Educational administrators claim that, in this era of limited budgetary resources, it costs too much to make the technological enhancements necessary to ensure a similar wow factor among the students of today accustomed to the visual wonders capable with advanced electronics. While that may be true to an extent, there is also an orientation of pedagogical methodology here that will impact generations of school children to come and possibly play a role in determining what kind of country America will become.

Constance Skelton, Science Supervisor for Arlington, Virginia schools mused according to the Washington Post, “…that while the space race provided a captivating, teachable moment for yesterday’s budding scientist, newer issues such as climate change are likely to inspire tomorrows.”

So in other words, instead of encouraging young minds to marvel at the wonders of the universe, expanding the frontiers of knowledge, and increasing prosperity, students are to be conditioned into embracing the limitations decided upon for them by elites and shamed for enjoying a standard of technology beyond that utilized by the hominid apemen from the opening scenes of “2001: A Space Odyssey”. This is what it means to emphasize the Ecology Age over the Space Age.

It is not reading too much into things to make such a point. It is the systematic goal of progressivist liberalism at all levels of government and culture to curtail American power and influence even if the other world powers have no intentions of abiding by such diminished expectations.

For example, the Obama administration announced in 2010 the cancellation of the Constellation program, essentially scrapping plans to return to the Moon that would have eventually established a permanent lunar base. Neither is there even much of a plan to replace America’s decommissioned space shuttle fleet.

Instead, the NASA of the 21st century will rely primarily on the Russian space service to ferry personnel and supplies back and forth to the International Space Station. No wonder that orbital port’s intended name of “Freedom” was dropped before the project even got off the ground.

Just because Obama is giddy about U.S. power and influence receding into the sunset, that doesn’t mean other nations are going to be as contented about curtailing their scope. Both China and India have aspirations about visiting the Earth’s only natural satellite.

Big deal, those with terrestrially bound imaginations might respond. Isn’t going to the Moon not much more than a photo op where astronauts do little more than plant the flag and knock a few golf balls around in microgravity?

The Moon represents much more to the planetary power willing to plant its flag there than a symbolic effort and gesture. It will be from the Moon that mankind will set sail out into the cosmos and the Moon could very well be a vital staging area for any planetary empire seeking to control or exert influence over the Earth itself.

Does anyone believe that the world will be better off with outer space under the control of the Red Chinese and Russia or rather the United States?

Whether or not school districts really have the financial resources to continue their planetarium programs is not the primary issue. What should concern every American is that such a reason would be invoked to justify dismantling imagination and thus the opportunities of future generations.

By Frederick Meekins

This is not some radical departure from the norm. After all, Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot, two individuals responsible for laying the framework of America’s federal resource preservation programs, were Republicans.

While acknowledging that there are others in the country having different religions, American and Western civilization must reembrace its Judeo-Christian foundations in order to save the environment. Many environmentalists criticize Christianity for providing a philosophical justification for the degradation of the Earth. However, what these critics have failed to realize is that this is only one interpretation of this faith in regards to the environment.

Even though man is given the instruction to subdue the Earth, no where in Christian Scripture is he given permission to wantonly destroy what he has not created. In fact, it could be argued that the opposite is true. According to theologian Tony Campolo in “How To Rescue The Earth Without Worshipping Nature, it is in fact contradictory to man’s Biblical role of stewardship over the Earth to callously destroy nature (194).

Furthermore, it could be reasoned that, since God created the universe, only He has the right to destroy it forever. Therefore, man’s attempts to do so could be deemed a form of idolatry violating the First and Second Commandments.

By getting back to their religious, political and economic roots, Americans would also be helping the environment as well. In essence, modern conservatism can be good for the environment.

Often, environmental ideologues and activists promote the message that we must be saved from ourselves and that it must be accomplished through a totalitarian revolution on par with the one undertaken by the Bolsheviks. This is not the case.

The key to ecological preservation and to an extent restoration lies not in collectivism but in the very cornerstone of liberty. That is none other than private property.

No doubt to the dismay of many socialists masquerading as guardians of the biosphere, there can exist a body of thought derived from Christian and conservative conceptions of property ownership concerned with the notion of environmental preservation. Several of these works were reviewed in the 9/11/95 edition of the Washington Times Weekly Edition by Jonathan Adler, at the time director of Environmental Studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

One book reviewed, “Property Rights In The Defense Of Nature” by Elizabeth Brubaker argues that property ownership is the best form of environmental protection. When individuals own something, for instance land as property, they are more apt to care for it because their futures and prosperity are intertwined with it.

In a sense, this notion is related to Garret Hardin’s tragedy of the commons. The commons did not ultimately suffer because of insufficient bureaucratic regulation. The commons were ravaged because the people saw them as a public resource and were not psychologically invested in the preservation of this resource in the same way if these plots were privately held.

Likewise, big government is not necessarily the savior of the environment it is often made out to be. If anything, the evidence points towards the opposite conclusion.

The largest, most pervasive governments in human history behind the Iron Curtain were guilty of the most atrocious environmental tragedies. The receding Ural Sea and the Chernobyl nuclear reactor both were within the borders of the Soviet Union, the very epitome of a planned economy.

Often in trendy environmental circles one hears that “small is beautiful”. The very same individuals mouthing this platitude then turn around and advocate for large global bureaucracies.

Historian Anna Branwell notes in “Ecology In The Twentieth Century” that it is contradictory to advocate grassroots participatory democracy as an environmental cure while at the same time laying the groundwork for a coercive globalist agenda which utterly ignores the expressed will of the people. Centralized government planning fails for the same reason that the commons ended up as such a tragedy.

A hierarchical bureaucracy takes away freedom of the individual, causing him to have no stake in the outcome. Thus, bureaucracy has the tendency to thwart many of the laudable goals it was allegedly intended to achieve.

Despite this discrepancy between the small-is-beautiful crowd and their affinity towards heavy-handed government solutions, society would do well to remember this axiom of social organization.

Surprisingly, there is a consensus developing between a number of grassroots activists on both the left and the right that Washington is often ill prepared to handle local environmental problems. Too many environmental bureaucrats, institutions, and special interest groups have intertwined themselves with the entrenched political establishment. Certain varieties of both liberals and conservatives have lamented the tragedy wrought by government subsidies such as the case of the Forest Service selling the nation’s timber resources below their assessed market value.

The tone of this analysis should not be taken as that of a libertarian manifesto. As a fallen and sinful creature, man will always need some level of governmental regulation.

However, at the same time, it needs to be realized that government must have checks placed upon it because it is ultimately staffed by those having the same sin nature these agencies were instituted to guard against. Rather than harassing an innocent individual for removing a tree from his wetland property, governments should instead concentrate their efforts on rogue corporations harboring loyalties to no nation or overriding moral principles. Profit, in and of itself, is not evil; however the way it can be earned is.

The preservation of the environment does not require a radical transformation of human values and society. Rather, the effort requires Americans to reembrace those core values at the heart of their unique national identity — thrift, nobility, and individual responsibility. Over the years, a number of Americans have lost touch with these values in part as a result of interferences on the part of a government thinking it knows best.

However, through the curtailment of government subsidies and through the punishment of known polluters, the beneficent invisible hand described by Scottish economist Adam Smith will guide the nation in the selection of policies felicitous to freedom, flora, and fauna. Dominion over nature does not always translate into its conquest or destruction, but rather the oversight of these treasures and resources in the name of their omnipotent Creator.

by Frederick Meekins

In the hopes of gaining just a bit of perspective into such an overwhelming universal mystery, it is probably best to start out by formulating the problem in a summarized written form.  Norman Geisler in “Introduction To Philosophy: A Christian Perspective” states the problem in the following manner: “(1) If God is all-powerful, He could destroy evil.  (2) If God is all-good, He would destroy evil. (3) But evil exists. (4) Therefore, there is no such God (Geisler, 274).”  To establish a credible defense to these charges, the Christian must show that evil does not necessarily upset the divinely appointed applecart and is allowed to exist because of the purpose it serves in subordination to higher, more important realities even if these do not always make sense to finite human sensibilities.

At the heart of this debate is a discussion as to both the nature of God and the nature of evil.  As to the ethical nature of God, Matthew 5:48 instructs the reader, “Be ye therefore  perfect, even as your father which is in heaven is perfect.”  However, that goodness is not like unto that of a saintly grandmother, though kind and loving in all of her intentions, who is helpless to prevent the world from deteriorating all around her.

In the spirit of the Rooseveltian axiom of speaking softly and carrying a big stick, God has the power necessary to carry through implementing how He thinks things ought to be.  Colossians 1:17 says, “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”  This is further elaborated and extended in Acts 17:28 which reads, “For in him we live, and move, and have our being…”

Pretty much nothing happens without God knowing about it and at least allowing it to happen by not intervening to prevent it even if He himself does not endorse the action, behavior, or event in question.   Evil, by its very nature on the other hand, is a thought or deed violating God’s nature of absolute goodness as expressed in the form of His natural and special revelation to those who inhabit the universe He created.

Yet, if God really does have the whole world in His hands as the old spiritual suggests, there needs to be a bit of explanation on the part of the apologist or theologian.  For if God really is in sovereign control, one must show how this fits together with passages such as I John 1:5 which says, “This then is the message we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.”

The first step in eliminating the apparent contradiction arising between the existence of both God and evil is to show how evil might serve some purpose or be allowed to exist as the unfortunate byproduct of some more comprehensive good.  Perhaps the best response Christian thinkers have provided thus far over the centuries is probably the so-called “Free Will Defense”.

The underlying assumption of the Free Will Defense posits that the fault and consequences for evil in the world lies solely on the shoulders of those who commit moral transgressions and exhibit ethical shortcomings rather than upon a God imposing them upon the world from the outside.  Scripture bears much of this idea out in passages such as Romans 5:12 which reads, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned…”   Thus, it is pretty much our own fault as a species as a whole for the misery rampaging across the face of the earth and in individual lives.

While such a theory might help account for things such as crime, war, and even sickness since none of us have escaped the stain of sin, by itself it does not provide enough explanation to account for the tragedy arising from natural disasters (often referred to as so-called “acts of God”) or why God does not normally intervene to prevent ne’er-do-wells from inflicting pain and suffering upon their victims innocent in terms of instigating these particular acts of malice.  Both of these quandaries find their answer in what Ronald Nash calls the “Natural Law Theodicy” or what John Frame refers to as the “Stable Environment Defense”.

Frame notes in “Apologetics To The Glory Of God”  that a stable environment is fundamental to human existence (164).  Ronald Nash writes in “Faith & Reason: Searching For A Rational Faith”, “Free rational action requires a world of natural objects governed by natural laws (200).”

C.S. Lewis adds to this perspective in “The Problem Of Pain” , “But if matter is to serve as a neutral field it must have a fixed nature of its own … if you were introduced into a world which thus varied at my every whim, you would be quite unable to act in it and would lose the exercise of your free will (19).”  Lewis continues in the following paragraph, “Again, if matter has a fixed nature and obeys constant laws, not all states of matter will be equally agreeable to a given soul, nor beneficial for that matter which he calls his body (20).”

Thus in essence, the same system of reasonably stable natural laws that allows man to survive and even thrive in an otherwise hostile universe can also end up allowing the very same components of nature that man requires for his very existence to be turned on him and to inflict harm upon him.  Lewis points out how fire can either warm the flesh or burn it.

