Secular Confusion

An interesting article from CNN:

"The argument that criminals could abuse the niqab is not compelling enough to deny the fundamental freedom of religious expression to a group of French citizens"

This is an excellent point (among many in the short opinion piece). How can the secular state claim to be all in favor of human rights, then forbid a right - all the while claiming it is to "protect people's rights".

As the author rightly says:

"And the irony and hypocrisy of claiming the ban protects women from oppression is glaring: Freedom must be 'protected' by denying women their freedom to choose how to dress."

The underlying problem is that secularism has no foundation, it is adrift in the sea of ideas. They want to assert some things are "right" (correct) and other things are "wrong". At the same time, they have no standard for right and wrong - so it must be "anything goes" (at least, anything the majority can agree on).

Of course, the majority is currently against a takeover by Islam. But anyone can run the numbers, and see that soon the majority will be a minority...

Jesse Jackson

An interesting post at Ignatius Insight:

"There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of higher order than the right to life. I do not share that view. I believe that life is not private, but rather it is public and universal."

That's Jesse Jackson in 1977. What happened to him?

Postmil

What I like most about Doug Wilson is that he takes his theology seriously. He wants to be totally consistent, and apply Biblical thinking to every aspect of life.

Of course, I disagree strongly with him in certain aspects of theology, most particularly postmillenialism.

There is a really good point here:

"I believe that Christian republics and commonwealths are formed by preaching, baptizing, and discipleship, and not by campaigning, legislating, pundit-blogging, and so on. This gospel work will have political results, but it is not politically established. "

Amen.

But let's go back to Wilson's question:

"Christians who argue for a secular public square are caught on the horns of a dilemma. Either Jesus wants this or He doesn't. Or maybe He doesn't care."

Let's look at John 18:36

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."

That's a pretty strong statement. Of course, this is before the resurrection and Pentecost.
Acts 1:6-7

"When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power."

Wilson is caught on the phrase "disciple the nations" (Matthew 28:19). Interesting, that phrase is not in the other Gospels (Mark 16:15 "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." Luke 24:47 "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.").

The word "nations" is ethnos, which refers to people - not constitutions or laws. Mark uses kosmos ("world").

Take America Back

As we approach the elections, the rhetoric is going be be cranked up pretty rapidly. A thought-provoking article from Doug Wilson:

"Once we have taken America back from those guys [liberals and progressives], what do we do with it?"

This is an excellent point (one Wilson makes fairly often). Conservatives understand that the country is moving in the wrong direction, too fast. But, when they are in power, what do they do? Move in the same (or a similar) direction a little more slowly.

I feel like quoting the whole thing, it is really worth reading:

"The assumption is that the underlying America is just fine the way it is unless some progressive has been messing with it. We need to 'save America,' the thinking goes, and so the language of salvation is used all the time. But in our heart of hearts, we are saving an innocent kidnapping victim, and not a skid row bum who became a drunk because of his own stupid choices."

"America gets to be saved without repentance"

"Any attempts to take America back without an explicit call for America to become (again) a Christian nation is an exercise in futility"

"our people as a whole -- must confess that Jesus is Lord"

Now the interesting thing here is that I both agree and disagree with Wilson on these very points.

We must proclaim to all Americans that they must confess Jesus is Lord.

But, Wilson expects that such a proclamation will actually make America a Christian nation (post-millenialism). From my point of view, such a thing will never happen. We must proclaim it, so that our nation's sin will be revealed - the refusal to obey.

Could God surprise us with another great revival? Possibly. But I don't believe America was ever a truly Christian nation (Christian derived or inspired, certainly).

Kagan Again

An interesting report from Ignatius Insight.

"Rep. Louise Slaughter, a New York Democrat and co-chair of the House Pro-Choice Caucus, on Tuesday warned that the next Supreme Court justice must be "unwavering" in support of abortion rights."

I like the irony in her name...

There are two aspects to this. One, if Democrats are sending letters to encourage other Democrats, perhaps there is some doubt. Two, is there really any doubt where these people stand?

