a reflection of his nature.

Just one question for opponents of the war

2005-09-20T14:37:00.000-07:00

To go on record, I was against launching a pre-emptive war in Iraq, but not because it was not a moral or noble thing to do. My concerns had to do with the people in that region, the Iraqis, and their ability and willingness to commit to the long struggle to see democracy and freedom blossom. The test is yet to be determined; yet the courage and sacrifice of those freedom loving Iraqis is a daily thing to behold. Moreover, since launching Operation Enduring Freedom I am of the firm mind that we must endure ourselves. It is our solemn duty.

Regardless of where you stand on the wisdom of this war at least be clear of what's at stake. With his customary brilliance, Dennis Prager helps clarify the issue has few can....

by Dennis Prager

All those who support the American war in Iraq should make a deal with anyone opposed to the war. Offer to answer any 20 questions the opponents wish to ask if they will answer just one:

Do you believe we are fighting evil people in Iraq?

That is how supporters of the war regard the Baathists and the Islamic suicide terrorists, the people we are fighting in Iraq.

Because if you cannot answer it, or avoid answering it, or answer "no," we know enough about your moral compass to know that further dialogue is unnecessary. In fact, dialogue is impossible. Our understanding of good and evil is so different from yours, there is simply nothing to discuss. Someone who was asked a hundred years ago "Do you believe that whites who lynch blacks are evil?" and refused to answer in the affirmative was not someone one could dialogue with. Link to Article here

The Face of Radical Islam

2005-09-20T14:28:00.000-07:00

In Tal Afar itself yesterday, where some 10,000 US and Iraqi troops have been engaged in a massive offensive to recapture the ethnically divided town from Sunni insurgents, commanders spoke of the “horrible” abuses they had uncovered. The details were prophetic reminder of what al-Qaeda’s supremacy may bode.

“The enemy here did just the most horrible things you can imagine, in one case murdering a child, placing a booby trap within the child’s body and waiting for the parent to come recover the body of their child and exploding it to kill the parents,” said Colonel H R McMaster, a senior American commander in the town. Link to Article here

The Doctrine of Preemption

2005-09-18T21:06:00.000-07:00

This piece by George Will, actually a speech given at Hillsdale College, is long. So be warned. But it is so full of substance that I heartily recommend you set aside the fifteen or twenty minutes you will need to get through it. MS

------------------
by George Will

What I will say tonight about the war on terror draws heavily on my earlier life as a professor and student of political philosophy. A long life in journalism and around Washington, D.C., has taught me not just that ideas have consequences, but that only ideas have large and lasting consequences. We are in a war of terror being waged by people who take ideas with lethal seriousness, and we had better take our own ideas seriously as well.

I think the beginning of understanding the war is to understand what happened on 9/11. What happened was that we as a people were summoned back from a holiday from history that we had understandably taken at the end of the Cold War. History is served up to the American people with uncanny arithmetic precision. Almost exactly sixty years passed from the October 1929 collapse of the stock market to the November 1989 crumbling of the Berlin Wall-sixty years of depression, hot war, and cold war, at the end of which the American people said: "Enough, we are not interested in war anymore." The trouble is, as Trotsky once said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." And this was a war with a new kind of enemy-suicidal, and hence impossible to deter, melding modern science with a kind of religious primitivism. Furthermore, our enemy today has no return address in the way that previous adversaries, be it Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia, had return addresses. When attacks emanated from Germany or Russia, we could respond militarily or we could put in place a structure of deterrence and containment. Not true with this new lot. Link to rest of Speech here

Unless You Repent You Will All Likewise Perish

2005-09-17T21:04:00.000-07:00

by John Piper

June 5, 1988

Luke 13:1-5

If this text were taking place today we would come to Jesus and say, "Did you hear about the miners last week who were buried 300 feet underground by an explosion north of Frankfurt, Germany?" And Jesus would look into our eyes like nobody has ever looked before, and he would say, "Do you think this happened to these miners because they were worse sinners than the other Germans? Or that bus load of church young people that were killed in Kentucky do you think that they were worse sinners than the other Americans who escape every day? I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish." Link to rest of Articel here

Faith does breed charity

2005-09-17T20:50:00.000-07:00

Roy Hattersley
Monday September 12, 2005
Guardian

We atheists have to accept that most believers are better human beings

Hurricane Katrina did not stay on the front pages for long. Yesterday's Red Cross appeal for an extra 40,000 volunteer workers was virtually ignored.
The disaster will return to the headlines when one sort of newspaper reports a particularly gruesome discovery or another finds additional evidence of President Bush's negligence. But month after month of unremitting suffering is not news. Nor is the monotonous performance of the unpleasant tasks that relieve the pain and anguish of the old, the sick and the homeless - the tasks in which the Salvation Army specialise.

The Salvation Army has been given a special status as provider-in-chief of American disaster relief. But its work is being augmented by all sorts of other groups. Almost all of them have a religious origin and character.

Notable by their absence are teams from rationalist societies, free thinkers' clubs and atheists' associations - the sort of people who not only scoff at religion's intellectual absurdity but also regard it as a positive force for evil. Link to rest of Article here

Help for Hurricane Victims

2005-09-02T23:09:00.000-07:00

For those far removed from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina but that want to help, the Salvation Army is on the front lines of providing emergency care, food, medical aid, clothing, and shelter. Click here to make a donation.

The Capitulation of Civility

2005-08-31T10:52:00.000-07:00

From the United Kingdom. America is certainly not alone in the capitulation of civility. In many ways Europe is leading the charge. Here's further evidence of that fact...

A secondary school is to allow pupils to swear at teachers - as long as they don't do so more than five times in a lesson. A running tally of how many times the f-word has been used will be kept on the board. If a class goes over the limit, they will be 'spoken' to at the end of the lesson. Link to Article

Quantum Mechanics In Plain English

2005-08-29T23:27:00.000-07:00

As anyone who has ever studied college level science or engineering knows, you may have passed those courses on quantum mechanics, but that doesn't mean you understood what you learned. Quantum Mechanics is the confounding field of science that tries to make sense of really really small things, like electrons, quarks, and leptons. It's a topsy turvy world of 10 (or is it 11 now) dimensions that fold in on themselves, where particles - or are they waves - can be at two places at the same time, and where nothing is as it seems. If ever one desired to peer into the mind of God you are invited to study the strange and unfathomably complex world of quantum mechanics. For instance, you may of heard the term superstring theory. It's the idea that at the root of the smallest things imaginable are actually strings of pure energy, strings that, depending on how they twist and vibrate, make up all the matter in the universe. Weird? Hey, that's quantum mechanics.

If this sounds sorta interesting but you don't feel like trudging through college physics, no problem. There are lots of good reads these days that tell the story in language a non-PhD can actually follow. A few samples are "The Elegant Universe" (Brian Green), "A Brief History of Time" (Stephen Hawking), and "Other Worlds" (Paul Davies).

But if you can't wait to get to Borders then try this. First have a look at Reason To Believe's webpage that defines the basic principles in quantum mechanics. It's a terrific and plain spoken overview. Then go to Wikipedia's site on the subject; but prepare to set aside a couple of hours. Because I think you'll discover the world of small things is actually vast and mesmerizing place.

So, which is it, a wave or a particle?

Nature must not be worshipped: Judeo-Christian values, Part XVI

2005-08-29T23:14:00.000-07:00

Re: Pat Robertson

2005-08-25T08:01:00.000-07:00

For those who might want to know what I thought of Pat Robertson's remarks advocating assasinating President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, three words: angry, embarrassed, saddened.

Scientists Confused on God

2005-08-22T22:08:00.000-07:00

At a recent scientific conference at City College of New York, a student in the audience rose to ask the panelists an unexpected question: "Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?"

Reaction from one of the panelists, all Nobel laureates, was quick and sharp. "No!" declared Herbert A. Hauptman, who shared the chemistry prize in 1985 for his work on the structure of crystals.

Belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good science, Dr. Hauptman declared, "this kind of belief is damaging to the well-being of the human race."Link to NYTs article

I have to assume from Dr. Hauptman's remarks that he believes Atheism is the antidote for the disease of religion that plagues mankind. Granted, bad religion is bad for mankind. But according to Webster, religion can be defined as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith", to which Atheism certainly qualifies. But is it a bad religion? What's the record? Well, let's see: Communism and the purges of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung, the rape of Nanking, World War I, World War II, Cambodia under Pol Pot, the genocide in the Sudan and Rwanda, Iraq under Saddam Hussein..., all this carnage occurring in the span of a century more unteathered from the constraints of Judeo-Christian religion than perhaps any in human history and prosecuted under the Darwinian conclusion that "might makes right".

It's likely Dr. Hauptman believes God and science are incompatible because science is all about proving things, whereas God's existence, he assumes, cannot be proven. Both premises, however, are problematic.

I'm not alone in my conviction that science cannot, of itself, prove anything.

"What!", you say. "What do you mean science cannot prove anything?". "How about 1 + 1 = 2"?

What about it. Saying 1+1=2 offers no proof that indeed 1+1 is actually 2. And using two apples, two rocks, or two pennies as evidence for the proffered fact, in and of itself, proves nothing. For these are merely objects or symbols, no different than the symbols 1+1 used to illustrate the premise in the first place.

Following the scientific method I might demand that you repeat the experiment to which you may or may not comply. But in the end you will have to rely on something else to make your case, something distinct from science to prove your assertion that 1+1 does, in fact, equal 2. You will have to rely on your own understanding, common sense, or to put it another way, human intuition. For I could challenge your so called proof with legitimate "why" questions that could go on forever in what Aristotle termed "infinite regression":

"What does "1" mean?" It's an abstraction that represents a single unit. "How do you know it represents a single unit". "What if there are no single units?" "How do you know your abstraction comports with what is actual?"