This is wrought with consequences as to why both nature and man seem capable of raining down misery with impunity.  As to the issue of natural disasters, Romans 8:20-22 explains, “For the creation was subjected to frustration not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it… We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time (NIV).”  Thus, the very physical setting of creation is under the curse not unlike that imposed upon humanity for the fall of the species into sin.

Though the providence of God no doubt often spares certain individuals from befalling the ferocity of a world out of control, the system of physical laws through which the natural world is governed is usually left in place for the overall benefit of finite kind.  For we would be unable to adjust in our current condition to a constantly changing and fluctuating cosmos.  This principle readily applies to those bent on using physical matter to inflict their own corrupt wills upon secondary by-standing parties.

For example, one can use a baseball bat to enjoy an afternoon of leisurely recreation or to work someone over during an armed robbery.   While we would all like God to intervene to prevent physical matter and natural forces from wreaking havoc upon us, in all likelihood doing so would inflict even greater harm upon the human species and the world in their current condition than simply allowing these contingent entities to continue on until the so-called end of history and the beginning of eternity.

Much of this theodicy is focused upon the preeminence of freedom in the relationships established under the terms of the divine economy.  But some might argue that it is at this point of imbuing the actors in the universal drama with their own sense of freedom that God erred in His drafting of the cosmic screenplay.  However, it is because of His absolute goodness that God has seen fit to grant some degree of say-so to those He loves the most.

It is because of the overwhelming sense of importance placed upon love that freedom must take precedence over order and control though freedom and love take place within the boundaries established by this order and control.  For as any lovesick high school student turned down for the prom eventually realizes, love must be given freely or it is not true love.

The Scripture says in Joshua 24:15, “….choose you this day whom ye will serve.”  The text does not say that the decision will be thrust upon you.  The Lord will hear enough whining on the Day of Judgment.  He does not need to make His task more difficult by assigning the responsibility for our eternal fates and destinies to any party other than ourselves.

For centuries, skeptics used the problem of evil to chip away at the foundations of theism.  However, the fact that the objection can be raised at all points towards the affirmative in its conclusion to the God question.

Human beings recoil in horror as they do to the pain and unfairness of the world since it is such a shocking affront to the way things were originally intended to be.  Atheism uses this reaction deep within the soul to make its case for a totally naturalistic universe.   But if evil, pain, and suffering are simply a part of the natural order, on what grounds are we justified in railing against it, and for that matter, how are we even capable of determining something has gone awry in the first place?

If evil is nothing more than part of the backdrop against which life plays itself out, man should barely notice it.  For example, most normal people do not lie awake at night wondering why there is oxygen in the world or work themselves up into having an anxiety attack despairing as to why they will have to eat breakfast in the morning.  The ability to complain about and speak out against evil points to the reality of some transcendent standard existing above the fray by which to justify this innate tendency towards making judgments.

One might counter that these standards simply exist within the individual as personal conscience.  Yet both the daily news and the pages of history are replete with examples of how competing interpretations of these principles differ considerably and the conflicts that often arise without appeal to a yet higher arbitrating authority.

Thus, some external standard must exist in order to tell the difference between right and wrong.  The only sufficient basis for this criteria is found in God.  Alister McGrath provides the following proof in “Intellectuals Don’t Need God & Other Modern Myths“:  “(A). Unless there is a God, there cannot be objectively binding moral obligations. (B). Objectively binding moral obligations exist. (C). Therefore, there is a God (40).”

At this point, the Christian thinker ought to take the problem of evil, invert it, and turn it against the critics of faith.  John MacArthur writes in “Terrorism, Jihad & The Bible”, his response to the September 2001 terrorist attack upon the United States, “The question we ought to ask is not why disasters happen sometimes.  What we ought to ask is why don’t disasters happen all of the time (65).”

The problem really is not so much the problem of evil but rather the problem of pleasure.  For human beings have done such a superb job messing up the world, that if God did not exist, how does any pleasure exist at all?  And if God does exist, why does He continue to bless mankind despite the rebellion, animus, and contempt characteristically displayed on the part of the species to its benevolent Creator?

James 1:7 says, “Every good and perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.”  No matter how wretched life can get, somewhere along the way most people can recall at least a single moment of fleeting kindness in their lives and usually more.

Even if the Christian takes the time to carefully delineate the case that God is not responsible for the existence of evil in the world and how the existence of phenomena morally classified as such does not contradict His nature of absolute holiness, this is often still not enough to satisfy some of the more rigorous skeptics.  These voices will counter that, even though the above theistic assertion might be true, God is still the bad guy in this story.  In their eyes, He has not done enough to use His immense power to rectify the situation.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.  God has been far from passive in solving this problem He did not create.

Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman write in “An Unchanging Faith In A Changing World: Understanding & Responding To Critical Issues Christians Face Today“, “God has embraced this in the most intimate way possible through the abusive treatment His Son received when he was tortured and crucified (81).”  These apologists continue, “Thus, the real problem of evil — …whether anything can be done to overcome it and bring good out of it — has been answered (81).”  In essence, the problem has already been solved.  The thing is that we are so mired in the flow of time that we are not yet able to fully enjoy the effects of this resolution.

God did not run away from the problem, but instead tackled its resolution head on in the most enthusiastic manner imaginable by allowing pain and evil to be visited upon Himself and in the person of His Son Jesus Christ.  Nor did God gloss over the reality of evil in the attempt to buttress His position by spinning the matter in His favor by downplaying our pain.

God comes at the issue in such a straightforward manner that His blunt forthrightness would make plain-spoken newsman Bill O’Reilly blush.  Job 14:1 declares, “Man born of woman is of few days and full of trouble.”

God could very well quote the following from that old country song when we grow weary of the troubles inherent to life in this world: “I beg your pardon.  I never promised you a rose garden.”  He does, however, promise to do away with them in the next world where He will wipe away every tear according to Revelation 21:4.  If God really was little more than a fairy tale, would the authors of Scripture include those texts that do little to sooth the troubled soul about the bleakness this side of  Heaven and instead force the individual to confront some rather starting realities?

The problem of evil has plagued the mind of man at least since the day the first parents were expelled from the Garden of Eden for disobedience.  However, the problem is not so much that God is a messed-up illogical being but rather that man is so limited in his capacity for reason that he is unable to ascend to the level of understanding necessary to comprehend the operational totality of the universe at the level of cosmic completeness.

God let’s a whining Job have it in Job 38:3-4 and beyond when the Lord inquires, “Gird up now thy loins like a man [translated as "brace yourself' in the NIV]; for I will demand of then an answer thou me.  Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?  Declare if you hast understanding.”

And while man can theodicize until he is blue in the face, such answers provide only a modicum of comfort when one befalls ill health, when a family member passes away, or when religious fanatics fly airplanes into skyscrapers.  During such trials, the best one can hope for are the reassurances found in Romans 8:28: “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to his purposes.”

Bibliography:

Boa, Kenneth and Bowman Robert. “An Unchanging Faith in a Changing World: Understanding and Responding to Critical Issues That Face Christians Today.” Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997.

Frame, John. “Apologetics To The Glory Of God: An Introduction.”  Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishers, 1994.

Geisler, Norman & Feinberg, Paul. “Introduction To Philosophy: An Introduction.” Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1980.

Lewis, C.S. “The Problem Of Pain.” New York, New York: MacMillian Publishing, Eighteenth Printing, 1973.

MacArthur, John. “Terrorism, Jihad & The Bible: A Response To The Terrorist Attacks.: Nashville: W Publishing Group, 2001.

McGrath, Allister. “Intellectuals Don’t Need God & Other Modern Myths: Building Bridges To Faith Through Apologetics.”  Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

by Frederick Meekins

The President’s assertion is, in fact, what’s to the contrary.

These invasions of privacy could very well be the next link forged in the shackles of tyranny, but they may have more than likely been typical operating procedure for decades that may just now be coming to light.

It was for this very purpose of silencing the critics of government that Sen. Lyndon Johnson inserted into the tax code those provisions forbidding tax exempt organizations such as churches and civic associations from directly involving themselves in the specifics and technicalities of electoral politics.

These laws were not motivated by some lofty philosophical concern about safeguarding the doctrinal integrity of our nation’s most esteemed institutions in the realms of religion and eleemosynary.

Rather these statutory regulations were promulgated so that crooked politicians such as Lyndon Johnson wouldn’t have to be bothered by the likes of the John Birch Society.

Since the John Birch Society is essentially one of the streams from which the Tea Party movement flows, it is only natural that bureaucrats as the functionaries of the political elites would utilize the tax code in the attempt to strangle non-establishmentarian conservatism.

The IRS compelled the victimized within the Tea Party movement to not only turn over copies of their Facebook pages and blog posts but also copies of articles written about those audited along with an assortment of highly technical financial details.

Perhaps these activists should have also handed over soiled sheets of toilet paper and used condoms in the name of providing investigators the most comprehensive picture possible.

by Frederick Meekins

The thing of it is, though, these lessons have very little to do with how providing a desired product along with attentive costumer service if the way to advance economically.  Rather, an increasing number of young people are learning from these undertakings that the America that they will likely live the majority of their lives in (if the country does not collapse entirely) will increasingly become a nation where such blatant displays of individuality and personal achievement will be met with hostility and resistance bordering on what cannot be described as anything other than violence.

In most of these instances, the narrative unfolds something like this.

The children are informed that they cannot operate their lemonade stand because they have not obtained the proper permit from the authorities in question.

Those reading these paragraphs sequentially might be inclined to remark that the situation described above hardly classifies as a threat of violence.

Perhaps it is not directly.  But what about the instance that occurred outside the U.S. Open in the neighborhood of the Congressional Country Club in the Washington, Metropolitan Area where one outlaw beverage dispenser was slapped with a $500 fine?

With the following observation, renowned economist Walter Williams would likely concur.  Whenever a government imposes a fine, what the authorities are actually doing is issuing a threat against the alleged violators of some regulation concocted by any number of state agencies.

If you don’t think violence or perhaps rather force (for those that somehow think verbal precision is going to somehow magically protect you from being hauled off to some detention camp or deflect bullets like Superman once the gunfire starts), won’t be used against the cited party should they refuse to desist or not pay the fine you have been drinking something far stronger than dixie cup lemonade.

Perhaps the greatest lesson those crushed by the prerogatives of the state in this fashion learn is to never look within themselves to what it takes to get ahead or to do anything that sets themselves apart from the more docile members of the COMMUNITY.

Tis better, in the eyes of the statist, for the individual to accept and embrace the meager pittance and station bestowed upon you by those that have been deemed more qualified than yourself to determine your place for you in the socioeconomic order.

The purpose of  these enforcement actions is to rid our nation from such independently inclined riffraff.   After all, there are even now so-called “Christians” insisting that what is wrong with the cinematic Western as epitomized by John Wayne and the Cartwrights is not so much gun play but rather that such figures dared to take it upon themselves as individuals or as independent families to do what needed to be done without consultation with the COMMUNITY.

Those observing (especially the young) learn how the regulation is cast is even more important than the regulation itself.

For example,  in one case in Georgia, a local police chief justified the disbandment of one particularly notorious lemonade distribution ring composed primarily of adolescent girls on the grounds that the state did not know what was in the distributed concoction.

Unless there is some actionable intelligence that we mere subjects are not privy to, there hasn’t been too many Al Qaeda plots intending to disseminate poisoned lemonade through speakeasies operated by juvenile revolutionary jihadists.  And even if one stretches back to the old concerns about Halloween delectables being laced with razor blades and the like, most of those accounts were blown all out of proportion by ministers attempting to frighten parents into keeping their children locked inside on that particular autumnal evening.