Kagan

President Obama faces a moment of judgment. He probably doesn't realize it. Up until this point, he has been innocent of the evil of abortion taking place in this nation.

As President there is nothing he can do about it (not that he seems particularly interested in doing anything).

But, when he appoints a Supreme Court justice, now he is liable. If that judge votes in favor of abortion the next time it comes up (and it is always being pressed to test the mood of the Court), then Obama takes on some of the guilt. He knows (or at least, should know) where his candidate stands. If it is not a priority, then that is judgment too.

It is important to know that judgment rarely comes about in a timely fashion. God is working things out in His time, and His greatest priority is not our time lines. Everything is worked out in eternity future.


I haven't seen any documentation of Kagan's stand on abortion. As an academic and litigator, it has little opportunity to show. This CNN article (and other places) describes her as "trailblazing", which is not really encouraging.

Healthcare and Abortion

Albert Mohler has uncovered some shocking statements by our politicians:

“If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says.

I'd like to know who said that.

Government as Savior

I don't agree with Doug Wilson on everything theologically, but I do really enjoy his writing style. Also, he often has very good insights into modern behavior.

"Every real problem identified in the movie -- for there were some substantial ones, along with the pretend ones -- was a problem created by overweening government interference in the market. And a number of times, this government interference was created by the hue and cry of reformers from a previous generation, who were demanding that those in authority 'do something'. And is this not the very definition of the modern reformer -- someone who identifies a problem and wants 'something done' -- whether or not it makes things better or worse?"

Here, Wilson is talking about food (this movie was talking about the evils of non-organic food). But I see the same thing in healthcare.

I heard a really interesting piece on NPR. They were talking about the original government intrusion into healthcare - Medicare in the 60's.

The government had a problem. Doctors were worried about having to provide care at a fixed price set by the government. The government was worried that not all doctors would accept Medicare patients (leading to confusion and possibly a "have/have not", where the poor would not have access to all doctors).

The solution? Allow doctors to charge whatever they like to Medicare.

Of course, doctors accepted this. Of course, Congress realized pretty quickly this solution was not sustainable.

The real irony (mentioned in the piece) was that prior to Medicare doctors had provided care to the elderly poor for free. Now, they could charge for these services. And - "anything you subsidize, you get more of".

This part is not as well researched, but go with the flow...

1. Congress steps in to provide healthcare (for the elderly)
2. Doctors charge whatever they like
3. Costs are out of control
   
4. Congress responds by trying to set prices (based on the market)
5. Doctors respond with more tests (they are paid per test)
6. Congress creates regulations regarding what tests can be made
7. Doctors raise prices for everyone (prices are based on the market, which is what everyone else is paying)
8. Insurance companies barter for reduced ("bargain club") rates, so everyone doesn't see the full price (or at least, those with insurance don't)
9. Bureaucracies are set up to enforce regulations (wasted manpower, salaries in the system)
10. Doctors hire lawyers and clerks to ensure they are complying (more waste)
11. Waste results in costs going up
12. Insurance companies raise prices to cover their overhead (bargaining, paying) - more waste, more costs going up
13. "Healthcare crisis" declared - government called in to help (see #1)
    

I predict more bureaucracy, more private sector clerks, more insurance company employees - more waste. And less healthcare.

Obama, Islam, and Tolerance

I can't help but laugh at modern (or post-modern) man.

Christians are intolerant because they:

1. Proclaim what they believe to be true (the Gospel), and ask other people to consider the repercussions of it (repent and be saved)
2. Proclaim that Jesus is the only way to be saved

But Muslims can invade a territory, set up sharia law, have a special tax just for infidels, deny common freedoms (like proclaiming the truth as you see it, in #1 above) - and they are considered tolerant, because they didn't put the people to the sword (which would be the normal behavior).

Excellent summary at Insight Scoop.

America and Islam

Albert Mohler, as ever, has some insightful analysis of President Obama's speech to Muslims.

But, I am most interested in the theology, particularly post-millenialism and what it means to be a "Christian nation".

Can any nation be "Christian"?