These are fair questions and can only be decided by appealling to some standard or understanding that stands apart from and can arbitrate scientific or any other form of evidence. Indeed, despite your noble appeals to the scientific method, deductive, or inductive reasoning, in the end you will have to rely on something like: "Look, it's obvious that 1+1=2. "You either see it or you don't". And of course that's true, but science is not what finally resolved the veracity of that proof - your intuition did - if indeed anything can be proved in the strictest sense of the word with absolute clarity and persuasiveness. And that is the whole point. (For more on this read Beckwith's and Koukl's, "Relativism, Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air")

"Science", contrary to popular opinion, is not some separate entity that operates independent from human intuition. Science does not prove anything, but relies upon and is subservient to human insight.

Now Dr. Hauptman can argue that his interpretation of certain scientific findings leads him to conclude that God does not exist, and that is fine. But he did not do that in the NYT's article. He just spouted a platitude, an insipid remark that not only does not make the case that science and God are incompatible, but that weakens his own credibility. And it is not at all true that world class scientists are uniformly atheists.

The arguments for atheistic evolution have been given their full girth for over a century such that they now command a monopoly of thought from the university on down to the public school kindergarten class. But this propped up and plastered over wall appears to be cracking a bit. Scientists of unassailable credentials, like Michael Behe, Gerald Schroeder, William Dembski and others are offering increasingly penetrating arguments that reveal atheistic evolution, as a theory for the origin of life, has persistent and serious flaws. You can read these and other scientists critiques on evolution at the The Discovery Institute.

It's past time these facts are heard. Our intuition demands it.

Nature must not be worshipped: Judeo-Christian values, Part XVI

2005-08-17T16:44:00.000-07:00

by Dennis Prager

It is almost impossible to overstate how radically different Old Testament thought was from the thought of the rest of its contemporary world. And it continues to be, given how few societies affirm Judeo-Christian values and how much opposition to them exists in American society, the society that has most incorporated these values.

Among the most radical of these differences was the incredible declaration that God is outside of nature and is its creator.

In every society on earth, people venerated nature and worshipped nature gods. There were gods of thunder and gods of rain. Mountains were worshipped, as were rivers, animals and every natural force known to man. In ancient Egypt, for example, gods included the Nile River, the frog, sun, wind, gazelle, bull, cow, serpent, moon and crocodile.

Then came Genesis, which announced that a supernatural God, i.e., a god who existed outside of nature, created nature. Nothing about nature was divine. Link to rest here.

Planned Parenthood's True Face

2005-08-10T20:56:00.000-07:00

Today on a local radio station I was made aware of a video carton, produced by Planned Parenthood Golden Gate in San Francisco. The roughly eight minute video features Dionysus (the god of drunkenness and partying) as the heroin to kill Christians (seen as snide charlatans and ugly buffoons) or rehabilitate - brainwash - conservative politicians. The cartoon features Dionysus with a red mask that by coincidence or design resembles demonic horns. Spouting her credo "Safe is Sexy" she uses personal lubricants (Astro-slide) to fell her enemies and condoms to kill Christian demonstrators while passing out "Safe Sex Kits" to youngsters. Eugenics is touted as a sensible way to reduce the burden on society caused by unwanted children.

If this link does not work to see the short film
Link to the animation on PPGG's Web site, you can also get access to it from The Dawn Patrol.

Now Christians ought never to be surprised when they're vilified. What is noteworthy about this particular attack, however, is that Planned Parenthood is subsidized by tax dollars. The The Dawn Patrol reports that Planned Parenthood Golden Gate gets 53% of its funding through the government.

We are not just animals: Judeo-Christian values part XV

2005-08-09T21:42:00.000-07:00

Let me remind the reader that I do not necessarily share all Dennis' views in his series of articles on the Judeo-Christian value system. Yet the areas we agree on, insofar as the material they cover, far outweigh that which I can take issue with. So, with that caveat...

Dennis Prager

People who do not believe in God or religion can surely lead ethical lives. But they cannot lead holy lives. By definition, the ideal of the holy, as understood by Judaism and Christianity and that unique amalgam known as Judeo-Christian values, needs God and religion.

Here is the best way I know of to explain holiness in Judeo-Christian religions: There is a continuum from the profane to the holy that coincides with the dual bases of human creation -- the animal and the divine. Link to rest here

"Penguins" to the rescue

2005-08-07T18:17:00.000-07:00

by Mark R. Schneider

Today I took my two kids, ages 6 and 7, to see "March of the Penguins". Narrated by Oscar winner Morgan Freeman, "Penguins" is a documentary that follows these fascinating creatures as they struggle to preserve their progeny against the unforgiving harshness of Antarctica. The film has the characteristic stamp of clean professionalism as most other National Geographic produced films. It also is the only film I felt I could safely take my kids to amidst a wasteland of gratuitous violence, sex, inane humor, and increasingly raw depictions of human sin.

When Sin City came out a number of months ago I marveled at Hollywood's shameless ingenuity at discovering new and more creative ways at celebrating in-your-face evil; and this I got merely from watching the "approved for all audiences" teaser. But the moneyed in Hollywood have demonstrated an insatiable desire for serving up filth, an appetite almost matched by a public willingness to slop it up.

Here's but a sampling of actual film listings and descriptions from the Los Angeles Times for the week of August 7th.

The Aristocrats: "Obscene, disgusting, vulgar and vile...gloriously filthy...".
Asylum: "A skillful chronicle of mad love...a dizzying erotic romance...".
Bad News Bears: "fast, loose and subversive..".
Cronicas: "...a hot shot reporter with a TV tabloid news program in Miami heads for an Ecuadorian village that has become the latest target for a serial rapist-killer of children..".
The Devil's Rejects: "Rob Zombie (is that this guy's real name?) transitions from house of horrors homage to serial killer road movie in this crass, vacuous exercise in grind-house stylistics."
Hustle & Flow: "alternatively moving and hilarious account of a Memphis pimp..".
Pretty Persuasion: "a jaw dropping marvel of inappropriateness...fearless, to die for, portrayal of a sexually manipulative schoolgirl...".
Songs: "...is the most sexually explicit theatrical feature a mainstream director has ever made."
Wedding Crashers: Vaughn and Wilson are univited guests at stranger's nupitals, sampling the buffets and bridesmaids...".
2046: "haunting, lyrical, and thickly erotic...".

Maybe its just me, but the movie industry seems awash in dressed up trailor trash. The irony is that most of these films never live up to their financial expectations. Compare. According to the movie chronicler IMDb , the G rated Finding Nemo grossed 339M and was the thirteenth top grossing film of all time. The Lion King was not far behind at number fifteen, grossing 328M. By contrast, Sin City hasn't even made it to the top 335 (where they stop counting), summarily whipped by such films as The Rugrats Movie, Bambi, and The Little Mermaid.

So why does Hollywood keep peddling this stuff? Well certainly one reason is a pervasive adolescence among studio executives, who consider it their mission to push society's mores to ever lower levels. Doing so confers upon them a certain cache' among their equally stunted peers. In other words, they make these movies because they think it's "cool". And having a "cult" following appeals to the mind enamoured with peer acceptance for its own sake. But that's only one reason. The other is because they actually like this debauchery themselves. In fact they exault in their disdain for moral goodness. Besides, the producers of these films know that, no matter how bad these movies are, they will invariably generate enough business to keep the train moving.

Don't misread what I'm saying. The "R" attachment to a film does not in itself provide any insight into its moral depth or lack thereof. Stephen Speilberg's Saving Private Ryan is brutally violent and also one the finest films ever made. The difference, as if it needed articulation, between it and films like Sin City is that Saving Private Ryan unambiguously exposes the contrast between good and evil, elevating the former and denouncing the latter. Graphic depictions are used as necessary to underscore the realism inherent in that deeper message. In Sin City, however, stylistic sex and violence is what defines the film. That is the message. The very object is to titillate, shock and arouse. You see the same difference between another Spielberg film, Schindler's List, and Rob Zombie's pathetic joke of a film, The Devil's Rejects.

Getting back to March of the Penguins, we arrived only minutes before it started because, frankly, I didn't expect many people to be there. Yet walking in I was stunned by what I saw. The theatre was nearly filled to capacity, and not with parents with kids looking for a safe escape from the heat, but with people of all strata and ages, once again proving that a well made G rated film, even about Penguins, can still outshine the best that Rob Zombie has to offer.

Getting God out of America

2005-07-29T21:37:00.000-07:00

BY MICHAEL D. CAPALDI

My favorite joke: On his way up the walk to a mansion on a farm, a traveling salesman sees a pig with a wooden leg roaming over a great lawn. The retired farmer, wearing an elegant smoking jacket, answers the door. When the salesman asks how the pig got the wooden leg, the farmer lays down his pipe, and says, “Son, let me tell you about that pig. That pig saved my life. One night, when my family was sleeping, the old farmhouse caught fire. That pig ran into the house and dragged my family and me out to safety. We owe our lives to that pig.

“And, another thing. A few years ago, that pig was rooting around in the yard, and he struck oil. He made me a millionaire. Everything I have, I owe to that pig.”

The salesman was impressed. “But how did the pig get the wooden leg?”

The farmer replied solemnly, “Son, a great pig like that, you don’t eat all at once.”

America is now living the joke.... Link to rest here

The arrogance of values: Judeo-Christian values, Part XIV

2005-07-25T18:28:00.000-07:00

by Dennis Prager

May 31, 2005

I am arguing in this series of columns titled, "The Case for Judeo-Christian Values," that Judeo-Christian values -- as developed and expressed specifically, though not only, in America -- constitute the finest value system in the world. If you care about goodness, justice and compassion prevailing in an often evil, unjust and cruel world, you should hope that Judeo-Christian values predominate on earth. Link to rest here

Why we need conservative judges

2005-07-25T17:56:00.000-07:00

by Star Parker

The characterizations we most commonly hear in contrasting liberal and conservative judges tend to use phrases such as "activism" vs. "restraint," and approaching the Constitution as a "living document" vs. focusing on "original intent."