The next lesson learned is that certain excuses can be invoked in order to perhaps sway popular and bureaucratic opinion as to why the children in question should be allowed to flout the disputed law or regulation.  It seems some reasons are some how more noble than others.

For example, in the instance of the youngsters threatened outside the golf course in suburban Maryland, the response in the press was that these youngsters were trying to raise money for charity.  But what if the funds were not being raised for that purpose?

Is there something inherently wrong about keeping money for yourself?  In exposing the false altruism scandal and other related efforts to squash individuality, Ayn Rand asked what is so bad about individuals attempting to provide for themselves.

On social networks, posters commenting on the issue have gone so far as to remark how dare the media even report on these cases since the accounts cast law enforcement in a negative light because the law must be enforced at all costs because the law is the law.  Though American police departments and agencies have not yet deteriorated to the particular level about to be mentioned, it must be pointed out that the Gestapo and the KGB enforced what was considered law in their respective regimes as well.

So-called “conservatives” seem to have no problem whatsoever directing criticism at any assortment of other government agencies.  So are they so dimwitted as to lose sight of the higher goal of human liberty when they are distracted by a shiny badge?

Just because a government has enacted a law regarding something, does that mean the temporal statute contramanding the laws of God must be obeyed in all instances?  If so, does that mean the family of Corrie Ten Boom got what they deserved?  After all, the law is the law.

Some might recoil at the idea of comparing the closing of a bootleg lemonade distillery with some of the greatest crimes in human history as one sheol of a conceptual leap.  However, where do you think the framework is laid to get a people once marked by the common sense that flows from natural law to commit deeds that would only be approved by the most warped of consciences?

For, if a people lack the courage to stand for the right of a child to have a lemonade stand, do you think they will muster the courage to speak out regarding more profound incidents when those in power start aiming guns at heads in order to implement their transformative agendas?

By Frederick Meekins

In regards to climate change, President Obama said, “We choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy…and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence? Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science.” Weren’t some of history’s greatest abridgments of human liberty committed by those wielding government power determining what did and did not constitute legitimate science?

In regards to climate change, President Obama threatened, “Now, the good news is we can make meaningful progress pm this issue while driving strong economic growth….But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions…to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”

In other words, if duly elected representatives of the American people do not present him with what he deems to be acceptable environmental legislation, the President is going to implement what amounts to an environmental dictatorship. That’s what you call such wide sweeping action that is not authorized by congressional approval.

Just how far is the President threatening to take this if there is to be no check placed upon his power? For example, what if he decides that the measure necessary to reduce pollution and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy consists of forbidding you to own or operate a motor vehicle that is powered by an internal combustion engine that runs on fossil fuels?

Even more frightening is the phrase in that statement, “prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change.” Since America’s system of Checks and Balances (and thus the very principles of the Constitution) mean next to nothing to the President in this regard, what if he decides that means forcibly relocating populations living in environmentally strategic or critical areas to designated relocation camps where those overseeing such FEMA detention centers attempt to curtail the contact of the inmates with the outside world. Don’t accuse me of having lost it. This actually happened when a relocation center administrator attempted to prevent residents from talking to journalists following Hurricane Katrina.

According to President Obama, China is really “going all in on clean energy” and thus, “so we must.” Or, is the People’s Republic merely positioning itself in such a way as to dupe us into following suit, instead pursuing an energy policy that meets its needs irrespective of applause and accolades on the world stage?

In pursuit of his call for an environmentalist dictatorship in the 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama called for the establishment of an Energy Security Trust. The purpose of this is to “drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good.”

The observant will note that there is nothing in that statement about improving the mileage of electric vehicles so that you will be able to go beyond a radius of about 50 miles if you want to return home on a single charge in a single day. Neither is much said about the average person being able to afford one of these electrified vehicles.

Social planners of the Obama-supporting variety in fact view the automobile as one of the greatest threats undermining their utopian collectivist vision. For instead of going where you want, these elites prefer you confine yourself to your COMMUNITY where the only commodities available to you will be those deemed “local” to a particular area and your access to them will not be at your convenience but rather according to a centralized time table as epitomized by the public transportation system that will increasingly displace reliance upon the private automobile.

According to Obama, you as an individual are unfit to run your own life and instead you must rely on the government to oversee the priorities of your personal economy. Obama declared, “I’m also issuing a new goal for America. Let’s cut in half the energy wasted by our homes and businesses over the next 20 years.”

Once again, the discerning must go back and examine what the President said rather than what we would like to hear.

For starters, just because “he” set a goal, why ought we to care and even more importantly comply. Just because his voice shouts, “ACHTUNG!” does that mean me are required to click our heels and march in unison?

Some will reply, “But what’s so wrong with cutting back so we can save on our energy bills.” Nothing, but that is not what the President said.

Nowhere did the President say that the goals of these efforts are to reduce costs for the average consumer. During his initial campaigns for national elected office, Barack Obama openly and admittedly warned that, under his energy plans, rates would necessarily skyrocket.

And even when Americans prudently decide to conserve energy for whatever their individual motivation, do not assume that the money that they did save will remain in their wallets for very long. For as soon as they surrender to the admonitions on the part of their rulers, these leaders are warning as to the next crisis originating as a result of the masses doing as they are instructed like lemmings over the side of a cliff.

For example, when fuel costs began to rise along with a confluence of other technological developments, a number of motorists switched to more fuel efficient vehicles. However, policy technocrats were not content with this level of conditioning because decreased amounts of fuel consumed resulted in fewer gallons of gas purchased and thus resulting in fewer gas tax dollars collected.

To punish motorists for moving towards more fuel efficient vehicles, statists now intend to impose on top of the tax for each gallon of gas purchased an additional tax upon each mile driven. Such a proposal is actually a greater intrusion into your privacy.

Under a gas tax regimen, motorists are penalized for each gallon of gas that they decide to purchase. However, beyond that, the assessment and the collection of the tax does not care how and when you decide to make use of the gasoline as a motor vehicle propellant.

A mileage tax involves a greater degree of government intrusion. For to asses the tax, it is proposed that a computerized sensor would be attached to your motor vehicle cataloging how many miles that you have driven the vehicle. Given the sophistication of such tracking technology, there is no reason its parameters could not be modified to financially penalize motorists driving into particular areas or at peak hours in a manner similar to the way subway passengers are charged higher rates for utilizing public transportation during rush hour even though that is what they are admonished to do by assorted forms of government propaganda.

It is said that totalitarian regimes are characterized by a cradle to grave mentality where it is argued that government interference at every stage of existence is necessary to forestall the encroaching societal collapse that the government has itself played a considerable role in stoking and fomenting.

In regards to his lavish entitlement programs for the otherwise able-bodied, Obama continued in his oration, “These initiatives in manufacturing, energy, infrastructure, housing — all these things will help entrepreneurs and small business expand and create new jobs. But none of it will matter unless we also equip our citizens with the skills and training to fill these jobs.”

However, by that, he does not mean the establishment of an education system that focuses on academic basics such as reading comprehension, scientific skills, and a grounding in America’s constitutional history while cutting down on frivolity such as psychological conditioning and pandering to multiculturalism. Obama clarified, “And that has to start at the earliest possible age. Study after study shows that sooner a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road.”

The President went on to lament how only around a third of four year olds are enrolled in a “high quality” preschool. To correct this situation, Obama proposed making high quality preschool available to every single child in America.

But what if every parent does not want that for their children, instead preferring that the earliest years of their children’s live (and perhaps even beyond that for the families that decide to pursue alternative forms of education) to be shaped by the philosophers and values of the parents rather than by educratic community organizers? What guarantees are there that making preschool available for every child will not translate from Obamaese as compulsory for every child?

Just how early does the government claim to your child begin? For the sake of the COMMUNITY, should a social worker be on hand to whisk children away to be raised in a government facility as soon as infants pop out of the birth canal?

Thanks in part to this President and his spokestramp Sandra Fluke, America is on its way to having not so much a chicken in every pot but rather a government-provided birth control pill in every medicine cabinet. How much longer until the culture is indistinguishable from that described in Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” where children are no longer born into the families of loving married couples but rather in factory vats predetermined before birth as to what function they will fulfill in the broader society and where idiotized masses have their critical faculties further anaesthetized by unending rounds of increasingly hedonistic pleasure?

President Obama continued on in the 2013 State of the Union Address, “Let’s also make sure that a high school diploma puts our kids on the path to a good job.” He observed that, when a German student graduates, students there already possess the equivalent of an associate’s degree. The President stated specifically, “They’ve been trained for the jobs that are there.”

Perhaps Mr. Obama should address if, when they go to school, perhaps the Germans are being schooled in actual academic subjects and not in psychobabble programming the student to despise individual achievement, the free market system, and the fact that their country even exists as is taught in many of America’s government schools. Secondly, why bother studying for these “jobs that are there” when there aren’t really any jobs there thanks in part to stiffening regulations being imposed by this very President. Why bother committing the complexities of science to mind when the highest you are likely ever going to achieve is to repeat the mantras of “Hi, welcome to Wal-Mart” or “Would you like fries with that?” And this if you rank among the lucky few to even have a job.

However, if you are a run of the mill American, it is likely that the President is not as concerned about your advancement and prosperity as he is about the illegals invading America’s shores. On this issue, the President declared, “Our economy is stronger when we harness the talents and ingenuity of…immigrants. And right now, leaders from business, labor, law enforcement, faith communities — they all agree that the time has come to pass comprehensive immigration reform.”

From the sound of it, actual Americans are not capable of accomplishing anything if granted the opportunity. If that is the case, and as Obama remarked years ago in a graduation oration that life is not about material success, wouldn’t we be doing immigrants a favor for their own long term good if we deny them admission to the United States. After all, according to the President’s own logic, won’t each generation of these people that reproduce be diluting their “blood and soil” (to use the terminology of one particular brand of socialism) the longer they are in America?

And just because leaders from business, labor, law enforcement and faith communities want increased numbers of immigrants, has anyone stopped to ask what the run of the mill American wants. After all, it will be average Americans who will be forced to shell out additional welfare payments to the new arrivals and whose neighborhoods will decrease in terms of both property values and aesthetic appeal as migrants pile multiple families into single family homes while refusing to abide by traditional standards of cleanliness and upkeep in terms of maintaining their dwellings. However, each of the above special interests often harbor reasons for supporting increased levels of immigration that have nothing whatsoever to do with an altruistic concern for the betterment of the immigrant.

Business has an interest in increased numbers of immigrants in order to depress wages. Furthermore, in some of the proposed reforms, temporary workers will willingly put up with out of fear of being deported, any number of deprivations and abuses the average American up until recently would not have put up with.

Labor is interested in increased immigration hoping that these swarms of transients, barely literate in their native tongue with English comprehension almost nonexistent, will be so overwhelmed by their new surroundings that they will in a docile fashion fill the ranks of union membership while relenting to the decisions made by these thuggish fatcats. In turn, as the union coffers swell, these radical organizations will be able to increase their influence over elections, outrightly buy candidates, and even threaten social upheaval when governments and industry fail to meet an ever increasing list of demands.

It would be interesting to determine in regards to law enforcement if it is the rank and file beat cop or rather those craving higher-level administrative and appointed positions that favor increased levels of immigration and entitlements lavished upon illegals already here. For those seeking advancement will parrot whatever they are told to by their masters in the bureaucracy, elected office, civil rights establishment, and the nefarious shadowy forces manipulating these players in the policy process.

