The Man in Flatland

2011-11-02T05:24:00.001-07:00

"The Good Life begins in a discerning heart shaped by God's revelation as the standard of all thinking about the measured realities of the world we inhabit as image-bearers of God with unique capacities for creative activities and special relationships in ordered communities that are protected by justice and structured for Shalom." Pete Lackey

2011-11-01T14:40:00.000-07:00

John Stott, a significant life

2011-08-02T13:32:00.000-07:00

The following is a Breakpoint Daily Commentary

John Stott
RIP

August 02, 2011

Soon after he became a columnist for the New York Times, David Brooks wrote that people were “misinformed” about Evangelicals. Part of the reason, Brooks reasoned, lay in whom the media chose to speak for us: choices that made as much sense as having “Britney Spears and Larry Flynt discuss D. H. Lawrence.”

So he introduced his readers to an evangelical whom many had never heard of but was, in Brooks’ words, “actually important,” John Stott.

Stott died last week at the age of ninety, once again with a very favorable eulogy in the New York Times. We will miss him in more ways than one.

In some respects this broadcast can be traced back to Stott. Over 30 years ago, I spoke at the London Lectures in Contemporary Christianity, an event founded and hosted by Stott. I spoke about the connection between culture, conscience, and crime. This was during the period when I was beginning to understand the question of worldview and its relationship to Christian mission.

I am far from the only Christian influenced by Stott in this way. In 1967, at a time when most Evangelicals were content to remain safe behind the walls of their churches, ignoring the larger world around them, Stott wrote a book entitled, Our Guilty Silence.

In it Stott made the case that because the Gospel is “Good News” we are under an obligation to share it with others. This sounds obvious, but in 1967 this kind of witness, and that kind of engagement with the larger society, was the last thing many Christians wanted to do. They much preferred their comfortable worship and cultural isolation.

Among its many benefits, this isolation didn’t require them to think too much, especially when it came to matters of faith. So five years later, Stott wrote Your Mind Matters, a book whose title could serve as a mission statement for this broadcast.

In it Stott criticized the “spirit of anti-intellectualism” that pervaded Evangelicalism at the time. This “spirit” often produced “zeal without knowledge” that was mistaken for Christian maturity. True Christian maturity is impossible without understanding what it is we believe and how it applies to our lives. The connection between Stott’s work and ours should, again, be unmistakable.

That I cared about prisoners drew John Stott and me close together. He was over and over the conscience of Evangelicalism, reminding us of our duty to the poor and the suffering.

Stott’s central role in the 1974 Lausanne Covenant, which brought the Evangelical world out of its self-imposed exile, caused Billy Graham, when he was named one of the most 100 influential people in Time magazine in 2005, to say that Stott deserved the designation instead. As Graham told Time, “I can’t think of anyone who has been more effective in introducing so many people to a biblical world view.”

Like I said, we will miss Stott in many ways. That’s because in many ways we are back where Stott started in the 1960s. For too many evangelicals, faith has become a matter of feeling in which how we feel takes precedence over what we know. There is no shortage of disheartening data documenting how little many professing Christians know about their own faith.

Stott made my recent book The Faith possible. The current state of the church makes it and others like it necessary. The question today is: have we learn from John Stott or do Christians prefer silence?

BreakPoint Daily Commentary

2011-07-28T08:32:00.000-07:00

BreakPoint Daily Commentary

A Fool's Tower
Debt, Default and Worldview

July 28, 2011

The clock is ticking. The United States is on the verge of default. Congress and the president seem unable to come together and find an agreement avoiding an economic catastrophe.

How in the world did we get into this fix? Well, it didn’t happen overnight. It’s been coming for a generation. For years, fiscal conservatives have warned about the dangers of out-of-control borrowing and spending, but current and previous presidents and congresses have ignored them, rolling up a massive national debt.

The bigger question is why did the American people stand for this? The answer is painfully clear. Because the people themselves were busy borrowing and spending like fiends.

Americans as a rule used to be a frugal people. They believed in the Protestant work ethic — an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay, save for a rainy day, don’t go deep into debt. But something changed, and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman — whom I respect though often disagree with — hit the nail on the head.

“The generation that came of age in the last 50 years,” he writes, “will be remembered most for the incredible bounty and freedom it received from its parents and the incredible debt burden and constraints it left on its kids.” Friedman calls this the “clash of generations.” The greatest generation scrimped and saved; their kids, the boomers, went on a big shopping binge.

This is what happens when a false worldview comes home to roost. Remember that it was in the 1960s that existentialism and relativism took over college campuses. If there truly were no God and life were devoid of meaning, well, live it up while you can. Throw off the burden of moral restraints, of civic duty and responsibility. Find fulfillment in pleasure and self-actualization; not in service to others or in building a good and just society. Thus was ushered in what Christopher Lasch called the age of narcissism.

There’s only one problem with the existentialist/relativistic worldview and the self-centeredness it breeds: It doesn’t work. It doesn’t foster the self-discipline, prudence, and moral character that individuals and societies need in order to flourish.

No wonder then, according to the Department of Commerce, when adjusting for inflation Americans spent more than they earned in most months from 2000 through 2008. Even without adjusting for inflation, monthly personal saving was usually less than three percent. This means people were borrowing more than they could repay.

Jesus asked the right question. Who would who set out to build a tower who did not “first sit down and estimate the cost” (Luke 14:28). Actually, we’re worse off than that. We borrowed heavily to build the tower, only to find out now it is about to be repossessed!

Not all the news is bad, though. Since 2008, Americans have awakened to reality and begun to spend less and save more. We’ve put off that vacation, coaxed a few thousand more miles out of the old car. We’ve tightened our belts. Now it’s time to make sure the government does the same.

Are folks beginning to figure out that we’ve been building a tower on a false worldview? That chasing self-fulfillment and living for the moment lead inevitably to moral and economic poverty? Well, we’ll see.

But it’s a fair question, and we, the Church, must raise it again and again. For our good and for the good of all.

Relics and People: Yes to One, No to the Other

2011-04-12T08:26:00.001-07:00

clipped from campaign.r20.constantcontact.com

Relics and People
Yes to One, No to the Other

April 12, 2011

A recent BBC headline read "Jordan battles to regain 'priceless' Christian Relics." What followed is a story about an archeological find that could "change our understanding of how Jesus was crucified and resurrected, and how Christianity was born."

It's a fascinating story with an ironic twist.

Like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the latest sensational archeological discovery was found by a Bedouin in a cave. The Jordanian government claims that, following a flash flood a few years ago, the Bedouin found two niches exposed by the flood. He opened the niches and absconded with their content to Israel. The Bedouin claims that the relics have been in his family for a century.

Regardless of which account is true, everyone agrees on the spectacular nature of the find: 70 books, each containing five-to-fifteen lead pages bound by lead rings, what scholars call "codices." While the writing, which is in a code based on ancient Hebrew, is still being translated, the images have prompted some to speculate that the find will "perhaps be more significant than the Dead Sea Scrolls."

The most striking image features a depiction of the walls of Jerusalem with a Roman-style cross and a tomb in the foreground. Another image depicts a menorah, which first-century Jews were forbidden to depict. Phillip Davies of Sheffield University told the BBC that what is being depicted is a crucifixion outside the city walls.

Sound familiar? Other scholars noted that the books were found "approximately" where Christians fleeing persecution in Jerusalem were said to have gone. Little wonder that people are calling it potentially "the major discovery of Christian history," and are giddy at the prospect of holding "objects that might have been held by the early saints of the Church."

Still, I can't help but notice a huge irony in this story: While people are arguing and fighting over repatriating Christian relics to the Middle East, no one seems to care about the flight of Christian people from the same region.

Nina Shea, who has been sounding the alarm about the fate of Christians in the Middle East for years, sums up their plight this way: "Unless something happens fast there is not going to be a future for Christianity in the Middle East."

Paul Marshall of the Hudson Institute concurs. Increased violence against Christians and government indifference (or worse, collaboration), means that Christian communities in most of the region "are beginning to go, and in a couple of decades, unless the situation changes...They will die out."

Even places like Egypt where Christians are too numerous to "die out," they will face increasing hostility, which, in turn, will encourage further emigration. If you want to see what Middle Eastern Christianity looks like, your best bet will be Southern California or Toronto, not Bethlehem.

We find ourselves in an absurd situation where 2,000-year-old Christian relics are more welcome in the lands where Christianity originated than the descendants of those original Christians.

While I welcome this convincing evidence of how Christianity was born there, I am even more interested in seeing that it doesn't die there.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Surgical Pregnancy Intervension vs. Legal Fetal Homicide

2011-04-08T16:32:00.000-07:00

Rhetoric: (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display;bombast.

This is not the classical definition of rhetoric, but it is what the term usually means in common parlance. Classically, rhetoric is "the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience." Why bring this up, you may ask? Because ideas have consequences. And if our public discourse is needlessly bogged down by distracting connotations, we we end up talking or even yelling at one another rather than communicating with each other.

The Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life discussion is a case in point. This is not to say that using the right words or winning the argument (as in verbal fight) is the final point. The final point is one of grave consequence. It is to say that we should be mindful of our words and mindful of our audience. Lives hang in the balance, the lives of women, men, children, and families, the very basis of society.

With that in mind, I want to persuade the pro-choice individual to change your mind about abortion. And I have a very specific way of arguing that I hope will persuade you to change your thinking on this issue. There is only one question that must be answered concerning abortion:

"What is the unborn?"

Illustration:

Imagine you are standing at the sink doing the dishes and your young son or daughter walks up behind you and asks, "Can I kill this?" Before you even turn around, what is the first question that pops into your head? "What is it?" It makes all the difference if it is a spider, the neighbor's puppy, or the little kid from next door. So it is with abortion. We must first answer the question, "What is the unborn." If the unborn is not an innocent human being, then no justification for abortion is necessary. If the unborn is an innocent human being, then no justification for abortion is adequate.

Option 1: The unborn is not an innocent human being. If this is the case, then objecting to someone having an abortion is like objecting that someone had their appendix removed or tonsils taken out. Do with the unborn as you please.

Option 2: The unborn is an innocent human being. The unjustified taking of innocent human life is wrong. Abortion is the unjustified taking of innocent human life. Therefore, abortion is wrong. None of the reasons justifying abortion are adequate if it is the case that the unborn is an innocent human being.

So how can we answer this question? Some may object that abortion doesn't kill anything, that the unborn is merely a lump of tissue. But this is simply not true. The "tissue" is growing inside the woman. It's getting bigger. That's the problem. Abortion takes it out and kills it, stops it from growing. Abortion does kills something.

Some may object that the unborn is merely a part of the woman's body to do with as she pleases. This objection fails on scientific grounds. The unborn has a unique genetic signature from the point the egg and the sperm join. This DNA signature is unique to every human being. It is unique to every unborn. As such the unborn is a unique biological entity, distinct from the woman who carries it.

There are 4 ways the unborn (pre-natal) are said to differ from the born (post-natal): Size, Level of development, Environment, and Dependency. This is easily remembered by the acrostic S.L.E.D. Any one of them is adequate to demonstrate the humanity of the unborn. Even so, I will show that all 4 categories are inadequate to de-humanize the unborn and thus the unborn is an innocent human being.

Size. The unborn are much smaller than born human beings. I am smaller than Andre the Giant. Does this make me a non-human being? I was smaller as a child than I am now. Was I a non-human being when I was 2 years old? Are little people not really human beings just because they are smaller than others? Size is irrelevant to our humanity.

Level of development. The unborn are at a lower stage of development than the post born. A two year old is at a lower stage of development than a 7 year old. A teenager is at a lower stage of development than a young adult. Are they not human beings irregardless of their level of development? Level of development is irrelevant to our humanity.

Environment. The unborn are in a different environment than the born. I am not in the same location as you reading this. People living in Africa, or Tibet, or the International Space Station live in different environments. What does that have to do with them being human? Environment is irrelevant to our humanity.

Dependency. The unborn are dependent on the woman for survival. They are not viable on their own. Dialysis patients are dependent for survival. Scuba divers are dependent upon their compressed air. Most children are dependent on their parents for several years before they could actually survive on their own. My best friend has a pacemaker that keeps him alive. None of these post born individuals lose their value as human beings due to their dependency. Dependency is irrelevant to our humanity.

The answer to the question, "What is the unborn?" is that the unborn is a human being. Therefore, no justification for abortion is adequate.

Premises:
1. The unjustified taking of innocent human life is wrong.
2. The unborn are innocent human beings.
3. Abortion is the unjustified taking of innocent human life.
Conclusion:
Therefore, abortion is wrong.

If you are pro-choice, you must show that any of premises 1, 2, or 3 are false. This is not a rhetorical trick. It is a reasonable argument that warrants serious attention. In order to invalidate this argument, you must invalidate the reasons which make up the argument.

I'm not trying to beat you up for your point of view. I am trying to convince you that you hold an unsupportable viewpoint so that you will change your mind concerning abortion.

The Abortion President

2011-04-08T15:06:00.000-07:00

Dear Friend of Life,
Just moments ago, I got off a media call with Rep. Jim Jordan, a pro-life warrior in the House who has been with us in this fight to defund Planned Parenthood every step of the way.
Our message to the media was loud and clear: President Obama and his pro-abortion allies in the Senate are prepared to shut down the entire government to ensure that Planned Parenthood continues to receive hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars each year.
We told reporters from all across the country that the truth is that the President sees federal funding for the nation's number one abortion provider as a bigger priority than paychecks for federal workers and funding for our military.
Make no doubt about it: President Obama is the Abortion President.
Your SBA List has been fighting him and the entire pro-abortion lobby to end taxpayer funding of America's abortion giant.

And the other side is throwing everything they have at us—even making up lies to deceive the American public about what Planned Parenthood really does. Yesterday, pro-abortion radical Rep. Louise Slaughter even had the audacity to say that our pro-life leaders in the House of Representatives are "here to kill women."
Clearly, the pro-abortion forces are in a frenzy—and they are well-funded. The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and their friends have managed to raise $150,000 in just days.

We're trying to keep up, but I have to be honest with you: We are at the most critical point of this debate and our war chest is running on empty.

Please make an emergency contribution to help the SBA List continue to expose Planned Parenthood and keep pressure on Congress to defund this abortion giant.

The Susan B. Anthony List team needs your support to continue working non-stop to educate the public and Congress about Planned Parenthood's awful truth: this billion dollar business is about making money through abortion, not about women's health.

Here's a recap of where we've done:

Co-founded the Expose Planned Parenthood coalition to promote the work of Live Action Films and get out Lila Rose's crucial videos exposing Planned Parenthood's willingness to cover up alleged human trafficking of young girls.

Travelled across 11 states on the Women Speak Out: Expose Planned Parenthood Bus Tour with Lila Rose to support and call on Representatives depending on their vote for the Pence Amendment.

Ran radio and television ads in support of seven brave pro-life Representatives who were being attacked by Planned Parenthood.

Ran a targeted media campaign featuring former clinic director for Planned Parenthood, Abby Johnson, to make sure Washington politicians couldn't miss the truth about Planned Parenthood.

Secured statements from ten 2012 Republican presidential hopefuls, getting them on the record supporting the defunding of Planned Parenthood.

Launched a print-ad campaign exposing Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger's racist and eugenic views on the same day Planned Parenthood activists convened in D.C. to lobby Congress.

Will you please make an emergency contribution to help us carry on our efforts?

I wouldn't ask if we didn't need it Travis, but trust me, television, radio, and print ads, especially in the Washington, D.C. area, do not come cheap.
And there is still much to be done.
Help the SBA List reach the finish line in this fight.

Now is the time to defund Planned Parenthood.

For Life,
Marjorie

Marjorie Dannenfelser
President, Susan B. Anthony List
www.sba-list.org

Putting the Tsunami into Perspective

2011-03-16T12:40:00.001-07:00

        Putting the Tsunami into Perspective
Elliot Miller

The following article is adapted from the CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL, volume 28, issue 1 (2005).  Subscribe today and enjoy thought-provoking and equipping content delivered to your door!

We are all riveted to our televisions the past several days as we watch the devastation of the nation of Japan after it experienced a 9.0 earthquake off its Sendai coast last Friday. As more than 1,000 bodies wash ashore, and fears mount of a potential leak of nuclear material after a possible nuclear plant meltdown, it's natural for people to ask why God allowed such a horrific tragedy. Natural disasters, wars, man-made tragedies (9/11, the Holocaust) continue as history unfolds but biblical answers to spiritual questions regarding them don't change. Back in an early 2005 issue of the Christian Research Journal, editor-in-chief Elliot Miller wrote an article giving biblical perspective to the then Indonesian Tsunami of December 2004. We hope this article equips you with a cogent and biblical explanation of how we should view natural disasters.

           When I first heard news of the tsunami that struck the Indian Ocean region on December 26 it stopped me in my tracks. "This could be the biggest natural disaster of our time," I thought. On that first day the estimated death toll was "only" around 14,000, but as I write six weeks later it is approaching 300,000.
           Who has not been profoundly affected by the video captures of the approaching wall of water, the apocalyptic pictures and reports of devastation and death, the seemingly capricious fates of those who were taken and those who were spared, the heart-wrenching losses suffered by natives of the region as well as visitors, and the unbelievable evil of those who have seized orphaned children to sell them into the sex slave trade? Who has not been moved by the heroism of those who did not think of their own safety in order to save (or try to save) the lives of others, and the compassionate efforts of people from around the world to help those who have been struck?
           Whenever a major disaster hits, whether natural or man made, the question is raised about God's role in it. An Internet search for the words "tsunami" and "God" yields Web pages that contain every conceivable answer to this question. For some people the disaster is an occasion for embracing or returning to faith in God; for others it is an occasion for losing faith or feeling justified in their unbelief. Comments such as the following caught my attention:
           "Amid tidal waves or tsunami, earthquakes or floods, outbreaks of disease or other natural disasters, where is God?"
           "Thanks for the tsunami, God! Do you realize what God just did?"
           "Is the tsunami God's judgment?"
           "Tsunami: God's Anger Revealed."
           "Tsunami = God's wrath on non-Christians. "
           "God used what unsaved Chinese people call a 'tsunami' to wipe out over 100,000 unbelievers in one fell swoop."
           "Did God send this tsunami because of the paganisms so prevalent in South Asia…as only a hint of the cataclysm that is yet to come—the holy judgment of God?"
           "Tsunami Disaster—A judgment from God to the Islamic nations!"
           "How can a merciful God allow such disaster and suffering?"
           "God killed more than 150,000 people with a tsunami....This terrible tragedy only proves one simple thing: There is no God, only religious rhetoric."
           Evil and human suffering do pose a problem for faith in God. There is no reason, however, to see the occurrence of a tsunami or any other disaster that takes its toll on human life as a direct act of God. The earthquake that displaced ocean water and produced the tsunami resulted from the very structure and normal operation of God's creation, in which geologic plates grind against each other and eventually shift to release tension. We know from observation and experience that disturbances in nature often occur, sometimes with tragic results for human beings and other forms of life.
           If anyone is going to believe in God in the first place, it has to be against the backdrop of this knowledge of our perilous universe; in other words, one's reasons for believing in God must withstand the reality of evil and human suffering. The occurrence of any particular disaster, then, should have no effect on one's belief in God.
           If one knows that God is, and what He is truly like, no event should cast doubt on that knowledge. Natural revelation affirms that God exists; biblical revelation confirms what God is like. The account of the fall of man in Genesis 3 reveals that God is not responsible for human suffering, and the Bible's record of His acts of mercy—especially in the cross of Christ—assure us that He is a God of love. We know that this is so despite the existence of tsunamis and earthquakes or terrorists and holocausts. Scripture also assures us that a time will come when suffering, sorrow, and death will be no more (Rev. 21:4).
           I am not denying that God sometimes does use natural disasters to execute His judgment. The problem, however, is one of presumption: the canon of Scripture is closed and no one today speaks with the authority of the biblical prophets; no one can say with certainty that the tsunami or any other disaster is an example of God's judgment. In God's sovereign purpose, there can be many reasons for allowing humans to suffer, and it is not always as a punishment for their sins (consider the example of Job). If we proclaim that the tsunami is a judgment of God against pagans or Muslims, we might find ourselves having something in common with the Jews Jesus rebuked: "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish" (Luke 13:2–3 NIV).
—Elliot Miller
Subscribe to the CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL TODAY!

We want to hear from you! We are collecting feedback on the Christian Research Journal. Please send us your comments on our articles, subjects you'd like to see covered, or why you subscribe. Please contact us at journal@equip.org.