However, I think asking a more fundamental question sheds light on why our society's most vulnerable _ the poor and otherwise disenfranchised need conservative judges. We should be asking: "What is the purpose of the law?" Link to rest here

Wrenching good out of evil

2005-07-20T16:26:00.000-07:00

by Chuck Colson

July 20, 2005

On the evening of August 30, 1966, Nien Cheng sat alone in her Shanghai home, reading. Toward midnight, she heard a truck stop in front of her house. Moments later a gang of Red Guards burst through her front door. The leader stepped up. “We are the Red Guards. We have come to take revolutionary action against you!” he said.

The gang proceeded to ransack Cheng’s home. Cheng—a wealthy woman with ties to England—was thrown in prison; her daughter was also taken from her. She was accused by the Communist government of spying for the British. The charge was false—but powerful people were about to make her a sacrificial lamb, somebody who would discredit Chairman Mao’s opponents. Link to rest here

Secularism and the meaningless life: Judeo-Christian values: Part XIII

2005-07-12T15:00:00.000-07:00

by Dennis Prager

As I have noted on occasion, there are three values systems competing for world dominance: Islam, European style secularism/socialism and Judeo-Christian values. As the competition in America is between the second two (in Europe, Judeo-Christian values are dying while Islam is increasing its influence), my columns on Judeo-Christian values have concentrated on differences between Judeo-Christian and secular values.

Perhaps the most significant difference between them, though one rarely acknowledged by secularists, is the presence or absence of ultimate meaning in life. Most irreligious individuals, quite understandably, do not like to acknowledge the inevitable and logical consequence of their irreligiosity -- that life is ultimately purposeless. Link to rest here.

Benjamin vs Krauthammer on Iraq

2005-07-11T18:09:00.000-07:00

1) Read this:...Why Iraq Has Made Us Less Safe...

2) Then this: ...Why That's Ridiculous

3) Decide for yourself which argument is more compelling.

Wages from sin

2005-07-08T18:45:00.000-07:00

This piece by John Piper goes back to 2003, but rings as true as ever...(MS)

by John Piper

THE WEST VIRGINIA PASTORS WHO ACCEPTED JACK Whittaker's tithe on his $170 million Powerball booty should be ashamed of themselves. One of them said, "That's a blessing to have that kind of backing." I don't think so.

Christ does not build His church on the backs of the poor. The engine that delivers His righteousness in the world is not driven by the desire to get rich. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not advanced by undermining civic virtue. Let the pastors take their silver and throw it back into the temple of greed. Link to rest here.

In-Civility

2005-07-07T16:00:00.000-07:00

by Mark R. Schneider

Normally, my time toughened emotions are ample protection from the daily reminders that American society is pushing civility to the lowest common denominator. Like most people I’ve become inured to the constant instances of brutish behavior, resigned to the fact that our culture’s downward trend is all but inevitable. Day to day I don't give it much thought. This last week, however, has inflamed my senses anew.

I guess it started on a recent overnight business trip. I was sitting in a small airport lounge with fellow passengers when I was forced to take notice of several people simultaneously competing with each other for who could talk the loudest into their cell phones. I’m always amazed that so many people have no compunction about divulging to all within earshot the intimate details of their business and private lives. I’m even more amazed when these conversations are carried into closed environments, likes airplanes, rental car buses, and - dare I say it - restroom stalls. It's incredible. Do they actually want the rest of us to hear all this? Or are they so insensitive as not to care? I honestly don't know. Part of me wonders if they just think it's cool. “Hey, look at me. I’m a hip guy talking important business with my latest gadget. Aren’t you jealous?” There seems no limit to people’s cell phone selfishness, forcing their conversation into restaurants, theatres, playhouses, the symphony, the venues keep expanding. Recently I read that one reason the movie industry is suffering is because so many adults are tired of paying $7.50 a ticket only to be accosted by a steady stream of clicks, beeps, and annoying ring tones.

Moments before penning these words I'd gone to the local Starbucks where my senses were assaulted by earsplitting sounds emanating from numerous kids in cars, their windows open and decibels blaring, whose mission, it seemed, was to broadcast the most demeaning and sordid (but thankfully mostly unrecognizable) lyrics one could imagine to as many people as their 200 watts per channel built in boom boxes could reach. I could not help but wonder where these kids get the money for this sort of gear, and what parent would allow their children to behave in this way?

Walking into the coffee shop I looked around (where I was again besieged by the obligatory cool tunes ) while waiting in line. Along with the usual business types were – I’m sorry but there’s no other way to put it - a motley looking assemblage of bedraggled, pierced, obese, disheveled, tattooed, and barely dressed people. If you think these folks have all fallen on hard times, their bodies scarred and misshapen from past living or because they cannot afford a healthy diet, you would be wrong. Most of these folks ( I know because I see them all the time) come from a very well to do neighborhood. Indeed, they look this way because the grunge look is all the fashion, and not just among teenagers but increasingly for adults in mid-life. And it is precisely because people have an abundance of disposable income that they can afford to spend it on a dissolute diet of fast, sugary, and fat laden, foods which has now become the norm. I'm always stunned upon returning from a trip overseas at the shabby appearance that Americans not only feel content with, but that many actually emulate.

As a portrait of American culture this is discouraging, but the devolution of public discourse is much more alarming. Case in point: Last Sunday I was teaching my two young children the rudiments of the golf swing at our local public driving range. Next to us were two young men in their early twenties and another man in his sixties, all demonstrably proficient with a golf club. As it turned, however, they were even more adept with their use of four letter expletives and base conversation. My children were no more than ten feet from this trio when out of their mouths ushered forth some of most debased discourse conceivable – no further elaboration needed. When I turned to confront the men I was shocked to see that they were in fact employees of the golf course and that the older man was the course Marshal, whose ostensible job was to police civility. I was flummoxed.

Yet sadly, this kind of language is now so predominant where I live that about the only public place you can be sure to escape it is in a church. Yes, I know that certain words have been around for a long time. But up until the last two decades or so they were more or less limited to private conversations among intimates, whether in a poker game, a business meeting, among close friends, or on the battle field. Only rarely, and then out of a drunk or a recognized reprobate, would you hear them expressed in public wantonly. What has changed is that now they are dispensed gratuitously by a large segment of the public and regardless of who might be listening, including small children. Of course the entertainment media has had a narcotic addiction to all things vulgar. But increasingly, you also hear it on late night news shows and out of the mouths of politicians.

I’m no prude. I was twenty-two before I was called by Christ and lived many years in earnest pursuit of my appetites. And I have spent my entire adult career mixing it up in a corporate and legal arena not known for genteel sensibilities. I recognize also that the vignettes I’ve cited are mere anecdotes of a much more nuanced phenomenon. Still, I’m old enough to remember and young enough to comprehend that American has lost something of inestimable value: civility.

In the book of Timothy we are told:

There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God….(2 Tim 3:1-4)

No, I’m not saying American incivility is evidence for the “last days”. Yet certainly Paul’s words are an apt description of our culture today and a vivid illustration of the depths to which we’ve descended.

What’s the solution? At this point in our cultural devolution I don’t really know if there is one, at least on a human level. Looking at history I cannot think of a single example of a culture that reached the level of national insensitivity Americans exhibit today that was able to turn itself around. All the great empires of the past fell from within: Babylonian, Persian, Greece, and Rome. So apart from another Great Awakening to stem or even reverse the tide (which I hope and pray for), I find few historical precedents for optimism, Nineveh notwithstanding.

So what do we do in the midst of all this?

We expose it. We call attention to it. We confront it, lovingly and gently, but we do not shrink back. We are called to “speak the truth in love.” So we courteously request that people tone down their language in public settings when it’s insulting and crude, we make a gentle request that people keep their voices down when talking on their cell phones, or better yet turn them off. We stop watching gratuitous TV, buying prurient DVDs, and patronizing movies with no redeeming value. Most importantly, we start modeling the behavior we would like to see in our neighbors. We carefully attend to our personal appearance, including our diets. We exercise self-control in all our manner of speech. We inculcate in our children a high regard for civility in all the dimensions of life and we practice it ourselves assiduously.

No, these simple actions will likely not stem the self-destructive tide of our society but that’s not the point. As ministers and ambassadors of Christ we are under a duty to reach out in love to a lost and dying culture. As our great Lord reminds us…

"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven. (Matt 5:14-16)

American incivility may be fiat accompli, but that doesn’t mean we have to lay down for it. Let your light shine.

The Jews have a mission: Judeo-Christian values: Part XII

2005-07-05T21:32:00.000-07:00

" The Jews' mission is as it always has been -- to bring the world to ethical monotheism. Ethical monotheism means there is one God and therefore one moral standard that He has revealed, and He holds all humans accountable to it. This is the point of Jewish chosenness."

So says Dennis Prager in the latest installation of his series on Judeo-Christian values. Christians also share this goal, yet we are commanded to go one step deeper, to make known the object and author of ethical montheism - God Himself. Nevertheless, Christians celebrate sharing common cause with Jews in spreading God's truth and opposing evil everywhere. Link to Dennis' article here.

Moral absolutes: Judeo-Christian values: Part XI

2005-07-01T16:50:00.000-07:00

by Dennis Prager

Nothing more separates Judeo-Christian values from secular values than the question of whether morality -- what is good or evil -- is absolute or relative. In other words, is there an objective right or wrong, or is right or wrong a matter of personal opinion?

In the Judeo-Christian value system, God is the source of moral values and therefore what is moral and immoral transcends personal or societal opinion. Without God, each society or individual makes up its or his/her moral standards. But once individuals or societies become the source of right and wrong, right and wrong, good and evil, are merely adjectives describing one's preferences. This is known as moral relativism, and it is the dominant attitude toward morality in modern secular society. Link to rest here.

The Left's battle to restore chaos: Judeo-Christian values: Part X

2005-06-30T17:07:00.000-07:00

by Dennis Prager

It is difficult to overstate the depth of the differences between the Judeo-Christian view of the world and that of its opponents, most particularly the Left. For example, it involves the very question of whether there is order to the world.

