I went to see Ben Stein's movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed [Web site], this afternoon. It was well-constructed, and his interviews were well-done, showing respect for the evolutionists he interviewed and asking the hard questions of the intelligent design representatives he interviewed.
You should see this movie.
The movie is not about Creationism. The movie is not about the theory of intelligent design. The movie is about academic freedom.
Students are being oppressed in this country by those who would deny our God-given right to ask questions (partially guaranteed by the First Amendment in the redress of grievances clause). It is not whose idea is right or wrong or valid or invalid. It is that we have the right to ask questions. It should be self-evident that God has given us the right to ask questions about anything and everything. It is most profitable to us if we ask questions in humility and in the search for truth, but we can ask any question.
Except in the classroom. In the classroom, the Right of Inquiry is being denied.
That is why this movie is important. We need to be aware that the Right of Inquiry is being denied, and we need to demand that institutions and governmental bodies respect our rights of inquiry and discourse. We need to demand that theories be taught in the context of discourse and rigorous criticism.
I do not believe Creationism should be taught in a classroom funded by taxpayers. I do not believe that Intelligent Design Theory should be taught as the only theory of the origin of life. I do not believe that Neo-Darwinian Evolution Theory should be taught as the only theory of the origin of life. I believe that these theories should both (or in concert with other theories) be honestly discussed as theories put forth by their respective authors, honestly criticized in a discourse of examination and inquiry, and honestly set to rest at the end of the unit or class as exactly what they were at its beginning: theories. And let the students decide for themselves what theory they feel has the best basis in fact, evidence, logic, and their own personal worldview. Anything less is a disservice to science and to the students of our educational institutions. To teach one theory and only one theory in a classroom is to preach a dogma, not to teach an informative course in science or anything else that falls under the heading of education.
Any theory that cannot exist in an environment of discourse, criticism, and inquiry is not a serious theory. In the words of Charles Spurgeon, "Truth is a strong tower and never requires to be buttressed with error."

This evening, there was at OWC's Arts Center a lecture by Nancy Pearcey on the cultural implications of the evolution theory. This was part of the reason I chose to watch the movie today. The newspaper indicated that the movie was the subject of the lecture. It was called "Beyond Expelled"
One of the interesting things she pointed out is that roughly 80% of this country believes that an intelligent designer (either through guided evolution or through direct creation) was involved in the origin of the forms of life we see in the world today. Only 10-20% believe evolution without any supernatural force is the source of today's diverse world of life. And then she said something I thought was noteworthy:
"The public schools have a responsibility to respect the public."
Now, if 80% of the nation believes there was a designer involved, why do the school systems teach as though it were uncontested a theory of naturalistic forces without the input of a designer?

Something that occurred to me while she was speaking was the realization that the environmentalist who fights to protect the planet from polluter-humans and the amoral business that pours toxic sludge into the rivers both take their worldview from the same place. Darwinism is the belief behind both the personification of the environment, or less extremely, the dignity of the environment, that the environmental movement holds central and the contextual erasure of the exploitative business or social pragmatist. They both rely on this idea of man as an evolved animal who has no higher spiritual calling than to either fulfill his animalistic passions or to protect nature as an example of all that is pure and natural.
Neither the environmentalist nor the unscrupulous corporate raider has respect for both human freedom and dignity and for stewardship of the earthly realm. In fact, I would suggest that only a worldview based on the Bible (an economic model of Biblical capitalism, which relies on both stewardship and individual self-determination) can respect both humanity and natural stewardship.
In other words: If there is no creator, if we came from non-living matter purely by chance or natural laws, but either way without a creator, then we have no responsibility to each other as humans with dignity, nor do we have anyone to be responsible to in the question of whether to practice good stewardship of the land, because without a creator, we have no one to be stewards for... and since I have already said that without a creator there can be no responsibility to each other, there is likewise no responsibility to hold the land in stewardship for our descendants. This is the logical consequence of a worldview wherein people came from evolutionary processes alone.

By the way, she also mentioned in passing the practice in many schools of telling children that all ideas have equal validity. This is a precept of postmodernist philosophy. I immediately thought of this comic: Hard Onions: Marketplace of Ideas
So, go see the movie, and check out the writings of Nancy Pearcey.