How the New resistance Can Win the Culture War

2011-01-28T08:16:00.001-08:00

Rick Pearcey writes this excellent article. Politics is a complicated affair, yet Pearcey simply articulates the basis of the choice before us. The choice is between two views of reality and how they play out politically. And the choice is, "It's a vision that declares independence under God instead of dependence under the state." Reminds me of William Penn's famed statement, "Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants." It really is that simple.

clipped from www.pearceyreport.com

"Angry Mobs," Tea Parties, Town Halls Represent Enduring American Mainstream
How the New Resistance Can Win the Culture War

By J. Richard Pearcey

Despite what has been reported in the formerly mainstream media, the New Resistance in America -- the tea parties, the town halls, protests on Capitol Hill and so on -- is to be welcomed and not cast aside as "extreme." The "angry mobs" and "unruly crowds" are actually signs of health, sanity and hope.

What these uppity folk are telling us is that, despite years of miseducation and inattention, millions of ordinary people have not forgotten who they are as Americans. Even more, this resistance suggests that significant numbers of Americans may be on a path to rediscovering something rather exceptional.

By "exceptional" is meant not just who they are in their national identity, but who they are as creatures of resistance, hardwired that way by the Creator himself. And to the degree that this New Resistance succeeds, to that degree prospects are increased for victory in the cultural and political war for human freedom and human dignity.

The New Resistance is here and shows no sign of going away. The following three factors help explain why this is good for America -- and the world.

The Precipitating Factor: This first factor consists of the rise of Barack Obama and the decline of the Republican Party. One of the primary reasons Obama won the election of 2008 is that he stepped into a vacuum of power and vision created by the collapse of the Republican Party. He did this by presenting himself 1) as an alternative to any Republican, 2) as a non-threatening "no sudden moves" African-American who could heal the nation, and 3) as a man with a more coherent -- and therefore more powerful -- vision for America. Generally speaking, a man with a vision beats a man with a resume.

But after coming into office, Obama made several mistakes. For example, he has revealed himself not just as an alternative to "any Republican," but as an alternative to basic American principle. Not just to George Bush, as it were, but to George Washington. Also, he dropped the "no sudden moves" approach for a "no slow moves" approach: Crisis! Crisis! Crisis! has become his modus operandi. And finally, he has voiced an alien, grating, post-American vision of this country, in favor of a religiously secularist and centralized federal power from which he promises milk and honey, jobs and health-care, and so on.

The Republican collapse began after the Reagan administration. Reagan understood that American liberty is rooted in a particular political philosophy. It's a vision that declares independence under God instead of dependence under the state. Because Reagan understood there is a vision-for-freedom, he also understood the need to be able to explain and articulate that vision-for-freedom. Unfortunately, then-Vice President George Bush (the elder), despite eight years of seeing Reagan in action, and of seeing that kind of vision win landslide victories at the polls, never seemed to appreciate "the vision thing."

And so the Reagan vision of Americans knowing the "freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers" (from "A Time for Choosing") would be lost. In addition, the rationale and ability to articulate that vision would be lost. More than that, resources to stand up against a contrary vision would be lost -- even if that contrary vision is false.

The GOP's dilemma is that it is double-minded. On one side, some embrace a secular vision that sees the Creator of the Founders and of the Declaration as a kind of nice "religious" touch or "values" touch. But also in the GOP are those who show an appreciation of the connection between a real Creator and real freedom in the real world.

What the New Resistance senses is that neither the single-minded secularism of the Democrats nor the double-minded imbalance of the Republicans is an adequate foundation for freedom, whether we are talking about July 1776, March 2010 or 100 years from now.

The Predisposing Factor: Clearly, there is something more at work here than merely a transient response to a recent election. And that "something more" speaks to the fact that the word American actually means something. It is not a mere "value symbol" that we can redefine at will. Its meaning does not shift with polling data, election results or skin color.

What has happened increasingly, and with special impact since the '60s, is that the historic and liberating meaning of America has been under attack by real extremists. Thus, the culture war. I say "extremists" because the aggressors in the culture war occupy philosophical ground antagonistic to the mainstream of American thought and practice.

Two observations about "the mainstream." First, there is a "mainstream of today." This is a socio-political mainstream, and it can vary with time and place. It may be something to embrace -- or not.

Second, there is, as it were, a "mainstream forever." This mainstream is normative across cultures and history. And so, for example, as the Declaration and Constitution show, unalienable rights and limited government under God is the mainstream American position. This enduring American mainstream is alive to freedom, across time and place, precisely because its meaning does not change like the weather.

To the degree that a president or party advocates a vision or policy (such as health care) outside the abiding American mainstream, to that degree a president or party has moved away from the genius of the American experiment. At present, the liberal Democrat Party is outside of -- and even against -- the enduring American mainstream. Thus its extremism and increasing embrace of tyranny -- in the womb, in the marketplace, against speech and so on. The GOP is in a little better shape and may be able to recover. But it faces significant challenge in its divided and fragmented vision. As you may have heard, a "house divided cannot stand."

The hope of America is that the "mainstream of today" embraces the "mainstream that endures." This is what the New Resistance wants: to reconnect with the liberating identity of who we are as Americans.

The Philosophic Factor: It is crucial that we are not estranged from our identity as Americans. That itself is a national crisis. But there is a factor even more basic to understanding the New Resistance.

This people's rebellion is opening a door, and to walk through that door is to begin rediscovering something exceptional about human beings -- namely, that resistance is an essential part of who we are. That we are great and noble creatures of resistance, "hardwired" that way as "living souls" by the Creator himself. This is the "Philosophic Factor," and we will examine it in the following areas:

The Creator. First, a philosophy of freedom respects the Creator who is the center of gravity of freedom. "All men are created equal . . . they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." Neither atheism, nature, class, nor group is at the center. Nor is "diversity" at the center. We have a Declaration of Independence under God, not a Declaration of Independence under diversity.

The Creature. Second in a philosophy of freedom, there is a great and noble creature called Man. So grand is this creature that by his own choice he can become a sinner and yet not become a zero. There is a difference between moral brokenness and ontological oblivion. Human beings would be zeros if they were merely chance products of a meaningless universe that itself popped into existence out of nothingness. In that kind of universe, instead of the "Heavens [declaring] the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1), the impersonal particles declare the meaninglessness of man.

But in a philosophy of freedom, the individual is great. The "lowliest" person on the social or economic totem poll is magnificent. "There are no little people," as the great thinker Francis Schaeffer put it. Why? Because of where we came from. Because human beings have their ultimate origin in a final reality that is of infinite worth -- the Creator himself.

Unalienable Rights. Third is that human beings, by virtue of having been created in the image of God, as human beings are bearers of "unalienable rights." What makes these rights "unalienable"? They have their origin in the Creator. They are not "endowed" by the state, 51 percent of the vote, by 100 percent of the vote, or even by the agitations of activists claiming victimhood. "Unalienable rights" concern that which the Creator has joined together in the essence of the human being. And what the Creator has joined together, let no man separate. Not even government.

Objectivity of Truth. Fourth is the objectivity of truth, as opposed to mere "value." "We hold these truths to be self-evident," says the Declaration. Unfortunately, "values," "religion" and "faith" today are regarded as private expressions of "whatever makes me happy" or helps me cope. Freedom, however, is objectively there as an ethically desirable fact of life, even if no one in the power structure "values" it. Real "freedom" is no mere "value"; it is an objective ethical fact.

Creatures of Resistance. Fifth in a philosophy of freedom is that human beings are creatures of resistance. There is a sense in which we are hardwired to rebel -- not against good, but against evil. Not against life in community with our Creator and our neighbor, but against that which, if not resisted, alienates us from the good, the true and the beautiful -- including freedom. So of course a creature destined for freedom is a creature of resistance against tyranny. And so the founders in the Declaration affirm the "right" and "duty" to "throw off" a government that has as its "direct object ... the establishment of an absolute Tyranny."

How can the New Resistance win the culture war? First, do not allow a demonizing name-calling to slow you down. Second, stand up, proudly, as citizens of resistance. And third, stand up, magnificently, as human beings --as creatures of resistance "blessed" that way by the Creator to say "no!" to tyranny and "yes!" to freedom.

One final thought. Authoritarians at home and abroad, elected or otherwise, may not be pleased, but future generations and the nations of this world -- even now, across the globe -- have reason to rejoice. Why? Because the same Creator of the founders, and the same liberating information he has given, is available to them as well. They, too, are created in his image. And so the door is open. People all across the world can be exceptional in resistance and freedom.

Or you can put it like this: What's most exceptional about American exceptionalism is that it's not exceptional to America.

__________
J. Richard Pearcey is editor and publisher of The Pearcey Report, and he blogs at Pro-Existence. He is formerly managing editor of Human Events and associate editor of the Evans-Novak Political Report. As a book editor, his projects include Persecution (by David Limbaugh), Story Craft (by John Erickson) and Total Truth: Liberating Christianity From Its Cultural Captivity (by Nancy Pearcey). This article is based on a presentation Pearcey gave near Charleston, S.C., at Awakening 2010 in January of this year, edited for publication. "How the New Resistance Can Win the Culture War" was first published at WorldNetDaily.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

The Ghost of Thanksgiving Yet to Come

2011-01-27T13:46:00.001-08:00

By Arnold Ahlert, from "Canada Free Press . . . Because without America there is no Free World".

clipped from canadafreepress.com

A lesson in the making

The Ghost of Thanksgiving Yet to Come

By Arnold Ahlert Wednesday, November 24, 2010

"Winston, come into the dining room, it's time to eat," Julia yelled to her husband. "In a minute, honey, it's a tie score," he answered. Actually Winston wasn't very interested in the traditional holiday football game between Detroit and Washington. Ever since the government passed the Civility in Sports Statute of 2017, outlawing tackle football for its "unseemly violence" and the "bad example it sets for the rest of the world," Winston was far less of a football fan than he used to be. Two-hand touch wasn't nearly as exciting.

Yet wasn't the game that Winston was uninterested in. It was more the thought of eating another TofuTurkey. Even though it was the best type of VeggieMeat available after the government revised the American Anti-Obesity Act of 2018, adding fowl to the list of federally-forbidden foods, (which already included potatoes, cranberry sauce and mince-meat pie), it wasn't anything like real turkey. And ever since the government officially changed the name of "Thanksgiving Day" to "A National Day of Atonement" in 2020 to officially acknowledge the Pilgrims' historically brutal treatment of Native Americans, the holiday had lost a lot of its luster.

Eating in the dining room was also a bit daunting. The unearthly gleam of government-mandated fluorescent light bulbs made the TofuTurkey look even weirder than it actually was, and the room was always cold. Ever since Congress passed the Power Conservation Act of 2016, mandating all thermostats—which were monitored and controlled by the electric company—be kept at 68 degrees, every room on the north side of the house was barely tolerable throughout the entire winter.

Still, it was good getting together with family. Or at least most of the family. Winston missed his mother, who passed on in October, when she had used up her legal allotment of live-saving medical treatment. He had had many heated conversations with the Regional Health Consortium, spawned when the private insurance market finally went bankrupt, and everyone was forced into the government health care program. And though he demanded she be kept on her treatment, it was a futile effort. "The RHC's resources are limited," explained the government bureaucrat Winston spoke with on the phone. "Your mother received all the benefits to which she was entitled. I'm sorry for your loss."

Ed couldn't make it either. He had forgotten to plug in his electric car last night, the only kind available after the Anti-Fossil Fuel Bill of 2021 outlawed the use of the combustion engines—for everyone but government officials. The fifty mile round trip was about ten miles too far, and Ed didn't want to spend a frosty night on the road somewhere between here and there.

Thankfully, Winston's brother, John, and his wife were flying in. Winston made sure that the dining room chairs had extra cushions for the occasion. No one complained more than John about the pain of sitting down so soon after the government-mandated cavity searches at airports, which severely aggravated his hemorrhoids. Ever since a terrorist successfully smuggled a cavity bomb onto a jetliner, the TSA told Americans the added "inconvenience" was an "absolute necessity" in order to stay "one step ahead of the terrorists." Winston's own body had grown accustomed to such probing ever since the government expanded their scope to just about anywhere a crowd gathered, via Anti-Profiling Act of 2022. That law made it a crime to single out any group or individual for "unequal scrutiny," even when probable cause was involved. Thus, cavity searches at malls, train stations, bus depots, etc., etc., had become almost routine. Almost.

The Supreme Court is reviewing the statute, but most Americans expect a Court composed of six progressives and three conservatives to leave the law intact. "A living Constitution is extremely flexible," said the Court's eldest member, Elena Kagan. "Europe has had laws like this one for years. We should learn from their example," she added.

Winston's thoughts turned to his own children. He got along fairly well with his 12-year-old daughter, Brittany, mostly because she ignored him. Winston had long ago surrendered to the idea that she could text anyone at any time, even during Atonement Dinner. Their only real confrontation had occurred when he limited her to 50,000 texts a month, explaining that was all he could afford. She whined for a week, but got over it.

His 16-year-old son, Jason, was another matter altogether. Perhaps it was the constant bombarding he got in public school that global warming, the bird flu, terrorism or any of a number of other calamities were "just around the corner," but Jason had developed a kind of nihilistic attitude that ranged between simmering surliness and outright hostility. It didn't help that Jason had reported his father to the police for smoking a cigarette in the house, an act made criminal by the Smoking Control Statute of 2018, which outlawed smoking anywhere within 500 feet of another human being. Winston paid the $5000 fine, which might have been considered excessive before the American dollar became virtually worthless as a result of QE13. The latest round of quantitative easing the federal government initiated was, once again, to "spur economic growth." This time they promised to push unemployment below its years-long rate of 18%, but Winston was not particularly hopeful.

Yet the family had a lot for which to be thankful, Winston thought, before remembering it was a Day of Atonement. At least he had his memories. He felt a twinge of sadness when he realized his children would never know what like was like in the Good Old Days, long before government promises to make life "fair for everyone" realized their full potential. Winston, like so many of his fellow Americans, never realized how much things could change when they didn't happen all at once, but little by little, so people could get used to them.

He wondered what might have happened if the public had stood up while there was still time, maybe back around 2010, when all the real nonsense began. "Maybe we wouldn't be where we are today if we'd just said 'enough is enough' when we had the chance," he thought.

Maybe so, Winston. Maybe so.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Keeping the Peace: America in Korea, 1950-2010

2011-01-19T19:53:00.001-08:00

As many of you know, Kara and I are deeply interested in North Korea, especially Christians in North Korea. Political policy is important because it effects people. This is a very informed perspective on U.S. foreign policy concerning North Korea. It's a short read. Please read it.

To those who fought for the freedom of my lovely... wife's homeland, thank you is not enough.

clipped from www.hillsdale.edu

December 2010

Sung-Yoon Lee

The Fletcher School, Tufts University

Email this issue to a Friend

PRINTABLE PDF

Share this Issue:

| More

Keeping the Peace: America in Korea, 1950-2010

SUNG-YOON LEE is adjunct assistant professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and an associate in research at the Korea Institute at Harvard University. He earned a Ph.D. in international relations from the Fletcher School, and is a frequent commentator on the BBC and NPR. He has lectured widely, including at the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Dr. Lee has written for the Los Angeles Times, Asia Times, The Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal Asia, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, and Asian Outlook.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on October 5, 2010, during a conference on the Korean War sponsored by the College's Center for Constructive Alternatives.

WE ARE OFTEN REMINDED that the Korean War ended not with a formal peace treaty, but rather with an armistice. And indeed, that is an irrefutable fact. But it is not true that the absence of a formal peace treaty is an impediment to peace in Korea. The signing of such a treaty between the United States and North Korea today would not facilitate, let alone guarantee, genuine peace or denuclearization on the Korean peninsula. To believe that it would can only be the result of a fundamental misreading of the North Korean regime, both in terms of its nature and of its strategic intent.

It was on July 27, 1953, that the armistice bringing the Korean War to an end was signed. The war ended without a clear victor and with the Korean peninsula divided more or less along the same lines as at the beginning of the war on June 25, 1950. Despite the lack of a final resolution, the armistice made possible a long peace in Northeast Asia and planted the seeds of South Korea's freedom and prosperity.

In North Korea, on the other hand, July 27 has a different meaning. The date is referred to as the day of "Victory in Fatherland Liberation War," and Pyongyang commemorates each year "the anniversary of the great victory of the Korean people in the Fatherland Liberation War." North Korea considers it a reminder of the unfinished business of communizing the entire Korean peninsula—or, in the words of North Korea's Communist Party Charter, "the accomplishment of the revolutionary goals of national liberation and the people's democracy on the entire area of the country." The war may have ended in 1953, but the North Korean revolution rages on. This fact helps explain the fundamental geopolitical dynamic on the peninsula.

In this light, consider North Korea's repeated demand for a peace treaty with the United States. What explains its insistence on signing such a treaty with its "vanquished" foe? The answer is self-evident: to realize its goal of evicting U.S. forces from South Korea. Ever since North Korea joined the World Health Organization in 1973 and opened a diplomatic mission in New York the following year, it has been proposing bilateral peace negotiations with Washington. Of course, this didn't stop it from sending assassins to kill South Korean President Park Chung Hee or kidnapping South Korean fishermen. Why would a nation that claims to seek peace engage in such war-like activities? The answer is that North Korea is not seeking peace, but rather a change in the military balance of power on the Korean peninsula. In addition, North Korea regularly makes threats against the U.S., its ostensible future partner in peace. Why? Because Pyongyang sees itself as the party wielding the carrots and sticks in order to cajole and coerce its adversaries, Washington and Seoul. In other words, North Korea acts upon its own strategy. It does not merely react to signals coming out of Washington or Seoul, no matter how "diplomatic" they may be.

I grant that it is possible a peace treaty might be conducive to reconciliation between the two Koreas and stability in the region; but this will be the case only if it does not lead to calls for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea. What is more likely is that such a treaty would cause all sides—not only North Koreans, but South Koreans and Americans, too—to question the need for a continued U.S. presence in Korea. And this would in turn advance a top priority of the North Korean state: the complete and irreversible removal of U.S. troops from South Korea. Considering the size of North Korea's military and its stocks of both conventional and nuclear weapons, the results would likely be disastrous.

The presence of U.S. troops in South Korea has been and remains the greatest deterrent to North Korean adventurism and a disruption of the current and longstanding peace on the Korean peninsula. And to repeat an important point: the absence of a formal peace treaty no more threatens this peace than the absence of a post-World War Two peace treaty between Moscow and Tokyo threatens the peace between Russia and Japan.

But does Korea even matter, from America's strategic point of view? Consider the lessons of four other wars in and around Korea in the 60-year period leading up to 1950: the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-95), the First Russo-Japanese War (1904-05), the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-45), and the Pacific War (1941-45). In each of these, Japan was the principal actor, driven by a desire to change the geopolitical setting in its favor. And taken together, these earlier conflicts powerfully reinforce the lesson of the Korean War itself: a power vacuum in Korea is an invitation to aggression.

By defeating China in 1895, Japan won Taiwan as its first colony and effectively ended the centuries-old Chinese world order. By defeating Russia in 1905, Japan won international recognition of its "paramount political, military and economic interests in Korea," as enshrined in the Treaty of Portsmouth. By 1937, Japan was in full control of its Korean colony and prepared to utilize the Korean peninsula as a supply base and military platform for invading China. Lacking strategic interests in Northeast Asia, the U.S. stood by as Japan gobbled up Korea and advanced into Manchuria. But Japan's military successes peaked at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and it was defeated in August 1945. By then, the geopolitical importance of Korea was not lost on the victorious allies, who partitioned the peninsula at the 38th Parallel.

The United States, in control of defeated Japan and the southern half of liberated Korea, now emerged as the key shaper of geopolitics in Northeast Asia. But after governing South Korea from 1945 to 1948, and despite lingering misgivings about North Korea's intentions, the U.S. began to withdraw troops from the South. By the summer of 1949, it had returned to a policy of benign neglect. At this point Kim Il Sung—father of the current North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il—took advantage of the power vacuum and launched an invasion of the South. This attempt to unify the Korean peninsula under communist control was thwarted by a multinational coalition led by the United States, and South Korea was saved.

In the 57 years since the armistice, North Korea has time and again shown its willingness to take considerable risks to turn the strategic environment in its favor. The sinking of the Cheonan, a South Korean naval ship, in March of this year, and the bombing of a South Korean island on November 23, are but the latest in a long history of deadly attacks. But today the North Korean regime faces its most serious internal political challenges in nearly 20 years: severe economic stresses, the increasing infiltration of information, higher numbers of its citizens attempting to defect to the South, and the challenge of handing over dynastic power from a long-ruling father to an unproven son in his twenties.

This uncertain situation presents a rare opportunity for policymakers in Washington, Seoul, and Tokyo to bring about changes in the North Korean regime and ensure peace and stability in the region. Engaging the North Korean people—rather than the regime—by means of information operations and facilitating defections, while simultaneously constricting Pyongyang's cash flow, is the best means to that end. It's also important for Washington to hold quiet consultations with Beijing to prepare jointly for a unified Korea under Seoul's direction, a new polity that will be free, peaceful, capitalist, pro-U.S. and pro-China.