Basic to the biblical worldview is the proposition that God made order out of chaos -- order expressed largely through separation and differences. God separated light from dark and created day and night; separated the waters and created land; and so on.

Differences reflect the divine order, while attempts to abolish those differences represent a denial of that order and a yearning for primeval chaos, moral and otherwise.

Here are some of the differences that are central to the Judeo-Christian worldview that are under attack today:... Link to rest here.

Hair Splitting At The Court

2005-06-28T15:53:00.000-07:00

by George Will

June 28, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday rendered two more hairsplitting, migraine-inducing decisions about when religious displays on public property do and do not violate the First Amendment protection against ``establishment'' of religion. In a case from Texas, where a Ten Commandments monument stands outside the state Capitol, the court, splintered six ways from Sunday, said: We find no constitutional violation. The second case came from Kentucky, where the Commandments displayed in several courthouses are surrounded by historical symbols and documents -- e.g., copies of the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Star Spangled Banner -- to comply with the ``reindeer rule,'' more about which anon. On Monday the court recoiled from Kentucky's displays, saying, they are unconstitutionally motivated by a ``predominately religious purpose.'' Not enough reindeer? Link to rest here.

Choose life: The case for Judeo-Christian values: IX

2005-06-27T16:18:00.000-07:00

As readers of this blog have no doubt noticed, I've been providing a lot of links to Dennis Prager's The Case for Judeo-Christian values series. I will continue to do so. (For those that want to cut to the chase and read Dennis's articles in quick succession you can find them all right here: Prager Articles.)

As a Christian I don't suscribe to all of Dennis' Biblical exegesis. Christians believe the Old testament, including the Torah, should be interpreted by the New testament, and that the entire Biblical record is meant to point to and glorify God's intended Messiah for mankind - Jesus Christ. Mr. Prager, an observant Jew, does not believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah. That's a critical dividing line, but not a big surprise. For I think it is safe to say that while there are a great many "Messianic Jews" who do worship Yeshua (Jesus), most observant Jews are still awaiting the revealing of the (second) coming Messiah. Yet I believe, becuase the Scriptures predict it, that the majority of the Jewish nation will, in time, acknowledge the Lordship of Christ and his role as the promised One.

Until that time, "gentile" Christians are called to recognize that we have been grafted into the "Olive Tree" that is spiritual Israel, and that only by the mercies of God. It was to the Jews that the oracles of God were given - not to the gentiles. And when Jesus, a Jew by the flesh, began His public ministry it was to the household of the Jews first. So, we remember our place and as the opportunity affords we humbly share with our Jewish friends the veracity of Christ as the "annointed one".

Yet as Dennis so ably demonstrates, among Jews and Christians there is a timeless bond. More than any two tribes of people on earth we share a faith in the same transcendent God and that unites us as nothing else can. In my lifetime I have witnessed a remarkable thing, a closer bond between Jews and Christians than perhaps at any other time in history. It is a thing to behold. And I pray that this bridge grow ever stronger until the "day dawns and the morning star" rises in our hearts, Jews and Christians alike!

I encourage you, therefore, to read, meditate on, and benefit from Dennis Prager's "case for Judeo-Christian values".

Choose life: The case for Judeo-Christian values: IX

by Dennis Prager

There are good people on both sides of the Terri Schiavo tragedy, but chances are that if you affirm Judeo-Christian values, you have opposed pulling the feeding tubes from the severely brain damaged woman's body.

Why? Because if there is anything that Judeo-Christian values stand for, it is choosing life and rejecting death. As the Torah puts it, "I have put before you today life and death, and you shall choose life." Link to rest here.

Part VIII: Judeo-Christian values are larger than Judaism or Christianity

2005-06-23T21:30:00.000-07:00

by Dennis Prager (archive)

Some Jews and Christians object to the term “Judeo-Christian.” How can there be Judeo-Christian values, they argue, when Judaism and Christianity differ? In a previous column, I explained that one should not confuse theology with values. Theological differences are not the same as value differences.

Nevertheless there are some value differences between the religions. Link to rest here.

Hate evil: Case for Judeo-Christian values, part VII

2005-06-21T22:42:00.000-07:00

by Dennis Prager (archive)

Do you hate evil?

Much of humanity doesn't. But if you embrace Judeo-Christian values, you must.

A core value of the Bible is hatred of evil. Indeed, it is the only thing the Bible instructs its followers to hate -- so much so that love of God is equated with hatred of evil. "Those who love God -- you must hate evil," the Psalms tell us.

The notion of hating evil was and remains revolutionary.

The vast majority of ancients didn't give thought to evil. Societies were cruel, and their gods were cruel.

Nor did higher religions place hating evil at the center of their worldviews. In Eastern philosophy and religion, the highest goal was the attainment of enlightenment (Nirvana) through effacing the ego, not through combating or hating evil. Evil and unjust suffering were regarded as part of life, and it was best to escape life, not morally transform it. Link to rest here.

Intelligent Design and converting to Christianity

2005-06-14T17:41:00.000-07:00

A Phycisist's Perspective

by David Mobley

One of the accusations commonly levied against Intelligent Design (ID) is that it is stealth Christianity, and is just an attempt by creationists to impose their religion on people. I don't really intend to deal with that objection here, as it's been answered frequently before. But it does raise an interesting question: If one admits (becomes convinced) that a supernatural being created the universe -- or even that the God of the Bible created the universe -- does this necessarily lead one to convert to Christianity? Link to rest here

Fear and Rejection

2005-06-05T17:31:00.000-07:00

By DAVID BROOKS

Forgive me for making a blunt and obvious point, but events in Western Europe are slowly discrediting large swaths of American liberalism.

Most of the policy ideas advocated by American liberals have already been enacted in Europe: generous welfare measures, ample labor protections, highly progressive tax rates, single-payer health care systems, zoning restrictions to limit big retailers, and cradle-to-grave middle-class subsidies supporting everything from child care to pension security. And yet far from thriving, continental Europe has endured a lost decade of relative decline. Link to rest here

Why I Fear Big Government

2005-05-30T21:00:00.000-07:00

by Mark R. Schneider

If you've read the Federalist Papers then you know the authors, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay felt a certain paranoia over governments getting too powerful. The Framer's view of government was that it was a necessary evil to quell the even greater evil of unbridled human passions. Thus, they argued strenuously that the states needed a federal government to unify the factious Confederation against splintering into something chaotic. Moreover, a federal government was better suited than a loose alliance of states to advance the body politic to - as they so eloquently put it: "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

Madison, in particular, took great pains to emphasize the need for speed bumps to slow down and help counter corruption. The Constitution's three co-equal branches were in fact designed to avoid concentrations of power. In this sense governmental inefficiency was a desired effect, an acceptable price to impede what would otherwise be the inexorable pull toward absolutism, the very thing the Framers fought to forestall.

In contrast to the postmodern mind prevalent today in American culture, the Framers knew men. And their view of humanity was bleak. As Madison wrote in Federalist #38:

The history of almost all the great councils and consultations held among mankind for reconciling their discordant opinions, assuaging their mutual jealousies and adjusting their respective interests, is a history of factions, contentions, and disappointments, and may be classed among the most dark and degrading pictures which display the infirmities and depravities of the human character. If in a few scattered instances a brighter aspect is presented, they serve only as exceptions to admonish us of the general truth; and by heir luster to darken the gloom of the adverse prospect to which they are contrasted.

Hamilton, echoing a similar sentiment in regard to the Judiciary, expressed in Federalist #78:

To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should by bound down by strict rules and precedents which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grows out of the folly and wickedness of mankind that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge.

As a result, and in historic rebuttal to a monarchy, where power is unchecked and absolute, the Framers advocated a republic, a government - as Lincoln would so beautifully express a hundred years later -"of the people, by the people, for the people". Yes, the Framers fought for and ultimately created our federal republic, but they never ceased fearing it would evolve into something despotic.

So when does government become too big and what's the connection between big government and despotism? There's an oft cited axiom that goes something like this: Government can only give what it must first take by force. And if it's big enough to give you everything you want, then it's big enough to take everything you've got.

I never understand how it is that people who loathe and fear big corporations because they're so prone - which they are - to greed and corruption, at the same time look upon "progressive" government as some sort of benign custodian. Governments are made up of the same inherently corrupt people that corporations are. But there's a difference; only government can make laws and bring to bear the police power to enforce its will. Governments never make requests. They order, they coerce, they compel by the force of a gun.

One reason I fear big government is because the Framer's did. And frankly, I trust their wisdom more than the vast army of bureaucrats, unprincipled legislators and activist judges who deem themselves more capable than we of running our lives. The preamble to the Constitution, as noted above, enumerates and circumscribes very carefully the republic's proper scope. Notice while it says "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense", with regard to the general welfare it is only to "promote", not "establish", not "insure", not "provide".

Can we trust that the Framers chose their words carefully? I think we can. The charge to promote rather than provide for the general welfare (social security, welfare, Medicare, Medicaid et-al) is because governments not only do a very poor job of this, in the process of doing so it creates a worse human being. It creates a human being that demands something for nothing by taking it from somebody else. Furthermore, having government "provide" for one's general welfare serves to undermine the strength of the very institutions vital to its existence: the family, the community, the church, and private enterprise. At the same time big government diminishes these beneficent institutions it simultaneously incents, among other ills: governmental dependence, sloth, envy, greed, and a sense of entitlement that is demonstrably self-destructive. And while it's doing all this it chips away at liberty until its charges are reduced to little more than barely satisfied, yet fenced in, cattle. The experience of Communism in the now defunct Soviet Union is a vivid case in point. It will take decades to repair the damage in that troubled land, if ever it can be.

Government is necessary. God Himself ordained it as a "minister of justice". And as lamentable as big government is, it is still vastly superior to anarchy. But that does not mean that more government is better than limited government, just as morbid obesity should not be the prescription for starvation. There is a balance, which the Framer's expressed in the Preamble.