Edited to add:
Freedom of Inquiry means being able to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
There is a false dichotomy between science and religion. I believe honest scientific exploration in search of the truth will always lead to a deeper understanding of the truth of God's word.
Freedom of Inquiry means encouraging questions and seeking of the truth.
Students have the right to know that what they are being taught is accurate. How can they discover that if they can't ask questions about the validity, truth, and accuracy of what is being put forth?
"The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." --Albert Einstein

One day, we will have to tell our children the truth about the environmental movement.
We will have to say:
When I was younger, we allowed a massive, unlawful cartel to control the world price of oil and damage our economy. Even though the cartel set the world market price for oil by curtailing its production whenever the price got too low for their tastes, we blamed others for the price.
We blamed the SUV owners, saying their excessive consumption drove up demand and created high prices. We blamed BP, Citgo, Shell, and Exxon for making a profit, even though their profits were only about four to eight cents on each gallon of gasoline. We ignored other things that drove up the price, like the many federal, state, and local gasoline taxes, to focus mainly on the corporations that refined and transported our fuel at meager levels of profit, and we taxed the oil companies heavily because we felt they made too much profit.
When the price reached $4.00, it was the realization of the pre-2000 dream of environmentalists, who wanted to see the price of gasoline go so high that people would stop buying it. $4.00 was a common price listed as the "no way" point back when gas was $0.99/gallon.
We refused to do anything about the price of oil and gasoline because we were following a mandate from the environmental movement that we had to eliminate our use of fossil fuels. We didn't drill for the oil we had to force the world market to correct its price, and we didn't pursue non-food crop-based fuels, such as hemp. We drove up the price of corn that could feed people in order to make ethanol, even though growing, refining, and transporting the stuff used more energy than it created, and even though it required high amounts of fertilizer and pesticide.
And because we refused to do anything about the price of oil, we followed the environmental movement's advice to conserve energy by changing our light fixtures from incandescent bulbs to fluorescent tubes, even though the compact tubes brought mercury or similar toxins into our homes and created a massive problem in proper disposal of the spent lamps.
And we gave away our freedom to climate control our homes, letting someone at a remote location control the thermostats in our houses so we wouldn't use as much electricity.
Loss of freedom and damage to the economy are the results of the policies put forth by the environmental movement. Eventually, we're going to have to be honest about this and tell our children that this is what it was doing to us. Why can't we be honest about it now and find a better solution?
Look around. Think through what the policies advocated by the environmental movement will eventually do to our nation. Then look around at the political candidates and see which ones have a record most closely aligned with the environmental movement. You can be sure that they favor policies that will have these effects:
- Higher fuel prices - Burning anything (except an SUV, it seems) is bad in the eyes of the environmental movement.
- Hamstrung economic growth - Taxing the oil companies (which are most likely in your mutual fund) hurts investors, which limits the amount of money available to start businesses, which limits the number of jobs that are created, which hinders the economic growth.
- Higher food prices - One of the environmental movement's sacred cows in this country right now is ethanol made from corn or sugar cane, even though most other nations have abandoned ethanol as more resource-intensive than petroleum. Candidates favoring ethanol from food crops favor higher food prices, which means more hungry poor in the USA.
- Less freedom - The environmental movement wants to tell you that you can't choose to spend your hard-earned money on electricity to cool or heat your home to the temperature that makes you comfortable. Candidates who support the environmental movement don't support your right of self-determination in small things... what makes you think they'll support it in large things? Maybe you've heard of the concept of faithfulness with little being an indication of worthiness to manage much?
- Hare-brained solutions and computer models that don't match facts and logic - Compact fluorescent tubes use less energy than incandescent bulbs, but they contain toxic chemicals: not a sensible solution. Candidates supporting the environmental movement follow the theory of massive man-made global warming, even though the science doesn't back the theory (maybe you read a few news articles about the drop in temperatures over the last year that wiped out a century's temperature rises, to name only one of many problems with the theory)... and even though following the theory requires steps hurtful to our God-given rights.

The environmental movement has failed us, and it is time to abandon it. We need to focus on being good stewards of the resources God has given us and stop blindly following this navel-gazing warm fuzzies movement. Environmentalism is fatally flawed. Stewardship is sound both ecologically and economically, as well as theologically and logically.
We must do a better job of taking care of God's green earth -- but we won't do that by joining the environmental movement in poorly-considered plans based on questionable science.
Consider this when you choose a political candidate this November. Think about what you'll tell your children.

Barack Obama said recently, "Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information."

Others have covered the angle that he is essentially putting pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases in the same category. I won't go into that.

My problem is with the word he chose: ( punishment. )
Words are important. Choose them carefully. The words of a president are even more important, because leaders around the world make decisions based on what the leader of the U.S.A. says. Choose them carefully, too.

Had a thought a few weeks ago and wrote it down. Just found the paper on which I wrote it:
Liberals are people whose good intentions didn't understand the point of "Harrison Bergeron".