A person is a Christian, when he admits he is a sinner (deserving of God's wrath), turns from a life of sin, and trusts in Jesus to have paid the price for sin. At that point, he is an adopted child of God.

Can a nation repent and trust? Does God adopt a constitution or set of human laws?

Is a nation whose majority population is Christian, then Christian? Was Rome, or any Roman city, before Constantine?

Does a Christian nation need to "turn the other cheek" when attacked, to "do good to those who oppress you", to "give without expectation of repayment"?

How would any such nation survive aggression?

I don't believe a nation can be Christian (Christian-based, yes). But nations can be Muslim, as Mohler says...

Judgment on America

I've been looking for the results from the most recent election (apart from the presidential results).

I know about Prop 8 (in California), and all I can say is: meh.

I heard that life issues took a beating, but had no data.

Until now.

Mohler says "all three state ballot questions related to abortion were shot down".

This is a sad statement about priorities in America, even (perhaps especially) within the Church. That economic worries could lead to the election of a man with a 100% rating from NARAL, and that a rousing stand could be made about a minor issue like gay marriage, while pro-life issues fail across the board - and, our reaction is anything but sitting in ashes and weeping...

Vision

I looked up, Behold! A mountain of skulls. Each skull was small, just one inch cube (about 2 cm).

The pile increased by eight hundred thousand per year, for one generation (twenty years).

The pile was a pyramid, square at the base - the length, width and height were equal.

800,000 x 20 x 2^3 = 1/3 b^3 = 726.85 cm

The pyramid was almost sixteen cubits along each side (almost twenty-four feet), and the same high.

Colin Powell

By now, everyone should of seen that Powell has come out for Obama.

I thought it interesting that he brought out several points:

1. The economy
2. The Supreme Court
3. Palin's experience
4. William Ayers
5. McCain's bad campaign
   

I think the first point is telling. That people could allow a downturn in the economy to change a close race to a clear margin for Obama says a lot about our priorities as a nation (me first, no matter what the sacrifice).

I was surprised to hear him mention the second point. More conservative justices is the only way to overturn Roe right now (Democratic Congress, if you want the single issue voters, address our issue! Pass the Right to Life act or an ammendment!)

I was also surprised to hear the Democratic talking point on Palin's experience. Palin has more executive experience than Obama! Is Alaska no America? Well, was Arkansas? No one said Bill Clinton didn't have experience.

He also mentioned Ayers. He held the party line on this. If Obama wanted to defuse this, he could say something. The fact that he ignores it is more damning, to me. Of course, for McCain to focus on it is silly. The people considering Obama don't care if he is a terrorist. He is promising what they want, they don't care who gets killed.

The last point goes without saying. McCain is not getting a lot of traction, and making mistakes. Of course, you don't have to vote for him. Just make sure Obama loses. I will vote Constitution party, because my state is blue. If your state is close, vote McCain, else go Green or Barr, or whatever. Otherwise, the blood of 800,000 babies per year is on your hands. Figure 20 years (one generation) for a reset of the court. Thats 16 million, or about 1.6 Hitlers.

There, I've said it.

Gay Marriage

It actually bugs me when people connect gay marriage and abortion as "Christian issues". Al Mohler does an excellent job of keeping them separate, but he has taken to a whole series of posts on it...

Abortion is an issue of our right to life. The Constitution, as currently interpreted, has no provision for a right to life. This should be disturbing to anyone who might find themselves "unwanted" by those in power (where are the tinfoil hats?).

Gay marriage is actually a silly idea. As Pastor Wilson points out, defining marriage as between any two people just makes bisexuals feel left out. I'm not sure if Wilson realizes that polygamy and "group marriage" are probably right on the heels of these decisions...

Far more damage has been done to traditional marriage by "no fault" divorce, and Hollywood relationships.

Furthermore, there is no logical reason that our government should care who is married to whom. Christians can be married, and define marriage Biblically, regardless of what society is doing. Society is sinful and worldly, we should expect them to do these sorts of things.

Obama on Life

I didn't watch the Rick Warren "debate" (double interview), but I have seen select parts, and I found the transcript. For me, the most telling exchange for Obama was:

Warren: [A]t what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?