Why do I fear big government?

1) Because big government enervates the soul by creating an unhealthy dependence on itself.

2) Because big governments undermine the very institutions it relies on: family, community, church, and private enterprise.

3) Because big government imperils liberty with its insidious and ever multiplying ordinances and regulations.

4) Most of all, because humanity is inherently corrupt, and big government affords greater opportunity for that corruption to express itself more widely and with greater consequences than do limited governments.

Once in place, like a giant batholith, big government resists shrinkage. In fact, it dare not be attempted all at once. Government and society share a symbiotic relationship where dramatic changes to one can put the other at risk. The present hew and cry over the President's very modest initiative to privatize small portions of Social Security is illustrative. By comparison, dismantling the "third rail" of politics would be like sinking the Titanic. Before you could even consider such a thing there would have to be life boats in place for all. Even with the will and consent of the American people it would take many decades to unravel the bureaucracy and rebuild the private structures needed to fill the vacuum. Yet given the alternative, somehow I think I know what the Framer's would counsel.

A Challenge to Open Theism

2005-05-29T21:22:00.000-07:00

A few posts ago I recommended Gregory Boyd's book: Is God To Blame: Beyond Pat Answers to the Problem of Suffering. In my endorsement I laid out a caveat that, despite my endorsement, I might, in fact, end up rejecting some of Boyd's assertions. One of the ideas I do, in fact, reject is Open Theism. Open Theism is the notion that God has set up a universe where He does not have complete foreknowledge when it comes to human actions. While Open Theism does solve some thorny problems in interpreting Scripture, in doing so it creates many more. Personally, I believe there is a middle road between Classical and Open Theism; that God does have complete foreknowledge, so much so that He can influence events in such a way as to ensure His ultimate will is realized while allowing the exercise of human free will within the confines of the natural order He Himself has established. But that discussion is for another post.

In the meantime, for an excellent primer on the Open versus Classical Theism debate see: An Introduction to the Open Theism Controversy

No Federalism on the Right

2005-05-29T16:48:00.000-07:00

by David Boaz

David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute and author of Libertarianism: A Primer.

Federalism has always been a key element of American conservatism. In his 1960 manifesto, The Conscience of a Conservative, Barry Goldwater called for the federal government to "withdraw promptly and totally from every jurisdiction which the Constitution reserves to the states."

Ronald Reagan ran for president promising to send 25 percent of federal taxes and spending back to the states. As Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, Newt Gingrich stressed that "we are committed to getting power back to the states."

Lately, though, conservatives -- at last in control of both the White House and both houses of Congress -- have forgotten their longstanding commitment to reduce federal power and intrusiveness and return many governmental functions to the states. Instead, they have taken to using their newfound power to impose their own ideas on the whole country. Link to rest here

Federalist Society Discussion on Boy Scout Cases

2005-05-27T13:31:00.000-07:00

For those not acquinted with the Federalist Society, it is a highly influential and conservative public policy group focused on legal issues facing U.S. culture. Recently, it hosted an informative panel discussion on the very public attacks city governments, the ACLU and others have been waging against the Boy Scouts in courts across the country, most recently in San Diego. This Link to Webcast will allow you to listen in. Click on "Launch Webcast", fill in the boxes, and prepare to be enlightened.

Science is Fallible

2005-05-27T06:40:00.000-07:00

"Cover up". "Lather up". "Make sure you put sunscreen on, with at least an SPF of 15". "Wear a hat". For years medical science has been warning us to stay out of the sun. "I know the sun feels good on your face and that a little tan may look beautiful, but the risk of skin cancer, especially melanoma, is too great". "The sun can kill you".

Ever heard this before? Of course you have. The science collective has been issuing this mantra for decades.

"But wait". "New data has come in; you need some sun after all". "In fact, not getting enough may kill you".

Hyperbole? Nope. Take a look at this story from Marilyn Marchione:

Scientists Say Sunshine May Prevent Cancer

The vitamin is D, nicknamed the "sunshine vitamin" because the skin makes it from ultraviolet rays. Sunscreen blocks its production, but dermatologists and health agencies have long preached that such lotions are needed to prevent skin cancer. Now some scientists are questioning that advice. The reason is that vitamin D increasingly seems important for preventing and even treating many types of cancer.

In the last three months alone, four separate studies found it helped protect against lymphoma and cancers of the prostate, lung and, ironically, the skin. The strongest evidence is for colon cancer. Many people aren't getting enough vitamin D. It's hard to do from food and fortified milk alone, and supplements are problematic.

So the thinking is this: Even if too much sun leads to skin cancer, which is rarely deadly, too little sun may be worse.
No one is suggesting that people fry on a beach. But many scientists believe that "safe sun" - 15 minutes or so a few times a week without sunscreen - is not only possible but helpful to health.

One is Dr. Edward Giovannucci, a Harvard University professor of medicine and nutrition who laid out his case in a keynote lecture at a recent American Association for Cancer Research meeting in Anaheim, Calif. His research suggests that vitamin D might help prevent 30 deaths for each one caused by skin cancer. "I would challenge anyone to find an area or nutrient or any factor that has such consistent anti-cancer benefits as vitamin D," Giovannucci told the cancer scientists. "The data are really quite remarkable."

The talk so impressed the American Cancer Society's chief epidemiologist, Dr. Michael Thun, that the society is reviewing its sun protection guidelines. "There is now intriguing evidence that vitamin D may have a role in the prevention as well as treatment of certain cancers," Thun said.

Even some dermatologists may be coming around. "I find the evidence to be mounting and increasingly compelling," said Dr. Allan Halpern, dermatology chief at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who advises several cancer groups.

Link to rest here

No, the new data is not a license for baking in the sun. As one who has had two basil cell carcinomas cut out of his skin, I do not recommend it. Regardless, the new and emerging consensus represents a sea change of conventional opinion that the sun is bad for you. More to the point, it is yet another example in a long succession of how science, the god of postmodern culture, can - and often does, get it wrong. For readers with little tolerance to challenges on the theory of evolution this lesson ought to be considered. Remember Piltdown Man? For years he was widely considered among paleontologists as absolute proof of man's ascent from the apes, until that is the fossil was found to be a complete hoax. Like "Lucy", Piltdown had a sudden meltdown.

Science in the service of humanity is of inestimable value. There is no debate about that. But science is not infallible; Truth is. Think!

The Catholic Case For Capital Punishment

2005-05-26T14:35:00.000-07:00

Within Christendom there is nothing like complete uniformity on the subject of capital punishment. Chuck Colsen, for instance, who has dedicated his post conversion life to serving prisoners is uniquely qualified to express an opinion, and he is against it. That said, J. Budziszekski provides a classically Catholic view on this important topic.

Justice is giving each what is due to him. So fundamental is the duty of public authority to requite good and evil in deeds that natural law philosophers consider it the paramount function of the state, and the New Testament declares that the role is delegated to magistrates by God Himself. “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution,” says St. Peter, “whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right” (1 Peter 2: 13-14). St. Paul agrees:

For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute His wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience (Romans 13:3-5).

So weighty is the duty of justice that it raises the question whether mercy is permissible at all. By definition, mercy is punishing the criminal less than he deserves, and it does not seem clear at first why not going far enough is any better than going too far. We say that both cowardice and rashness miss the mark of courage, and that both stinginess and prodigality miss the mark of generosity; why do we not say that both mercy and harshness miss the mark of justice? Making matters yet more difficult, the argument to abolish capital punishment is an argument to categorically extend clemency to all those whose crimes are of the sort that would be requitable by death. Link to rest Here

Responding To Evolution

2005-05-24T17:13:00.000-07:00

The purpose of AgapeVeritas (Love Truth) is to reveal, shed light upon, and glory in the Truth in all the areas of life that count the most: theology, law, politics, culture, and science. That is why it gives me such pleasure to be the first the make widely available Stuart Orr's excellent study on Responding to Evolution. This ten part web-book does a very effective job of propounding the current arguments that define the Creationism vs. Evolution debate. Furthermore, it accomplishes this formidable task in a way that layman can both understand and put to good use. Originally intended as a ten part lesson plan, Responding to Evolution covers all the important controversies: Evolution's impact on society, how the Bible and science relate, first causes, Darwin's thesis, issues around origin of life, what is the doctrine of Intelligent Design. Stu has even included a stimulating discussion on consciousness, the soul and the afterlife.

Having studied this debate over many years I really didn't think there was much to learn, but I was pleasantly surprised. Stu has somehow managed to compile and organize a wide body of information in a very organized and engaging way. For the well informed, Responding to Evolution will provide a good refresher course. For just about everyone else, parents, and students of all stripes, Responding to Evolution can be a valuable and enlightening instrument from which to learn and engage others in intelligent debate.

My small part in this work has been to bring it to the web. Under the terms of the Creative Commons license you are free to use this material, basically, for any educational or non-profit use, including printing and copying.

I hope and pray you will take the time to consider Responding to Evolution. I promise it will open your mind and shed new light on the Truth, the very purpose of this site. Let the debate begin!

Mark

Who Is Priscilla Owen?

2005-05-22T18:09:00.000-07:00

by Stuart Orr

You would think Priscilla Owen would be somebody known to everybody in America. The President wants her to sit as a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court and claims that she is one of most qualified people in the entire nation. The opposition says she is one of the most unqualified prospects. Irrespective of what side you are on, the fact is that both sides are willing to go to political war over her appointment. The FOR-side rhetoric uses the term "nuclear" to describe it; the AGAINST-side says they'll shut down the legislative process if they're nuked.

I really don't know who Priscilla Owen is from "Big News." I know her name, and I know people are bitterly divided over her, but I don't know anything about her capabilities as a judge. You would think that we would be given these simple facts, especially since we're about to go nuclear! Like many of you, I have spent countless hours with Big News -- watching it on TV, listening to it on the radio, listening to NPR on the internet, reading the local newspaper, and reading the news magazines, wanting to know the answer to one simple question -- WHO IS PRISCILLA OWEN?