Politics is a touchy subject with some people. And with many, it is the realm of emotion rather than reason.
With some politicians throwing around words like hope, change, and future without giving any clarification for what they mean by these words, I thought it would be a good idea to examine the possibilities and the mindsets that I've observed in recent months.
I think it fitting to begin with the future. Politicians love the future. After all, if all your promises are about the future, you don't have to actually do anything about them, because the future is always yet to be. The future is nebulous, unclear, and unpredictable. This is appropriate, because political promises tend to be the same things. I don't trust people who talk about the future in vague terms. If you want to talk about the future, put it in firm language so I know what you really mean to do.
Hope is a wonderful thing, but we need to have real hope, not throwaway hope. We need the kind of hope that is mentioned in Jeremiah 29:11, where God says His plans will give us a future with hope, that is, something real to look forward to. We need to avoid making political decisions based on throwaway hope, like when we look at the dark clouds and say, "I hope it doesn't rain." When we say that, we don't expect it to stay dry, and we don't really mind if that throwaway hope is not fulfilled. It's not real hope, and we don't care much whether it comes to pass. In fact, we expect that it will not be realized. This is a terrible way to make important decisions, because we have more at stake than whether we will have our picnic cut short by a rain that does us no more harm than making us wet.
No matter what anyone says, humans don't like change. We often feel there is no guarantee that the change will be for the better. Except when a politician talks about it. This is a good time to be wary. Pin people down. "What changes are you suggesting?" After all, someone who promises change can fulfill that promise by locking every person into an isolation cell. It's change, but do you support it? Change for the sake of change is not good. Changes need to happen as a logical solution to a problem. If the change is not adequately considered, it may do more harm than good. And question assumptions about what needs to change and why. It may be that someone has a vested interest in a change that hurts other people.
Of course, the most disturbing thing I've seen lately is not with the politicians themselves but with the voters. Many voters have been getting excited about candidates who say they will give them things ... things that are not really in their legitimate power to give ... things the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government power to enact.
Be careful, voters.
The road to totalitarian dictatorship is reached often through the side street of 'bread and circuses'. Be wary of anyone who promises to give you things that are not rightly yours. Government is supposed to protect your ability to use your gifts and talents and efforts to make a good life for yourself with what God has provided. Government is not supposed to give to some at the expense of others. It is supposed to protect and give equally to all (roads, etc.).
"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" --Dosteovsky's Grand Inquisitor
"The mob is traitor to the people." —Victor Hugo

I was talking to an acquaintance, and we came upon the subject of the quality of different types of schooling. He and I had a minor disagreement about the matter, so I thought it might be useful to ask you to help me demonstrate my point.
Please ask people you know to come here to answer this, too.

Tell me what you were taught regarding the following questions (NOT necessarily what you believe but what you were taught in school), and tell me what kind of school you attended (public, private, home, hard knocks):

1. Under what form of government does the United States of America operate?
2. How are the ages of rock layers determined? How are the ages of fossils determined? (carbon dating is not the answer we want, here. There was a method for dating things before the carbon method.)
3. Regarding the philosophy, "from each according to ability, to each according to need," what are the benefits that make its application work, or what are the problems that prevent its application?
4. Where does the phrase "separation of Church and State" originate as it is applied in political discussions in the USA?
5. Suppose an economy exists with the following statistics:
Avg. worker pay: 100 units/month
Worker income tax: 5% (tax revenue stable unless more businesses start)
Investor profits tax: 15%
Avg. # of workers per company: 20
Avg. investor's return on investment: 330 units/month
# of workers: 600
# of investors: 61
Assuming that 30 of the investors would start one new company each if their tax rate were 10%, will the government collect more tax revenue by raising the investor tax to 20% or by lowering the investor tax to 10%? (taxes calculated based on one year of activity after the chage, i.e., all the new numbers for one year. For simplicity, assume all new businesses will employ their average 20 workers.)

That math problem was complicated, but please don't forget to tell me what kind of school you attended.
All comments are screened.

I've been hearing some disturbing things surrounding the upcoming 2008 election season.
I want to say a few things about how I think people should vote.

First, I think that having strong beliefs is a good thing. Part of what makes our republic work is that people on different sides of issues vote by what they believe. That is good.
What is bad is when people get so strong in their beliefs that they become extremist. It is wrong to wish bad things to happen to opponents on the political trail. It is wrong to say nasty things about people and call them demons or devils because of their stances on the issues, particularly regarding a single issue.
I think that it may be that our nation right now needs a moderate president. Someone who will not take fliers into unreasonable territory by the definitions of any legitimate party, someone who will work to maintain the strengths of our nation without trying to advance an extreme agenda, someone who will work with all the members of Congress to try to get good things to happen for the whole country, not just his friends in Congress or his party.