In an Orwellian world, "war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength." In the North Korean world, the past 57 years of de facto peace is war, a life of servitude to the state is freedom, and national strength is rooted in ignorance of the outside world. Today, as trouble is once again brewing on the Korean peninsula, we would do well to remember the noble resolve of those who fought back the North Korean invasion in 1950-53 and the precious gift they left behind: an extended period of peace and a free and prosperous South Korea. Those courageous soldiers taught us that deterrence is peace, freedom is not free, and that to remember the past is a mark of national character and strength.

The great and noble efforts of Americans in the Korean War, the legacy of a 60-year friendship between the U.S. and South Korea, and U.S. strategic interests should not now be sacrificed on the altar of diplomatic peace. Now is rather the time for prudent and pragmatic policymakers to pave the way for a permanent peace on the Korean peninsula, and, in doing so, to pay the greatest honor possible to all those who served in a war—often referred to by historians as "The Forgotten War"—that is decidedly forgotten no more.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Regulating in order to bypass passing laws.

2011-01-04T08:06:00.001-08:00

This is one of the problems with overgrown government. Making an end-run around the Constitution by implementing regulations through rather than passing laws through elected representatives. We still must live by the regulation even though the law that it replaces was soundly defeated because of the will of the people.

Remember in Star Wars when all the Generals were sitting around the table discussing politics and Governor Tuck announces that the Emperor has disbanded the Senate permanently? One of the officers asks how the Empire will maintain control without the bureaucracy. This is what is happening here. Increasingly, we are being governed by bureaucracy rather than by elected representation.

clipped from campaign.r20.constantcontact.com

Sneaky Consultation
A Bad First Step

January 04, 2010

During the debate over health care reform, one of the most controversial proposals was for the government to pay for consultations regarding end-of-life treatment.

The tag "death panels" stuck to the proposal like white on rice, and the administration had to drop the idea from the final bill.

But on December 3^rd, apparently under cover of darkness, the Obama Administration issued a new Medicare regulation that implemented what Congress and the American people explicitly rejected. It authorizes Medicare to pay doctors for "end-of-life-care counseling" during patients' annual check-ups.

The Administration and its supporters did their level best to keep the regulation quiet. But the New York Times broke the story three weeks later-on Christmas Day!

Predictably, the administration sees the change as "minor," even salutary. It says that "advance care planning improves end-of-life care and patient and family satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety and depression in surviving relatives."

When you spin it that way, it sounds benign, but there's a lot more going on here than the spin. It's all part of what a recent Wall Street Journal article called "government's broader agenda to ration healthcare based on cost and politics."

Folks, this is a big deal.

The object here isn't to "reduce stress" or promote "patient and family satisfaction"- it's to convince people to forego treatment when it's expensive. This is especially true as governments become the health insurer of last and, increasingly, first resort.

The government would rather have people pass up expensive treatments voluntarily. But don't doubt the bureaucracy's willingness to do it with or without your cooperation.

The Journal piece cited the example of the breast-cancer drug Avastin. The FDA disapproved it for the treatment of advanced-stage breast cancer, despite the fact that it extended the lives of women. Why? Not because of the side effects, but because of the cost. Avastin didn't provide "sufficient benefits" to justify the costs, at least in the minds of FDA technocrats. I'm sure it did in the minds of the patients, however.

This is a preview of what we can expect. The federal government is already spending more than a billion dollars to fund research into "comparative effectiveness." That, folks, is the grease on the slippery slope. It's exactly how Britain rations health care, measuring treatments in terms of "quality-adjusted life years."

The prospect of government playing an active role in these kinds of matters is why people reacted so strongly to the proposal in 2009. They saw it for the dangerous first step it is.

Yet it's back. Well it should come as no surprise. Congress rejected the administration's global warming proposals, yet the EPA is getting ready to achieve through regulation what it couldn't get through Congress. Bad ideas often have very committed advocates.

End-of-life planning should be a government-free zone. It should involve you and your family-and parties who have no economic stake in your decisions, like your pastor and perhaps your lawyer.

Remember: It is good to make plans about your future health care. Patty and I have living wills. But the government shouldn't be part of our planning. That's the path to real anxiety-like premature death.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

"I think it's wrong, but I don't think it should be illegal."

2010-10-08T07:38:00.000-07:00

clipped from str.typepad.com

Making Abortion Illegal Will Reduce the Number of Abortions

Imagine a politician making the following statement:

"Personally, I believe slavery is wrong. However, I disagree with the suggestion that criminalizing slave owners and slave traders is an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the number of slaves in our nation."

This would be a ludicrous statement. But Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius made a similar comment.

She said, "Personally I believe abortion is wrong, however, I disagree with the suggestion that criminalizing women and their doctors is an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the number of abortions in our nation."

This modified pro-choice position is foolish, especially for the governor. She says her Catholic faith "Teaches me that all life is sacred." If abortion kills sacred human life, then shouldn't she want to make killing sacred human life illegal? After all, society usually outlaws methods of killing innocent human beings – abortion should be no exception.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

"is it true?"

2010-10-07T17:31:00.000-07:00

At stake is the central question, "Is it true?" There is only one reason to accept a religious position or a worldview . . . if it is true.

Also in question is one's understanding of "Faith." I was listening recently to a presentation by Greg Koukl from the organization Stand To Reason. In this presentation, he states that when we use the word "faith" in our modern context that it no longer communicates the concept of the original source word in Greek. The modern concept of faith is often understood as "blind faith" or taking a "leap of faith." It has taken on a mystical quality, as if to have faith means to believe "in spite of" the evidence to the contrary.

By contrast, the writers of the New Testament scriptures, faith, as they understood it, is trust because of what they knew for certain. The book of John says, "We testify that these things we are writing are true because we have seen them with our own eyes and heard them with our own ears." They don't say, "Just have faith." They offer evidence. In fact, if you will notice, Jesus does many of his miracles "so that you might believe." The evidence comes before the belief.

A key example would be when Jesus heals the crippled man in Mark 2. First he tells the man, "Your sins are forgiven." And then, "But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins..." he heals the man. Notice the word "know." He evidences his "invisible" qualities by giving "visible" evidence to corroborate his claims that he is God.

God is infinite. There are plenty of things about Him that we cannot know. But He has given us, or revealed, enough of Himself that is understandable to keep us amazed for many generations. Why would we fear knowledge when He is the creator of knowledge? Of course this is a position couched in trust. And this trust grows stronger with ever increasing knowledge of reality.

If the claims of Christianity are indeed what they claim to be, The Truth, then they need fear no challenge and in fact invite challenge by their very nature. Long enough have opponents of Christianity called it a religion of the weak minded. Bring it on! It's OK to say, "I don't know." It is the best answer if it is true. "But let me look into it and get back with you" should follow close behind. Then go find the answer. This is a great way to learn, and it is intellectually honest. And may we, as ambassadors for Christ, be prepared to offer an answer to the hard questions.

The effect of including "sexual orientation" in non-discrimination laws

2010-10-02T10:41:00.001-07:00

clipped from www.onenewsnow.com

Bakery displays morals, now faces eviction

Charlie Butts and Jody Brown - OneNewsNow - 9/30/2010 11:05:00 AM

An Indianapolis cookie shop could be evicted from its longtime location for refusing a special order from a college homosexual group.

The bakery "Just Cookies" has operated in a city-owned market for over 20 years. The president of the board that oversees the market told the Indianapolis Star that he would "hate to lose them" as a tenant -- but that could very well happen because owner David Stockton took a moral stand and did not want to endorse homosexual activity.

Controversy arose this week after the owners of the bakery cited moral objections to a special-order request for rainbow-decorated cookies for next week's "National Coming Out Day" observance at a nearby university campus. Stockton told the caller he did not feel comfortable in supporting homosexual values, especially because it would not set a good example for his two daughters.

Micah Clark of the American Family Association of Indiana says there are reports the city might evict Stockton, citing a local "anti-discrimination" statute.

"Indianapolis passed a sexual-orientation city ordinance five years ago," Clark explains. "...We warned [at that time] that this type of thing would happen if they passed an ordinance elevating a sexual behavior to the same moral equivalent of race or skin color."

Had the shop filled the special order, the owner felt he would be providing a microphone for homosexuals to celebrate their lifestyle. But there is another consideration, says Clark.

"If this were a Muslim-owned bakery, what would happen?" he wonders. "I don't think the city would pursue it the way they're pursuing it now. I think this is part of the liberal agenda where people must conform to the views that our culture wants in support of homosexuality."

In an interview with the Star, the AFA of Indiana spokesman argued for the rights of business owners. "It's one thing if someone walks into a store and buys a cookie off the shelf, but [the Stocktons] were being asked to become part of the [pro-homosexual] celebration. To make rainbow cookies for a special event with which the company has a disagreement -- I think that goes beyond the pale of what we should expect companies to do."

Meanwhile, homosexual groups are circulating memos encouraging people to stop purchasing at Just Cookies. Clark's response to that is to ask residents to do business there in support of the owners and their wholesome beliefs.

The Star reports the organizers of the homosexual celebration found another bakery to fill their order -- "The Flying Cupcake."

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Imaginary Me

2010-09-15T07:26:00.001-07:00

By Chuck Colson

clipped from www.informz.net

Making The Creator In Our Image

Weird Science

September 14, 2010

Yesterday on BreakPoint, I told you that Stephen Hawking, the great scientist, believes that the universe and life itself can be explained without referring to God; that God is, in Hawking's words, "unnecessary."

But there are some scientists who do believe there was a creator. The problem is that some of their ideas about the "creator" and his "creation" are straight out of a comic-book convention.

According to a recent article written by a university astronomer in the U.K.'s Telegraph newspaper, it's possible that the "universe around us was created by people very much like ourselves, using devices not too dissimilar to those available to scientists today."

In this scenario, our universe is only one of many universes: what physicists like Hawking call a "multi-verse." In one of these universes, someone, using a device only slightly more advanced than the Large Hadron Collider, created a black hole, which in turn, led to the Big Bang that created our universe.

Mind you, there's absolutely no proof of this or, for that matter, the existence of "parallel universes." Nor should we expect any: As physicist Lawrence Krauss documents in his book Hiding in the Mirror, hidden dimensions and parallel universes are mathematical abstractions that can't be proven in the lab or through observation.

In Krauss' estimation, "our continuing intellectual fascination with extra dimensions may tell us more about our own human nature than it does about the universe itself."

Even more outlandish than creation-by-beings-from-a-parallel-universe is the idea that the universe, including us, is really a gigantic computer simulation. If that sounds familiar, it ought to: It's the idea behind the blockbuster film The Matrix.

The "reasoning" goes something like this: "technological advances" could enable "advanced humans," or "post-humans" to "program and run simulations of "their evolutionary history." These simulations would take the form of "virtual worlds inhabited by virtual people."

So, not only is everything around us fake, we are, too.

According to one of the leading proponents of this idea, "there's a 20 percent chance we're living in a computer simulation." His proof? Like the creation-from-a-parallel-universe, there isn't any, and we shouldn't expect any. An intelligence sophisticated enough to create such a simulation is, by definition, sophisticated enough to hide the truth from us.

Krauss is right: These kinds of speculations do tell us something about human nature, specifically its perversity. Surrounded by evidence that universe is not the product of blind chance but, instead, the result of purposeful intelligence, we imagine "creators" that are literally the stuff of science fiction.

And not coincidentally, these "creators" are "very much like ourselves." More to the point, they make no demands on us – acknowledging their possible existence leaves us free to live as we please, with no obligations to either them or each other.

When St. Paul wrote "claiming to be wise, they became fools," this is the kind of folly he had in mind. Creation makes God and his attributes knowable, but that kind of knowledge carries a price many of us are unwilling to pay. So, we opt instead for a "creator" made in OUR image. One that is far better suited for the comic books.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Dancing with Max

2010-09-15T07:16:00.001-07:00

clipped from www.informz.net

Dancing with Max

A Story That Must Be Told

September 15, 2010

Do you remember the first time you laid eyes on your child? Do you remember the feelings of joy, the wonder, the awe?

Do you remember the various milestones: His first steps? Her first words? Do you recall your dreams about his future: his graduation from college? Playing for the Red Sox?

Now imagine he's two or three years old and things don't quite seem right. You can't – or won't – put your finger on it, but something seems off, especially when you compare him to other kids.

You tell yourself that every child develops at his own pace, which is true. You remind yourself that these kinds of comparisons are pernicious, which they are. You comfort yourself with family stories about an uncle or cousin who were "late bloomers," which they were.

But, you still can't shake the sense that something is wrong. You ask his pediatrician, who suggests you make an appointment with a specialist. You are so nervous that you can hardly punch in the phone number. But you do it.

The night before the appointment is quite possibly the longest night of your life. You arrive at the doctor's office and you look around at the other parents and, especially, at the other kids. And your heart sinks even further.

Your names are called. The doctor is very nice: patient, kind and understanding. He recommends some testing, which only ratchets up the anxiety.

The tests are administered. Then the doctor says the word that has been your inescapable companion for months: autism.

At that point, it feels like your insides have been scraped out with a tongue depressor. If you drink, you want to reach for the bottle; if you don't you think wrongly that this is the time to start.

After the initial shock wears off, you begin to realize that your life has, seemingly in the blink of an eye, changed forever. Your dreams, expectations, and aspirations have been run through the shredder. Out with the Ivy League, in with Special Ed; Bye-bye Red Sox; hello Challenger Baseball.

All of this is enough to break even the strongest people. Being the parent of an autistic child, or any child with special needs, requires a level of commitment and dedication that is impossible to understand unless you've been there.

It's even harder when one parent decides the challenge is too great and bails out on the marriage. Being a single mom is hard enough; being the single mom of an autistic child is enough to make you question God's goodness and very existence.

But sometimes, it does the opposite: it makes you want to grab on to God and not let go. And that's what happened to my daughter, Emily.

She has a new book, called "Dancing With Max," in which she tells us what she learned from her autistic son—and what I learned from my grandson, Max. Emily's greatest trial has become her greatest blessing.

And I can say as a proud father, that I agree with the book reviews: my daughter has written a beautiful, moving story of what true love means.

And I've been honored to write the prologue and the epilogue—some of the most intimate personal writing I've done since Born Again. For the next few days I'm going to tell you about Max and Emily—because their story has lessons for all of us. So stay tuned.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Signs, Slogans, and Escape Vehicles

2010-09-15T07:03:00.001-07:00

clipped from ls.egen.net

Signs, Slogans, and Escape Vehicles

Members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation announced plans this month to launch the largest freethinkers billboard campaign ever to take place in the heart of the Bible belt. Signs reading "Imagine No Religion" "Sleep in on Sundays" and "In Reason We Trust" will be placed throughout the city.(1) This new Atlanta campaign is one of many attempts throughout the world to bring positive thoughts of atheism into public discourse. The London bus campaign last year similarly sent hundreds of buses throughout England, Scotland, Wales, and Barcelona with the slogan: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."(2) The £140,000 multi-media advertising campaign was designed to bring comfort in the probability that God does not exist, a positive contrast to religious advertisements meant to incite fear. The campaign also used quotes from influential voices who have shown that embracing atheism, or at least expressing skepticism about the existence of God, is freeing. One quote reads, "An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death." Another, written by nineteenth century American humanist Robert Ingersoll, notes, "The time to be happy is now!"

Reactions to campaigns such as these are generally mixed. With every sign, plans for additional advertising seem to pop up throughout the world. One slogan provoked strong reactions in Barcelona, where critics branded the words as "an attack on all religions."(3) Christians in London were on all sides of the debate, with some offended—one bus driver refused to drive his bus—and others optimistic at the opportunity for discussion. Posters and billboards of this nature, says director Paul Woolley of the theology think tank Theos, "encourage people to consider the most important question we will ever face in our lives."(4)

Christianity has in fact long been indicted as an emotional crutch for those unable to accept life's difficult realities, those in need of an escape vehicle to take them to another world. To be fair, it is not an entirely undue critique. The Christian is indeed someone marked by an inability to accept the cruelties of this world as status quo. Like the prophets, Christians are well aware that this life marred by cancer, injustice, poverty, corruption, tears, and death is not the way it is supposed to be. We live alert with the distinct notion that humanity was created for something more. Of course, the temptation, then, and one of the more severe misapplications of the faith, is to checkout of this world, living content in Christian circles, and ever-looking upward to better life. In such a scenario, one's Christianity is indeed nothing more than wishful thinking, a philosophy wrenched from its founder and marched down an illogical road.

But do the growing numbers of atheists who insist that life without God is "freeing" not succumb to a similar temptation, making life and even death sound better than their own philosophies impart? If God is a farce and life is but rapidly moving time and the unapologetic force of chance, is "reassured" really a viable option? If there is no divine being, no creator of time, no one hearing prayers or answering the cries of injustice, can we really be comforted, unworried, even lighthearted about life as we know it? MacBeth was far more honest:

Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Surely we can attempt to dress such a philosophy in beautiful robes, but in the end we will find it was all an act. Whatever our philosophies, whatever colorful billboards catch our eyes, we do well to follow them to their logical ends.

And thus, whether in the eyes of Christians or atheists, it is more than lamentable that belief in Christ has come to be seen as something for another world, a philosophy for another time, a religion that merely attempts to frighten us in the present for the sake of the future. For the Christian does not make her pilgrimage through the kingdom of God by way of escape vehicle, sounding sirens along the way. Quite the contrary, Christianity promises signs of this kingdom even now, a kingdom worth searching for as if searching for prized treasure or lost coins. We live as people who have entered the kingdom in all its fullness here, and we look to invite others to join us in all that we have found because it is good and there is more to come. Faith in God is not a source of worry, as the buses and billboards (and perhaps some believers) suggest, nor is faith in Christ an obstacle for enjoying life. Far from this, by faith the Christian is given a life truly like that of Christ's—fully human, fully alive. And whether Christian or atheist, freethinker or fretting player, we must take care not to raise billboards that suggest something other than our philosophies impart.

Jill Carattini is managing editor of A Slice of Infinity at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia.

(1) "Atheist Activists' Biggest Billboard Campaign Targets Atlanta," September 10, 2010, http://newsmax.com, accessed September 10, 2010.
(2) Ariane Sherine, "The Atheist Bus Journey," January 6 2009, http://guardian.co.uk, accessed January 12, 2009.
(3) Giles Tremlett, "Atheist Bus Ad Campaign Provokes Bitterness in Barcelona," January 7, 2009, guardian.co.uk, accessed January 12, 2009.
(4) Maria Mackay, "Atheist Bus Ads Say 'Probably No God'" January 6, 2009, http://christiantoday.com, accessed January 12, 2009.

A Slice of Infinity is aimed at reaching into the culture with words of challenge, words of truth, and words of hope. If you know of others who would enjoy receiving A Slice of Infinity in their email box each day, tell them they can sign up on our website at www.rzim.org/Slice

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Love

2010-08-18T09:51:00.001-07:00

clipped from www.goodreads.com

"When the two people who thus discover that they are on the same secret road are of different sexes, the friendship which arises between them will very easily pass – may pass in the first half hour – into erotic love. Indeed, unless they are physically repulsive to each other or unless one or both already loves elsewhere, it is almost certain to do so sooner or later. And conversely, erotic love may lead to Friendship between the lovers. But this, so far from obliterating the distinction between the two loves, puts it in a clearer light. If one who was first, in the deep and full sense, your Friend, is then gradually or suddenly revealed as also your lover you will certainly not want to share the Beloved's erotic love with any third. But you will have no jealousy at all about sharing the Friendship. Nothing so enriches an erotic love as the discovery that the Beloved can deeply, truly and spontaneously enter into Friendship with the Friends you already had; to feel that not only are we two united by erotic love but we three or four or five are all travelers on the same quest, have all a common vision."
— C.S. Lewis (The Four Loves)

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Dogs are not humans.

2010-08-15T15:55:00.001-07:00

clipped from www.informz.net

Dogs and Dung Beetles

Why Do I Have to Explain This?

August 13, 2010

How do I respond to something that happened inside a church that was so blasphemous, so obviously—I can't believe I'm using this word—idiotic?

Especially since the people involved seem so nice, and their attitude towards "God's creatures" is so warm and cuddly! Well, I will have to run the risk of upsetting nice people by simply telling the truth.

Here's what happened. At St. Peter's Anglican Church in Toronto, Donald Keith came forward for communion with his dog, Trapper, in tow. The priest, Marguerite Ray, gave communion to Keith. And then, in what she called a welcoming gesture, offered a communion wafer to Trapper. Trapper gladly accepted. The Toronto Star newspaper reports that the dog only sniffed at the communion wine, however.