Likewise, it is more than likely high ranking members of the clergy rather than run of the mill mundane pew fillers that want America overrun with foreigners. Though few are willing to admit it, leftists in both the Catholic Church and certain wings of Protestantism (especially the mainline and Emergent Church movement) would like to see nothing better than the diminution of the United States as a global power and the dilution of Americans as a distinct world people.

Some of the most disturbing implications of President Obama’s 2013 State Of The Union Address could be found towards the conclusion of his speech in terms of those he planted in the gallery to be applauded as ideal citizens.

Obama began, “We should follow the example of a New York City nurse named Menchu Sanchez. When Hurricane Sandy plunged her hospital into darkness, she wasn’t thinking about how her home was fairing. Her mind was on the twenty precious newborns in her care and the rescue plan she devised that kept them all safe.”

While her efforts are to be commended, the really interesting aspect of this statement is how it is couched in terms as an attack on private property. But while you aren’t to give second thought as to the material components of existence, it seems as if the thoughts of the President and his consort dwell upon the creature comforts to the exclusion of nearly everything else.

On February 12, 2013, the President was lecturing is as to how we are suppose to be so COMMUNITY oriented that, during times of crises, we aren’t even suppose to entertain the concern as to whether or not we will even have a place of our own once the flood water subside. However, this public official, who is pretty much assured that he will never have to sleep with one eye open in a FEMA compound or shelter such as the Louisiana Superdome, just two days later was taking his wife out to a $900 Valentine dinner.

What American these days can afford a $900 Valentine dinner? This is thanks in part to the economy that has continued to decline in large measure as a result of this President’s very policies.

But apparently that week it was not enough to blow in one night of eating out on the town more than many of us bring home per pay check each week after taxes. His Highness then went to Florida where he enjoyed a $1000 golf lesson with Tiger Woods and his beloved battle ax frittered around the Midwest in large part telling the rest of us what we may and may not eat.

It is not enough that you should be willing to surrender your property without hesitation at the President’s command. Apparently you are expected to lay down your life as well.

The President further admonished, “We should follow the example of police officer Brian Murphy. When a gunman opened fire on a Sikh temple in Wisconsin and Brian was the first to arrive, he did not consider his own safety. He fought back…even as he lay bleeding from 12 bullet wounds.”

But how does the high and mighty Barack expect us to accomplish this? Gun control proposals such as those favored by the President would contract who may be allowed to possess a firearm and into which venues one may be authorized to take such an implement of personal protection.

In the address, the President shared that this valiant police officer fought back despite twelve bullet wounds. But without his weapon and if he had emulated the tactics we are encouraged to employ when confronting homicidal assailants, do you honestly believe that this police officer would have sustained only twelve bullet wounds? In all likelihood, he would have instead been dead.

It seems that throughout the 2013 State of The Union, the President presented the American people a litany of individuals aspiring to the kinds of values that he upholds. The thing of it is, apparently one of the values is not a critical mind or providing the audience with all of the available facts.

For example, of Desiline Victor, the American people were told the following: “When Desiline arrived at her polling place, she was told the wait to vote might be six hours. And as the time ticked by, her concern was not with her tired body or aching feet, but whether folks like her would get to have their say. And hour after hour, a throng of people stayed in line to support her — because Desiline is 102 years old. And they erupted in cheers when she finally put on a sticker that read ‘I voted’.”

Firstly, the President failed to point out that Desline Victor barely speaks a lick of English, having come to America late in life not so much to contribute economically to the nation but rather in all likelihood to suck off the welfare system. Thus, how do we not know that this six hour delay was not in part her own fault probably demanding to be catered to in her own native jibberish?

Secondly, if Desiline Victor likes to draw attention to herself by demanding that the voting experience be conducted in a language other than English, why didn’t she stir up a fuss that she was 102 years old? Maybe if she had, a number ahead of her would have graciously allowed her to vote before they did.

This senior citizen (if we must increase the age at which one qualifies for Social Security perhaps we ought to lower the cutoff age after which one no longer qualifies to become a citizen) is being recognized in the annals of Presidential rhetoric as a way to shame vast numbers of American people into complying with any number of bureaucratic policy directives. However, the only people that should be feeling any guilt are those that actually know this woman.

At 102 years of age, if it was known that Desiline Victor possessed enough of what passes as mind in Democratic circles wanted to vote, why didn’t someone in her family assist her in obtaining an absentee ballot? After all, I am sure those around here have little problem in beseeching the government for assistance more financial or tangible in nature anyway.

Most of the time, many people are in awe upon hearing of someone that approaches and/or surpasses the centenarian threshold since the vast majority fail to hold on that long. However, perhaps she should not be viewed as so pitiable and thus suitable to be used as a tool by which to shame the rest of us into compliance with whatever tactics the political leadership is attempting to manipulate us.

The President conveys the impression that Desiline Victor had to wait uncomfortably for six hours away from the warmth and comforts of her own home or bed. However, it must be remembered that she was not brought in from an apartment complex or retirement community just down the street from the White House.

For its political purposes, the Obama Administration had this 102 year old woman shipped in from Florida. Such a journey — irrespective of mode of transportation — would be taxing on someone half her age or even someone half the age of someone half her age. So if Desiline Victor is able to travel from Florida to DC to be paraded about like some freak show curiosity, then perhaps she is deserving of no more pity than anybody else whose opportunity to vote was delayed by such a temporal interval.

The President uplifting Desiline Victor raises another interesting observation regarding some of the parameters believed to be lurking beneath the surface of the Obamacare program. Suppose for a moment that Desiline Victor was as frail as government propagandists have led the American people into believing. Had Desiline Victor fallen ill as a result of having either waited an exorbitant amount of time to vote or from traveling the hundreds of miles from Florida to the nation’s capital, would the medical bureaucracy put in place by the President and his legislative allies deem her life worth of sustaining or restoring?

If not, what the President is calling for in this example is nothing short of a willingness to die for the political objectives on the part of civilians in circumstances that in no legitimate way can be considered a national emergency. Mind you, this is an individual whose idea of personal sacrifice at this point in his life consists of helicoptering to Camp David for the weekend rather than $1000 golf lessons with Tiger Woods or having to eat a pizza other than one deliberately flown in from Chicago.

The purpose of a President’s annual address before Congress is to update the federal legislative body and, by extension of broadcast media technology, those tuning in. From the assumptions from which many of Obama’s policies are formulated, the United States is edging ever closer to the ledge of that cliff from which the nation will never recover should it go over and ultimately slide off.

by Frederick Meekins

But is that his sole motivation or are other more personal financial interests at stake?

After all, won’t his home country gladly welcome an American educated doctor even if such Third World medical systems aren’t able to compensate as richly.

But if we are to believe the propagandistic lies stammering from his heavily accented mouth, filthy lucre isn’t the primary issue anyway.

These comments raise a number of issues.

Why was this student even admitted to medical school to begin with?

After all, the regular American can’t even step into a medical facility these days without having to produce a photo ID just to have blood drawn.

Secondly, if we aren’t supposed to construe who is and is not an American based upon traditional legalities since these are just pieces of paper anyway, why should mere pieces of paper restrict who can and cannot practice medicine?

by Frederick Meekins

A caller to Rush Limbaugh said that, at the Catholic Church she attended, the priest prayed that the greed of capitalism come to an end. What about the greed of socialism or other hierarchical centralized authority structures such as small religiously organized Italian city-states?

You will likely be required to work until the day that you die because the government won’t have any money for Social Security. However, at least you will be able to die in peace with life’s most pressing questions resolved. The federal government is spending over a million dollars on a study to determine why the majority of lesbians are obese.

The Iranian President is being condemned as something akin to a whoremonger for consoling the mother of dead Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. One cannot help but feel conflicted over this story. In one sense, this scumbag is getting exactly what he deserves. On the other hand, it exposes what a gutter religion he belongs to when someone is accused of immortality for attempting to comfort someone in a time of sorrow.

The commander of U.S. Naval Operations in the Pacific insists that global warming is the top national security threat. By doing so, the framework is being set to implement policies addressing this pseudo-issue that will not be expected to uphold civil rights and liberties.

It has been suggested that it is a tragedy for Evangelicals to pray and fast regarding the new pope. While it might not be an issue worthy of fasting over as it doesn’t look like most of the top contenders to the papal throne have themselves missed too many meals and won’t exactly be living in a state of self denial given their opulent surroundings should they get the job, offering up a quick prayer on the matter won’t hurt. After all, the individual selected will play a significant role in steering that interpretation of the Christian faith closer towards true Biblical religion or further away into the assorted errors tempting all that call upon the name of the Lord in one fashion or the other.

What is so wrong with a Protestant praying for the selection of at least a level-headed Pope that adheres to the shared commonalities of Christian doctrine and respects the rights of existence and expression of those he disagrees with? I guess there are those thinking the atrocities committed during the Thirty Years War by both sides were a good thing. Nothing wins souls to your vision regarding Christ and His message like a good pillaging and the ravishing of a few unwilling maidens.

Joe Biden is the first Catholic Vice President of the United States. Now there is an accomplishment any respectable religion could be proud of.

A number of prominent media pundits are applauding the selection of the Pope on the basis that they are of the same ethnicity as the new pontiff. Had someone gushed on national TV as to the “Germaness” of Carol Ratzenger, the Anti-Defamation League would have tossed a hissy fit until the offending talkinghead was removed from the broadcast airwaves.

If the new pope has called for a new evangelization effort in areas where Protestantism has made inroads, unless the campaign is confined to targeting those that were previously Catholic with those born into Protestantism or who became Protestant from a non-Catholic orientation off limits, on what grounds do Catholics have to get jacked out of shape when Protestants sweep up disgruntled and easily persuaded Catholics?

Judge Judy is being hauled into court over a divorcing couple’s fine china. Hopefully, she will be end up before a jurist that belittles her mispronounced words and questionable grammar or mock as illogical any of her own assumptions or choices that don’t comply with the judge’s own mental idiosyncrasies. Judy is accused of paying $50,000 that one party of a dissolving marriage did not agree to for china estimated to be worth over $500,000. No wonder she sneers down her Brooklyn nose at anyone driving a vehicle she considers to be out of date.

If WorldNetDaily is going to make a fuss over Jesus celebrating Passover rather than Easter and is going to go out of its way to make Christians feel that guilty about the matter, the media outlet could at least have the decency to update its 2011 solicitation regarding the video they are hawking on the subject with the correct 2013 dates.

Wonder if the manufacturers of bonobos pants deliberately named their garments after a particularly promiscuous subspecies of chimpanzee.

The cover of the March 2013 Columbia Journalism Review asks “How can we improve American media’s coverage of race, class, and social mobility.” This translates as why aren’t the disenchanted violently rampaging in the street or why aren’t there higher levels of White guilt racking the middle class.

If Rand Paul voted to confirm Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense on the grounds that a President should be granted considerable deference in getting to select who they want to fill key positions within their administration, then shouldn’t the Senator have voted in the affirmative to confirm John Brennan as the head of the CIA? Isn’t an American as likely to be blown to smithereens by a drone under the control of the Pentagon as the CIA?

Instructive. Obama celebrated a Rosa Parks statue commemorating her courageous refusal to give up her seat but he threatens to punish corporations such as Hobby Lobby and a number of Evangelical and Catholic educational institutions that refuse to give up their values.