Second, I think it is ridiculous for anyone to make a voting decision based on any one issue other than a candidate's intention to carry out the oath of office, particularly to uphold the Constitution.
When you make voting decisions on one single issue, you give over your discretion to the manipulation of any unscrupulous candidate, who will try to get you to believe that his or her position on that issue is better than the other candidates, or worse, that there's no point in voting because their opponents are just as bad on your single issue.
Don't be a single-issue voter.

Finally, and most importantly, no matter how closely or distantly your positions on the issue are to mine, I say honestly and vehemently, you need to vote for someone.
Decisions are made by those who show up. Don't let the hype of the candidates fool you into thinking you have to choose the lesser of two evils. Vote for someone you believe in. If nothing else, write in the name of the smartest real person you know. If you don't vote, or if you write in a fictional character, you don't have any reason to complain about who gets elected.
Make a decision, don't worry about how likely it is your candidate will win, and vote for your choice. Voter turnout tends to be less than 40%. If all the people who are fed up with the way politics are done, there could possibly be a landslide for someone nobody thought could win.

Tune out the nonsense until the week of the primaries, make your choice, and vote. Then vote in the general election. Don't let your vote be wasted by throwing it to the lesser of two evils or by staying home on election day. Vote! If you can't make it to the polls, vote early by mail.

Thomas Darkhorse (FL-I) said today that if elected, he will bring the full power of the office of the president to the problems surrounding protection of children from violence and abuse.
"Children are our nation's most precious resource, and they must be protected in all stages of their childhood. We have a clear responsibility, socially, morally, and economically, to protect our children and raise them to become good citizens as well as good people. We need to make sure their needs are met so they won't be seduced by the street life that wounds them and our cities so very much," he said.
Mr. Darkhorse also responded to questions of how much religion should factor into a political race by saying that people shouldn't vote on single issues, including a candidate's religious affiliation. However, he added that a candidate's faith should be evident in all the candidate does.
Darkhorse said, "It has often been rightly said that people cannot consistently act in a manner contrary to what they truly believe. So to expect religion not to be evident in your candidates is to have bad expectations. Candidates should live out their faith, but if that faith is contrary to the right founding principles of the country they seek to serve, they shouldn't run for office."

Mr. Darkhorse is a fictional character. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or to actual events, is purely coincidental.

"...people will forget. They'll forget there was ever a time when they didn't enjoy peace and prosperity and safety. They'll forget that calamity can befall anyone at any time.... They'll forget that they'll face times when swift action, not debate, is needed. They'll forget that they owe that peace and freedom, not to some government bureaucrat, but to men and women of action, acting on their own behalf, asking permission of noone, apologizing to noone." -- Quentyn in Tales of the Questor by Ralph Hayes, Jr.
Today is Memorial day. It is a day to remember those who have fallen in combat around the world. It is a day to remember those who have given "the last full measure of devotion" to their country and their fellow citizens. But I think we also need to remember why they died.
They did not die simply to guarantee your God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and Property, among others. It was not simply for you that they fought and died and still fight and die. So often, we treat dying for Liberty as something out of vogue, something that was once needed but no longer is.
I think we need to remember not only the soldiers, sailors, and airmen who die on foreign soil, but also the police and firefighters who give their lives protecting the lives and rights and property of their fellow man here at home. I think we need to remember the military personnel stationed on friendly soil who protect our lives and rights.
But more importantly, I think we need to remember why those who fight and die for us are there. We talk sometimes as though war is something we can finish and be done with, as though the need for warriors will soon be at an end, and that the world can go on in peace from then until the end of time. We even pray for peace, not knowing what peace really means. The peace we seek should be peace between man and God, for that is the only way to have lasting peace between man and man.
Our warriors fight, and we struggle, because of human nature. As long as there are people on this earth, until God removes our sinful natures, there will be wars and there will be a need for warriors. As long as there are people who think they can get ahead by pushing others down, there will be a need for someone to stand up and say to those people, "You shall not trample on the neck of my fellow man." And there will need to be men and women who "more than self their country loved, and mercy more than life."
The alternative to fighting for the rights of mankind is to let tyrants grab whatever they want, hurt whomever they will, and tread on the necks of innocent men, women, and children.
And as we remember that it is our own grasping natures that cause wars, and as we remember those who have died fighting that grasping nature in themselves and others, we need to continue that fight. We need to continue to resist the tendency to want to grab what we can with no concern for others, and we need to work harder to live as we ought, esteeming others more than ourselves.
Remember those who have died.
Remember what they were fighting to preserve and assure and guarantee.
Remember why the fight is necessary.
And continue the fight for what is right.

Thomas Darkhorse (FL-I) announced today that he will, in response to numerous requests he has received, run for president.