Some of the parishioners were rightly outraged. Others don't know what the fuss is about.

Neither, it seems, does the priest. Although she apologized for upsetting people, she defends what she did as an "act of reaching out" to Mr. Keith, who was a newcomer. After all, she said, "Jesus is a positive person. And Christianity is a positive religion."

The dog's owner was touched. Everywhere he goes, Trapper goes with him. Why? The dog, the paper reports, suffers from "separation anxiety." Keith affirms that the dog took communion reverently—that the dog even bowed its head and prayed before receiving communion.

One congregant, Suzette Mafuna, said, "We're all God's creatures. . . If a dog goes into a church, he's entitled to every service that's offered, including spiritual nourishment."

Well, Suzette, you are wrong. And I can't believe that I have to explain why.

Folks, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. He made all the creatures that live on earth, including mosquitoes, dogs, and dung beetles. He also made man, but he made man—alone among all creatures—in His image.

And the Son, the second person of the Trinity, in order to save those made in God's image, took on human flesh, became one of us, went to the cross in our place for our sins, making us children of God.

So while all things that live and breathe are indeed God's creatures, the dung beetle is not your brother.

Nor is Trapper. Dogs are wonderful creatures. They deserve our care. They bring joy and companionship to many people. But, as even Cesar Millan, the famous Dog Whisperer, reminds his viewers, dogs are not humans.

And while Christians disagree on communion—whether it is the actual body and blood of Christ, a bearer of Christ's real presence, or a symbol of his ultimate sacrifice—we all agree that it is holy. And we ought not take what is holy and give it to the dogs.

That I even have to say this tells me that some Christians no longer understand the concept of the holy, the basic precept of our faith, nor do they understand man's unique position in the cosmos as the bearer of God's image and the object of His sacrificial love.

In other words, we no longer understand—or even believe—that humans are special. That's scary.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

I LOVE livin' in a small town!!

2010-08-11T10:17:00.001-07:00

A real life story from my mom.

Sitting here at my computer in the office, the front door opens and six little 8-10 year old toe-headed boys were scrambling over who had to come in first. I asked if I could help them and the boldest one lead the way.

"I need to quote a Bible verse to you so you can sign my paper," he said. I gave him my full attention and an encouraging smile. "Children obey your parents in the Lord for this is right. Ephesians 6:1"

"Do you know why that's so important to remember?" I asked. "No Ma'am" the boy said. I said, "Because when you learn to obey your parents, you'll know how to obey the law and obey God - the most important thing of all."

The other five followed - and performed for all four of my office mates. Six little boys, 24 recitations. And they left....

They left behind them a lump in my throat, a little higher heart rate, and an ear-to-ear grin. God bless the grownups who sent them on this journey up and down main street of small-town America. And God bless the grown-ups who gladly heard their voices and helped etch God's Word into their hearts.

Anne Coleman,

Wilburton, Oklahoma

Made for Marriage

2010-08-11T09:02:00.001-07:00

clipped from www.informz.net

Dating and Marriage in America

Time for a Revolution

August 10, 2010

"Until what seems like yesterday," writes University of Chicago professor Leon Kass at Boundless.org, "young people were groomed for marriage, and the paths leading to it were culturally set out, at least in rough outline."

I can certainly attest to the truth of that statement. When I went to college it was normal to date, go steady, get engaged, and then marry soon after graduation.

As Kass points out, "Opportunity was knocking, the world and adulthood were beckoning, and most of us stepped forward into married life, readily, eagerly . . . We were simply doing... what our parents had done, indeed, what all our forebears had done."

But today, he observes, few students expect to find a spouse in college. They all—male and female—expect to launch themselves into careers. And while careers may leave time for casual friendship and all too often casual sex, there's no time for relationships at the deep level of marriage or even, for that matter, serious dating.

Kass contends that these cultural trends have damaged the relationship between men and women and have lowered their prospects for sustained, happy marriages and families.

As a result, he writes, young men appear to be "nervous predators" who "act as if any woman is equally good." And "most young women," he says "strike me as sad, lonely, and confused."

This is compounded by what Kass calls "deep uncertainty about what marriage is and means, and what purpose it serves." Is marriage a serious covenant between a man and a woman, designed to provide for the next generation--or is it all about the personal fulfillment of two autonomous individuals?

Of course, this is the fundamental question behind the same-sex marriage debate—a debate that is reaching a critical point now that a federal judge has struck down California's Proposition 8.

Marriage as a covenant providing for future generations is for serious adults. Marriage as self-fulfillment encourages a protracted adolescence in a culture already biased toward remaining youthful.

Kass notes correctly, "for their narcissistic absorption in themselves and in immediate pleasures ... the young are not condemned but are even envied by many of their elders."

People won't grow up these days, and the understanding of marriage as a means of self-fulfillment in which children are optional matches their desire. And as the divorce rate shows, many who do marry do so with minimal commitment.

What do we need? Kass prescribes: "a desire in America's youth for mature adulthood (which means marriage and parenthood), an appreciation of the unique character of the marital bond . . . and a restoration of sexual self-restraint generally and of female modesty in particular." Well, that's a tall order, Dr. Kass.

As a friend of mine commented, Kass's article is a reminder that the funk many older Christian singles find themselves in runs deep, into the very fabric of our culture. Lack of a dating life is not necessarily their own fault; it's part of a bigger picture. And the Church needs to step in and actively seek to be a radical counter-cultural voice in an increasingly difficult cultural setting, preparing young men and women for marriage—Christian marriage, a lifelong covenant for raising children.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Fwd: Biola Apologetics Event in Wichita--FREE Kick-off Session

2010-08-01T13:44:00.000-07:00

=======================================================
October 22-23
CERTAINTY OF CHRIST IN AN AGE OF UNBELIEF CONFERENCE
Wichita, Kansas
=======================================================

with J.P. Moreland, Craig Hazen, and John Mark Reynolds

When you boil it down, isn't Christianity really about blind faith and mystery? That's certainly what we hear the world saying through every vehicle of the media. But it turns out to be the furthest thing from the truth.

In this fast-paced and stimulating conference, some of the leaders in Christian thinking and philosophy will demonstrate that Christianity is really all about KNOWLEDGE! As the Apostle John said, we can "KNOW the truth and the truth will set you free" (John 8:32). The very best scholarship and thinking in history, philosophy, science, and cultural studies point to the truth of the Christian worldview. This seminar will help equip you to make your case for Christ in a hostile world.

FREE KICK-OFF
With Moreland, Hazen, and Reynolds
Friday, October 22
7:30 – 9:30 pm

CUTTING-EDGE SESSIONS:
Saturday, October 23, 9:00 – 10:20 am
Christianity and the Challenge of World Religions with Craig Hazen

Saturday, October 23, 10:40 am – 12:00 pm
Finding Christ in Culture with John Mark Reynolds

Saturday, October 23, 1:00 – 4:00 pm
Confronting the New Atheism with J.P. Moreland

Central Christian Church
2900 North Rock Road
Wichita, KS 67226

Early bird pricing starts at $35. For pricing information, discounts, and to register for this can't-miss conference: www.apologeticsevents.com/kansas

===============================
MORE APOLOGETICS EVENTS
===============================

Visit www.apologeticsevents.com for more!

===============================
HOST AN EVENT AT YOUR CHURCH!
===============================

Bring lectures, debates, and events like these to your church! If you are interested in connecting Biola Apologetics with your community, please contact us.

Phone: 888.332.4652 (toll free)
Mailto:apologetics@biola.edu

===================================
Forward to your friends, family, and church!
===================================

For more information on these events, please contact:
The Christian Apologetics Program
Biola University
13800 Biola Ave
La Mirada, CA 90639-0001
Phone: 888.332.4652 (toll free)
Mailto:apologetics@biola.edu

=========================================================
If you would like to be removed from this e-mail list, please send an e-mail to apologetics@biola.edu and type "remove me" in the subject line. Removal may take up to 10 business days.

Daddy's Broken Heart: Fathers of Abortion

2010-06-22T08:39:00.000-07:00

clipped from townhall.com

A Woman's "Choice" That Affects Men: Post-Abortion Trauma

by Jerry DeBin

Author's note: This piece is co-authored by Jeanne Monahan.

This Father's Day will be a celebration for dads all over the country, an opportunity for children to thank and honor their fathers. Yet for many men, the memory of involvement in a past abortion, of "cards they will not receive," will be painful and palpable.

In a debate where the primary focus is a woman's body and a woman's right to choose whether or not to carry a child to his or her delivery, the "other partner," the father of the baby, is rarely given consideration, and is often completely disregarded altogether. The question of abortion is myopically women-centric.

Abortion advocates often mock pro-life men. Men are told they shouldn't speak out because they can never become pregnant. Yet, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to acknowledge that two women cannot a baby make.

Less acknowledged is the fact that this decision deeply impacts the dad, too.

This year three Father's Day cards will stand prominently on Jerry's kitchen countertop, telling the wonderful story of the lives of his three grown children. But there is an empty space next to the cards which tells another story that continues to grieve Jerry and his wife, Dayna. Over thirty years ago, Jerry and his then high school sweetheart, Dayna, chose to abort two of their children.

Jerry deeply empathizes with any man who has taken the life of another human and lives daily with that burden and emotional trauma. The negative psychological impact of abortion on women has been well publicized, but less so have been the effects of abortion on men.

In researching the topic, we found a variety of books, websites and support groups dedicated to male post-abortion trauma, as well as a number of studies on the issue. One study reported that 82 percent of male parents of a recently aborted baby (ranging from two days to 37 months) experienced depression. Another study found that men experienced anxiety, helplessness, guilt, and a dual sense of responsibility and regret during an abortion. An additional study reported that many biological fathers need professional support in dealing with abortion and its impact on relationships.

According to Guy Condon and David Hazard, authors of Fatherhood Aborted:

The Profound Effects of Abortion on Men, post-abortive men suffer from a whole host of problems, including relationship struggles, inability to trust friends, rage, addictions and sexual compulsions, sleeplessness, bad dreams, nightmares, sexual dysfunction, depression, fear of failure, fear of rejection, and loneliness.

Fortunately, Jerry and Dayna's story did not have a negative ending. They married after high school, but continued to be haunted by the unspoken grief and burden of the two children they had aborted. Ten years and three children later, they came to a crisis in their marriage where they needed to honestly confront the lingering effects of the two abortions. There were unresolved issues but they found helpful resources to successfully work through them and make peace with the past.

Having found hope in their grief and regret, they deeply wanted others to avoid making these same mistakes. They felt the best way they could do so would be to support young people facing similar tough decisions, and decided to start a pregnancy resource center in Prattville, Ala., in this effort. Having opened its doors in 1992, "Grace Place" PregnancyResource Center continues to thrive and serve young mothers and fathers experiencing an unplanned pregnancy even today.

Jerry and Dayna helped to start Grace Place to share truth about abortion, to give hope in situations that appear hopeless and to help restore the lives of men and women broken by abortion. They also discovered that the process helped complete the healing in their marriage and family.

An estimated 50 million abortions have been performed in the U.S. since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. For each of those 50 million babies, there is a father. Even adjusting those numbers to allow for men who father more than one aborted child, the count of post-abortion men in America is easily 30 million. This Father's Day let us honestly engage men in the conversation about abortion and its impacts on everyone involved. There remain significant, long-term consequences of Father's Day cards that will not come this week … all across America.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Noah Webster: Schoolmaster of the Republic

2010-06-21T11:47:00.001-07:00

clipped from www.informz.net

Schoolmaster of the Republic

Noah Webster's Inspiration

June 21, 2010

Like millions of other Americans, you may have watched this year's Scripps National Spelling Bee on television. The Bee is a tradition dating back to 1925, and has participants from around the world. This year there were 273 spellers speaking 102 different languages besides English.

As John Murray wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal, "Given this amazing diversity united under one language, the author of America's first dictionary and the originator of uniform spelling in America (which makes the Bee possible!) would be proud."

Murray is of course referring to Noah Webster, "to whom the [spelling] Bee owes its official dictionary, 'Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary.'"

You may never have given Noah Webster a thought while watching the spelling bee, but Murray (who, by the way, is a graduate of our Centurions program) is right to credit him with making it possible—and with so much more than that.

The thing worth remembering about Noah Webster is that, unlike many today, he wasn't interested in learning just for learning's sake—or even for the sake of having a good career and achieving prosperity. Over the course of his life, Webster came to believe that education had a higher, nobler purpose.

When Webster created the American dictionary, one of his foremost goals was to help create "a national language" as "a band of national union." It would help teach the new nation self-respect. And in addition to helping to shape the United States Constitution, he also helped set up the country's educational system and fought against slavery.

But Noah Webster wasn't just a patriot. In his 50th year, he became a devout Christian. And from that time on, he was dedicated to furthering the cause of moral and spiritual education as well as academic education.

For many years, copies of Webster's dictionary actually contained an account of his conversion to Christianity. Whereas his Blue-Backed Speller, published in 1783, had been devoid of sacred references, his 1828 dictionary was full of them.

As Murray writes in his article, "The context sentences used for his word entries were more often than not taken straight from biblical verse. For example, one of his definitions for 'truth' stated: 'Jesus Christ is called the truth. John xiv.'" The former freethinker had come to believe that education was "useless without the Bible."

As a result, Webster's work had an eternal impact upon generations of students. As John Murray tells us, "Of the man known as 'The Schoolmaster of Our Republic,' editors often wrote above his picture, 'He taught millions to read, but not one to sin.'"

You couldn't ask for a better epitaph than that.

So the next time you watch a spelling bee, or use a dictionary, or help a child with his or reading, take a moment to think about the true purpose and value of education.

As Webster knew so well, though many of his countrymen have forgotten it, we learn not just to benefit ourselves our even our country, but to better understand and serve our God.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Six Enemies of Apologetic Engagement

2010-06-18T10:16:00.001-07:00

I hope this is helpful.

clipped from www.equip.org

Apologetics: Six Enemies of Apologetic Engagement

Douglas Groothuis

The evangelical world today suffers from apologetic anemia. Despite the fact that Holy Scripture calls believers to give a reason (Greek, apologia) for the hope we have in Christ (1 Pet. 3:15; see also Jude 3), we sadly lack a public voice for truth and reason in the marketplace of ideas. We do not have a strong intellectual presence in popular or academic culture — although some evangelicals influence some areas, such as philosophy and politics, more than others.

The reasons for this anemia are multidimensional and complex. Three recent books explore the lack of a "Christian mind" in contemporary evangelicalism, and I highly recommend them. Mark Noll's The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Eerdmans, 1994) explores the historical roots of evangelical anti-intellectualism. Os Guinness's Fit Bodies, Fat Minds (Baker Books, 1994) discusses some of the historical problems and also outlines what a Christian mind should look like. J. P. Moreland's Love Your God with All of Your Mind (Navpress, 1997) explains why Christians don't think theologically, develops a biblical theology of the mind, and offers helpful apologetic arguments and strategies to empower the church intellectually.

My purpose here is briefly to lay out six factors that inhibit apologetic engagement. If these barriers were removed, our apologetic witness could grow into what it should be in Christ.

1. Indifference. Too many Christians don't seem to care that our culture routinely ridicules Christianity as outdated, irrational, and narrow-minded. They may complain that this "offends'' them — just as everyone else is complaining that one thing or another "offends" them — but they do little to counteract the charges by offering a defense of the Christian worldview in a variety of settings.

Yet Scripture commands all Christians to have a reason for the hope that is within them and to present this with gentleness and respect to unbelievers (1 Pet. 3:15). Our attitude should be that of the apostle Paul, who was "greatly distressed" when he observed the idolatry of sophisticated Athens. This zeal for the truth of God led him into a fruitful apologetic encounter with the thinkers there who had gathered to debate new ideas (see Acts 17). It should for us as well. Just as God "so loved the world" that He sent Jesus to set us right with Himself (John 3:16). Jesus' disciples should so love the world that they endeavor to reach the lost by presenting the gospel and answering objections to the Christian faith (John l7:l8).

2. Irrationalism. For some Christians, faith means believing despite the absence of evidence and argument. Worse yet, for some faith means belief despite actual evidence to the contrary. The more irrational our beliefs, the better — indeed, the more "spiritual" they are. Although Paul teaches that God makes foolish ''the wisdom of this world" because it is false wisdom (1 Cor. 1-2), God's revelation is not irrational. Nor must belief in it be irrationally held. God does not require us to suspend our critical faculties in order to believe what He has made known. Through Isaiah, God declares to Israel, ''Come now let us reason together" (Isa. l:l8). Jesus commands us to love God with all of our minds (Matt. 22:37).

When Christians opt for irrationalism, they become just another "religious option'' and are classified along with Heaven's Gate, the flat Earth Society, and other intellectually impaired groups. In the wake of the mass suicide in the Heaven's Gate cult, several major magazines such as Esquire, Newsweek, and US News and World Report claimed that the faith of those who ended their lives in accordance with Marshall Applewhite's science fiction religion was no stranger than that of Christians, who believe ridiculous things as well. Sadly the attitude of some Christians lends support to such accusations.

3. Ignorance. Many Christians are not aware of the tremendous intellectual resources available to the them "to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints'' (Jude 3). This is largely because many major churches and parachurch organizations virtually ignore apologetics. One major campus ministry with a fine history and otherwise splendid program offers no materials to help students deal with the unbelief emanating from secular professors. Few evangelical sermons address the evidence for the existence of God, the resurrection of Jesus, the supremacy of Christ, the justice of hell, or the logical problems with non-Christian worldviews. Christian best sellers, with rare exceptions, indulge in groundless apocalyptic speculations, exalt Christian celebrities (whose characters often do not fit their notoriety), and revel in how-to methods. You can tell much about a movement by what it reads — and by what it does not read.

4. Cowardice. In our pluralistic culture, a "live and let live" attitude is the norm. A capitulation to social pressure haunts evangelicalism and drains its convictions. Too many evangelicals are more concerned about being "nice" and "tolerant'' than being biblical or faithful to the exclusive gospel found in their Bibles. Not enough evangelicals are willing to present and defend their faith in challenging situations, whether at school, at work, or in other public settings. There is a strong temptation to privatize faith — to insulate and isolate it from public life entirely. Yes, we are Christians (in our hearts), but we shy away from engaging anyone with what we believe and why we believe it. This is nothing less than cowardice and a betrayal of what we say we believe.

Consider Paul's inspired request for prayer and his admonition to us:

Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful. And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains. Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should. Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone (Col. 4:2-6).

We may experience rejection, but Jesus encouraged those who are persecuted for His name's sake: "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you" (Matt. 5:11-l2). The apostle Peter echoed his Master: "If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you" (1 Pet. 4:14).

On the other hand, not all witnessing meets with rejection. When the Holy Spirit blesses our efforts, people will respond with interest and even with saving faith (Rom. 1:16). We must never forget that Jesus has all authority in heaven and on earth, and that He has commissioned us to declare His gospel (Matt. 28:18-20).

5. Arrogance and intellectual vanity. At the other end of the spectrum of error lies the arrogance of the know-it-all apologist, who is more interested in displaying his or her arsenal of arguments than in defending the truth in a godly manner. The besetting sin of apologetics is intellectual pride, and it must be avoided at all costs. The truth we defend is a gift of grace, not of our intellectual achievement. We develop our apologetic skills to sanctify ourselves in the truth, to win souls for Christ, and to glorify God. We must speak "the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15). Truth without love is arrogance: love without truth is sentimentality.

Arrogance also occurs when some apologists accuse other believers of heresy without sufficient evidence, Paul told the early church leaders to expect heresy in their midst and to be on their guard against it (Acts 20:28-31). We should do the same. But we must be vigilant not to slander fellow Christians or to assume the worst about them. I know of this error firsthand, having myself been accused of being New Age when a critic horribly misread a portion of one of my anti-New Age books. Let's not waste our apologetic energies unjustly attacking other believers, when real heretics and aberrant teachers cry out for refutation and correction.

6. Superficial techniques or schlock apologetics. Some who get excited about apologetics may become content with superficial answers to difficult intellectual questions. Our culture revels in rapid responses to almost everything, and technique is king. Some Christians memorize pat answers to apologetic questions — such as the problem of evil or the creation/evolution controversy — which they dispense without a proper engagement of the issues and without a deep concern for the soul that raises the question. I once saw a little book called something like The Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter. Yes, macroevolution is false, and good arguments have been raised against it from both nature and Scripture. But the matter is not as simplistic as the title of that book makes it sound. Apologetics must include intellectual integrity.

Francis Schaeffer's apologetic motto was that we must give "honest answers to honest questions." First, we must really hear the question being asked or the objection being raised. We must get inside the minds of those who are giving reasons for not following Christ. Each person is different, no matter how common some skeptical objections may be. Don't reduce people to clichés.