Obama: Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

First thing, I think McCain looked better at this event (which most everyone agrees) because he was willing to just state what he believes. On nearly every question, Obama looks like he is squirming. He uses a lot of weasel words, and looks like he is dodging.

Second, Obama is a Senator, the highest level of lawmaker in the country. He is applying for President, the highest level of the executive. He would likely be responsible for appointing several Supreme Court justices, the very ones who will decide this issue.

There is no higher "pay grade" to defer to! (I don't think Obama actually logically thought this out, again, just weasel words).

Third, scientifically, we cannot answer a question of rights. Science can tell us when life begins, and that is at conception. Logic can tell us the meaning of our decisions. That is, under the current interpretation, our rights are not inherent in who we are. The are gifted to us, by the state, upon our "good works" to please the state (in the current case, being born).

That is a dangerous position, and one contrary to the Declaration of Independence (which states our rights come from "the Creator").

Fourth, the Biblical (theological) perspective is that our rights come from our being created in the image of God, from conception. Nowhere to hide there.

Obama then goes on to spout the myth of "legal but rare". I addressed this over a year ago. If abortion is a moral evil, it should be illegal. If it is morally acceptable, then we shouldn't care how frequent it is.

The Party of Death?

Tomorrow (Jan 22) is the Annual March for Life. It is also the 30th anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision which has lead to the death of more than fifty million American children. This can be a contentious issue, with lots of name calling and exaggeration for points.

There is even a book called "The Party of Death", accusing Democrats of being "pro-death".

Is there any truth to this? Can some numbers shed light on this?

Whenever I see polls on abortion, the break down is roughly 50/50. I've also seen that Republicans are better than 60/40 on the side of life. About 40% of people identify as Republican or Democrat, with 20% claiming "independent" (although independent candidates usually get less than 10% of the vote, so "wishy-washy" is a more accurate term :)


Ok, so in the general population:
40% * 60% = 24% pro-life Republicans
40% * 40% = 16% pro-death Republicans
50% - 24% = 26% pro-life Others
100%-24%-16%-26% = 34% pro-death Others


This is telling! In the pro-life camp, people are well balanced between Republican and Other. That is, there is little correlation between being pro-life and being Republican. At the same time, in the Others group, people are more than two times(! 34% vs 16%) more likely to be pro-death than pro-life.

Can we break-out Democrats from Independents? I found one poll that pro-life Democrats are 35% and Independents are 44%.

So in the general population:
40% * 35% = 14% pro-life Democrats
20% * 44% = 8.8% pro-life Independents
40% * 65% = 26% pro-death Democrats
20% * 56% = 11.2% pro-death Independent

The pro-life number (14+8.8=22.8) is a little short of the expected 26%, probably due to actually less than 50% of people are pro-life, and me mixing data from polls with guesstimates...

So, this clears the Independents. About 50% are pro-death. It is the Democrats who hold the 2-to-1 ratio (26 to 14) for pro-death to pro-life.


So, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that all the Democrat candidates for president are pro-death. That's what the people want.

We're Immoral Criminals, and Proud of It!

I caught this headline, and was worried that recent advances in creating stem cells from from skin worked differently than I thought. However, it is "just" an announcement of human cloning (using skin cells). I don't know what to say. The head (Samuel Wood) of the company responsible says it best:

"It's unethical and it's illegal, and we hope no one else does it either."

Um, ok.

I recommend anyone in favor of human cloning for organ transplant (or, tangentially, freezing yourself in hopes of future medical cures) read Larry Niven's "Flatlander" line of stories. I'm not saying that's what we'll come to, but it does give you something to worry about.

Global Warmingism

Or maybe "Global Climate Changeology" (rhymes with scientology).

I was watching the poster apocalyptic movie for Global Warming recently (not the Al Gore movie, the "Three Weeks before a Month from Now, Minus Five Days" one). I couldn't help but think of Al Gore's Nobel peace prize, and all the clamor over "carbon credits".