Mr. Darkhorse is a fictional character. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

You asked: Bush is a divider, not a uniter. Agree or disagree?
I disagree. I think President Bush is trying to pull people together, people who hate each other, people who would rather kill each other than compromise their fanatical beliefs, people who've drawn territories for themselves and resent any attempts by their counterparts in the other ideological camp to enter those boundaries.
I'm speaking, of course, of Congress.
On top of that, he has a problem in Iraq.
But all kidding aside, this question brings up another that is, at once, similar and totally unrelated.
( Cut for length )

You asked: What's wrong with communism? It's just another idea about how to live.

Equality of state always involves taking from those who work hardest or fastest for the benefit of those who work slowest or are laziest. There is no other way to keep everyone equal in their standard of living, because people have varied skills in production and varied work ethics. Besides which, people will resent equality that is forced upon them.
One need only look around at today's business and civil service world to notice that productivity is in the vast majority of cases directly proportional to the connection between productivity and pay.
A car dealership salesperson's pay is entirely dependent on productivity, and you rarely, if ever, see a car salesman lounging in his office playing solitaire (Car dealerships frequently pay sales staff straight commission or some system that amounts to straight commission or less).
On the other hand, in businesses where salary is fixed for most employees, you frequently see employees goofing off in their offices and around the water cooler.
A connection between reward and productivity serves as the only reliable motivator of production. Without an incentive to work harder, most people won't. And without any added loss of necessities when work is not done, most people will only do the amount of work they feel like doing, which is usually little or none.
These are the main direct problems with the communistic philosophy of from each according to ability-to each according to need. There are other, more brutal problems, but those stem from the same source. Brutality is often employed as a replacement for incentive. It is very inefficient as a motivator.

This is an amazing speech. I had never thought of this concept, but it makes a TON of sense. Watch it!
How modern Liberals think.

I thought I would piece together some paragraphs I've been toying with in a somewhat coordinated thesis on how Christians should behave in politics. This is my frail attempt.

--- Witnesses ---
Jesus called us to be witnesses to what we've seen and heard. We are not called to be defense attorneys, and we're certainly not called to be God's thugs. Where force is needed, God has the winds and the seas and the many nations of the world, should He desire their efforts.
We should always and everywhere live lives that witness to the love and power of God.
Christian political groups are making me want to vomit on their shoes. Light has no fellowship with darkness, and the ends do not justify any means expedient. Christian political groups should exhort politicians to do what is right, but they should not use underhanded tactics or call people names in doing so. They should pray for God's will to be done much more than press politicians to make promises and make pro-life appointments.
Yes, God takes life very seriously and hates seeing life treated with no respect... but Christians who enter the public sphere should work not to make a Christian State but to make an equitable State in which Christians and non-Christians have equal freedom to pursue their own religious beliefs as they believe is best. Faith is between each person and the Lord of all Creation, not between citizens and the government. You can't force people to believe, but you can drive them away by twisting their arms.
Politicians who are Christians should live their faith in their work by speaking against and voting against things they believe are unrighteous, but they also need to respect the Constitution and the rule of law, as Paul commanded in Romans 13. The Constitution is the framework within which USA's political system moves, and if they have a problem with that, they need to work to change it; not to subvert it unlawfully.

--- Unity and Division ---
All men and women are siblings. We are all descended from Adam and Eve. We are all descended from Noah. Let us treat one another with filial devotion. Let us stop treating our siblings as enemies.
We must not mistreat the unbelieving representatives of our fellow Americans. We should exhort them to do right, but we should never treat disagreement with us as damnable.

--- Pray for Good ---
Don't pray for evil things to happen, even to the wicked. Pray they come to Jesus, that they change their minds about how they vote, and if they refuse to listen, pray that they are removed from office and replaced with better leaders. But don't pray that they die or get hurt, and don't rejoice in their suffering.
They are your own flesh and blood. And you were once as lost as they. Have compassion for them as Jesus had compassion for you.

--- Vote for ---
Vote. Vote for the candidate on the ballot whom you think is the best person for the job. If your person isn't on the ballot, try to get him or her onto the ballot.
Don't vote for someone's opponent. Vote for someone. And don't scheme and choose by likelihoods. Don't worry about who has a chance against whom. Vote honestly for the person you think is the most honest, the most trustworthy, the most ideal candidate.
We in this country are pathetically devoted to being on the winning side. Pick your own winner, and let everyone else do the same, and see what we actually choose. That's the whole point behind voting. If you're not voting for the choice you think is best, you're wasting your vote.
Vote your conscience.