Second, respond to what you hear. Don't answer a question that was not asked. Such a superficial approach will not impress the thoughtful unbeliever. If you cannot come up with a sound answer to the objection at the time, don't try to hide your ignorance or inability. Honestly admitting your limitations is better than giving a shoddy answer. Tell the person that he or she has a good point and you need to think more about it. Christianity is absolutely true, but this doesn't imply that any one Christian can handle absolutely every objection raised against it. We should avoid easy apologetic techniques and instead develop intellectual resources and cultivate real dialogue with unbelievers.

Walter Martin rightly said that the evangelical church is a sleeping giant. And he endeavored mightily to awaken it to its God-given potential to present the gospel and defend it against skeptical and objections. With such a legacy in mind, may we rekindle that vision and find the passion and wisdom to put it into effect through the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8).

To view the PDF of this article, click here.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Gao Zhisheng's Life in Danger - Please Help Now!

2010-06-15T13:06:00.000-07:00

Gao Zhisheng's Life in Danger - Please Help Now!
Supporters around the world were shocked on March 27, 2010, when Gao Zhisheng spoke with his family for the first time since he was abducted on February 4 last year. Media buzzed with news of his reappearance, as Gao Zhisheng connected with friends, family, reporters and colleagues. But even this brief reprieve from silence was not free.
"Gao was being held under tight security during the time he spoke with his family," says President of ChinaAid Bob Fu. "When I spoke with him on the phone in March, he was being closely monitored, not at liberty to give details about his location or condition."
On April 15 and 16, Gao Zhisheng visited his in-laws in Xinjiang, telling them he would be flying home to Beijing at 10 AM on April 20. Gao never arrived home at his apartment, and has not been seen or heard from in more than 8 weeks. See the media reports on Gao Zhisheng's forced "Re-Disappearance."
Now that he has disappeared again, it is clear that Gao's life is in danger as long as he is in the custody of the Chinese government. During this complex and difficult time, efforts are already in progress to push for Gao's release from China and for a safe reunion with his family in the United States.
"We continue to denounce the Chinese Government's brutal and unjust treatment of Gao Zhisheng!" says Bob Fu. "We will not rest until Gao is released and allowed to reunite with his wife and children in peace."
Please urge more of your friends to Sign the Petition and let the Chinese Government know that Gao Zhisheng is not forgotten. We must show them that the world will not allow this defender of truth and justice to fade from our hearts and minds. We will not rest until he is united with his family.
ChinaAid also humbly asks for your continued financial support. Long-term projects like Gao's case can be costly, and we cannot afford to lose momentum now. Please help Free Gao with a financial contribution today.
Share the Petition.
Donate Now.
www.FreeGao.com

This online offer is being presented by ChinaAid. For additional information, you may contact us by clicking here or calling at 888-889-7757. To view our privacy policy, click here.

Legalize Adoption of North Korean Children

2010-06-14T18:03:00.001-07:00

clipped from linkglobal.org

Legalize Adoption Campaign

The Issue

Orphaned North Koreans: For well over a decade, hundreds of thousands have fled North Korea seeking basic necessities such as food and medicine or even freedom. Often left behind or lost along the way are children whose parents cannot return home or have separated or abandoned them. These children end up in China homeless, vulnerable and desperate to seek a way to survive.

Stateless Children: Of the North Korean refugees who are hiding or have come through China, the majority are women and over 80 percent are trafficked or voluntarily marry Chinese men. Some of these women, however, leave their families for fear of being caught and sent back to North Korea or to escape abuse. Once the mothers leave, the fathers often find themselves struggling or unable to provide for their children, leaving them to be cared for by relatives or altogether abandoned.

Both orphaned North Korean and stateless (half Chinese) children in the underground in China lack documentation that prove their citizenship and allow them to receive education, work legally or have basic rights, also leaving them at risk of high risk of exploitation or abuse. For North Korean children, seeking asylum in South Korea or the US is an option. However, without appropriate documentation, they cannot be eligible for adoption in the US – only foster care. US law requires documentation that their parents have in fact abandoned them or have passed away. Providing such evidence is impossible for these children. They cannot simply request official documents from the nearest North Korean consulate or contact family in North Korea for assistance. For stateless (half Chinese, half North Korean) children who have no citizenship, no rights and no future - they are forgotten in China.

Two Ways You Can Help:

1) Support the Children

Working closely with our partners on the ground, we support dozens of children with food, shelter, access to education, transportation to school, scholarships, funds for extracurricular activities, and documentation. We also protect and shelter some of these children who have been abandoned, abused or are at risk of being sold or exploited.

With your help we can assist many more children in need.

2) Speak for the Children

New legislation was recently introduced in both the Senate and the House seeking to develop a strategy for assisting stateless and orphaned North Korean children by facilitating the adoption of eligible children by wanting families in the United States.

Read The House Bill
Read The Senate Bill

Write a letter to your Representative, asking for their vote on HR 4986, "The North Korean Refugee Adoption Act of 2010."
Write to your Senators, asking for their vote on S. 3156, "A bill to develop a strategy for assisting stateless children from North Korea, and for other purposes."
Ask your friends, family and neighbors to also write a letter to their Representatives and Senators.

Download the Legalize Adoption Letterhead here and instructions here for what to write in your letter.

Once you write your letter, send it to OUR office so that we can deliver all of the letters together in one package.

LiNK
c/o Legalize Adoption
1751 Torrance Blvd, STE L

Torrance, CA 90501

Find Your Senators. Find Your Congressmen.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Trust based on good reasons

2010-05-28T08:18:00.001-07:00

clipped from ls.egen.net

Faith and Evidence

"That's not faith."

There is an episode of the TV series Bones, in which the main character is buried alive with a friend and they are running out of air. She is not panicking because she is sure her partner Booth will rescue them. Her friend says, "You sure have a lot of faith in him." Her reply betrays a common assumption about the nature of faith: "Faith is an irrational belief in something that's logically impossible," she says. "Over time, I have seen what Booth can do. That's not faith."(1)

These comments reflect how many people view faith: it is an irrational leap in the dark. It is about accepting propositions without evidence or even against the available evidence. However, in the Christian sense, faith is not opposed to reason or evidence. It is simply not reducible to either one. In the book of 1 John, we read: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us" (1 John 1:1-3, emphasis mine).

John is clearly appealing to evidence and reason to try to persuade people that the story he tells is true. If it is true, then it would make sense for one to have faith in the Jesus of whom he speaks, just as it made sense for Bones to have faith in her partner since she had seen the evidence of his abilities. But only if it is true. John is obviously not asking people to believe against the evidence or even in the absence of evidence, but on the basis of a certain type of evidence—in this case, the trustworthiness of the witnesses.

Evidence can serve to instill belief or confirm belief, but it has its limits. We all interpret evidence in the light of our experience and the beliefs we already hold. Just as John offered one type of evidence, others would offer their own evidences that Jesus was not who the apostles claimed he was. Thus, it is not strictly the evidence that determines who puts their faith in Jesus and who does not because faith is about more than believing an idea. It is about commitment, a willingness to stake your life on the truth of something or the reliability of someone.

Furthermore, those who accuse faith of lacking in evidence often fail to notice that every belief system, whether it includes the supernatural or not, has foundational elements which are not proven. Even a naturalist worldview that relies on science must accept many things without direct evidence. All people have faith in their own worldviews, even naturalist scientists. They have to believe that their way of determining what is true is the best way. They have to believe others and trust the results of other scientists. If you are a complete skeptic, you will never get anywhere in science. You would have to do all the experiments yourself and even then, you cannot prove 100 percent that you are not mistaken. You have to trust that your findings will hold true in the future, that the laws that operate now will not change tomorrow. You have to trust that your mind and thoughts in some way correspond to the way the world actually is.

So, faith has evidence. But all evidence has faith too.

Whether our faith is rational or irrational depends on a number of factors: how much and what types of evidence supports it, whether it has stood up to honest scrutiny and criticism, and how much explanatory power it has to make sense of our experience. Christian faith passes each of these tests, but it will always go beyond any of these factors. Like the faith of Bones in her partner, it is also about trusting a person. Our faith determines the direction of our lives; it is where our loyalties lie; it believes that the one who made us also loves us and has spoken to us. Over time, we have seen what God can do. And that is faith.

Rachel Tulloch is a member of the speaking team at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Toronto, Canada.

(1) Bones, series 2, episode 9, "Aliens in a Spaceship."

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Answering the Question of the Founders' faith

2010-05-25T19:27:00.001-07:00

clipped from www.glennbeck.com

The Founders' views on Faith

May 25, 2010 - 12:22 ET

Were the Founders religious?

By Dr. Peter A. Lillback

Faith mattered greatly to our Founders. Consider, for example, the words of the First Continental Congress in 1774:

THAT it is an indispensable duty which we owe to God, our country, ourselves and posterity, by all lawful ways and means in our power to maintain, defend and preserve these civil and religious rights and liberties for which many of our father fought, bled and died, and to hand them down entire to future generations.

Many contemporary historians and media figures have trouble, however, speaking of what our Founders called "an indispensable duty which we owe to God". The reason is that many of our contemporaries no longer believe what our founders believed. As a result they usually misunderstand our courageous forbearers. Or even worse, many modern and post-modern writers and reporters suppress, delete, expunge or outright deny our Founders' cherished spiritual commitments. Consequently, some contemporary media communicators, such as Will Bunch with MediaMatters ("Beck pushes distorted view of George Washington's Christianity to No. 1") seek to refute those who celebrate, defend and advocate our Founders' views of faith by ridicule and reductionism.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

"Clean up culture—that's our job—and politics will follow."

2010-05-07T12:59:00.001-07:00

clipped from www.informz.net

National Derangement

The Political Illusion

May 6, 2010

Just when you thought it was safe to turn on your TV, there it was again—another mind-numbing story about politics.

You might have thought we'd catch a breath after President Obama's historic election. But no, we've been treated to daily doses of political news ever since—the "historic" election of Republican Senator Scott Brown, Tea Party events, and weekly political scandals. Now, we're looking ahead to November and the next "most historic election ever"—the one that will finally save America.

Are we all losing our minds, spending half our lives watching politics on the tube? I'm reminded of the words of Soren Kierkegaard, the 19th-century Danish philosopher. Almost 100 years before the invention of television, Kierkegaard predicted what would happen if such a thing were invented. "Suppose," Kierkegaard wrote, "someone invented...a convenient little talking tube which could be heard over the whole land. I wonder if the police would not forbid it, fearing that the whole country would become mentally deranged."

He was right: We are becoming deranged. We are succumbing to what French philosopher Jacques Ellul prophesied in the 1960s—the politicization of all aspects of life. Ellul foresaw the Information Age and the media's need for a steady flow of information to feed the populace. Media therefore would gravitate to covering centers of power. Politicians would be willing accomplices, because they'd gain fame and clout.

We've succumbed to what Ellul predicted—the idea that every problem has a political solution. This, he warned, leads to increasing dependence on the state and decreasing citizen control of government.

The result: The structure of government becomes so unwieldy that it can hardly function. For example, we've spent billions fighting terrorism—but we couldn't stop "the underwear bomber" from boarding a U.S.-bound plane, even though his name was on a terrorist watch list.

Ellul also foresaw that when government becomes all-intrusive, the intermediate structures that keep societies vibrant—families, churches, and voluntary associations—collapse and tyranny follows.

What's the answer? First, we better recognize that politics is not the be-all and end-all. Politics is merely the expression of culture. Clean up culture—that's our job—and politics will follow.

This happened when God's people were awakened in England in the 18th and 19th centuries. England then was in worse straits than we are today, with slavery, child labor, and rampant political corruption. But along came William Wilberforce, the Oxford movement, and the Salvation Army. What followed was a great, century-long revival of Christian faith. England was not only saved in the Wesley revivals, it was stronger than ever.

So we as 21st-century Christians must do the same thing. And there is no time to lose. If, as I believe, the political illusion has America by the throat, there are only two likely outcomes—revolution, which is what the Tea Party people suggest (albeit peacefully), or tyranny.

God has acted again and again through His people to change history's course. But for that to happen, the Church had better sober up, summon its spiritual resources, expose the political illusion, and begin to defend and live the Christian faith in our culture.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Nurses disciplined for refusing to asssist in abortion

2010-05-06T07:58:00.001-07:00

clipped from www.licatholic.org

Nurses who refused to assist in abortion disciplined

April 14, 2010 | Vol. 49, No. 4 | BY PETE SHEEHAN

Nurses who refused to assist in abortion disciplined

April 14, 2010 | Vol. 49, No. 4 | BY PETE SHEEHAN

EAST MEADOW — Eight nurses who refused to participate in an abortion at Nassau University Medical Center here March 31 are resisting disciplinary action levied on them by hospital officials.

"This is a horrendous situation," said one of the labor/delivery nurses disciplined who asked that her name not be used. She and the others, she said, had signed paperwork at the time they began working there stipulating that they would not be required to assist in abortions but have often faced pressure to do so.

Some of the nurses involved have lost vacation time and others have their cases still pending, union officials report.

"The decision against these nurses by the hospital goes against protocol, goes against procedure, and goes against the law," said Jerry Laricchiuta, president of the Civil Service Employees' Association (CSEA) Nassau Local 830. The union is filing a grievance and is "considering litigation."

"This was not an emergency situation and at no time was the patient endangered," said Ryan Mulholland, communications director for the CSEA local.

The hospital's administrator, Arthur A. Gianelli, president and CEO of NuHealth System, declined to comment, citing "confidentiality requirements."

Joining the union in speaking up for the nurses are the Long Island Coalition for Life and Feminists Choosing Life of New York State.

On March 30, the patient, who was about 15 weeks pregnant, came to the hospital for surgery to prevent a miscarriage, Mulholland said. She had come to the hospital before because of complications. After preparation for surgery began, further complications ensued. The next day, she decided to have an abortion rather than undergo the surgery.

"Several of us had put in letters years ago stipulating that we do not participate in abortions," the labor/delivery nurse noted. "There are many reasons for that, other than our religious beliefs, and we represent many different religious backgrounds. Most of the doctors don't perform abortions either."

So the attending physician asked them for assistance in contacting a nurse who would be willing to assist with an abortion, she said. Because the patient was stable and in no danger and was being monitored for vital signs, the physician decided to wait until later in the afternoon for that nurse to arrive.

Meanwhile, hospital personnel asked the refusing nurses to sign a form for employees who refuse to perform or assist in procedures contrary to their conscience or religious beliefs, Mulholland said. One of the nurses contacted the union representative, who came to the maternity ward to assess the situation.

"They were asked to sign it on the spot and it was three or four pages long," said Laricchiuta, local president. Even though it was dated December 2009, he said, neither employees nor union officials were familiar with the form. Hospital procedure requires that employees be informed about any new policies before being asked to comply with them.

The procedure began when the nurse willing to assist in abortion came on duty. The baby died before the procedure was completed, Mulholland said, with no ill effect to the woman.

On April 2, all the nurses who resisted assisting in the abortion were verbally reprimanded, Mulholland said.

In addition, three lost vacation time and the other five also face further disciplinary action.

They were cited for alleged insubordination, failing to provide patient care and endangering patient safety, refusal to sign the form, refusing to accept transfer of a patient from another unit, and conducting union business in a patient care area. No specific reference to abortion was made.

"In addition to what the union is doing," the labor and delivery nurse noted, "some of the nurses are considering filing legal action," and also filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Celeste Broyles, treasurer for the Long Island Coalition for Life, said that the coalition supports the nurses and their union. "Health care workers should not be coerced or pressured into assisting in or performing abortions.

"We appreciate that there are health care workers who recognize that human life begins in the womb," Broyles said. "It is unfortunate that the hospital would put health care workers in that situation."

Florence Scarinci, Long Island representative for Feminists for Choosing Life of New York State, said "it is sad that 'pro-choice' always seems to mean the choice to have an abortion, rather than the choice not to participate in abortion."

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Secularisms Ongoing Debt to Christianity

2010-05-05T10:32:00.001-07:00

clipped from www.americanthinker.com

March 25, 2010

Secularism's Ongoing Debt to Christianity

By John D. Steinrucken

Rational thought may provide better answers to many of life's riddles than does faith alone. However, it is rational to conclude that religious faith has made possible the advancement of Western civilization. That is, the glue that has held Western civilization together over the centuries is the Judeo-Christian tradition. To the extent that the West loses its religious faith in favor of non-judgmental secularism, then to the same extent, it loses that which holds all else together.

Succinctly put: Western civilization's survival, including the survival of open secular thought, depends on the continuance within our society of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Arguably the two most defining and influential Christian concepts are summarized in two verses of the New Testament. Those verses are Romans 14:10 and John 8:32.

Romans 14:10, says: "Remember, each of us must stand alone before the judgment seat of God." That verse explicitly recognizes not only each man's uniqueness, but, of necessity, implies that man has free will -- that individual acts do result in consequences, and that those acts will be judged against objective standards. It is but a step from the habit of accepting individual accountability before God to thinking of individual accountability in secular things. It thus follows that personal and political freedom is premised upon the Christian concept of the unique individual exercising accountable free will.

John 8:32 says: "And you will know the truth and the truth will set you free." Whatever the theological meanings that have been imputed to that verse, its implicit secular meaning is that the search for truth is in and of itself praiseworthy.

Although I am a secularist (atheist, if you will), I accept that the great majority of people would be morally and spiritually lost without religion. Can anyone seriously argue that crime and debauchery are not held in check by religion? Is it not comforting to live in a community where the rule of law and fairness are respected? Would such be likely if Christianity were not there to provide a moral compass to the great majority? Do we secularists not benefit out of all proportion from a morally responsible society?

An orderly society is dependent on a generally accepted morality. There can be no such morality without religion. Has there ever been a more perfect and concise moral code than the one Moses brought down from the mountain?

Those who doubt the effect of religion on morality should seriously ask the question: Just what are the immutable moral laws of secularism? Be prepared to answer, if you are honest, that such laws simply do not exist! The best answer we can ever hear from secularists to this question is a hodgepodge of strained relativist talk of situational ethics. They can cite no overriding authority other than that of fashion. For the great majority in the West, it is the Judeo-Christian tradition which offers a template assuring a life of inner peace toward the world at large -- a peace which translates to a workable liberal society.

A few years ago, I saw on television the interview of a reforming prostitute and drug addict. When asked why she had chosen to reform, her simple answer was, "I don't want to go to Hell." I am sure that she had previously received hours of counseling from secular social workers, all without discernible effect. What did it for her was the simplicity of a belief in Heaven and Hell, and with knowing that one day, she would stand alone before her God to be judged.

For the majority of a culture's population, religious tradition is inextricably woven into their self-awareness. It gives them their identity. It is why those of religious faith are more socially stable and experience less difficulty in forming and maintaining binding attachments than do we secularists.

Most men do have a need for God. This, I think, is proven by the desperation with which so many of those who have forsaken the God of their fathers (it has been fashionable to do so) are now reaching for meaning in eastern exotica, new-age mumbo-jumbo, and other attempts to fill the spiritual hole.

Or they surrender themselves to secular ideologies or do-good causes, especially those in which they can mass with others in solidarity, shouting in unison mindless, ritualistic simplicities and waving placards of hackneyed and inane slogans.

Secularism has never offered the people a practical substitute for religion. From the time of the philosophes with their certainties in 1789, the rationally thought-through utopias of those who think themselves the elite of the world, when actually put to the test, have not merely come to naught. Attempts during those two centuries to put into practice utopian visions have caused huge sufferings. But they, the clever ones, never look back. In their conceit, they delude themselves that next time they are sure to get it right. They create justifications for their fantasies by rewriting the histories.

We secularists should recognize that we owe much to the religionists, that we are not threatened by them, that we should grant to them their world. Why should we be exercised over a Christmas Crèche in front of the county court house? It is appropriately symbolic of Christianity's benign but essential role as guarantor of our political and legal systems -- that is, of a moral force independent of and transcendent to the political. And what harm will come to a child who hears prayer in the schoolroom? I daresay harm is far more likely to come in those places where prayer is not heard.

The fact is, we secularists gain much from living in a world in which excesses are held in check by religion. Religion gives society a secure and orderly environment within which we secularists can safely play out our creativities. Free and creative secularism seems to me to function best when within the stable milieu provided by Christianity.

To the extent that Western elites distance themselves from their Judeo-Christian cultural heritage in favor of secular constructs, and as they give deference to a multicultural acceptance that all beliefs are of equal validity, they lose their will to defend against a determined attack from another culture, such as from militant Islam. For having destroyed the ancient faith of their people, they will have found themselves with nothing to defend. For the culture above which they had fancied themselves to have risen, the culture which had given them their material sustenance, will by then have become but a hollow shell.

An elite must, by definition, have a much larger base upon which to stand. For Western civilization, that base has over the centuries been the great mass of commoners who have looked to Christianity for their moral guidance and for strength to weather adversity. The elitists delude themselves if they think the common people will look to them for guidance once their religious beliefs have been eroded away.