In threatening the sequester, Obama sarcastically mused whose funds should be cut: the poor kid or the disabled child. Firstly, what is being defined as disabled or poor? For some of the ways these terms are being defined, no one but bureaucrats in the educational and social welfare establishments would consider such youngsters as characterized by either of these conditions.

For its Saturday night B-movie, the Syfy Channel is airing “Chupacabra vs. The Alamo” starring Eric Estrada. Now which of these rarely seen curiosities is receiving top billing: the chupacabra or Eric Estrada?

What Diane Feinstein didn’t address in her evasion of Ted Cruz’s question about the First Amendment applying only to certain books is that certain firearms are being banned not on the basis of how they operate but rather on the grounds of how these contraptions look.

Obama was overseas badmouthing the United States as to how at one time his daughters would not have had much opportunity in America. Before this President is through with things, his daughters will be about the only ones with any worthwhile opportunities.

If Presidents are too busy to walk their dogs, perhaps either the dog does not get walked or better yet, perhaps such busy figures should not own a dog. We are called on to sacrifice for the good of the COMMUNITY, why not the nation’s leaders?

Isn’t Michelle Obama walking the family dog akin to Goofy walking Pluto?

Senator Harry Reid remarked it was a pivotal moment in world history when Obamacare was passed. Usually is when civilizations die.

PETA doesn’t love animals. The organization just hates humans.

If one notices error, one is not obligated to refrain from warning of its implications because it is being propagated by someone hiding behind a clerical collar or pulpit, especially when what those individuals are promoting impacts the world beyond the church walls.

A participant in an NPR debate regarding genetically modified children remarked that humans and mice share so much in common biologically that he views mice as little people. Usually, those of such a mindset, rather than exhibit a compassion for all creatures in the tradition of Francis of Assisi, usually endorse the hacking apart of babies like stew meat and are eager to pull the plug on the elderly should they nod off too often in front of the television set.

Comedian Jim Carrey apparently now fancies himself as a profound philosopher. But the story he intends to publish about a wave afraid to crash itself upon the beach for fear of losing its individual existence could be construed as encouraging suicide bombers, genocide, or other widespread abridgments of basic human liberties if the individual is nothing more than part of the whole or the COMMUNITY.

Some observations regarding the gay marriage controversy. This is how liberals and even a number of conservatives clamoring for the approval of secularist elites are framing the issue. These factions oppose legislation and policies at the national level such as the Defense of Marriage Act claiming that the matter should be left up to states to decide. However, when certain states decide not to authorize the practice, these activists then want the federal courts to nullify the decision arrived at by constitutionally sovereign electorates. If increasing numbers justify acceptance of the practice on the grounds of evolving cultural standards, should standards revert back, on what grounds does it remain legal?

In coverage of a lottery jackpot, it sounds so much more culturally fascinating to say that the winner was a foreigner working in a bodega rather than simply calling the place of employment a rundown corner store with questionable adherence to health and hygiene standards.

Chris Matthews has compared Second Amendment supporters to Nazis. But weren’t the Nazis the ones that wanted to disarm the populations they targeted for enslavement or extermination?

How about just abolishing all inheritance taxes rather than legalizing gay marriage?

Too bad those outraged over a Congressman using the word “wetback” aren’t as outraged at groups such as La Raza and MECHA that don’t so much intend to call White folks unpleasant names but rather KILL White people residing in certain areas when the great uprising takes place.

Tolerancemongers are out to destroy a CBS sports analyst that joked he was bringing the White man’s perspective to a panel otherwise consisting of Black broadcasters. How was the comment any worse than some of these racialists constantly reminding those with no visual impairment whatsoever what color they happen to be?

Hopefully, since they likely won’t remain together very long anyway, at least these queers will likely have their accumulated savings squandered in the divorce court system like vast percentages of other Americans.

Bob Beckel of Fox News has decreed that political issues should not be addressed from the pulpit. But what authority gets to determine which issues are political and which are religious?

Isn’t saying that it should be up to the mother as to what is done to a baby born during an abortion akin to saying it should be up to the plantation owner as to whether or not the slave is emancipated?

Former Obama administration harpy Anita Dunn insists that the alternative universe of Fox News is crumbling. Mind you, this is the very same woman that admitted to inhabiting a conceptual reality where Chairman Mao is worthy of same moral respect and admiration as Mother Teresa.

Obama has announced a research project intended to map the human brain in action. By this, does the President mean that this will only include objective biological functions or will scientists attempt to decipher what a brain contemplating “terrorist”, racist, or sexually harassing thoughts look like so as to develop scanners detecting when minds wander in unapproved directions? At the announcement of his mind control project, Obama assured that he holds science in proper esteem. If the President really did so, wouldn’t he oppose most forms of abortion since biology explicitly teaches that the unborn child is a fully human life?

As part of its gun control legislation, the State of Connecticut has authorized the investigation of students engaged in disturbing behavior. In such a liberal state, such phraseology is usually interpreted broadly enough as to include those opposed to gay marriage, those believing in Creationism over evolution, and those professing that believing in Jesus Christ as part of the Triune Godhead is the only way to avoid eternal Hellfire.

A leftwing website asserts that many White men worship guns in compensation for insufficient sexual endowment. So using this logic, ought we to conclude that minorities tend to use guns in acts of inner city violence because of mental capabilities insufficiently development to keep their desire to unholster their firearm under control?

Does the proposed ammunition certification requirement in Connecticut have anything to do with stopping gun violence or is it merely another disguised tax to raise revenue? I doubt these qualifications will be granted for free.

If the hordes swarming across the border were coming to take jobs in the media, the Associated Press stylebook would still allow terms such as “illegal immigrant”.

Quite fascinating that those that would deny the binding nature of divine revelation would grant such status to the edicts of the Associated Press stylebook. If fundamental moral precepts in Scripture such as those condemning the assorted varieties of adultery and fornication are dismissed by ultramodernists as mere suggestions, why shouldn’t the linguistic preferences of this particular reference guide be categorized in a similar manner?

President Obama has declared April to be financial education awareness month. Isn’t this akin to Bill Clinton calling for chastity and marital fidelity?

by Frederick Meekins

While it might not be an issue worthy of fasting over as it doesn’t look like most of the top contenders to the papal throne have themselves missed too many meals and won’t exactly be living in a state of self denial given their opulent surroundings should they get the job, offering up a quick prayer on the matter won’t hurt.

After all, the individual selected will play a significant role in steering that interpretation of the Christian faith closer towards true Biblical religion or further away into the assorted errors tempting all that call upon the name of the Lord in one fashion or the other.

What is so wrong with a Protestant praying for the selection of at least a level-headed Pope that adheres to the shared commonalities of Christian doctrine and respects the rights of existence and expression of those he disagrees with?

I guess there are those thinking the atrocities committed during the Thirty Years War by both sides were a good thing.

Nothing wins souls to your vision regarding Christ and His message like a good pillaging and the ravishing of a few unwilling maidens.

Some might ask the question why should Protestants, especially those of the lowly Baptist variety, enunciate an opinion as to the selection of a new Pope or elaborate an explanation as to why those of that particular theological perspective find the power and authority that ecclesiastical institution has asserted for itself as extra-Biblical and questionably dangerous.

Catholics have every right to select whomever they desire as their head honcho.

However, because that institution has assumed for itself a role beyond administering its own internal affairs and undertaken efforts to exert an influence on the world beyond its ornately decorated walls, in a free society those not belonging to this religious tradition have just as much right to speak out regarding the direction as to how this powerful world body might influence the way in which individuals are able to live their own lives and practice their own beliefs.

For though the way in which the Roman Catholic Church gets the message across might be more subtle than the way in which some Protestants do so, relying more on ceremony and glitz rather than a blunt in your face letting you know what they feel and believe regarding the issue often in a gruff and tactless manner, the opposition of the leadership to Protestantism is just as ingrained.

For example, Pope Benedict repeatedly emphasized throughout his pontificate that Protestant churches especially were not real churches and at best could only be thought of as errant theological associations.

No big deal, many not practiced in the art of discernment and worldview implication might conclude.

After all, everyone from the Pope down to the raving village atheist thinks the spiritual path they are journeying down is superior to all others.

However, one may need to stop to reflect for a moment what is being said here.

To the Protestant, the ideal that those of this persuasion endeavor to strive for can be found in Romans 10:13: “For whoseover shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

By this, it is believed that there is no mediator between God and man other than Christ Himself for those that believe Jesus as the only Begotten Son of God died in our place for our sins and rose from the dead so that those placing their faith solely in Him might have eternal life in Heaven.

However, official institutionalized Catholicism pretty much holds that their’s is the only game in town determining who it is that will be rewarded with the prize or gift of salvation.

This the organization does in part through its system of sacraments.

So what the Church is really saying when it denies communion to all but those on its own membership roles is not so much that we think it’s best if you participate in this solemn event with those that can better attest to the validity of your faith experience or worthiness of character but rather that you aren’t even a fellow Christian at all.

If the new pope has called for a new evangelization effort in areas where Protestantism has made inroads, unless the campaign is confined to targeting those that were previously Catholic with those born into Protestantism or who became Protestant from a non-Catholic orientation off limits, on what grounds do Catholics have to get jacked out of shape when Protestants sweep up disgruntled and easily persuaded Catholics?

One would hope that no one in their right mind would find the violent acrimony of the past where individuals on either side of the divide were often deprived of property, opportunity, and even their very lives all in Christ’s name a worthy situation to return to.

However, neither are Christians obligated to go out of their way refusing to admit that profound religious differences still exist that are better off left in place for the sake of the entire world at least until Christ Himself returns to set hearts and minds straight and to sort out the mess we as fallen human beings have made of this world.

by Frederick Meekins

The radical environmental movement began in opposition to the growing establishmentarian attitude of mainstream environmental groups such as the Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Wildlife Federation, the Izaak Walton League, the Defenders of Wildlife, the Environmental Defense Fund, the National Parks & Conservation Association, and the Environmental Policy Institute who are collectively referred to as “the Group of Ten (Scarce, 16). These organizations take a relatively pragmatic stand towards the preservation of the nation’s environmental treasures. For example, some of these mainstream groups agreed to let the government construct Glenn Canyon Dam in Arizona, and in other instances, these groups have been modest in the amount they demand be set aside for preservation.

This sense of compromise with government authorities in order to preserve at least a modicum of the nation’s natural resources has created a rift of ambiguity between the mainstream and the more radical environmentalist groups. On the one hand, radical environmentalists oppose compromise in the name of the environment on philosophical grounds. However, their own unreasonable demands are also part of an orchestrated strategy designed to make public officials more cooperative with the demands made by groups like the Sierra Club whose demands look reasonable in comparison to the ultimatums made by the radicals.

However, the radical environmental movement is more than a marketing ploy designed to win demands from government officials. It is also a school of thought drawing inspiration from various philosophical sources. One of the main philosophical schools that radical environmentalists draw upon is known as “Deep Ecology”. According to this set of ideas, the conservation policies pursued by more mainstream environmental groups are incorrect because man is still used as the primary measure of all things, at least when it comes to environmental protection (Manes, 56). To the Deep Ecologist, every natural thing is on equal footing. Human beings are no better than moss or a pine cone.

Any assertion to the contrary is labeled anthropocentrism, which is an offense as allegedly as vile as racism. While this philosophy may make one feel neighborly towards the chipmunks down at the park, this way of thinking is fraught with a number of dangers. For example, it was asserted in one media account of a couple attacked by a rabid cougar, it was commented that no one had the right to kill the beast even though one of the mauled individuals lost several fingers in the attack. Needless to say, the person making the comment had never faced similar circumstances.