--- Christian Nation ---
The USA was founded on Christian principles. We are greatly concerned with rights, with freedom, and with what is best for the nation.
But I do not dream of a Christian State. For I would hate to be governed by a State that told me I was worshipping God incorrectly. That is for me to discern with God's guidance and God's grace. It is not for any man to tell me.
I wish our representatives were more concerned with doing righteousness, but it is not for the State to mandate good works. It is for the State to protect my life and my rights, along with every other citizen's, from the womb to the grave.
I desire to be zealous for God. I do not desire to be a Zealot. The Zealots sought to incite the people of Judea into rioting, and they used brutal and shady tactics. Some of the Christian political action groups are like Zealots, and I think they should examine their hearts and either switch to God's methods of reaching people, or else find a different line of work than representing God's values, because they make poor representatives of our faith.

--- Make Love, Not War ---
We have in our culture a false dichotomy between war and love. What good is love if it stands by and lets its beloved be trampled and oppressed? Yet, our society often says, "You see a need for war at times? You must be a warmonger who seeks to fight for the purposes you think are best." Or on the other end, "If you love your fellow man, you will shun war at all costs, because war is hell and inflicts great suffering on humanity."
The way an individual stands up against oppression is to show compassion for all life and pray to God for relief for those oppressed. Nations do not have emoitions or compassion or love. Nations either do something about oppressors, or they don't. And if they do, they must either try to persuade oppressors to stop, or else they must cause the oppressor to cease by the use of force.
And I'm tired of hearing people whine and cry that we should end the war. We can't end the war........
If there's anything the Twentieth Century should have taught us, it's that the War to End All Wars doesn't exist on the political stage. We fought two of them, and we're still fighting wars. We need to understand that world peace is an unrealistic idea. The Bible says there will be wars and rumors of wars during the period leading up to the end of the world. And "Peace on earth, goodwill toward men" refers not to political peace but to a peace treaty between mankind and the King of all creation, God. We forget that our sins put us at enmity with God, and that they are in a sense acts of war against His kingdom. Jesus came to bring peace between you and God, not to eradicate the sword. He said, "I am not come to bring peace, but the sword." Jesus came as a peace treaty. And making peace with God puts you at odds with those who choose not to make peace with God, the same way a country views countries that make peace with its enemy. The best way to get close to peace with your fellow man is for both of you to be at peace with God. There will always be fighting until the Lord comes back in final victory to vanquish all evil and set us all who support Him at peace with one another.
So, the idea that we can just sit in our own little sandbox and have our military train one weekend a month and one week a year and never go anywhere to fight is a stupid one. We have a military because we need it. We need it because there are enemies we have to face. And we have to face those enemies in one of two place, sometimes both: Over there or over here. And from where I sit, we're doing a damn fine job of it. I support our military. I don't think the armed forces are a political card to play. They're dedicated men and women who deserve our respect and our support. Yes, fighting is unpleasant. Yes, war is hellish. Yes, it's very sad when even one of our soldiers dies. But they do not die in vain. They keep your life safe so you'll continue to have the protection of your right to speak your mind, even if you only open your mouth to criticize them.

--- Save the Planet ---
I believe that all people, but particularly Christians, should be good stewards of the world. We should generate as little waste as possible, we should avoid setting fire to the wilderness, we should not take more resources from the land than we need to accomplish our goals of building and reaching and living peacefully with our neighbors.
However, that does not mean that animals or Terra itself is above humanity. The world that is exists for God, and God designed it for the sustaining, teaching, and enjoyment of humankind.
I think we need to be careful and sensible about the laws we pass in our attempts to keep the foolish from being bad stewards. It is better to teach children to be good stewards than to pass laws to try to keep adults in line, for we often mar legitimate rights in the attempt. Exemplary of this are fuel efficiency standards that apply to all vehicles regardless of function.
I think a meaningful impact on fuel emissions can be achieved in a reasonable way, by simply getting an ordinance passed banning the driving of SUVs inside your city. It can even be a local thing, so you only have to convince the decision makers in your city or county. This would make the 'drive-the-SUV-to-the-corner-coffee-shop' thing illegal without hindering the folks whose lives and jobs actually depend on four-wheel drive power (people who live or work in actual wilderness where there are unpaved hills and stuff that need climbing).
And it's not like the banning of SUVs in the city would be expensive to implement. You put up signs by the limit markers that say "No SUVs beyond this point", and you enjoy the revenue of writing tickets for people who insist on driving their land cruisers in the crowded streets of downtown. But we're not serious about this, so all we do is whine about fuel efficiency standards and try to rope the entire country into something that will only benefit the large cities while hurting the rural citizens. And very little gets done when you ask people to accept measures that hurt them for no apparent reason.