The greatest crime of the elitists -- if they have their way -- will be their failure to use their gifts of intellect to lead and to preserve. Their sin will be the abandonment of that ninety percent of the population which had provided them with the secure societal and material wherewithal for practicing their conceits and dilettantes.

If the elitists of our Western civilization want to survive, then it is incumbent upon them to see to the preservation of the hoary, time-honored faith of the great majority of the people. This means that our elitists should see that their most valued vested interest is the preservation within our culture of Christianity and Judaism. It is not critical that they themselves believe, only that they should publicly hold in high esteem the institutions of Christianity and Judaism, and to respect those who do believe and to encourage and to give leeway to those who, in truth, will be foremost in the trenches defending us against those who would have us all bow down to a different and unaccommodating faith.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

STD's more dangerous than H1N1

2010-04-27T17:20:00.001-07:00

clipped from www.washingtontimes.com

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

WETZSTEIN: Sounding alarm on gonorrhea

Washington, D.C., is filled with people who are genuine experts on their issues. So my news antenna always perks up when I hear someone who I know is smart, savvy and deeply invested in his issue say he has "missed" something.

William Smith, whom I have quoted for years based on his extensive knowledge about teen pregnancy and sexual health issues, has written an article for RHReality Check.org. It is called, "What I didnt know about sexual health."

Mr. Smith is executive director of the National Coalition of STD Directors, a trade group for people working to stem the tide of sexually transmitted diseases. I think his observations are valid — and alarming — enough to be repeated here.

• "We are on the verge of a highly untreatable gonorrhea epidemic," he writes.

Gonorrhea, once in decline, has thoroughly rebounded, with more than 336,000 cases reported in 2008. It disproportionately affects young people and blacks. Untreated gonorrhea increases risk for HIV infection and can lead to infertility, among other undesirable outcomes.

Years ago, gonorrhea was easily cured with antibiotics. But, as Mr. Smith writes, "Bacteria have a funny way of developing resistance to treatments" — its as if they have "their own built-in evolutionary survival mode."

Gonorrhea has mutated so efficiently that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has "just a single class of antibiotics left" to treat it, and resistance is forming even to those drugs, Mr. Smith writes. With a "nearly empty" pipeline of new drugs to fight gonorrhea, "the prospects of this situation are frightening."

• "We are about to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory in the battle against syphilis."

Syphilis was once even closer to eradication than gonorrhea, but now "the nations efforts to combat syphilis … have virtually collapsed," Mr. Smith writes.

In 2008, the United States had 13,500 syphilis cases — the highest since 1995 — and another 431 cases of mother-child-transmitted congenital syphilis.

"In Chicago last year," Mr. Smith recalled, "one colleague told me that two babies died of congenital syphilis.

"Yes, in the 21st century United States of America, children die of syphilis. Where is the outcry?"

Mr. Smith also writes about how STD workers who search out sex partners of infected people (a job that requires "Columbo-like detective skills," chutzpah and compassion) are "unsung heroes," and how the STD-fighting world has an unacceptably low level of political advocacy.

I particularly agree with Mr. Smith about the lack of advocacy on STDs. It seems as if the media, like everyone else, aren't eager to talk about STDs (at least beyond the "marquee" disease of AIDS).

That might be fine, except the U.S. is in the throes of a massive STD epidemic.

I watched last year as the media beat the drums for the H1N1 virus. People kept throwing around the "pandemic" word, and in August, a White House council said the nation was facing a "plausible scenario" of as many as 1.8 million hospitalizations and up to 90,000 deaths just in the coming months. Full-court-press hysteria ensued.

In February, however, the CDC said that if all swine flu events were counted (back to April 2009), fewer than 378,000 people were hospitalized and fewer than 17,160 people died, with the most likely toll being 11,690.

Perhaps the August projections were exaggerated, but there is no doubt that an alarmed nation responded.

I haven't seen the American STD epidemic get upgraded to a pandemic, but with 19 million newly reported STD cases each year, it sure could be.

And we are not talking about 19 million cases of annoying but nonfatal genital skin problems, either. Every year, 20,000 Americans die of diseases contracted by risky sexual behavior, says a 2004 study by Ali Mokdad published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Without a doubt, a tsunami of sexual disease is flooding our population. One would think there could be a few more headlines about it.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Manners matter.

2010-03-04T18:48:00.001-08:00

clipped from www.informz.net

Etiquette Arising
Combating the Coarsening of Culture

March 4, 2010

Cord Ivanyi, a Latin teacher at a Phoenix high school, was tired seeing the boys in his class subject the girls to vulgar words and behavior. The behavior was disrespectful, and disrupting to his classes. So Ivanyi decided to give the boys an example in chivalry. When a girl got up to go to the restroom, Ivanyi stood as a sign of respect. When she came back to class, Ivanyi held the door for her.

As he told AOL News writer David Knowles, "She had this funny look on her face, and the other kids giggled a little." But it wasn't long before Ivanyi was teaching the boys to do things like pull out the girls' chairs when they sat down. Now, he says, "Ninety-eight percent of the boys stand now when a girl enters the room, and the girls love it."

This now-routine show of respect has led to a difference in the way the boys behave around the girls. Being taught to show respect for them leads them to feel more respectful toward them.

It doesn't please the feminists, of course. One recently told me that she'd kick me if I held a door open for her. But that's ok—they need to learn as well.

Ivanyi is not the only one who understands the link between etiquette, attitudes, and behavior. In a recent Wall Street Journal piece, journalist Meghan Cox Gurdon notes that while proms retain old traditions like corsages and chaperones, student behavior is often vulgar. Gurdon quotes etiquette expert Emily Post, who wrote in the 1920s that, at public dances, couples were expected to demonstrate modesty and decorum because they were in public.

And Mrs. Post had no illusions about how teenagers would behave if chaperones were absent: Young men would try to paw their dates, or worse, she wrote. Today, it's not unusual for girls to plan to lose their virginity on prom night.

Modern girls get no help from Peggy Post, a descendent of Emily Post. In her new book, Prom and Party Etiquette, Post says that when it comes to sex on prom night, she "made a conscience decision not to try to lecture teens or tell them what to do."

This is sheer insanity. Eve Grimaldi, dean of students at a girls' high school in Washington, D.C., understands that you cannot deal with moral issues without moral instruction. Moral neutrality is not neutral in a fallen world. Refusing to take a stand just allows kids to pander to their worst instincts.

This is why, on prom night, Grimaldi brings an armload of sweatshirts with her. Girls wearing immodest gowns are forced to put one on. Grimaldi also keeps a sharp eye on the way dancers behave. Good for her.

In an article in Christianity Today, I once quoted the great historian Arnold Toynbee. He contended that one clear sign of a civilization's decline is when the elites—people he describes as the "dominant minority"—begin mimicking the vulgarity and promiscuity exhibited by society's bottom-dwellers. The result: The entire culture is vulgarized.

Christians need to resist the slide into vulgarity by creating strong countercultural influences. We can start by elevating our own standards in speech and dress, if we need to.

And we should applaud teachers who are teaching good manners and decorous behavior to the young—manners and behavior that teach kids to view one another and treat one another with the respect they deserve.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

An excellent article on what Christian "morality" means.

2010-02-19T11:50:00.001-08:00

clipped from www.breakpoint.org

We do good not because the Bible says so, or out of fear of consequence, or for a utilitarian end—though, sadly, some Christians (maybe many) are motivated by those very reasons; we do good out of love for God, who not only created all persons in His image, but humbled Himself so that all could have community with Him. For Christians, the Word made Flesh is the Standard of ethics and morality that informs our Western concepts of right action, justice, equality, and human dignity.

Why are we so unhappy?

2010-02-11T09:33:00.001-08:00

clipped from www.breakpoint.org

Why Are We So Unhappy?

Examining a Paradox

By Regis Nicoll|Published Date: February 27, 2009

"Psychotherapy is such a growing vogue today because people want to know why they are unhappy . . . " (Psychologist Ernest Becker)

A PARADOX
Happiness, it seems, eludes us. And it has little to do with our current economic woes. For despite the global financial crisis, we enjoy social, technological and economic conditions that would have been considered utopian less than a century ago. Yet unhappiness and even depression are at record levels.

In an impressively researched book, The Progress Paradox, New Republic senior editor Gregg Easterbrook observes that, by every measure of well-being, our generation is better off than any of our forebears. We enjoy more leisure time with better health, less air pollution, higher levels of education, higher per-capita income, and greater personal and civil liberties than at any other time in history.

Even compared to the halcyon 1950s, our generation has it better in terms of real income and home and car ownership, not to mention morbidity, mortality, education, environmental quality, and the fair treatment of minorities. Whereas, in the past, these benefits were limited to the rich and privileged, today they are realized by a wide spectrum of society. For example, in 1960, 22 percent of Americans lived under the poverty line, compared to 11.7 percent in 2001.

All these material measures should add up to an increased sense of well-being. But they don't. Theologian David Wells notes that by 1990 there were two psychotherapists for every dentist and more counselors than librarians. And today, the incidence of depression is over 10 times that of the Halcyon Decade.

Gloominess in an age of unprecedented progress is a paradox in need of an explanation.

A TRADE SECRET
In the ancient world of Hippocrates, mental states were thought to depend on the proper balance of four basic substances, or humors: black bile, yellow bile, phlegm, and blood. The same notion prevails today with the emphasis on chemistry.

There is no doubt that some types of mental disorders have biochemical origins. The success of medication in treating certain depressions strongly suggests the importance of chemistry in mental health. But "treating" is a clue to a trade secret in psychotherapy. As University of Pennsylvania professor Martin Seligman admits, "Every single drug in the psychopharmacopia is palliative."

Given the epidemic rate of melancholy, Dr. Seligman's admission suggests that much of what ails us has a cause beyond bad chemistry and bad genes. While negative past experiences account for some of our gloom, ideas popularized over the last several decades lurk behind much of it.

Gregg Easterbrook observes, "In Western nations . . . people have become no happier, in the very period that thinkers and educators have proclaimed life meaningless." That is an important observation. For there is nary a nook of culture left untouched by the nihilism that percolated out of coffee bistros of the last century.

MESSAGE OF MEANINGLESSNESS
From the classroom, to the art gallery, to Friends and Seinfeld, the nihilistic message is clear: We are alone in an indifferent universe, bereft of explanation or purpose, with nothing to give meaning to our existence but the sum total of our personal experiences. And, for the throng of restless souls chasing after the "meaningful" experience, modern psychology is there to light the way.

With a lump of Freudian theory, a dash of Kinseyan research, and liberal amounts of Maslow's hierarchy, pop therapy promises meaning and self-discovery through the satisfaction of felt needs, starting with the sensual. To be sure, the prospect of finding meaning through sensual experiences is exciting, even liberating—until the inflationary promises of no-fault hedonism go bust.

In his book Psychology as Religion, psychology professor Paul Vitz explains that the pursuit of sensual fulfillment creates inflated expectations that cannot keep up with the demand of rising adaptation levels. The "ever-increasing craving for an ever-diminishing pleasure," as C.S. Lewis phrases it, leads people into more and more extreme (and destructive) behaviors which, in the end, devour, rather than fulfill, them.

Those who graduate from sensual fulfillment to "self-actualization," pop psychology's summa bonum of life, fare no better.

Dr. Vitz notes that popular selfist theories have "led to large-scale disappointment." Not only has the search for self often resulted in divorce and broken relationships, life experiences brought job frustrations, financial problems, and health challenges that created a yawning gap between expectation and reality. Disappointment and disillusionment, in the crucible of real life, has been the theme of some of the most critically acclaimed movies of the past decade.

American Beauty (1999), The Hours (2002), and, most recently, Revolutionary Road (2008) depict, some jarringly so, our existential angst. In each film, we enter a world, our world, devoid of ultimate meaning, populated by characters whose highest aspiration is to be true to self (whatever that means) through unfettered self-expression. Casualties accumulated along the way—be they infidelity, divorce, or even suicide—are neither wrong nor tragic but, rather, the consequences of choices made by the courageous hero or heroine to avoid the real tragedy: the "counterfeit" life.

It is an old storyline that goes back to a man who anguished over the meaning of human existence.

TRANSCENDENT SIGNPOSTS
Three thousand years ago, Solomon began a journey of self-discovery with an endless stream of variegated experiences. In an effort to tease out the mystery of meaning, Solomon pursued wisdom, pleasure, partying, possessions, grand projects, and even folly. In all those endeavors, Solomon accomplished more, acquired more and enjoyed more than any person before or since; yet he despaired over the meaninglessness of it all.

Like Solomon, there are many people who feel bad amid prosperity. For them, life is bearing down, trying harder, and braving the outfall as best they can. In ignorance, or avoidance, they pass, without notice, the transcendental signposts along their existential journey. They are like the man who tries to run from his own shadow, only to keep tripping over road hazards and coming to dead ends.

Carl Jung, founder of analytical psychology, understood the importance of those signposts. In Modern Man in Search of a Soul, he wrote, "Among all my patients in the second half of life… [it] is safe to say that every one of them feel ill because he had lost that which the living religions of every age have given to their followers and not one of them has really been healed who did not regain his religious outlook."

Jung did not espouse any orthodox religion, but he was among those who recognized the spiritual dimension of our pathology—like the late clinical psychiatrist, Karl Menninger.

Menninger once said that if he could convince his institutionalized patients that their sins were forgiven, 75 percent would walk out of the ward the next day. The irrepressible sense that we stand guilty before Someone, somehow, is symptomatic of a condition that, left unresolved, sooner or later externalizes in unhealthy behaviors or internalizes in mental maladies.

As it happens, Christianity is the only belief system, religious or otherwise, that promises resolution with the assurance that resolution has been attained ("If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins"). What a challenging thought to consider the potential of the Gospel for transforming mental health care and emptying psychiatric sanatoria!

BEYOND SELF
Solomon moved from darkness to light by coming to grips with the metaphysical questions of existence—questions that, for all time, have pointed men to God and His good news:

What is our origin and nature? "God made mankind upright…"
Why is there evil? "…but men have gone in search of schemes."
What is our purpose? "Fear God and keep his commands, for this is the whole duty of man."
What will become of us? "For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether good or evil."

Solomon learned, contrary to the psychobabble of pop therapists, that life's meaning is not in discovering self, but in submission to Other. The school of life taught Solomon that sensual fulfillment, material accomplishments, and "actualizing" experiences can be sources of temporal satisfaction and enjoyment, but they are not sources of meaning and purpose. That source is God.

As a creation, man has intrinsic worth whose life is imbued with lasting significance discoverable through the revealed Word of the Creator. A millennium later, the apostle Paul summed up the lesson to a group of Athenian philosophers: "For in him we live and move and have our being."

Regis Nicoll is a freelance writer and a BreakPoint Centurion. His "All Things Examined" column appears on BreakPoint every other Friday. Serving as a men's ministry leader and worldview teacher in his community, Regis publishes a free weekly commentary to stimulate thought on current issues from a Christian perspective. To be placed on this free e-mail distribution list, e-mail him at: centurion51@aol.com.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Too Bad, Kids

2010-02-05T11:53:00.001-08:00

Click on link to read entire commentary.

clipped from www.informz.net

At some point, our leaders had better remember that what is good for the cultural elite is also good for the common man. And if we ever lose that belief, we lose the trust that makes free societies possible.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Antony Flew: From Atheist to Theist

2010-02-03T07:46:00.000-08:00

clipped from www.amazon.co.uk

Antony Flew's rejection of Atheism, 24 Mar 2008

By	D. M. Ohara "Dan O'Hara"

There have been some hysterical and ill-informed postings on various atheist blogs and websites about Antony Flew's rejection of atheism, and particularly his recent book There is a God (co-authored and edited by Roy Abraham Varghese - Harper One, 2007). Suggestions have been made that Flew is now senile and being exploited by Christians. 'Don't read this book!' shouts one atheistical blogger. Well, I have read the book, and I find it lucid and compelling. Much of it has been compiled by Varghese from Flew's published and unpublished writings and interviews, but every page has been checked and signed off by Flew himself, as he has made perfectly clear in print. I personally found some of Varghese's short editorial links a bit off for their jarring Americanisms, but they seem not to have bothered Flew. There are two appendices: one by Varghese himself and the other by Bishop Tom Wright, to whom I incidentally owe my own reconsideration of Christian claims. Both are excellent.

Two things can be added: firstly, Flew's dissatisfaction with Dawkins is long-standing. In Darwinian Evolution, published in 1984 when he was still a Vice President of the Rationalist Press Association (RPA), Flew described The Selfish Gene as a "major exercise in popular mystification", adding "Dawkins labours to discount or depreciate the main upshot of fifty or more years work in genetics" and he gives examples of this trend. In a further passage, Flew agrees with some trenchant criticisms of the book previously made by philosopher Mary Midgley (Gene Juggling, in Philosophy, October 1979 - see also her Selfish Genes and Social Darwinism in Philosophy for 1983 - both available online as free downloads). These paragraphs have been largely included in There is a God, showing that Flew's rejection of Dawkins's Selfish Gene hypothesis, echoed by many scientists and philosophers since it was first published, is not a new departure, but a long-standing, widely-shared and well-founded objection. They expose the fundamental flaws in Dawkins's theory, which undermine almost everything he has written since. His central dogma that "we are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" removes any possibility of personal responsibility - for anything. We are simply the puppets of our genes. What a perfect excuse for all malefactors, including child rapists and murderers like Ian Brady, Ian Huntley and Roy Whiting: "It was them genes what dunnit, Guv!" An excuse, perhaps: but hardly a comfort. Dawkins was properly rebuked on Irish television when he said: "I'm not interested in freewill." How could there be any such thing in his worldview?

A second point: Barry Duke, editor of The Freethinker, has informed me by email that he has met Antony Flew (presumably some time back - he doesn't say) and he insists - without giving any reasons - "The man's an idiot". It would be interesting to know whether this opinion is based on Flew's views and writings while he was still a Vice President of the RPA, and the most prominent atheist philosopher in Britain, or whether it is a knee-jerk reaction, based on Flew's more recent rejection of the atheism which he had espoused for almost half a century. Well, I can tell you, dear readers, that I have also met Antony Flew (only once, in 1996 at an Oxford conference where we each presented a paper, and then socialised afterwards), and I have also read - over a 40 year period - practically all his published work. I can assure you that the man was not an idiot then, and neither is he an idiot now; though his memory, at 84, is admittedly not what it was. I was, incidentally, a Director of the RPA from 1989 to 1998, as well as (briefly) President of the National Secular Society (1996-97).

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

An article by A N Wilson in the NewStatesman

2010-02-01T09:35:00.001-08:00

clipped from www.newstatesman.com

Why I believe again

A N Wilson

Published 02 April 2009

A N Wilson writes on how his conversion to atheism may have been similar to a road to Damascus experience but his return to faith has been slow and doubting

Unlike his conversion to Atheism, Wilson's path back to faith has been a slow one

By nature a doubting Thomas, I should have distrusted the symptoms when I underwent a "conversion experience" 20 years ago. Something was happening which was out of character - the inner glow of complete certainty, the heady sense of being at one with the great tide of fellow non-believers. For my conversion experience was to atheism. There were several moments of epiphany, actually, but one of the most dramatic occurred in the pulpit of a church.

At St Mary-le-Bow in the City of London, there are two pulpits, and for some decades they have been used for lunchtime dialogues. I had just published a biography of C S Lewis, and the rector of St Mary-le-Bow, Victor Stock, asked me to participate in one such exchange of views.

Memory edits, and perhaps distorts, the highlights of the discussion. Memory says that while Father Stock was asking me about Lewis, I began to "testify", denouncing Lewis's muscular defence of religious belief. Much more to my taste, I said, had been the approach of the late Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey, whose biography I had just read.

A young priest had been to see him in great distress, saying that he had lost his faith in God. Ramsey's reply was a long silence followed by a repetition of the mantra "It doesn't matter, it doesn't matter". He told the priest to continue to worship Jesus in the Sacraments and that faith would return. "But!" exclaimed Father Stock. "That priest was me!"

Like many things said by this amusing man, it brought the house down. But something had taken a grip of me, and I was thinking (did I say it out loud?): "It bloody well does matter. Just struggling on like Lord Tennyson ('and faintly trust the larger hope') is no good at all . . ."

I can remember almost yelling that reading C S Lewis's Mere Christianity made me a non-believer - not just in Lewis's version of Christianity, but in Christianity itself. On that occasion, I realised that after a lifetime of churchgoing, the whole house of cards had collapsed for me - the sense of God's presence in life, and the notion that there was any kind of God, let alone a merciful God, in this brutal, nasty world. As for Jesus having been the founder of Christianity, this idea seemed perfectly preposterous. In so far as we can discern anything about Jesus from the existing documents, he believed that the world was about to end, as did all the first Christians. So, how could he possibly have intended to start a new religion for Gentiles, let alone established a Church or instituted the Sacraments? It was a nonsense, together with the idea of a personal God, or a loving God in a suffering universe. Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense.