Coupled with this bio or eco-centrism is a disdain for technological development. Following in the footsteps of Herbert Marcuse’s One Dimensional Man, radical environmentalists believe that technology allows man to dominate nature (Manes, 26). As such, he is dehumanized by his own inventions as existence is reduced to production and consumption. Never mind the fact that it is modern technology that allows individuals feeling this way to have the leisure time to devise and disseminates these thoughts. If dependence on technology can be reversed, it is thought, man will be able to reestablish his proper place in the natural world.

However, there is more to this worldview than abstract thinking and philosophical posturing. Being a physically active lot as many of the movement’s adherents are avid outdoorsmen, much of the movement’s theoretical underpinnings are based upon action and deed.

The primary action oriented text inspiring radical environmentalism is The Monkeywrench Gang by Edward Abbey who considered himself a “literary bum” destined to stand against the technological and industrial forces simultaneously arrayed against human freedom and environmental preservation (Scarce, 240). The Monkeywrench Gang is a novel about a group of live-hard outdoorsmen who roam the countryside in an old van performing various acts of ecological sabotage such a burning billboards, driving bulldozers over cliffs, pulling up survey stakes, and yanking out railroad tracks. The sequel to The Monkeywrench Gang, written shortly before Abbey’s death, is Hayduke Lives! in which the gang reunites for one more spate of neo-Luddite shenanigans.

While these works help define the action-oriented aspects of radical environmentalism in a highly entertaining format, they also expose the inconsistencies at the heart of the movement. For example, throughout The Monkeywrench Gang, the characters rail against highways while tossing empty beer cans on to the side of the road; and while claiming to be at one with nature, the characters long for the showers and coffee at the Holiday Inn (Scarce, 240).

Another book with widespread popularity among radical environmentalists is Ecodefense: A Handbook For The Militant Defense Of Earth. Ecodefense is a how to on radical environmentalist tactics. In a sense, it is comparable to The Anarchist’s Cookbook as it elaborates how to perpetrate mayhem by decommissioning bulldozers, pulling up survey stakes, and spiking trees as well as other tactics designed to stop the hordes of civilization seeking to pillage the wilderness (Scarce, 74).

Written by Earth First! founder Dave Foreman, Ecodefense was an immediate success with it being read by young environmental radicals from around the world. The book became so influential that the supervisor of the Williamette National Forest in Oregon testified in a Congressional hearing that he would consider closing the area under his jurisdiction if the tactics described in the book were carried out within the forest’s boundaries (Manes, 83). And on a lighter note, “Ecodefense” was published by a firm called “Nedd Ludd Books” named in honor of the 19th century worker who participated in a campaign to destroy various forms of factory machinery.

The group that probably first and foremost put the principles embodied by this ideology into practice was Earth First!. The exclamation point is part of the groups name and not a grammatical construct symbolizing this author’s enthusiasm for the organization

Earth First! was founded by an assortment of individuals coming from a variety of backgrounds. Dave Foreman, who would later go on to write the aforementioned “Ecodefense”, started off surprisingly as a Republican and member of the Young Americans For Freedom as a supporter of Barry Goldwater. Foreman joined the Marines, but eventually went AWOL. He worked for a time for the Wilderness Society, only to leave the group disenchanted with what he perceived as the organization’s moderation. Howe Wolke, who was considered by some as somewhat more of a libertarian, was a forestry student, bouncer, and oilfield hand, came to Earth First! from Friends of the Earth where he worked as a field representative attending public meetings and handling press relations. He quit that organization because that organization cut his $75 per month salary (Manes, 66). Mike Roselle was a radical involved with Abbie Hoffman’s and Jerry Rubin’s Yippy counterculture organization who himself later left that group because of its perceived political opportunism in order to establish the “Zippies”. Other founding members of Earth First! included Bart Kochler, a former Wyoming Wilderness Society staff member with a knack for political organization as well as song writing, and Ron Kezar, a former seasonal U.S. Park Service employee who was trained as a librarian and an expert on the history of American military strategy (Manes, 68).

Groups such as Earth First! believe that the earth will be saved via anarchy which will topple modern industrialized technocratic civilization. In such a context, anarchy is defined as, “…the maximum possible dispersal of power; political, economic…and military power. An anarchist society would consist of a voluntary association of self-reliant self-sustaining autonomous communities (Scarce, 88).”

However, within the ranks of Earth First! there was a rift just how much anti-Americanism that the notion entailed. One faction led by group founder Dave Foreman held that anarchy was merely a means to an end which was the preservation of the biosphere. As such, flag burnings, an act of defiance preferred by some in the group, was seen as uncalled for (Scarce, 88). The other side of the dispute was led by ecofeminists, who combined the struggle against environmental degradation with the struggle against the patriarchy, and a splinter group originally called “Stumps Suck” but which ultimately settled on the name “Live Wild Or Die”. Both of these submovements used their Earth First! activism as a broader platform to attack the wider consumer culture (Manes, 103).

Though often classified as “soft-core terrorist groups” by the FBI, many of the deeds committed by these kinds of organizations often border more on the juvenile than on the outright dangerous though still unquestionably criminal. Since many of these groups claim to ascribe to a code of nonviolent ethics based upon their own interpretation of Gandhian principles, many of these groups have turned to alternative forms of political behavior.

For example, one group calling itself the Revolutionary Ecoterrorist Pie Brigade tossed pies at timber industry spokesman at a convention. Another group put cow patties atop a Forest Service office building’s air conditioners in Washington State’s Okanogan National Forest (Manes, 104). And yet a another Earth First! splinter group called the Gross Action Group staged an event referred to as a “puke in” at a Seattle shopping center in 1988 when the activists ingested a vomit-inducing drug in order to shock holiday shoppers into realizing the disgusting nature of American consumerism, no doubt prompting sales to temporarily dip at the food court (Scarce, 89).

Despite these shenanigans, not all forms of radical environmental activism can be dismissed as good natured frolicking in the North Woods. Some of the tactics are downright life threatening.

One of the most common and dangerous activities engaged in by radical environmentalist groups is tree spiking where nails are driven into trees often slated for sale from national forests into private hands. The point of such an exercise is to discourage timber companies from extracting the wood because of the damage the nails could do to expensive equipment and not the mention the employees who would most likely be injured by flying nails, shattered equipment, or both.

To justify these actions in light of their “nonviolent” ethics, tree spikers often inform forestry authorities of their activities prior to harvest in order to avoid human injury. A prominent tree spiking incident occurred in May 1987 when a mill worker was injured by a band saw shattered by a tampered tree. Timber authorities roundly condemned Earth First! who denied involvement. Surprisingly, the injured mill worker publicly stated his support for Earth’s First!’s goals, and in an even bigger twist of events, it was learned that Earth First! had not carried out this particular tree spiking as has been concluded earlier. The perpetrator was actually an irate libertarian worried that timber companies logging near his property would want his land next (Manes, 11).

Despite this record, fears on the part of law enforcement are not without justification. Dave Foreman, one of Earth First!’s founders, did say, “It’s time for a warrior society to rise out of the Earth and throw itself in front of the juggernaut of destruction, to be antibodies against the human pox that is ravaging this precious beautiful planet (Manes, 86).” Pretty strong words, especially considering the fact than many in the group, while pro-environment, aren’t necessarily vegetarian or against hunting, with human beings being just another string in nature’s web no more important or distinct from any other animal.

Radical environmentalists have proven that they themselves are not above the use of violence. For example, one group calling itself Direct Action blew up a British Columbia electrical substation in 1982. A radical Greenpeace splinter group calling itself the Sea Shepherds has no qualms about ramming what the organization considers pirate whaling ships on the high seas (Manes, 86). Other groups get a kick from setting bulldozers and related construction equipment on fire.

The future of radical environmentalism and its accompanying deeds of quasi-violence and para-terrorism are the subjects of intense debate. Analysts are divided over the issue.

One perspective concludes that the violence will only get worse. A 1990 report released by the Heritage Foundation titled “Eco-Terrorism: The Dangerous Fringes Of The Environmental Movement” argues that eventually innocent people will likely be hurt by the fanaticism of this ideology that prefers moss over man (Scarce, 265).

The other side of this debate contends that, if such violent actions were taken, they would be counter productive as many law abiding citizens view environmental issues as quality of life issues. For example, residents of both Pennsylvania and Virginia have at times thumbed their noses at assorted development projects that would impact the historical and cultural distinctiveness of geographical treasures such as Lancaster Dutch Country and George Washington’s boyhood home. Only time will tell if the true goals of radical environmentalism are simply about raising public awareness or about tossing a wrench into the gears of the technological society they claim to loathe for the purposes of tearing it down.

by Frederick Meekins

Bibliography

Manes, Christopher. “Green Rage: Environmentalism & The Unmaking Of Civilization.” Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1990.

Scarce, Rik. “Eco-Warriors: Understanding The Radical Environmental Movement.” Chicago: The Noble Press, Inc. 1990.

Part of the way history is publicly remembered and allowed to exert an influence over the cultural milieu is through the erection of assorted monuments and memorials. This is itself a practice that, in part, traces its origin back through the pages of sacred scripture.

In Joshua 4:5-7, the representatives of the tribes of Israel are instructed as to the following: “Each of you is to take up a stone on his shoulder, according to the number of tribes of the Israelites, to serve as a sign among you. In the future, when your children ask you, ‘What do these stones mean?’ tell them that the flow of the Jordan was cut off before the ark of the covenant…These stones are to be a memorial to the people of Israel forever.”

This is not the only incident in Scripture where the believer is admonished to respect assorted physical historical commemorations. In Proverbs 22:28, the child of God is admonished to remove not the ancient landmark.

No doubt one of the reasons thorough going secularists and even their sissified allies among certain branches of the clergy leaning to the left fanatically lobby for the removal of religious symbols and emblems commemorating solemn events in the life of the nation is to no doubt alter our perception of history in the attempt to shift the country’s underlying values and focus. By so doing, it is hoped that Americans will go from the most part being an independently inclined group of individuals who will protect their precious heritage to the point of laying down one’s life should circumstances require it to one where the state is looked to as the first as the source of goodness and truth which it is free to redefine as changing circumstances warrant.

One such perspective lent a voice calling for the removal of Peace Cross (also just as correctly referred to as Victory Cross) in Bladensburg, Maryland. The American Humanist Association is orchestrating the campaign because the monument is erected on public land. In the mind of this agitprop front group, this violates the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment.

However, one area minister in the 9/27/2012 Gazette newspaper of suburban Maryland provided what he considered a number of Christian reasons as to why the memorial cross should be taken down. Rev. Brian Adams of the Mount Rainier Christian Church is aligning himself with the outcome advocated by the American Humanist Association because he does not want the Cross associated with militarism and patriotism as a “general symbol of sacrifice.”

In making his argument, Rev. Adams enunciated a number of questionable assumptions. He insists that the memorial is blaspheming the Cross by honoring violent people with weapons defending a country while they try to kill people from other countries.

No one in their right mind said war was a picnic. But how else will at least a small sliver of goodness otherwise survive in a fallen world? Does Rev. Adams honestly believe that once things have degenerated to the point of physical hostilities that appeals to reason, compassion, and the brotherhood of man alone will be enough to dissuade those bent on utter desolation?

If the way Rev. Adams categorizes the Crucifixion and a number of Biblical imperatives is a true summation of his doctrinal perspective, as a denomination the Disciples of Christ is in serious trouble.