--- Congress Shall Make No Law ---
Many people seem to have this fear that committed Christians, if they attain office, will seek throughout their entire term to enact blue laws and force prayer meetings in public schools. I believe that is not the way of Christ in politics. For myself, I would be no happier than they under a Christian theocracy.
Such a government, attempting to force people to believe, would drive people away from the Lord and make my job of witnessing much harder. It is not how Christ would act in this nation, either. Certainly, when Christ returns to claim His kingdom, He will be ruling over a benign monarchy, but if Jesus were running for office in the USA, I believe He would not attempt to make unconstitutional laws.
When Jesus walked in Galilee and Judea, He subjected Himself to the laws of the land, with the unavoidable exception of admitting that He was God. He paid the taxes, He didn't tell other people not to pay legitimate taxes, and He avoided the crowds whenever they were on the verge of trying to crown Him. And Jesus never forced anyone to do something. He said what He said and did what He did, and He left the reactions to those things up to the individuals.
Our constitution says this country will not have a state-sponsored church. I believe that if Jesus were a senator, a congressman, or the president, Hes would support laws that defend the free will of the individual, defend the rights of individuals to tell others about their faith and practice their religions openly, provide for a framework in which people could give freely to charitable ventures of their choosing, denounce any law that discriminated against one region or ancestry or gender or economic status.
In short, if Jesus held public office, I believe He would uphold the constitution and make sure He supported sensible and equitable laws and opposed inequitable and unsensible laws.
And that's what I think any politician who wants to follow "What Would Jesus Do?" should do.
And this goes beyond laws relating to religion. I think public officials whould strive also to think through the laws they consider and do all they can to make sure these laws do what they're intended to do.
Our nation has far too many crime bills that don't in any way prevent crime, software and movie piracy legislation that does nothing to curb piracy, and technology laws that are written by people so untechnically inclined that they do nothing to prevent technology crimes. And a law that's not doing what it should do is undoubtedly doing something it shouldn't do.
Bad laws tend to limit legitimate behaviors in violation of the rights of citizens. While not strictly a law, copy protection schemes are a perfect example of this. Copy protection does not, has never, and never will prevent piracy. Copy protection only limits the legitimate use by paying customers of products they paid to use legitimately.
"You do not examine legislation in light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." --Lyndon B. Johnson

--- Beware of Compliant Candidates ---
Anyone who always says what you want to hear is lying to you at least some of the time.
Don't demand that candidates agree with you one everything, and don't vote on single issues. Look at the whole picture, ask questions, and decide based on all the information. Want a committed Christian in office? Don't believe the guy who started going to church just as his campaign was starting. Want a guy who supports your industry? Look at what he's said and done about it before. Want a candidate who'll be honest with you? Demand honesty, not agreement.
The sooner we stop asking candidates to lie to us (by telling them that their agreement with us on one thing will determine our vote, by rewarding those who lie to us, etc.), the sooner we'll have honest candidates who will tell us where they stand and let the vote happen as it happens instead of trying to lie to enough people to deceive their way to a victory.
The Bible says the wounds of a friend are faithful, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

I reckon I've babbled long enough about politics. I'm not sure if anyone cares what I think about this, but there it is, for what it's worth. God bless you. Vote!

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

I'm thankful for:
=- Family
=- Friends
=- Free movement
=- Free speech
=- Free thought
=- Salvation
=- Purpose
=- I see my girlfriend tomorrow
=- I've been accepted and registered in classes at my new university
=- A working computer
=- Many, many other blessings too numerous to count.

I recently took part in a discussion on the theme of "Talking 'God' in Politics". Here are some of the questions that were suggested by the facilitator. I thought it fitting that I offer my responses to them.


Does the First Amendment mean that God should be banned from the public arena?
( Read more... )

Should values and morals be part of the political discourse?
( Read more... )

Why do many become defensive and alarmed with use of religious and moral language in political discourse?
( Read more... )

Do religious people have a monopoly on moral talk? Is religion the only root of moral reflection? Is there a place for a moral secular humanist position?
( Read more... )

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois says: "Democracy demands religious Americans translate their concerns into universal values rather than religion-specific values ... and that secularists make room for faith and morality."

Senator Obama is mistaken. Democracy demands only that those who have the most agreement behind them get their way. What demands that religious people speak in universal values and that secularists allow religion to be practiced freely is republic, which holds the rule of law and the rights of all above the caprices of the individual and the mob. Democracy can be the oft-cited 49 sheep and 51 wolves deciding to have lamb for dinner; no demand for the rights or sentiments of the minority is at all implied.


What about extremists?
( Read more... )

What about separation of Church and State?
( Read more... )

2008 Democratic Nat'l Convention Agenda

7:00P...Opening flag burning.

7:15P...Pledge of allegiance to U.N.