It was such a relief to discard it all that, for months, I walked on air. At about this time, the Independent on Sunday sent me to interview Dr Billy Graham, who was conducting a mission in Syracuse, New York State, prior to making one of his journeys to England. The pattern of these meetings was always the same. The old matinee idol spoke. The gospel choir sang some suitably affecting ditty, and then the converted made their way down the aisles to commit themselves to the new faith. Part of the glow was, surely, the knowledge that they were now part of a great fellowship of believers.

As a hesitant, doubting, religious man I'd never known how they felt. But, as a born-again atheist, I now knew exactly what satisfactions were on offer. For the first time in my 38 years I was at one with my own generation. I had become like one of the Billy Grahamites, only in reverse. If I bumped into Richard Dawkins (an old colleague from Oxford days) or had dinner in Washington with Christopher Hitchens (as I did either on that trip to interview Billy Graham or another), I did not have to feel out on a limb. Hitchens was excited to greet a new convert to his non-creed and put me through a catechism before uncorking some stupendous claret. "So - absolutely no God?" "Nope," I was able to say with Moonie-zeal. "No future life, nothing 'out there'?" "No," I obediently replied. At last! I could join in the creed shared by so many (most?) of my intelligent contemporaries in the western world - that men and women are purely material beings (whatever that is supposed to mean), that "this is all there is" (ditto), that God, Jesus and religion are a load of baloney: and worse than that, the cause of much (no, come on, let yourself go), most (why stint yourself - go for it, man), all the trouble in the world, from Jerusalem to Belfast, from Washington to Islamabad.

My doubting temperament, however, made me a very unconvincing atheist. And unconvinced. My hilarious Camden Town neighbour Colin Haycraft, the boss of Duckworth and husband of Alice Thomas Ellis, used to say, "I do wish Freddie [Ayer] wouldn't go round calling himself an atheist. It implies he takes religion seriously."

This creed that religion can be despatched in a few brisk arguments (outlined in David Hume's masterly Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion) and then laughed off kept me going for some years. When I found myself wavering, I would return to Hume in order to pull myself together, rather as a Catholic having doubts might return to the shrine of a particular saint to sustain them while the springs of faith ran dry.

But religion, once the glow of conversion had worn off, was not a matter of argument alone. It involves the whole person. Therefore I was drawn, over and over again, to the disconcerting recognition that so very many of the people I had most admired and loved, either in life or in books, had been believers. Reading Louis Fischer's Life of Mahatma Gandhi, and following it up with Gandhi's own autobiography, The Story of My Experiments With Truth, I found it impossible not to realise that all life, all being, derives from God, as Gandhi gave his life to demonstrate. Of course, there are arguments that might make you doubt the love of God. But a life like Gandhi's, which was focused on God so deeply, reminded me of all the human qualities that have to be denied if you embrace the bleak, muddled creed of a materialist atheist. It is a bit like trying to assert that music is an aberration, and that although Bach and Beethoven are very impressive, one is better off without a musical sense. Attractive and amusing as David Hume was, did he confront the complexities of human existence as deeply as his contemporary Samuel Johnson, and did I really find him as interesting?

Watching a whole cluster of friends, and my own mother, die over quite a short space of time convinced me that purely materialist "explanations" for our mysterious human existence simply won't do - on an intellectual level. The phenomenon of language alone should give us pause. A materialist Darwinian was having dinner with me a few years ago and we laughingly alluded to how, as years go by, one forgets names. Eager, as committed Darwinians often are, to testify on any occasion, my friend asserted: "It is because when we were simply anthropoid apes, there was no need to distinguish between one another by giving names."

This credal confession struck me as just as superstitious as believing in the historicity of Noah's Ark. More so, really.

Do materialists really think that language just "evolved", like finches' beaks, or have they simply never thought about the matter rationally? Where's the evidence? How could it come about that human beings all agreed that particular grunts carried particular connotations? How could it have come about that groups of anthropoid apes developed the amazing morphological complexity of a single sentence, let alone the whole grammatical mystery which has engaged Chomsky and others in our lifetime and linguists for time out of mind? No, the existence of language is one of the many phenomena - of which love and music are the two strongest - which suggest that human beings are very much more than collections of meat. They convince me that we are spiritual beings, and that the religion of the incarnation, asserting that God made humanity in His image, and continually restores humanity in His image, is simply true. As a working blueprint for life, as a template against which to measure experience, it fits.

For a few years, I resisted the admission that my atheist-conversion experience had been a bit of middle-aged madness. I do not find it easy to articulate thoughts about religion. I remain the sort of person who turns off Thought for the Day when it comes on the radio. I am shy to admit that I have followed the advice given all those years ago by a wise archbishop to a bewildered young man: that moments of unbelief "don't matter", that if you return to a practice of the faith, faith will return.

When I think about atheist friends, including my father, they seem to me like people who have no ear for music, or who have never been in love. It is not that (as they believe) they have rumbled the tremendous fraud of religion - prophets do that in every generation. Rather, these unbelievers are simply missing out on something that is not difficult to grasp. Perhaps it is too obvious to understand; obvious, as lovers feel it was obvious that they should have come together, or obvious as the final resolution of a fugue.

I haven't mentioned morality, but one thing that finally put the tin hat on any aspirations to be an unbeliever was writing a book about the Wagner family and Nazi Germany, and realising how utterly incoherent were Hitler's neo-Darwinian ravings, and how potent was the opposition, much of it from Christians; paid for, not with clear intellectual victory, but in blood. Read Pastor Bonhoeffer's book Ethics, and ask yourself what sort of mad world is created by those who think that ethics are a purely human construct. Think of Bonhoeffer's serenity before he was hanged, even though he was in love and had everything to look forward to.

My departure from the Faith was like a conversion on the road to Damascus. My return was slow, hesitant, doubting. So it will always be; but I know I shall never make the same mistake again. Gilbert Ryle, with donnish absurdity, called God "a category mistake". Yet the real category mistake made by atheists is not about God, but about human beings. Turn to the Table Talk of Samuel Taylor Coleridge - "Read the first chapter of Genesis without prejudice and you will be convinced at once . . . 'The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life'." And then Coleridge adds: "'And man became a living soul.' Materialism will never explain those last words."

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

On the State of the Union

2010-01-28T17:01:00.001-08:00

I agree with this article.

clipped from www.frc.org

The More Things Change...

The White House kitchen must have been fresh out of humble pie before last night's State of the Union. Facing a profound crisis of confidence, many assumed that the President would shed those thick layers of self-importance and embrace a little vulnerability. In the end, this President was neither apologetic nor empathetic. Instead, he stubbornly regurgitated an agenda that is no more popular--and even less achievable--than it was in 2009. Where the country wanted consolation, he offered conceit. Rather than a capacity to listen, he showed the audacity to lecture. When there could have been consensus, he brought division.

"Let's try common sense," he said. But "common sense," as defined by this administration, is turning the military into a homosexual playground, socializing child care, and bankrupting families. While he blames social conservatives for distracting the country with "wedge" issues, this White House has just raised one of the most controversial issues of all: homosexuality in the military. Toward the end of the speech, the President interrupted the serious concerns facing America for a brief shout-out to his liberal friends. "This year, I will work with Congress and our military," he promised, "to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are."

While we confront two wars and a national security policy so full of holes you could fly a commercial plane through it, this President proved that he is more committed to fighting the homosexuals' battles than our own. After 14 hearings on the issue over the last decade and a half, Congress has made it clear that the prohibition on gay and lesbian servicemen is absolutely necessary in the unique circumstances of military service. If President Obama succeeds in repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," it would put our military in the strange position of actively recruiting people who have an expressed intention to violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice (which still bans certain forms of sexual conduct, including homosexuality). As the topic heats up on the Hill, we urge you to sign our new petition and remind Capitol Hill that the military isn't a laboratory for political correctness.

The rest of the speech was so fictitious in parts that the President would have been better served to start with, "Once upon a time..." Both the Associated Press and PolitiFact were cranking out pages of inconsistencies between the President's claims and the facts. He stretched the truth on everything from lowering taxes and banning lobbyists from the White House (at least seven are employed there) to creating two million jobs (make that 640,000) and subtracting $1 trillion from the deficit (he meant to say adding billions) through health care. The President said, "The best anti-poverty program is a world-class education," when volumes of FRC research will tell you that the best anti-poverty program is an intact marriage and family. After he openly derided the Supreme Court (in what must have been a State of the Union first) for "reversing a century of law," even the liberal Huffington Post said, "Alito was right. The President was wrong about the Supreme Court decision."

Later, it was déjà pork. "I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform... And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will." (Funny, he didn't seem to mind signing 8,570 earmarks into law as part of the last omnibus.) "To close the credibility gap... [we must] do our work openly." (Yet he refused to let C-SPAN broadcast the health care negotiations.) The commander-in-chief repeatedly "called on Congress" to right the country's wrongs. With all due respect--you first, Mr. President.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

An easy way to send your message to Congress on Health Care Bill

2010-01-28T12:33:00.001-08:00

I just used one minute of my day to send a message telling Congress to protect the unborn. See how easy it is.

Click on this URL to take action now
http://capwiz.com/sbalist/utr/2/?a=14619056&i=97578520&c=

If your email program does not recognize the URL as a link,
copy the entire URL and paste it into your Web browser.

-------------------------------------
Powered by Capitol Advantage, LLC
http://www.capitoladvantage.com
"Connect and Be Counted"
-------------------------------------

Prayer of Saint Francis of Assisi

2010-01-28T08:05:00.001-08:00

clipped from www.dailyprayer.us

Prayer of Saint Francis of Assisi

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.

Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;

and where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

Amen.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Over the counter drug tax increase in bill

2010-01-23T08:08:00.001-08:00

clipped from www.frc.org

Tylenol: The Pain Reliever Democrats Tax Most

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall (1801-1835) once said, "[T]he power to tax involves the power to destroy." Without a doubt, the Obama administration and its Democratic allies in Congress see the power to tax as the greatest weapon in their arsenal. The Libertarian organization, Cato Institute, just released a list of tax increases those in power and Washington have--or are trying--to tax. One potential levy they left off the list is hidden in the Senate and House health care overhaul bills. Under ObamaCare, over-the-counter drugs, like antihistamines, Tylenol, Pedialyte or even prenatal vitamins will all be subject to a tax increase of up to 40 percent if either bill passes. If you pay for any over-the-counter medicines (a full list can be found here) with a flexible spending account (FSA) or health savings account (HSA), then you'll find that both bills restrict individuals with these pre-tax accounts from buying a "medicine or drug only if such medicine or drug is a prescribed" one, which forces individuals (most of whom make well below $250,000 a year) to pay more.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Is Belief in God Irrational

2010-01-22T13:55:00.000-08:00

For some reason faith is held as a virtue not only by the pastors, but by God himself. For some reason God is glorified by blind faith. This so-called all-intelligent, all-knowing, all-powerful, loving God actually wants his greatest creations to surrender their very minds to him without proper evidence of his existence. That is what God calls glory. That is what the church calls glory. They actually consider it a virtue. And it is, by its own merit, the opposite of reason and the abstinence of rationality. (Samuel Thomas Poling)¹

Is Poling right? Does God actually want “his greatest creations to surrender their very minds to him without proper evidence of his existence”? Is faith blind by definition? It may be fashionable in recent history to think so, even among many Christians. The only problem is it is not true. We actually have very good reasons to believe that God exists. Here are two of them.

All events have causes. The beginning of the universe, (matter, energy, space, and time) is an event. No material, natural cause existed prior to the existence of the universe, nature. Therefore a non-material, supernatural cause is a rational inference. Because matter, energy, space, and time came into existence with the beginning of the universe, their supernatural cause can not be limited by matter, energy, space, or time. And because such a cause could not itself be the result of a previous cause, it must be an act of volition or will. Only intelligent agents have will.

Human persons can cause things to happen which would not have happened apart from an act of their will. Therefore, it is rational to infer that the supernatural first cause of the universe is itself personal and able to act willfully to bring the universe into existence apart from any physical causation. This is a rational inference to the best explanation. Even if one disagrees with the conclusion, they must themselves deal with the argument rationally in their attempt to debunk it.

Information is immaterial. The information communicated in this essay has passed from my consciousness through multiple physical mediums to arrive before the reader's consciousness: from my computer as an electronic text document, digitized into an electronic signal transmitted via e-mail across hundreds of miles, displayed again on a computer screen or printed on paper. The light from the screen or paper is carried to the eyes, converted into bioelectrical signal, transmitted to the brain and then comprehended by the reader.

We recognize this complexity of language as uniquely the product of personal intelligence. The DNA molecule is an information storing structure at least as complex and specific as language and is a necessary element of biological life. Biological life is dependent upon an information rich system at its most fundamental level. Information rich systems are universally recognized as the result of intelligent agency. To infer that life is the product of intentional intelligent agency is rational. This comports nicely with the Biblical idea of God creating all life. Again, even if someone disagrees with the conclusion of this argument, that it is a rational argument is certain.

The charge that belief in God is irrational cannot itself stand rational scrutiny. That some offer irrational reasons for their belief in God does not nullify the rational reasons for belief in God. Because rational reasons do exist for belief in God, it is illegitimate to conclude that belief in God is irrational by definition.

1"The Rational Response Squad presents: The Irrationality of Theism by Samuel Thomas Poling edited and adapted by Brian Sapient suggestions by Todangst" http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_irrationality_of_theism (accessed December 4, 2009)

From a commentary on I Samual 13

2010-01-22T07:44:00.001-08:00

clipped from www.unboundbible.com

Men destitute of inward piety, often lay great stress on the outward performances of religion.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Murder Mart

2010-01-20T16:07:00.001-08:00

I am posting this more for the information content than for the donation request.

clipped from campaigns.ratepoint.com

Dear Friend of Life,

Your tax dollars are about to create abortion "mega-marts" across the nation. In fact, it's already begun.

Planned Parenthood - the world's largest abortion provider - has obtained a 78,000 square foot building in Houston, Texas that they are converting into a gargantuan abortion clinic. This new abortion mill will be the largest such facility in the United States with an entire wing dedicated solely to late-term abortions - and your tax dollars will be paying for it!

Is this what you want your tax dollars spent on?

Under the guise of "health care" reform, the Senate recently authorized the largest expansion of taxpayer-funding for Planned Parenthood in decades. This "health care" bill actually routes taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood as an "essential community provider"! In addition, it subsidizes insurance plans that cover elective abortions with your tax dollars, imposes a mandatory abortion tax on pro-life Americans who happen to be enrolled in such plans, and could potentially require all health care plans to cover abortions as "preventive care."

How many abortion mega-marts will the Senate health care bill fund in the coming months if it becomes law?

Fortunately, we know that the American people will stand with Americans United for Life in strong opposition to taxpayer-funded abortion mega-marts - but only if we have the resources to get our message out to other pro-life voters. We need an urgent tax-deductible contribution of $50, $100, $250 or more to make sure that your tax dollars are never used to pay for abortion mega-marts. We will make sure your tax dollars are used to save lives rather than take lives.

Yours for Life,

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.
President & CEO

Americans United for Life

P.S. With an annual budget in excess of $1 billion dollars, Planned Parenthood wants to build an abortion mega-mart in every city and college town, using your tax dollars. This is a tragedy. We urgently need you to stand with us and the millions of pro-life Americans who have become life savers rather than life takers. With your tax-deductible contribution of $50, $100, $250 or more we'll continue working to ensure that your tax dollars are never used to pay for abortions or to bankroll abortion providers.


Washington, DC: 655 15th St NW \| Ste 410 \| Washington, DC 20005 Chicago: 310 S Peoria Street \| Ste 500 \| Chicago, IL 60607

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Heritage of Christian Activism

2010-01-19T15:07:00.001-08:00

clipped from www.informz.net

But above all, like Dr. King, the activist must possess courage and an unyielding faith in the God of justice. Injustice does not loosen its grasp easily. We must be prepared for a long haul, drawing on the rich resources of community and that abiding hope and passion for truth. And we must avoid violence: in our rhetoric and our actions. As Martin Luther King reminded those who gathered at his home after it had been bombed, "Don't get panicky. . . . I want you to love our enemies. Be good to them. This is what we must live by. We must meet hate with love."

So if the life of an activist holds so much discouragement and risk, why get involved at all? Because a Christian understanding of the world compels us to combat injustice and promote truth. That is a thought worth reflecting on, especially on Martin Luther King Day—a man who exhibited those qualities.

See this clip on clipmarks.com

American Family Association Webcast - Church Drop-Out: Overcoming the Youth Exodus

2010-01-18T17:24:00.001-08:00

http://action.afa.net/Webcast/WebcastPlayer.aspx?id=2147491014

Travis Coleman
http://christiangodblog.blogspot.com
http://lifefornorthkorea.blogspot.com

FYI

2010-01-15T10:13:00.001-08:00

clipped from newsbusters.org

Bear in mind that this is the White House response to the AP's report on flaws in the job count, published back in October. The report at that time revealed how the White House stimulus numbers were being inflated. One such example follows:

A child care center in Florida said it saved 129 jobs with stimulus money. Instead, it gave pay raises to its existing employees.

You would think that being caught red-handed in a numbers shell game would influence team Obama to correct their mistakes. Instead, they change the rules so that it is now permissible to fudge the numbers. In other words, an original complaint that job counts were flawed because the administration was counting pay raises as jobs saved was corrected by - allowing pay raises to be counted as jobs saved?!

Says Tom Gavin, spokesman for the White House's Office of Management and Budget, "The new rules are intended to streamline the process."

Using the handy pocket version of the White House to English Dictionary, this phrase translates to, "We've just decided it would be easier to blatantly lie to the American people."

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Testing the tests.

2010-01-13T18:26:00.001-08:00

Click on the link to read entire article.

clipped from www.reasons.org

1/13/2010
by Dr. Jeff Zweerink

"[Science] is not perfect. It can be misused. It is only a tool. But it is by far the best tool we have, self-correcting, ongoing, applicable to everything. It has two rules. First: there are no sacred truths; all assumptions must be critically examined; arguments from authority are worthless. Second: whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded or revised. ... The obvious is sometimes false; the unexpected is sometimes true." — Carl Sagan, Cosmos, pg 277.

One underlying principle that enables the scientific enterprise to discover the truth is the commitment that everything must be tested. This principle comes directly from the Bible (see 1 Thessalonians 5:21). Because every belief and explanation rests on assumptions, the confidence in those beliefs and explanations grows as tests confirm the assumptions. Tests that falsify assumptions provide avenues to provide even better explanations. Recent exploration of meteorites demonstrates how this process works in practice.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Heart, Soul, Mind, and Strength

2010-01-12T09:44:00.001-08:00

clipped from www.rzim.org

A Christianity that does not teach the Bible points the way nowhere but to New Age groping, ambiguity and relativism. However, a Christianity that only teaches the Bible is blind to all the other knowledge God wants us to discover and value. ¹⁶

15 Ralph Winter, “Editorial Comment” in Mission Frontiers Magazine (March-April, 2008), 4.

Mind and heart not mind vs. heart

2010-01-12T09:33:00.001-08:00

clipped from www.rzim.org

What your mind rejects, your life will eventually reject also, however close it may be to your heart.

God has no grandchildren

2010-01-12T08:32:00.001-08:00

clipped from www.rzim.org

In an age in which infidelity abounds, do we observe them [parents] carefully instructing their children in the principles of faith which they profess? Or do they furnish their children with arguments for the defense of that faith? ... When religion is handed down among us by heredity succession, it is not surprising to find youth of sense and spirit beginning to question the truth of the system in which they were brought up. And it is not surprising to see them abandon a position which they are unable to defend. ¹⁰

10 Quoted by J.P. Moreland in Love Your God With All Your Mind, 134-135.

William Wilberforce in his book Real Christianity.

Help North Korean Refugees

2010-01-12T07:48:00.001-08:00

If you are unable to donate, please forward this invitation on to others to give them the opportunity. You may also consider blogging this information.

Sincerely,
Travis Coleman

clipped from www.northkoreanrefugees.com

LFNKR is licensed by the Japanese government
as an official non-profit organization.