I suddenly realized, that the environmental movement of the 60's and 70's was more like modern evangelicalism. You know "sex, drugs, and rock n' roll", freedom, individuality (me-centered) and all that.

But what is modern environmentalism?

It's a lot closer to medieval Catholicism.

You see, the coming global disaster is Purgatory. And carbon credits are indulgences. And Al Gore is the pope of Global Warmingism.


Don't believe me?

Here is a quote from a speech by Tetzel, the villain of Papal Indulgences:

"Don't you hear the voices of your wailing dead parents and others who say, 'Have mercy upon me, have mercy upon me, because we are in severe punishment and pain. From this you could redeem us with a small alms and yet you do not want to do so.' Open your ears as the father says to the son and the mother to the daughter . . ., 'We have created you, fed you, cared for you, and left you our temporal goods. Why then are you so cruel and harsh that you do not want to save us, though it only takes a little? You let us lie in flames so that we only slowly come to the promised glory.'"

Just sed out "dead parents" for "children to come". And "punishment" for rising sea levels, killer hurricanes, drought, flood, famine, etc.

This is an even better marketing scheme! You can remember your parents, and they might not of been likable. But who doesn't want to "think of the children"?

Mitt Romney's Speech

So Mitt Romney has given his speech on his religion. There has been a fair amount of commentary about the content. And even some criticism that such a speech should be necessary.

Are people small-minded and bigoted for thinking twice about supporting a Mormon for president?

Well, I'm certain some small-minded and bigoted people are against Romney. But that is not the same thing...

It's not about Mormon theology. I think a lot of people would be more comfortable if Romney would just come out and say that he believes Mormon theology (and everything it implies) or that he is a "cultural" Mormon. He says "I believe in my Mormon faith", but other things he says are not consistent with that...

It's statements like, "My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths" that makes people worry.

Mormons do not have different beliefs about Christ. They have a different God the Father (and therefore, Christ) altogether. They believe that orthodox (small 'o') Christians are false, and they are the only true Church. They believe that we can be like God, and that God the Father was like us once.

It's these odd statements that try and ignore fundamental, logical differences that makes people uncomfortable.

Update: Mike Huckabee felt he needed to apologize to Romney for saying, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?" That is a true statement. Of course, Mormons don't like to say it that way. They say, "all beings were created by God and are his spirit children." If we're all the children of God (including Jesus and Satan), then we are all brothers - including Jesus and Satan. You can wrap it with terms like "Christ, however, was the only begotten in the flesh" (which is Mormon-speak for God the Father having sexual relations with Mary...) but there it is...

Embyonic Stem Cells

Recently scientists found a way of using adult stem cells for research normally using embryonic stem cells. I mentioned how the scientists destroying human embryos are unfazed by this development ("we are not going to slow down to do that, not at this point").

Rallying cries have started to come out in favor of the destruction of human embryos.

What are the stunning, logical arguments made?

"It's important to remember, though, that we're at square one, uncertain at this early stage whether souped-up skin cells hold the same promise as their embryonic cousins do."

Remind me, again, where we are in the application of embryonic to treating human diseases? Oh yea, there are no treatments of any kind, at any stage. Some scientists have managed to form some heart cells which resemble adult heart cells. Others have used human cells to repair damaged mice skulls.

What noble causes! How our lives are being improved and science advanced!

What other arguments can be made?

"At a time when nearly 60 percent of Americans support human embryonic stem cell research, U.S. stem cell policy runs counter to both scientific and public opinion."

Well! Popular opinion must surely make it right! Well said!

Surely you can say something logical about such a vital line of research!

"Discomfort with the notion of extracting stem cells from embryos is understandable. But many of the life-changing medical advances of recent history, including heart transplantation, have provoked discomfort. Struggling with bioethical questions remains a critical step in any scientific advancement."

Discomfort? I am not uncomfortable. I am outraged that people believe murdering other people for their own good is acceptable. I am outraged that people would accept the murder of the smallest, least able to defend themselves, least spoken for members of our species.

That people would harden their hearts, and deny science and logic, not even for a real cure - for a "promise" of a cure.