Over the course of my career I have hired a lot of people, and so have most of you. It is a very straight-forward process. You start by looking at a resume to get a feel for a person's capabilities, their "vital stats" -- facts, like their education, experience and accomplishments; you check out their references. Then you try mentally to match those facts against the requirements of the job. In the case of Priscilla Owen, I have wanted Big News to be my "HR Department" -- researching her capabilities, telling me of her accomplishments so that I could form an intelligent picture as to whether or not she would be right for the job. But, despite hundreds of hours of news broadcasts and journalistic endeavors, I still do not know Priscilla Owens. Instead, what I get from Big News are the opinions of the people who are warring over her, with tireless in-depth description about the battles and not about her qualifications. I have yet to see a resume or an analysis of her capabilities and how they stack up against the job. Instead, what I get from Big News is somebody telling me how I should think.

The best way I have been able to find out news facts is by going to the Internet to do my own research. There, into a trusty search engine I type "Priscilla Owen" and voila -- instantly comes back news I can use. In fact this method is so good that I have found Big News only minimally worthwhile anymore -- to identify the subjects of interest.) This morning I did just that for "Priscilla Owen" and found out more in a half-hour than in hundreds of hours of Big News.

If you are interested, I put together my own resume on Priscilla Owen. I found the exercise very energizing. I have become increasingly disenchanted with the "thought manipulation" process used by Big News (more about that in an upcoming article). But, with the internet, I get to structure the analysis -- using my own biases, of course :) But, at least I know they're my biases and not someone else's. And, I get to pick the "extreme" and "moderate" sources from both sides, which thrills me no end -- and sometimes even informs my biases!

Whatever happened to Big News researching original source material? It seems they're more interested in entertainment than in journalism. But there is GOOD NEWS coming. With the internet you can research original sources for yourself. Maybe if enough of us would do that we would be able to replace BIG NEWS with GOOD NEWS.

I'm sure the resume you would develop on Priscilla Owen would be different than mine, but that's the beauty of this approach. You might want to take a peek at the one I did. The sources I used came off the first page of results from a Google search on "Priscilla Owen." Happy surfing ...

Stu

(1) U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy

(2) TedKennedy.com

(3) Independent Judiciary, A Project of the Alliance for Justice

(4) Republicans National Lawyers Association

The Apostle Peter was wrong - but it's a good thing!

2005-05-20T13:21:00.000-07:00

by Mark R. Schneider

Do I have your attention? Thought so. No, I am not kidding and this is not a play on words. Peter, the great Apostle, was wrong about a very serious theological issue and yes, I do view that fact as positive. But allow me to digress.

If you’ve been a Christian long enough, as I have, you will have had to stick your head in the sand not to notice that much of what you’ve heard, read, and been taught by pastors, theologians and other devoted students of the Scriptures has been dead wrong. For instance, I cut my spiritual teeth in Southern California where Chuck Smith, the beloved and venerable pastor of Calvary Church in Costa Mesa, both believed and taught that the Second Coming would arrive in the 1980s. His convictions were based on his faulty Pre-Millennialist analysis of events in the Middle East compared against prophecies in Daniel, the book of Revelations, Matthew’s gospel and other Scriptures. And Chuck was by no means alone in this regard. There were lots of date setters during that time – all of them wrong.

We Evangelicals, especially, are prone to lord over the Catholics’ the fact that they could not see the Reformist logic of Martin Luther and Calvin. How can they still be so wrong? But wait, for the Protestant legacy is likewise pockmarked with error and myriad schisms over what constitutes the truth. Some of these differences are of arguably low import, like whether the gift of tongues is still in use. Others, however, pivot on much more serious stuff, like the doctrine of Predestination and the never ending debate concerning the veracity of Dispensationalism, Preterism, Post and Amillennialism et-al. Obviously, the adherents of these divergent beliefs cannot all be right no matter the skill of their reasoning or heartfelt passion. Either one is correct and the others or wrong, or else they are all wrong. At a personal level it is almost comical how much bad counsel I’ve received over the years from sincere Christians.

All this can be exceedingly frustrating. Doesn’t James promise that if we lack wisdom we can simply ask God and He will provide it liberally (v 1:5)? Did not Jesus Himself promise that “the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things… (John 14:26)”? So what gives? How can it be that so many sincere and learned Christians can fall so habitually and easily into serious inaccuracy? How can truth ever really be known if even Christians, infilled with the very Spirit of God, are so muddled and prone to error?

Aside from the fact that we’re finite beings with limited knowledge, the more persuasive explanation is, in a word, sin. Indeed, there was only one who knew the truth perfectly – the sinless One. The rest of us, well, we muddle through the best we can, relying on whatever grace God can trust us to manage.

I confess I tend to mentally tune out when I hear a Christian teacher summarily dismiss alternate views as naive or unlearned as he posits his own intractable opinions on issues proven to be very difficult to understand. In such matters I believe that discretion, with ample measures of humility, is the better part of valor. “God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble” should be our guiding light. All of us are prone to error and ought, therefore, to extend grace and love to those we disagree with. Indeed, even God’s specially appointed emissaries, the Apostles, occasionally got it wrong. Take Peter. Here was a man specially chosen by God, filled with the Holy Spirit, a “pillar” among Apostles, a man who knew Jesus more intimately than perhaps any other. And yet, even after nearly two decades of active ministry he found himself needing to be publicly exhorted for getting it wrong. As told by Paul in Galatians:

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs (Gal. 2:11-14)?

Peter, the great Apostle, was either in deep theological error or, more likely, deliberatly sinning by playing the hypocrite and leading others astray.

So what’s the message? Just this: Don’t be too quick to accept what you hear, no matter who or what the source. “Test the spirits” saith the Lord (1 Jn. 4:1), for there is only One who is completely knowledgeable and trustworthy. All others, no matter how sincere and well meaning, are inherently fallible. More to the point; don’t think too highly of your own opinions. Truth is difficult to uncover. Reality is infinitely more complex than our finite minds can grasp. Deep truth must be teased out, particle by particle. “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search it out” (Prov. 25:2). The knowledge that Peter was in serious error provides a strong message that humility is called for when it comes to truth claims! I love Chuck Smith, not because of his theological understanding but because of his heart. Like Peter, Chuck strikes me as a humble man, eager to admit error when shown to be wrong. We would do well to follow his example.

One day we will see things as they really are. But in the meantime we need to carefully consider what’s being proffered, testing the sprits and, like the Bereans, searching out the matter for ourselves rather than taking every truth claim at face value. Finally, our own speech should be laced with grace, giving love and greater honor to each other as we are able.

For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love (1 Cor. 13:12-13).

Abortions of Convenience

2005-05-18T15:28:00.000-07:00

Women who have abortions again and again
by JULIE WHELDON and JAMES MILLS, Daily Mail

15:26pm 16th May 2005

Rise: Women having multiple abortions

A dramatic rise in repeat abortions has reinforced fears that women are increasingly having terminations for lifestyle reasons.
One in three abortions is now carried out on women who have had at least one before. Figures from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service suggest that women who become pregnant at university or at the start of their careers see abortion as a means of delaying motherhood. Link to rest here

Is God To Blame?

2005-05-12T12:34:00.000-07:00

The older I get the more I question things: suppositions, societal norms, doctors, "science", and yes, much of what I've learned from others and always believed about God. Life can have that effect. It alternately teaches and eviscerates. For some people their advancing years serve to calcify long held notions into petrified wood. These are the people that eschew anything new, be it music, fashion, politics, or an alternate view of theology. They are like iron stakes, immovable but prone to rust. I hope I never get like that. For others, life's long series of disappointments and broken trusts result in a kind of cynical skepticism - a resignation that leads to the unfortunate belief that nothing can be known with certainty and therefore everything is suspect. Since life cannot be understood why try. At the very least, people like this harbor a low grade fatalism. It is this latter frame of mind that I find myself having to guard against.

Where you land on this spectrum depends, I suppose, on your own peculiar life experience. Regardless, for people over forty who have lived long enough to experieince life's blows, an almost universal recognition is that this world is a mess. There is no denying it. Human life is broken.

This week I read that two young missing girls, ages nine and ten, were found dead in a field not far from their home, their bodies riddled with stab wounds, inflicted by one of the girl's father. In Iraq more suicide bombers killed dozens and blew the limbs of those that survived. In my little circle I talked to a friend today whose husband nearly died last Thursday night from a relapse with Lymphoma. He's been fighting it for two years. So much grief, and so numbingly unexplainable. Recently I read about a loving and God fearing woman who prayed for years that she might be granted a child, and rejoiced when after years of disappointment she was able to deliver a beautiful baby boy, only to face crushing despair when that same boy died suddenly of some rare infant disease. Of course this happened during a time while another woman, promiscuous and irresponsible, has had several children - all unwanted and all "aborted"...and on the it goes, injustice and misery, played out ten thousand times a day across this forlorn planet. Nothing seems to work as it should. Perfect joy is ephemeral, and suffering, with all its random cruelty, abounds.

For believers in God one question comes to dominate: WHY? If God is sovereign over the affairs of the universe why does he allow, or as many theologians have believed over the centuries, actually preside over if not orchestrate, so much suffering?

"For the Scripture says to pharaoh, 'For this very reason I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth. So then, He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires, You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?' On the contrary, who are you, O Man, who answers back to God?" (Rom 9:17-19).

Tough words, and not particularly satisfying.

So what are we to make of this world and the God who rules over it? As if it needed saying, there is no simple solution. Pat answers eventually run out of steam. I have pondered this question, studied it, prayed and meditated upon it for decades, and my dismay continues nearly unabated. "Nearly" I said, but not completely. For every now and then I am graced with a glimmer of insight that brings a ray of light into the darkness. Such was my experience after reading Gregory Boyd's: "Is God to Blame?: Beyond Pat Answers To The Problem Of Suffering".