Every $5 You Donate* will purchase 10 kilograms (22 pounds) of rice and enable one refugee to eat for another three weeks. Every $20 You Donate... will provide an emergency medical kit for a family of North Korean refugees. And Every $100 You Donate... will buy five sets of warm clothing to keep five NK refugees warm through China's bitterly cold winter months. Our NGO has developed its own local networks, through which we distribute food and clothing to North Korean refugees. We are also working for international recognition of their rights as refugees. To make a donation, simply click on the appropriate button and fill in the information requested. You will receive an email receipt verifying your donation within a few minutes. * Since LFNKR is a legally authorized non-profit organization in Japan, your donation may qualify as a tax deductible expense under your country's tax laws (be sure to consult your own tax advisor for more specific information).				Donate $5
				$10
				$20
				$50
				$100
				$250
				$500
				$1000

You Can Also Set Up an Automatic Monthly Donation... Click on one of the buttons below to set up an automatic "Subscription" type payment. This assures your help will go regularly to the North Korean refugees every month -- even if you get busy one month and it slips your mind.
$5 / Mo.	$10 / Mo.	$20 / Month	$50 / Mo.	$100 / Mo.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

The Hundred

2010-01-10T15:46:00.000-08:00

"All of Us" TheHundred Holiday Campaign from LiNK Global on Vimeo.

Hatred for speaking kindly of Christianity

2010-01-07T10:09:00.001-08:00

clipped from www.informz.net

How Dare He?
Brit Hume's Advice for Tiger

January 7, 2010

On Fox News this week, Brit Hume, respected journalist and one-time Fox anchor, was asked whether Tiger Woods would recover from the scandal that has cost him several lucrative endorsements. Brit Hume replied, "Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer."

But he didn't stop there—and in the process ignited a controversy that says more about his critics than it does about Hume or what he had to say.

Hume said the "open question" is "whether [Woods] can recover as a person." Hume pointed out that Woods had "lost his family" and that his future relationship with his children is unclear.

At this point, as golfers might put it, Hume was already in the rough. Americans don't like to be reminded that sex outside of marriage has consequences. But what set the commentariat's teeth on edge was Hume's suggestion that Woods' best chance for recovery lies with faith—and specifically, the Christian faith.

Noting Woods' Buddhist background, Hume said that Buddhism doesn't offer "the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith," and he urged Woods to consider Christianity.

Hume's words were followed by "a moment of awkward silence." But that didn't last long. As Rabbi Brad Hirschfield put it, response to Hume's comments ranged from "outrage to disgust."

One example was television critic Tom Shales of the Washington Post. Shales, who once called convicted rapist Roman Polanski a "celebrity hounded by the state," was less-charitably inclined toward Brit Hume. He wrote that "darts of derision" should be aimed at him.

Mind you, this was kind compared to most of the other things written about Hume.

The obvious question is, "Why the outrage?" Was Hume wrong about the differences between Christianity and Buddhism? Not really. Barbara Hoetsu O'Brien, a Buddhist journalist, told USA Today that "Buddhism doesn't offer redemption and forgiveness in the same way Christianity does" since "Buddhism has no concept of sin."

Was Hume's offense presuming to offer Woods unsolicited advice in public? If so, the outrage is selective. At ESPN, writer Malcolm Gladwell "advised" Woods to make it clear that "he is not someone who is ready, as yet, to settle down" and then take lessons on how to "live a tasteful bachelor lifestyle" from Yankee shortstop Derek Jeter. I don't recall any outrage over Gladwell's "presumption" to advise Tiger Woods.

The outrage, as Rabbi Hirschfield writes, stems from the fact that "many people fear faith and even more genuinely resent it being discussed in public." I would add they especially resent Christianity being discussed. If Hume had advised Woods to spend time in a Buddhist monastery, there wouldn't be a controversy. If he had urged Woods to enter rehab, Hume would have been applauded.

But what Hirschfield calls the "shrill objections" to Hume's comments are, as he tell us, rooted in the "contempt which many others have for Christians and their willingness to speak their faith."

Here's a prediction for 2010. I know Brit Hume; he will be fine. He is a strong, good man who can take the heat. But let's hope his conviction to speak the truth plainly and winsomely will spur other Christians to do the same—even in the face of the "shrill objections" that are sure to follow.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Stop Obama's Crossdresser Protection Bill

2010-01-06T21:30:00.001-08:00

Sign our petition to tell our elected leaders we oppose the so-called "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" (ENDA)
Stop Obama's Crossdresser Protection Bill
January 06, 2010 | Share with Friends
Dear Citizen,
On New Year's Eve, when most Americans were waiting for the ball to drop in Times Square, the Obama Administration dropped another bombshell in its agenda to radicalize America by appointing its first openly "transgender" person to a high federal post. "Transgender" is an umbrella term for anyone who "expresses" a "gender identity" contrary to their biological sex at birth-in other words, men who claim to be (and dress as) women, and vice versa.
Mitchell Simpson, a man who had sex-change surgery and now calls himself a woman (named "Amanda"), was appointed as Senior Technical Advisor to the Commerce Department. Simpson announced that "as one of the first transgender presidential appointees to the federal government, I hope that I will soon be one of hundreds."
The day after Simpson began work, The New York Times reported that the main website advertising jobs with the federal government now says there will be no "discrimination" based on "gender identity"-even though Congress has never passed a law saying that.
This new policy applies only to the federal government. But there is a bill being considered in Congress, the so-called "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" (ENDA), which would require every employer in America to open every position to homosexuals (by making "sexual orientation" a protected category) and "transgenders" (by protecting "gender identity").
All American employers including Christian owned businesses and potentially Christian ministries would be affected.
"Gender identity disorder" is a recognized mental illness that should be treated-not affirmed and protected. And the right of employers to set "dress and grooming standards" for their employees should include the most basic standard of all-that people dress in a way appropriate for their biological sex.
Don't let Congress and President Obama force American employers to hire homosexuals, transsexuals, and cross-dressers.
Sign our petition to tell our elected leaders we oppose the so-called "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" (ENDA)
Sincerely,

Tony Perkins
President
P.S. Please forward this email to at least one friend.

Family Research Council: 801 G Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
P: 202/393-2100 or 800/225-4008 W: frc.org

Christianity publicly off limits?

2010-01-06T10:50:00.001-08:00

clipped from www.informz.net

Closeted Christians
No Room in the Public Square

January 6, 2010

This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship president Mark Earley.

If you have heard me on BreakPoint before, you know that I am not an alarmist. While I am concerned about the culture and the Church's place within it, I don't sound the alarm after every setback.

Still, I am concerned about the increasingly small space to which our culture is seeking to confine the practice of our faith. We are heading in the direction of making faith a purely private matter, one that is not allowed to intrude in any public square or discussion. Recent cases making their way through the courts illustrate this direction.

The first story originates in San Francisco. On December 7, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case involving the Christian Legal Society and the University of California-Hastings Law School. The local chapter's recognition and funding were revoked after the CLS added a provision to its statement of faith which voting members must affirm. That provision stated that "unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle is inconsistent with" affirmation of the statement of faith.

Although the language includes all sex outside of marriage, school officials decided that the provision discriminated against gay students and, thus, violated the school's non-discrimination policies. It didn't matter that all Hastings students were welcome to attend and participate in the organization's meetings.

The CLS sued the school, and in March the Ninth Circuit ruled that Hastings could require student groups to "accept all comers as members, even if those individuals disagree with the mission of the group."

The precedent for this ruling was a 2008 opinion by the same Ninth Circuit, Truth v. Kent School District, involving a Bible club in Kent Washington. There, the application for official recognition was rejected because voting membership was limited to those who affirmed biblical inerrancy and pledged to live in accordance with Christian teachings.

In ruling in favor of the school district, the Ninth Circuit essentially said that if you want to be officially recognized, you must undermine your religious mission.

You don't have to be an alarmist to wonder if such a requirement would be imposed on any other kind of group.

It's difficult to reconcile these rulings with the Supreme Court's decision in Rosenberg v. Rector. There, the court ruled that the University of Virginia could not deny funding to a Christian publication while providing it to other student publications. This denial was a form of "viewpoint discrimination" that violated freedom of speech.

The Los Angeles Times editorialized that something similar is at work here. The CLS is concerned with a person's beliefs and whether they live by them, not who they are. Yet 14 years after Rosenberg, people are still singling out Christian groups for exclusion.

Well, we'll see what the Supreme Court has to say because they're up next.

In the end, groups like the Christian Legal Society aren't seeking to change school policies—they simply want to identify themselves publicly as Christians in the same way that members of other groups can publicly identify themselves.

This apparently is too much for a culture that, having freed one group from a closet, now seeks to stuff Christians into it.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Help Defend the Persecuted

2009-12-31T18:49:00.001-08:00

Help Defend the Persecuted
This October, 2009, ChinaAid hosted six legal experts on a tour in the United States, speaking out on the treatment of human rights lawyers in China, and the cases they defend. Bringing dark testimonies of torture and detention to light, they spoke of being separated from their families, threatened, fired, and otherwise harassed for taking on sensitive cases, especially in the defense of religious minorities.
Having heard their testimonies, one observer asked, "Why would you ever want to be a human rights defense lawyer in China?"
Indeed, the incentive to defend human rights cases in China remains small. Chinese defense lawyers face the arduous challenge of not only researching and compiling evidence, building the case and defending their clients. They also struggle to work within a complex and corrupt legal system.
Yet each day, Chinese human rights attorneys defend those who would otherwise have no voice of their own. By fighting on the frontlines on behalf of the persecuted, they have seen prisoners freed, new precedents set, and harassment stopped against churches and communities because of their work.
Dr. Li Baiguang, a leading Christian human rights lawyer and the director of the Beijing Gongxin Law Firm describes the urgency of their work. "By taking up cases of persecution in the court, we, as human rights legal defenders, like little ants, may not knock down a huge wall immediately. But every time, bite by bite, bit by bit, we always move forward as a group, by creating more free rooms for us and others until the giant concrete falls."
Through our Legal Defense Fund, ChinaAid helps financially support these brave human rights defenders. The ChinaAid Legal Defense Team networks with independent house churches and Christian legal professionals to research cases, finance the legal fees, and provide counsel to the prisoners of conscience throughout China.
One of the most successful cases defended by ChinaAid Legal Defenders include the release of four male prisoners from their labor sentences in 2008, when the Supervisory Re-Education through Labor Commission overturned the ruling, for the first time in Chinese legal history. Twelve days later, three female pastors were released from their labor sentences in Hubei, after defense lawyers appealed their case.
These legal battles come at a great price - physically, spiritually, and financially. For the Linfen Church case alone, ChinaAid has sent thousands of dollars in legal support for the pastors in prison. Having received severe sentences, all ten pastors have begun the long and expensive process of appeals.
We will be launching the Help Linfen campaign this January 2010 to raise awareness and support the pastors and their lawyers as they bring their appeals to court.
As we enter the New Year, ChinaAid needs your help to continue defending the persecuted in 2010. We humbly ask you to consider contributing to the Legal Defense Fund and join us in our efforts to secure religious freedom in China.
With your help, we can continue to bring truth to light and pursue justice for prisoners of conscience under the law.
To help support the Legal Defense of prisoners of conscience, click here to donate. All donations received on or before December 31, 2009 will be tax-deductible in 2009.
Donate to the Legal Defense Fund

This online offer is being presented by ChinaAid. For additional information, you may contact us by clicking here or calling at 888-889-7757. To view our privacy policy, click here.

Fwd: Light a Candle

2009-12-24T16:56:00.001-08:00

clipped from www.informz.net
A Candle in the Darkness
Twenty Years Later

December 24, 2009
As people across the world tonight light Christmas candles at Christmas Eve services, my mind goes back to another Christmas 20 years ago in Romania, when the country was still in the grip of communist tyranny.
The story begins with Laszlo Tokes, pastor of a fast-growing reformed church in the city of Timisoara. His powerful preaching had caught the attention of communist officials, and they began a strategy of suppression. They stationed police officers around his church, machine guns cradled in their arms. They hired thugs to attack him. Finally, just before Christmas, they decided to send him into exile.
But when the police arrived to hustle Pastor Tokes away, they were stopped cold. Around the church stood a wall of humanity. Christians from around the city—Baptist, Pentecostal, Orthodox, Catholic—had joined together to protest.
All through the day they held their post. As it grew dark, a young Baptist student named Daniel Gavra pulled out a packet of candles, lit one, and passed it to his neighbor.
Then he lit another. One by one the burning candles were passed out among the crowd. Soon the darkness of the December night was pierced by the light of hundreds of candles. When Pastor Tokes looked out his window, he saw a sea of faces lit up by a warm glow.
That night, he said later, was the "turning point in my life." He would never erase from his mind the picture of believers from all denominations joining hands in his defense.
Two days later, police finally broke through the crowd and dragged Pastor Tokes away. But that was not the end. The people now streamed to the city square and began a full-scale demonstration against the communist government.
Once again Daniel Gavra passed out his candles. Once again the night was lit by their glow.
Finally, the communist officials began to panic. They brought in troops and ordered them to open fire on the crowd. Hundreds were shot. Young Daniel felt a searing pain as his leg was blown off.
Yet the brave example set in Timisoara inspired the rest of the nation. Within days the entire population of Romania had risen up and the bloody dictator Ceausescu was gone. The churches filled with worshippers offering praise to God.
For the first time in half a century, the people of Romania celebrated Christmas in freedom.
In the hospital, Daniel Gavra celebrated while learning to walk with crutches. His pastor came by, offering him sympathy, but Daniel wasn't looking for sympathy.
"Oh, Pastor," he said softly. "I don't mind so much the loss of a leg. After all, it was I who lit the first candle."
What a powerful image for us here in America as we celebrate this Christmas—the picture of a black December night lit up by a glowing testimony to the unity of God's people.
What mighty things the church could do today when it is truly is the church: when we stand shoulder to shoulder with all our brothers and sisters, ready to fight evil, prepared to give our limbs—and yes, even our lives—to light a candle in the darkness.
Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Human Sacrifice for Gaia:Environmentalism at Its Worst

2009-12-18T09:09:00.001-08:00

A Breakpoint Commentary by Chuck Colson

December 18, 2009

Regular BreakPoint listeners know about the inhumane lengths some environmentalists are prepared to go to "save the planet."

Some have proposed taxing the parents of newborns several thousand dollars to discourage child-bearing, and thereby reducing CO2 emissions. Others have spoken of "culling" the human herd.

What these proposals have in common, besides their cold-bloodedness, is that mainstream environmentalists keep insisting that they are "fringe" views. Well, recent statements from sources that couldn't be more "respectable" put the lie to those claims. And they should remind Christians why the sanctity of human life must be our highest priority.

During the recent U.N. global warming summit in Copenhagen, China came under fire for not doing enough to reduce its CO2 emissions. However, China had at least one defender: Canada's Financial Post.

According to Canada's equivalent to the Wall Street Journal, China is "the world's leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation." Hold it a minute! How can the world's leading emitter of CO2, and home to 16 of the world's most polluted cities, be a "world leader"?

Simple: its one-child policy. According to theFinancial Post, the "inconvenient truth overhanging" the deliberations in Copenhagen is that "humans are overpopulating the world." What's needed is for the entire world to embrace China's one-child policy.

This "simple" and "dramatic" fix would reduce global population by 50 percent by 2075. According to the paper, the failure to even consider such a measure at Copenhagen is proof that world leaders aren't serious about global warming. I'm not making this up.

Advocating a global one-child policy doesn't make the Financial Post as bad as the Chinese government—it makes it worse. The Chinese policy was an inhumane, brutal, and totalitarian effort to address the historic problems posed by China's huge population.

In contrast, the Financial Post and others like it are motivated by a worldview that sees humans as a kind of virus infecting mother earth. For Gaia's sake, they want the human population brought under control—even at the cost of human freedom and life itself.

In the aftermath of the Manhattan Declaration, some people questioned our focus on life issues. They wondered why we didn't include other concerns, like the environment.

This is why. The sanctity of human life is under continuous assault. This assault isn't limited to abortion and euthanasia—contempt for human life itself has become respectable. For the sake of the planet, we are being asked to drastically reduce our numbers.

But radical environmentalists don't mean people like themselves—after all, their home countries, with the exception of the United States, are losing population. They mean the poorest and most vulnerable people on the planet. It's no coincidence that a recent ad in a British newspaper about the link between CO2 emissions and population control featured 12African babies.

This is the "inconvenient truth overhanging" the debate about environmental issues.

And it's why the sanctity of human life is so important. If you haven't done so, go toManhattanDeclaration.org, sign the statement, and get your friends to do the same thing.

New Moon

2009-12-12T17:06:00.001-08:00

clipped from www.informz.net

Flirting with Danger
New Moon

December 11, 2009

You may remember that last year, Mark Earley on BreakPoint reviewed the film Twilight, which was all the rage. Now there's a Twilight sequel, which is drawing millions to the box office.

I can't tell you to just go back and read that earlier review because New Moon, the second entry in the series, has a brand-new set of disturbing and possibly even dangerous messages for young girls.

If the story in Twilight was a textbook case of an unhealthy relationship, New Moon is a study in how not to break up. At the beginning, the vampire Edward leaves town with his family, leaving behind his teenage girlfriend, Bella, for her own protection.

Bella responds by going nearly catatonic for three months, withdrawing from family, friends, and classmates. From there, she goes steadily downhill.

Bella discovers that every time she does something dangerous, she has a vision of Edward scolding her. So she proceeds to go for a motorcycle ride with a biker she meets on the street. She tries driving a motorcycle herself with no instruction, thus resulting in a bad accident. And finally, she nearly drowns herself while cliff jumping in a lonely spot.

Do I even need to point out what's wrong with this picture?

In fact, both Bella and Edward show an appalling disregard for their own lives, not to mention for the way their actions might affect others. Edward romanticizes the idea of suicide, repeatedly stating his determination to kill himself if anything bad ever happens to Bella, and telling her, "You're my only reason to stay alive."

Bella herself has an abnormal fear of aging, longing to remain eternally young like Edward. She's so afraid of growing old that she panics on her 18th birthday. And she doesn't care that becoming a vampire might deprive her of her own soul; instead, she tells Edward, "Take it, I don't want it."

My colleague Molly Wyer has written an excellent study guide on Twilight, which you can find at BreakPoint.org. She writes that "even though Bella knows that Edward is...constantly tempted to drink her blood, she does not pull back from the danger. Instead, this terrifying possibility seems almost to add an edge of excitement and danger to their relationship. While Edward's vampiric attraction to blood is clearly wrong...Bella wants to become a vampire as well. She longs for what is forbidden."

Yet another troubling aspect of the story centers on Jacob, a rival for Bella's affections. New Moon reveals that Jacob is a werewolf, meaning that, just like Edward, he could seriously endanger Bella if he ever lost control of himself for a moment.

Essentially, this means Bella has to spend her life walking on eggshells around both of her romantic interests, not daring to make either one of them upset.

Do we really want to be presenting what looks like a classic abuse victim as a role model for young girls?

If your kids are at even remotely interested in the Twilight craze, or if they read about it or get involved with their friends, you need to sit them down and talk to them about some of these issues. Teenagers swept off their feet by New Moon need to know that in real life, danger isn't romantic or glamorous.

It's just plain dangerous.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.


Gao Zhisheng's Life in Danger - Please Help Now! Supporters around the world were shocked on March 27, 2010, when Gao Zhisheng spoke with his family for the first time since he was abducted on February 4 last year. Media buzzed with news of his reappearance, as Gao Zhisheng connected with friends, family, reporters and colleagues. But even this brief reprieve from silence was not free. "Gao was being held under tight security during the time he spoke with his family," says President of ChinaAid Bob Fu. "When I spoke with him on the phone in March, he was being closely monitored, not at liberty to give details about his location or condition." On April 15 and 16, Gao Zhisheng visited his in-laws in Xinjiang, telling them he would be flying home to Beijing at 10 AM on April 20. Gao never arrived home at his apartment, and has not been seen or heard from in more than 8 weeks. See the media reports on Gao Zhisheng's forced "Re-Disappearance." Now that he has disappeared again, it is clear that Gao's life is in danger as long as he is in the custody of the Chinese government. During this complex and difficult time, efforts are already in progress to push for Gao's release from China and for a safe reunion with his family in the United States. "We continue to denounce the Chinese Government's brutal and unjust treatment of Gao Zhisheng!" says Bob Fu. "We will not rest until Gao is released and allowed to reunite with his wife and children in peace." Please urge more of your friends to Sign the Petition and let the Chinese Government know that Gao Zhisheng is not forgotten. We must show them that the world will not allow this defender of truth and justice to fade from our hearts and minds. We will not rest until he is united with his family. ChinaAid also humbly asks for your continued financial support. Long-term projects like Gao's case can be costly, and we cannot afford to lose momentum now. Please help Free Gao with a financial contribution today. Share the Petition. Donate Now. www.FreeGao.com

This online offer is being presented by ChinaAid. For additional information, you may contact us by clicking here or calling at 888-889-7757. To view our privacy policy, click here.


			Family Research Council: 801 G Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 P: 202/393-2100 or 800/225-4008 W: frc.org