7:30P...Ted Kennedy proposes a preliminary toast…

7:30P-8:00P...Nonreligious prayer and worship led by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

8:00P....Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.

8:05P....Ceremonial tree hugging.

8:15P-8:30P...Gay wedding with Barney Frank presiding.

8:30P....Ted Kennedy proposes a toast, demonstrates beer bong.

8:35P...Free Saddam Rally organized by Cindy Sheehan and Susan Sarandon.

8:45P...Speech on "The Calibre of American Troops In Iraq" by Slapstick Comic Senator John Kerry.

9:00P...Keynote speech on "The Proper Etiquette for Surrender" by French President Jacques Chirac.

9:15P...Ted Kennedy proposes a toast, demonstrates “Body Shots” using Tequila, lime and salt.

9:20P...Collection to benefit Osama Bin Laden kidney transplant fund.

9:30P...Unveiling of plan to free freedom fighters from Guantanamo Bay by Sean Penn.

9:40P....A short talk by William Jefferson Clinton on "Why I Dislike the Military."

9:45P...Ted Kennedy proposes a toast. Leads delegates in the “Chicken Dance”

9:50P...Dan Rather given the "Truth in Broadcasting" award, presented by Michael Moore.

9:55P...Ted Kennedy proposes a toast, shows delegates how to make fart noises using armpits.

10:00P....Expose on "How George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld Brought Down the World Trade Center Towers" by Howard Dean.

10:30P...Nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Mahmud Ahmadinejad.

11:00P...Ted Kennedy proposes a toast, leads delegates in the Macarena.

11:05P...Al Gore explains how he really invented the internet.

11:15P...A short talk on "Our Troops are War Criminals" by Senator John Kerry.

11:30P...Coronation of Mrs. Rodham Clinton.

12:00A...Ted Kennedy proposes a toast, leads Conga line around the auditorium.

12:05A...Bill asks Ted to drive Hillary home.

I was having a conversation with someone a few weeks ago, and we were talking about stability and power. The discussion turned to rights.
I said that, as the Declaration of Independence indicates, rights come from God. The man to whom I was speaking said that rights come from the standards of the community. He said the separation between church and state should be absolute.
I pointed out that that isn't what the First Amendment guarantees. And I said that without the influence of religion, there would be no protection in the Constitution for the freedom of religion. He questioned that the idea of freedom of religion could come from any religion. He also said he didn't like the idea of one religion saying that all the others had a right to exist, but that everyone's rights came from the same god, or any god at all.
I couldn't explain then the reasons behind my statements, but I've since figured out why the protection of rights in the Constitution are of Protestant origin, with guaranteeing the freedom of religion at the foremost in that origin.

Rights do come from God. There's no way they can come from anyone else. If a principle is decided by consensus, it can't be an absolute, unalienable right. Such a principle is a privilege: We think everyone should be able to X. The reason a consensus cannot establish a right is that a human organization cannot possibly give freedoms. The very nature of freedom precludes its being granted from one human or group of humans to another. I can stand by a door and tell you I will not prevent your entry, but I have no power to keep someone else from preventing you.
The reason we in the united States of America have a guarantee in our Constitution for freedom to worship as we please, or to not worship, is that our nation was founded largely by Protestant Christians familiar with and descended from those familiar with the English monarchy. It is the experience with monarchy that made prominent in the minds of the framers the danger government poses to freedoms, particularly the freedom to worship freely. Many people came to this country to get out from under the thumbs of monarchs who were trying to force their religions on their people.
But when it comes right down to it, the idea of having a guarantee in the charter of a government for inalienable rights, especially freedom of religion, is an idea that has its roots in Christianity. Why? Because it's the only faith that doesn't consider humanity to be fundamentally good. All other faiths depend on man doing something to please the gods or to please only himself.
Judaism and Christianity recognize that man needs a savior because man is incapable of doing what is right. And because man cannot consistently do the right thing, because men will always tend to usurp power and take what is not theirs, government cannot be trusted, being an organization of men. It is this understanding, both from faith and from experience, that led our founding fathers to put safeguards into the Constitution that prevent government from taking away the people's rights.
So, the guarantee for freedom to worship whatever god you like or to refrain from worship comes from the understandings of the Christian faith.
If you don't like the idea of that, I'm sorry. In life, we must accept many things we don't like, because the world is what it is, and it doesn't change what it is to fit with what we think or want.

It's time for Americans to stand up and say to our candidates: Stop telling me what you promise to do for me and start talking about what you actually will do, not for my gratification but for the strength and stability of this nation as a whole, for the poor and oppressed around the world, and for setting an example of truth and justice for the rest of the world to follow. That's what Americans need to do, we selfish louts!