Indeed, for those whose spiritual digestive systems are ready to move beyond milk, Boyd offers a diet of meat and potatoes. And while I strongly question, and may ultimately reject, some of Boyd's assertions, there is much here worth savoring. In sympathetic recognition of the despair and confusion many readers drawn to a book like this have fallen into, Boyd makes a strong argument right from the start that God is not the remote and angry Being many have regrettably come to believe in. Rather, if you want to know what God is really like, what He really thinks and feels, then look upon Jesus. He is the perfect and complete image of all that the Father is. Did Jesus show compassion to the woman taken in adultery, did he heal all who came to Him in faith, did he weep with those grieving over the death of a loved one, did He freely consent to die a terrible and humiliating death on a cross to pay a debt He did not owe? This image of unsurpassable love, Boyd writes, is the true image of the sovereign God. "Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied. 'Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know Me? Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say then, 'Show us the Father?" (John 14:8-9).

Following this Boyd launches into a penetrating analysis of the effect of free will, of both men and angels, on our current universe. He argues that, at least in this current economy, God has permitted this free will to run its course - though much of it results in sin and despair. He makes the point strongly that like intersecting vibrations forming multiple harmonics, or like ripples on the surface of the ocean the collide in ways that result in infinite repercussions, what appears to our finite minds as random suffering is in actuality the predictable result from the intersection of myriad wills playing themselves out on the earth's stage. Yes, God permits these cause and effect relationships, but that is far different from ordering them according to a grand "blueprint" God preordained before time began.

Boyd makes a strong argument, following the example of our Lord, that evil must be confronted. We are not to fall into fatalism. God has empowered us with choice and prayer that together wield a powerful and cosmic influence on the course of events.

Finally, Boyd challenges, one by one, conventional interpretations of the difficult Scriptures, like the one cited above in Romans 9.

"Is God to Blame" is not a perfect book. I do question some of his assertions and found fault with specific instances of reasoning. That said, I highly recommend it. If you've been angry at God or are looking for answers beyond the cliche, Boyd offers what could be a soothing balm, or at the very least, ideas worth considering.

Mark Schneider

Luther, Bunyan, Bible and Pain

2005-05-10T22:31:00.000-07:00

by John Piper

January 19, 1999

Psalm 119:71

From 1660 to 1672, John Bunyan, the English Baptist preacher, and author of Pilgrim's Progress, was in the Bedford county jail. He could have been released if he had agreed not to preach. He did not know which was worse - the pain of the conditions or the torment of freely choosing it, in view of what it cost his wife and four children. His daughter, Mary, was blind. She was 10 when he was put in jail in 1660.

The parting with my Wife and poor children hath often been to me in this place as the pulling of the Flesh from my bones . . . not only because I am somewhat too fond of these great Mercies, but also because I . . . often brought to my mind the many hardships, miseries and wants that my poor Family was like to meet with should I be taken from them, especially my poor blind child, who lay nearer my heart than all I had besides; Oh the thoughts of the hardship I thought my Blind one might go under, would break my heart to pieces. (Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, Evangelical Press, 1978, p. 123). Link to rest here

A Textbook Case of Junk Science

2005-05-08T10:03:00.000-07:00

A Textbook Case of Junk Science:
What our children is learning?
by Pamela R. Winnick
05/09/2005, Volume 010, Issue 32

SEVERAL CENTURIES AGO, some "very light-skinned" people were shipwrecked on a tropical island. After "many years under the tropical sun," this light-skinned population became "dark-skinned," says Biology: The Study of Life, a high-school textbook published in 1998 by Prentice Hall, an imprint of Pearson Education.

"Downright bizarre," says Nina Jablonski, who holds the Irvine chair of anthropology at the California Academy of Sciences. Jablonski, an expert in the evolution of skin color, says it takes at least 15,000 years for skin color to evolve from black to white or vice versa. That sure is "many years." The suggestion that skin color can change in a few generations has no basis in science.

Pearson Education spokesperson Wendy Spiegel admits the error in describing the evolution of skin color, but says the teacher's manual explains the phenomenon correctly. Just why teachers are given accurate information while students are misled remains unclear.

But then there's lots that's puzzling about the science textbooks used in American classrooms. A sloppy way with facts, a preference for the politically correct over the scientifically sound, and sheer faddism characterize their content. It's as if their authors had decided above all not to expose students to the intellectual rigor that is the lifeblood of science.

Link to rest here

False promises of academic freedom

2005-05-08T09:59:00.000-07:00

by David Limbaugh

May 6, 2005

If you want to get a real glimpse of the thought-tyranny of the academic Left, you should look at the case of Scott McConnell, who was recently expelled from Le Moyne College in Syracuse, N.Y., because his personal beliefs didn't fit within the school's indoctrination grid.

The Left, through an extraordinary process of self-deception, routinely congratulates itself for its enlightenment and open-mindedness, but the slightest scrutiny of its behavior in academia alone puts the lie to its claims. Sadly, the Left has even sunk its tentacles into Jesuit colleges like Le Moyne.

McConnell was pursuing a masters in education at Le Moyne. He achieved a 3.78 grade-point average for the fall semester and an "excellent" evaluation for his outside classroom work at a Syracuse elementary school when he made the mistake of relying on the university's promise to honor students' academic liberty and due process.

In its handbook, Le Moyne boasts, "As a comprehensive college, accredited by the State of New York and the Middle States Association, Le Moyne shares the ideals of academic freedom found in American institutions of higher education."

Among McConnell's unforgivable sins were his audacious dissent from the university's dogma extolling multicultural education and his gross insubordination in asserting in a paper that "corporal punishment has a place in the classroom."

Link to rest here

Polly gaffes

2005-04-26T17:24:00.000-07:00

EDUCATION: Campus outrage awards focus on wacky campus liberalism | by Mark Bergin

Scott McConnell disputes the postmodern fads of elementary pedagogy, calling multiculturalism and lax discipline educational stumbling blocks. The former graduate student at Le Moyne College in Syracuse advocates a more traditional classroom—complete with cultural value judgments and corporal punishment. Such ideas, according to Le Moyne officials, merit expulsion.

Mr. McConnell's story tops the Collegiate Network's 2005 Campus Outrage Awards, an annual listing of ridiculous happenings in academia. The Pollys—so dubbed in mockery of political correctness run amok—are meant to incite more than just chuckles among conservatives. "We want to focus national attention on the absurdity of political correctness on college campuses," said Sarah Longwell, the Collegiate Network's director of public affairs. Link to rest here

Democracy Is Now the Realistic Policy

2005-04-22T15:06:00.000-07:00

Geopolitics

By Victor Davis Hanson

"The policy of the United States is to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.... All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."

"Those and other idealistic passages in President Bush's second inaugural address sparked criticism that he was biting off more than even a superpower could chew. Are such prescriptions realistic in the Middle East? Is it wise to demand that voting must follow economic liberalization in China, or is isolating an autocracy of a billion people too dangerous? Is an elected but increasingly authoritarian Russian president Putin a quasi-, pre-, or post-democrat?"

Link to rest here

A Conspiracy against Excellence

2005-04-18T20:03:00.000-07:00

Teacher union salary schedules reward the mediocre, penalize the talented

By Steven Miller

Recent research has shown that teachers are by far the most important factor in student achievement—some 20 times as important as other factors, like class size or socioeconomic status.

Varying significantly in their capacity to teach, some teachers consistently produce large gains in student achievement, regardless of the kinds of students assigned to them, while other teachers do not. Link to rest here

"Comet" to get stem cell treatment

2005-04-17T21:07:00.000-07:00

As this article demonstrates, when the value of people is diminished the value of animals is elevated.

Link to Article here

"Rebuilding a Culture of Life: In Memoriam"

2005-04-06T20:30:00.000-07:00

by Ben Shapiro

"Even in the midst of difficulties and uncertainties, every person sincerely open to truth and goodness can ... come to recognize ... the sacred value of human life from its very beginning until its end, and can affirm the right of every human being to have this primary good respected to the highest degree. Upon the recognition of this right, every human community and the political community itself are founded … "

On Friday, March 18, at about 1:45 p.m., Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed. So began the state-sanctioned killing of a 41-year-old brain-damaged woman. At the insistence of her husband, Michael, Terri Schiavo was slowly starved to death. "She has verbally expressed her wishes to me and other people," Michael told ABC's "Nightline." Michael, who since Terri's heart attack has sired two children by another woman, insisted that the procedure would be painless. "Terri will not be starved to death. Her nutrition and hydration will be taken away … Death through removing somebody's nutrition is very painless." Terri's parents, believing Catholics, sat helpless beside Terri's bed as the tube was removed.

Link to rest of story here.

On the importance of "faith".

2005-04-04T11:50:00.000-07:00

The just shall live by faith. Habukkuk 2:4

Three times in the New testament (twice by Paul and once by the writer of Hebrews - probably Paul) is Habakkuk's declaration repeated that the "just shall live by faith". It was this revelation that rescued Martin Luther from his years long bondage under personal guilt and which led to the Reformation. We are told in Hebrews 11 that by faith the people of God brought down walls, crossed the Red Sea, closed the mouths of lions, routed armies, endured suffering and obtained glorious victories. Our very Salvation rests on faith. But why? What's the big deal about faith? It's hard believing in something so intangible. I don't like it.

At its simplest, faith means to trust in something (like or promise) or someone (like God) to come through - to bring about the promised result. By definition, faith usually comes at the expense of direct evidence. We're called to trust in something we cannot see. At its highest level faith always induces action.

Faith is a concept I've always struggled with. Why can't God just reveal His will and plans for our life directly? Why can't He just appear when we need His help? Why does He hide Himself so? I don't know; but the fact that God does hide Himself is self-evident, and I don't expect that will change much until the Second Coming. At that time the need for extreme faith will end. And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love ( 1 Cor 13:13). Love is greater than faith, in part, because our need for faith will diminish in proportion to God's increasing revelation and direct presence in our lives (for now we see as in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face). The closer we are to God's presence the less our need of faith. Love, by contrast, is the very essence of God's character and therefore eternal.