Though it along with the Resurrection is one of the building blocks of the Christian religion and an offence or stumbling block to those hoping to make it to Heaven under the power of their own good works which are as filthy rags, the death of Christ upon that accursed tree was anything but, to use Rev. Adams’ words, “the symbol of the son of God dying peacefully.” History and medical science concur that it was in fact one of the most tortuous forms of execution ever devised.

Because the believer so appreciates the price paid by Jesus at the hill of Golgotha, over the centuries artists and craftsmen inspired by the moving beauty of Christ’s sacrifice on behalf of all sinners have transformed this implement of abject fear and terror visually into a beacon of hope and adoration. However, in the context of what happened that original Good Friday afternoon, the bejeweled sculptures and golden masterpieces are about as accurate as depicting a ride in Old Sparky the electric chair as if it was an overstuffed Lazy Boy recliner wrapped in a plush snuggy.

By referencing a work as readily available as “The Case For Christ” by Lee Stroebel (so much so that many ministries give away free paperback editions), both disciple and skeptic alike approximately 2000 years after this hinge point of history get a better idea of just how peaceful the passing of this Nazarene carpenter and rabbi was from this world. Stroebel in a chapter on the medical evidence lays out these horrors.

First, Jesus would have been secured to the cross by driving 5 inch nails through a portion of the wrist containing a nerve nearly as sensitive as the one in the area of the so-called funny bone. Once secured in this position, the cross would have been hoisted upright with the feet being secured in position in a manner similar to and as painful as that used upon the wrists. Yet, the suffering had only just begun.

The gravity pulling Jesus downward as the cross was thrust upward would have stretched at his arms, causing his shoulders to dislocate. With gravity pulling the individual downward, whatever waning strength remains in the individual is mustered to thrust the body upward in a reflex to merely continue the otherwise simple process of breathing so few of us even give a second thought to. In so doing, splinters would be driven deeper and deeper into the flesh of the back as it slid against a roughly hued pole not crafted with comfort in mind. This struggle would eventually result in suffocation as the victim in agony would grow too exhausted to continue.

Death upon the cross was of such a terrifying overwhelming agony that a new word had to be coined in order to accurately describe its unique variety of suffering. That word was none other than “excruciating”.

So fundamentally wrong about this fundamental of the true Christian faith, it is no wonder Rev. Adams is so profoundly mistaken in regards to other interpretative matters as well. Rev. Adams writes that the cross is the symbol of Jesus “telling his followers to put down their weapons, and dying for the sake of hope, for the forgiveness and salvation of even those who put him to death.” What Rev. Adams has done here has been to take a course of action applied in a particular incident and elevated it to the status of a categorical universal imperative.

Rev. Adams is correct in the sense that in John 10:18 Jesus instructs that no man takes His life but that He gives it willingly. This was demonstrated in Luke 4 when a mob angered at words Christ delivered in the synagogue conspired to hurl Jesus over a cliff. Amidst such homicidal frenzy, Jesus miraculously perambulated on through unnoticed and unscathed.

Yet, later on, the Savior was not as eager to elude His captors. When Peter attempted to rescue Jesus resulting in the severing of the ear of the high priest’s servant, Jesus declares in Matthew 26:53-54, “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen this way (NIV)?” Christ chastised a foremost disciple because His unjust arrest was to unfold so that the greater purpose of His being slain from the foundation of the world might be fulfilled so that all calling upon the name of the Lord might be saved.

Though each of us are valued having been made in the image of God, the way we proceed into Glory will not cause the very cosmos to unhinge if it does not transpire in a precise manner as foretold as a part the public record of religious history. Therefore, though honor is to be bestowed upon those that lose their lives for the sake of the Gospel, one won’t likely be given additional brownie points or a crown in Heaven should one not do everything moral within one’s own power to preserve one’s own life.

In Matthew 5:39, Christ instructs his disciples to turn the other cheek. Often, the application of this passage has encouraged an undue pacifism on the part of certain quietist sects and overly pious theologians. However, what is being addressed here is more akin to individual insults and certainly not the basis around which to build a foreign or defense policy.

The Gospels should not be construed as denying the individual the right of self defense should the individual feel the necessity to protect their life and that of their family. In Luke 22:36, Christ instructs, “…and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”

Scripture admonishes the believer to be as wise as a serpent but as harmless as a dove. While the Christian is not to go around stirring up undue trouble, neither is the Christian to enter unequipped into situations that will result in overwhelming bodily harm or unnecessary physical death.

Just how literally do those raising the turning of the other cheek to something on the level of the Prime Directive from Star Trek want to take the remainder of the passage? In Matthew 5:41, the text reads, “And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.” So will those insisting upon the turning of the other cheek as an unmodifiable absolute now teach their child that, instead of refusing to get into a car with a stranger, that you as a parent will punish them severely if they don’t comply with every Sanduskite that slithers out of its sewer pile.

In his concluding paragraph, Rev. Adams declares that using the cross to symbolize the military or to praise the military amounts to a blasphemy equivalent to taking the Lord’s name in vain. It seems that clergy within the Disciples of Christ would only be interested in adhering to the strictures of the divine scriptures when they think these teachings can be used to tear down the pillars upon which this great country rests.

For example, a number within the Disciples of Christ are also pushing for the acceptance of homosexuality and ultimately gay marriage. So where is this denomination’s outrage over violation of the commandments prohibiting carnal relations between anyone other than a married man and woman?

This tendency to view the Bible and the traditional teachings that are extrapolated from it as optional flow from the Disciples of Christ positioning itself as a creedless church. Such a formalized belief is, of course, a creed itself.

According to Wikipedia, there are those within the Disciples of Christ that deny the Incarnation, the Trinity, and even the Atonement. So what’s the point of even bothering with any of the religious racket if Christ as the only Begotten of the Father did not come to die for our sins?

The cross in Bladensburg is not a representation of what the military accomplished through force of arms. Instead, the cross commemorates those from Prince George’s County Maryland that died in the First World War.

John 15:13 reads, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends (KJV).” Given the disdain he has expressed for both those that take up arms in defense of the American republic and traditional formulation of Christian doctrine, perhaps Rev. Adams does not view the last full measure of devotion worthy of remembrance and appreciation on the part of the COMMUNITY. It seems those like Rev. Adams only extol this particular concept of social organization when it can be invoked as justification to further curtail those areas of existence remaining under personal purview or to confiscate additional percentages of your property.

Yes, a cross is a distinctively Christian symbol. But this particular cross under consideration goes beyond the implement upon which the Savior suffered and died.

At the base of each side of the memorial cross in Bladensburg is embossed a virtue such as endurance, courage, devotion, and valor. As well as representing those that died in Prince George’s County during this particular conflict, these virtues on each base of the cross remind that it is not man that ranks these character traits among the desirable nobilities to strive for but rather that these have been decreed to be so by God Himself.

To most in the West in general and the United States in particular during the time of the First World War, deity or “the higher power” to categorize the ultimate in a way the fewest possible could object to was understood using Christian or Biblical formulations. So would those such as Rev. Adams and his allies among the cultured despisers of the Almighty have us remove all other historically accurate symbolizations of godhood as well?

Along with the words “In God we trust.” on the back of our currency, does Rev. Adams also intend to agitate to have the eye of Ra remove from particular tenders as well? Does he also want to knock over the blindfolded goddess of justice standing outside many of America’s courthouses? For does she not also represent, in a less than ideally Christian manner we’ll grant you, the idea that justice originates in a metaphysical realm above and distinct from the state no matter what that social organization’s swords or bullets might insist?

The memorial cross in Bladensburg is dedicated to a finite number of individuals, namely those from Prince George’s County that died in World War I. Therefore, historians employed by the county could do something useful for a change, rather than continually stirring the pot about the short end of the stick Blacks have gotten in the past but have more than made up for now, by researching if there are any county records extant as to the religious affiliations of these honored veterans. If it turns out they were all Christian, nothing should be done to the memorial cross; should it turn out that a number were Jewish, instead of abolishing the park altogether, perhaps a plaque could be erected acknowledging the contribution of the patriots of that particular faith. The county certainly doesn’t seem to mind rubbing it in the public’s nose regarding the accomplishments of other minorities.

Psalm 11:3 says, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” The Founding Fathers were correct to warn of the danger of a state so given over to the interests of religion that whether or not one was to enjoy the basic entitlements and privileges of citizenship would be predicated upon formalized membership in an established ecclesiastical organization. However, that said, these thinkers also realized that any human undertaking would be doomed to failure if such an enterprise went out of its way to slap aside the outstretched hand of a beneficent deity.

by Frederick Meekins

A couple of observations relating to it can be made regarding a column by Elbridge James of Progressive Maryland published in the 10/27/11 Gazette newspapers of suburban Maryland.

For starters, it is thoroughly established that Elbridge James is Black and borderline racist. He mentions his ethnic identity at least nine times in a piece of no more than 300 words.

Some of these references have very little to do with the topic at hand he is attempting to address.

For example, James writes, “Because I travel the state regularly speaking to Black voters of all ages and experiences on a variety of issues facing African Americans, I consider myself pretty plugged into the Black community.” He concludes, “Continue to count on me when looking at African American support.”

From his tone, one might assume this pigmentation narcissist was addressing a topic focusing particularly on HIS people such as sickle cell anemia awareness and prevention. It is in fact an oration in support of gay marriage.

So in regards to a topic that transcends race, why ought we to give added weight if a majority of Black folks supported gay marriage? All that tells the reader is that, given the mentality of dependency engineered into that particular demographic over the decades, those of this background can be manipulated into accepting a practice the religion so many of them claim to adhere to actually finds abhorrent.

If a majority of White southerners believe gay marriage is wrong. why shouldn’t that carry as much weight in determining the morality of the controversial practice.

Elbridge James also asserts, “The values of commitment and family aren’t confined to a person’s religion or race.”

But with some estimates of nearly 75% of Black babies being born outside of marriage, obviously commitment and family are not as valued among this particular human classification as he is persuading his readers to believe.

If Mr. James really loves his race rather than the status that has accrued to him as a fomenter of ethnic discord, perhaps he ought to spend his time addressing this lamentable development rather than promote an arrangement that will further tear down what little moral foundations remain of a rapidly deteriorating society.

by Frederick Meekins

In 2011, the authorization process for erecting the Nativities was altered so that many of the permits ended up going not to churches but rather to a motley assortment of unbelievers. As a result of the hassle and embarrassment, under the excuse of the necessity maintaining an unobstructed seaside view, municipal authorities decided to do away with depictive winter displays altogether.

The ultimate reason though is to deny access by any particular viewpoint by suppressing them all equally. Sort of the socialistic notion that everyone is equal because everyone is equally miserable.

Cutting edge commentary will likely focus on the here and now with how the tradition has been abolished in its entirety. However, the way the issue was handled in 2011 still gives rise to observations as pertinent today as they aptly apply to the overall tenor of the age in which we live rather than the narrow focus of a particular year which has already elapsed.

In 2011, one of the displays erected by the apostates and unregenerates read “What myths do you see? 37 million Americans know myths when they see them.” Pictured along with the slogan were images of Neptune, Santa Claus, Jesus and Satan.

Of course, the Old Deluder, the Devil himself, has no problem being depicted as a buffoonish cartoon villain since, though he has a massive ego having at one time conspired to set his throne on the mount of the congregation in his attempt to usurp the place of the Almighty. At this point in the game, he is more concerned about dragging down as many as he can with him to eternal damnation rather than to get as many as possible to swear an eternal positive affirmation to his infernal name.

