How the New resistance Can Win the Culture War

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

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

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.

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."

 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.

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

 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

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

 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

 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.

---

Copyright (c) 2009 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM)

---

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

 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.

 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.

Made for Marriage

 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.

Daddy's Broken Heart: Fathers of Abortion

 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

 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

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.