So until we die and our ushered into God's presence or Christ makes His climatic return, as denizens of the earth, we are called to faith. Why? Because it honors God. Faith in action makes the bold statement, both to ourselves and others, that God is true to His word and worthy of our trust. Like nothing else, faith is our acknowledgment of God's good character.

For more on this, I highly recommend John Piper's essay: Faith: In Hope, Against Hope, for the Glory of God. Link to it here.

The Least of These

2005-04-01T00:33:00.000-08:00

by Mark R. Schneider

For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me'.

"Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it for me. Matthew 25:34-40

Terri Schiavo died today, having succumbed to starvation after being denied food and water under force of law and threat of arrest by these United States. This severe action, it proponents defend, issued from compassion for the suffering and respect for Terri's wishes. Indeed, before her ashes become mingled with the dust of the earth I expect that we will have verified from the planned autopsy what Michael Schiavo and his doctors have long asserted, that much of Terris brain, especially her cerebral cortex, was liquefied and therefore, according to current medical understanding, incapable of conscious thought or awareness.

And so, for Michael Schiavo and the millions of Americans who honestly believed as he does that, at least in this case, the ends justify the means, there will be relief, no doubt sincere and heart felt, in the knowing that Terris suffering has finally come to an end. Who among us, after all, would want to exist in such an appalling condition, imprisoned in a slowly diminishing body, year after long year, unable to interact with the outside world, immobilized in a twilight zone between conscious life and oblivion?

Truthfully, I would not. At least I dont think I would. Its difficult to know with certainty. And therein lies the dilemma. No one can know what Terri was capable of thinking, feeling, or what her desires were. The mind-body connection is an ocean of mystery which depths cannot begin to be plumbed through an autopsy. And a verbal sentiment spoken years earlier about not wanting to be kept alive by tubes hardly seems sufficient to justify administering the ultimate protocol, or at least it used to be.

One thing, however, is certain. America is becoming increasingly unhinged from the shared principles that formed its center and marked our history for over two hundred years. Patience, long suffering, and self-sacrifice in service of the weak does not get the personal attention it once did. Now we have the courts and government programs. Theres not a lot of desire to consider if there is a deeper meaning in Terri Schiavo's shared suffering in a culture of Extreme Makeovers, Survivor, and American Idol, where beauty, cunning, and talent are all that count.

In part, because we find it harder to value our own lives when severe misfortune strikes, in whatever form, it is natural to hold less value for the lives of others so affected. And this is the great tragedy of Terri Schiavo that as a people we have come to value life in accordance with our capacity to enjoy it, or at least to feel fulfilled, however we define it. Human life in America is valued subjectively, whereas for most of our history it held objective value, a value not dependent on circumstances or human affirmation. This is an enormous change, one that portends dark days ahead if not remedied.

There is little mystery as to what has led us here. An unprecedented rise in prosperity, the relentless and organized assault on belief in the Biblical God combined with the ascendancy of science, and in particular evolution, have made animals of us all wherein the unstated mission of life is to satisfy our appetites.

But God affirms that our lives do have objective, indeed eternal, value; that our lives have meaning beyond what we can see within the limits of time and three dimensional space, that our actions reverberate far beyond what we know, both for good and for ill. He tells us too that patience under suffering is among the noblest of enterprises if done in the service of good, whether that suffering is of a personal nature, or indirect, as in caring for those who cannot attend to themselves, those Jesus called the least of these. A nobler enterprise is hard to imagine in God's economy.

But caring for those in need is more than a privilege; it is a mandate and one that cannot be shoved upon the government. For along with the blessing Jesus uttered a warning.

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'"

"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison and did not help you?'"

"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do it for me'".

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Matthew 25:41-46

Terri Schiavos eartly life had inestimable value because God valued it, the state of her ravaged body notwithstanding. As He told Samuel the prophet: Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). God will Himself attend to Terri now that she is free from that body. For that, at least, we can and should take solace. But that is all. I certainly would not presume to know Gods mind on the particulars surrounding all the many decisions made by those affecting Terri Schiavos death: that of her husband Michael, his lawyers, the trial and appellate judges, et al. But one thing we can know. One day we will all stand before Him to give an account, where He will judge rightly the motives and intentions of our hearts. Take heed.

"Servanthood and the Schiavo Protocal"

2005-03-28T14:55:00.000-08:00

There's been a lot of thought over what the "state" ought or ought not do in the case of Terri Schiavo. Of course that question need not have arisen if Terri's husband, Michael, had given more thought as to what he ought, or ought not, do. What does God expect of him? For the answer Charles Lehardy provides an execellent guide:

Jane was in the prime of her life when she was diagnosed with ALS. She had a husband, children and a busy, fulfilling career. She was respected by her colleagues and frequently sought out for her knowledge and wisdom. Life was good, which made the diagnosis of ALS an even greater tragedy.

Link to rest of article here.

"Hold back those stumbling to the slaughter"

2005-03-25T15:00:00.000-08:00

by Alexandra Rosato

By the time you read this, Terri Schiavo may be dead. There is no good reason why she should be made dead, especially under conditions that would appall us if she were in San Quentin, Guantanamo, or the local animal shelter. But all the prayers, petitions and rallies of the righteous cannot force the hand of Justice to bestow upon Terri the liberty to refrain from dying. There is no stopping Justice once she dons her black robe and bellows forth from the bench. The woman must die. After all it is her right and to what end do we provide Justice with a gavel if not to enforce the due protection of rights?

We have been bombarded with commentary this week offering all manner of evidence with which to convince some judge that Terri should not be sentenced to death. If only there were an MRI or what about Michael Schiavo's adultery and maybe if the Supreme Court could hear the case* Objection, your honor: irrelevant. Sustained.

What is relevant is that Terri Schiavo is most obviously and obstinately human. Prior to the removal of her feeding tube, she was not terminally ill or suffering pain. In fact, her medical malpractice judgment was based on a life-expectancy of seventy-some years. Terri Schiavo's great crime is that she has ceased to be useful. And frankly, she makes us squirm with the thought of our own mortality. But do we really want to argue - as the courts have in this case - that constitutional protection of our most fundamental rights be accorded only those who demonstrate some contribution to the public good?

Senator Steven Douglas, when he debated Abraham Lincoln in 1858, in the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, argued for slavery on the very same principle. "You and I are bound to extend to our inferior and dependent beings every right, every privilege, every facility and immunity consistent with the public good. The question then arises, 'What rights and privileges are consistent with the public good?'"

Senator Douglas answered that it was consistent with the public good for certain people - presumably the superior and independent - to put other human beings in chains. And Judge Greer has answered that it is consistent with the public good for certain people to put other human beings to death.

The opinions of judges are the opinions of men. They are fallible.
Let us not be too enamored by the costumes and accouterments of their office to recognize when they have usurped their authority.

When we place the state in a position of determining the criteria for the protection of the fundamental right to life and liberty, we essentially become wards of that state. And so we ought not to be surprised when the state comes to retrieve its own.

In 1945, Pastor Martin Niemoller said as much: "First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up."

Last night Michael Savage said that we - the whole lot of us - have become the good Germans. I know whereof he speaks because my grandfather was a good German. He did whatever it was that men had to do to put food on the table in 1943 and occasionally wrote from the front that the war would soon be over and life would return to normal.
He never made it home because ultimately not even good Germans can be spared from the destructive consequences of bad ideas.

I don't think the comparisons with some of the darkest days in our nation's history are overstated. Court-sanctioned murder of the innocent has always been an exceptionally bad idea.

So - as a favorite teacher of mine always says - what's the point? It is that we must continue to think on these things even after the crisis of Terri Schiavo ends with her death. Let us not sleep through this dark day.

Those who would uphold the dignity to live - even in a condition that is not deemed worthy by the court - must examine where and why we have lost one battle after another for the protection of the most basic of human rights. Are we prepared to articulate why human beings are deserving of protection apart from their size, location and mental acuity? Are we willing to commit the greatest of intolerances in the contemporary marketplace of ideas and assert that Terri Schiavo is worth fighting for simply because as a human being she bears the image of God? These are simple, unsophisticated notions. We should not pretend that they carry any weight in the courts of men today. But this does not discharge us from the responsibility to be advocates for the weak and defenseless.Terri Schiavo's appeal does not end at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Deliver those who are drawn toward death. And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, 'Surely we did not know this,'does not He who weighs the heart consider it? He who keeps your soul, does He not know it? And will He not render to each man according to his deeds? (Proverbs 24:11-12).

Alexandra Rosato
arosato@tiu.edu
Trinity Law School
March 24, 2005

Killing Terri Schiavo

2005-03-24T18:27:00.000-08:00

by Thomas Sowell

People who say that the government has no business interfering in a private decision like removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube somehow have no problem with a squad of policemen preventing her parents (or anyone else) from giving their daughter food or water.

Do those who want to keep the government out of private decisions think that the police are not the government? Do they think that the judges who authorized this are not the government?

Sadly, this is not the only Alice-in-Wonderland confusion of words and deeds in this tragic case. Link to Rest.

Liberal Feeling vs. Judeo-Christian Values: Part VI

2005-03-06T21:29:00.000-08:00

Dennis Prager

With the decline of the authority of Judeo-Christian values in the West, many people stopped looking to external sources of moral standards in order to decide what is right and wrong. Instead of being guided by God, the Bible and religion, great numbers -- in Western Europe, the great majority -- have looked elsewhere for moral and social guidelines.

Link to rest here.

The Case For Judeo-Christian Values - Part V

2005-03-04T13:57:00.000-08:00

Dennis Prager

Before continuing to make the case for Judeo-Christian values, it is time to answer a question frequently posed by Jews and Christians as well as others: How can there be such a thing as Judeo-Christian values when Judaism and Christianity have different, sometimes mutually exclusive, beliefs?

The most important answer is that beliefs and values are not the same things.

Link to rest here.