Of course, especially in a place like California, it really doesn’t take all that much courage to thumb one’s nose at Christ either. After all, He was the one that admonished the insulted to turn the other cheek and those ready to call for Crusades on behalf of His name, even if not in His spirit, don’t exactly hold he sway they once did.

So shouldn’t those wanting to take a courageous stand in the name of the Great Emptiness or however else one might be inclined to depict nothing whatsoever take on a figure whose backers show a little more teeth? For instance Islam? These fanatics threatened the producers of South Park for even obscuring the view of the specific personage that was suppose to be in the bear costume.

However, it seems these leftists converging upon California only go out of their way to have Judeo-Christian religious figures removed from view on public property. They seem to exhibit little opposition to deities advocated by less than Biblically acceptable religions and forms of belief.

For in California, in the mid 90’s a monument costing the taxpayers nearly $500,000 was erected to Quetzalcoatl. Quetzalcoatl is the winged serpent god from Aztec mythology around which a number of Hispanosupremacist front organizations hope to repaganize and de-Christianize this targeted demographic in preparation for the uprising against the United States when insurgents intend to slaughter the remaining Whites in disputed Southwestern territories.

Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. To be consistent, that would include those of a non-Christian variety as well.

Thus, it would be reasonable to conclude that there must be a greater overarching, more pragmatic commonality linking those that believe in no God and those that believe that higher order beings condescended down to our level who, rather than shed their blood and died on our behalf, insisted that our blood be shed and lives sacrificed to placate the base lusts of these craven entities whether the victims were willing or not. That shared commonality is nothing less than an outright hatred of the God that is there and a desire to see His followers silenced.

by Frederick Meekins

Instead of providing a balanced perspective on this topic, editors instead allowed the topic to be addressed by Bart Ehrman.

Bart Ehrman’s claim to fame is essentially undermining every tenet of orthodox Christianity by casting doubt on the sources that serve as the foundation of the faith in favor of texts more gnostic in origins and interpretation.

Thus, it must be asked, would Newsweek publish an article casting aspirations on the founder or central figure of another world religion deliberately during a time of the year held to be one of the most sacred among a significant percentage of the faith’s adherents?

Would Newsweek pull something like this during Ramadan?

Both Voltaire and Nietzsche in their respective eras remarked how the name of Jesus Christ was on the wane and that God was dead.

Now, a Bible Society has turned Voltaire’s former home into an office and it is Nietzsche that is dead.

As the periodical prepares to publish its last print edition towards the close of 2012, perhaps Newsweek should stop and reflect where its name will be 200 years or so in comparison to the Name Above All Names.

by Frederick Meekins

Most can tell this by the crispness in the air or from the days growing noticeably shorter.

However, if your name and address has made it into the databases of Christian Evangelical direct marketing, you may also know Christmas time is coming because of an annual appeal received from Prison Fellowship Ministries on behalf of the organization’s Angel Tree Project.

In most instances, those that send Christmas cards tooting their own horns at least have the decency to change up the content each year.

The same cannot be said of the part of the Angel Tree Project appeal designed to guilt recipients into compliance.

Contained with the mailing is what the unsuspecting will perceived as a handwritten message from a convict begging for a gift for his daughter.

According to the letter, there was still nine years left on the inmate’s sentence and he would not be able to play a role in his daughter’s life for nearly an entire decade.

However, since at least 2005 and perhaps even as far back as 2003, Prison Fellowship has been sending the exact same note.

As such, shouldn’t “Richard” (if that is even his name) nearly be ready for release if he has not already departed the Big House? It is 2012, after all.

It’s bad enough for Prison Fellowship to solicit for the organization’s campaign in such a manner as to make those receiving the appeal seem guilty because those perpetrating any variety of criminal deeds have been incarcerated for violating the law.

You’d think that Prison Fellowship could at least exhibit the decency to feature a different jailbird each year still in need of the ministry’s services.

by Frederick Meekins

However, is what is denounced as “commercialism” all that bad of a thing?

Should analysts probe deeper, the discerning might discover that what these critics actually oppose is not so much the profanation of a Christian liturgical celebration but rather robust commerce and the widespread availability of abundant consumer goods.

These beatnik Luddites would turn their nose up at OTHER people’s luxuries (while texting their condemnation on their numerous wireless devices that you are to forego in the name of simplicity and sustainability) whether such items were purchased between Thanksgiving and Christmas or acquired throughout the remainder of the year.

A spiritually meaningful yet materially enjoyable Christmas are not necessarily mutually exclusive propositions.

Do those making such a claim subsist on nothing but bread crusts and rainwater collected in a cistern while wearing a haired shirt while sleeping on a straw mat on a stone floor?

By Frederick Meekins

The headline initially informing of such was formulated without a modifier or a more colorful description such as “crazed deadbeat” or “lewd indigent” in order to make Hackman appear to be this vile individual that makes a habit of accosting the downtrodden or deriving some kind of buzz from doing so.

Quite the opposite seems to be true.

From the complete account, Hackman was actually protecting his wife and the vagrant properly got what was coming to him.

Why should we care that Hackman’s attacker was homeless?

Would the public have been informed of this incident if the assailant domiciled in a more traditional mode of habitation?

As in regards to race and ethnicity, many leftists will so romanticize destitution that they cultivate the perception that those characterized by this economic plight or social condition can do no wrong.

If so, are the hypertolerant going to insist that they would allow some filthy, possibly disease ridden, bum to put his hands all over their wives, daughters, or dinner dates they are hoping to impress?

The Declaration of Independence insists that, in terms of fundamental being, all men are created equal.

If we are to accept the notion that the homeless are no less human than the rest of us and are deserving of the same degree of respect and courtesy that we expect from other members of our species, it also follows that we should expect from them the same kind of character flaws plaguing the remainder of our kind and that we should be allowed to protect ourselves from them accordingly.

by Frederick Meekins

In this illustration, one Indian says to another, “That was nice, but I don’t want to make it in a regular thing.”

Seated in the background are the Pilgrims.

It is no doubt hoped readers will conclude this was a depiction of the first Thanksgiving Day feast in the New World; but given the state of the education system, that might be too much to hope for.

Some will likely laugh, relating to how they themselves have endured numerous dinners and parties this festive time of year they didn’t mind attending but would rather not have to endure again in the future if given a choice.

However, the Monitor On Psychology is a flagship publication of the American Psychological Association.

This front organization seeks to turn either every depravity known to man into a mental illness the individual has no control over or excuse it in some fashion altogether.

Therefore, would these otherwise political correct leftists have published a cartoon where a Pilgrim forefather made a similarly snide remark about not wanting the Indians over again any time soon?

by Frederick Meekins

Several decades later, God might very well reply, “Where is the Soviet Union?” That nation, once referred to as the “evil empire” because of the threat it posed to human freedom, has become a shadow of its former self. This former superpower decayed from its own internal rot resulting primarily from the regime’s rejection of the Judeo-Christian worldview as epitomized by that state’s promulgation of revolutionary Communism.

Had Colonel Gagarin and his Soviet comrades been more willing to approach the issues in a more objective manner without the rose colored glasses of their Marxist ideology (perhaps “red” would have been a more fitting characterization) and without suppressing the conclusions that such evidence leads to, the world might have been sparred a Cold War costly in terms of both dollars and human lives. Even now nearly two decades later, the world still struggles to forge a global order and stands ready to fall into international chaos at any possible moment.

Despite what some political conservatives and Pentagon officials might think, the mentioned illustration should not be construed as arguing that the former Soviet Union was the sole source of evil operating in the world throughout the era of its infamous existence. Rather, that one nation merely came to symbolize what happens when man tries to expunge the evidence and knowledge of God from the society and its way of life through the use of violence and intimidation of its citizens. For while the Soviet Union and its kin in the Communist orbit may have perfected the outwardly horrific and bloodthirsty ways of suppressing eternal truths, the democratic West was itself busy finding ways to live as if God did not exist.

It could be argued that the methods used throughout Western society to suppress knowledge of God’s existence are in one manner more sophisticated than those employed by the secularist’s counterparts behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains. For where the totalitarian Marxist utilized torture in the form of physical violence and coercive psychological manipulation, his Western counterpart simply made God irrelevant by declaring that, while belief in God was acceptable for those too weak to live without Him, this character flaw was to remain a private issue and not to impact the public marketplace.

Phillip Johnson in “Reason In The Balance” characterized this as a primary tenet of naturalism, the belief that the physical world is all that exists in the closed system of the universe and that man can only look to himself for any kind of values (8). Applying the Protagorean ethic of man as the measure of all things with the satisfaction of natural desires as the highest objective, contemporary man has lived up to this lofty goal with all the zeal, fortitude, and ingenuity over which the secular humanists deified the species in the first place — with a trail of corpses and chaos laying in the social wake.

No sphere of human endeavor has remained untouched from this effort to remove God and His standards from civilized life. These trends illustrated themselves no better than in the field of sexual morality.

According to Cal Thomas in “The Death Of Ethics In America”, the metaphorical death of God and the abolition of His standards causes those adhering to a naturalistic outlook to see the divinely sanctioned rules governing this sphere of existence as an illusion to be ignored by the liberated individual. Yet in a surprising twist, those same individuals holding to a do-your-own-thing kind of ethic change their tune when it comes to doing one’s own thing when it comes to religion, especially if the belief under consideration is traditional Christianity. According to a New York Times poll, a significant number of young adults believe that belief in God is a personality disorder and that theists cannot cope with reality (Thomas, 93).

However, the rules governing these intimate behavioral matters and their Creator are not illusions to solidify the power of an authoritarian priesthood or to comfort the psychologically imbalanced. These precepts were in fact promulgated with the goal of protecting the ultimate happiness and welfare of the beings made in the image of their loving Creator. Mankind ignores these standards at his own peril — with abortion, venereal disease, and broken hearts the rewards of such folly.

Thomas points out that sexually transmitted diseases now rank as the primary form of communicable disease (93). However, even these kinds of terrifying consequences barely phase the calloused anymore. One student matriculated in a school near Thomas remarked, “We’re not going to get pregnant….If we slip up, we’ll get an abortion (105).”

To fall into sin is tragic and lamentable. To do so with such a callous attitude surely invites judgment. And when that day arrives, the God dispensing it will not be so easily dismissed.

Despite humanity’s attempts to stifle knowledge of its infinite Creator through the calculated disbelief of the atheistic philosopher or the wanton apathy of the hedonist drunken on assorted carnal pleasures, there is little that can be done to totally obliterate the knowledge of God’s existence since this truth is written across the very fabric of the universe and abides in the hearts of men if only they would open themselves to it. Despite this centuries-old effort at suppressing this knowledge, untold masses are seeking after a higher power in record number.

Unfortunately, the same effort once aimed at dethroning the God of the universe has now turned on the rational thought process created by this very same God. The postmodernist movement argues that, at best, objective reasoning does not exist and, at worst, it is a White male imposition designed to foster the dominance of the patriarchy.

This detachment from reality and commonsense often ends in disaster as those with enfeebled mental powers regularly fall for spiritual counterfeits offering their own false answers. An example of this occurred when Marshall Applewhite convinced his followers to commit suicide so that they might find salvation with extraterrestrials circumnavigating the galaxy.

In many instances, the so-called “Christian church” is not much better. Some branches have veered off into a liberalism bordering on agnosticism and atheism. And even some claiming to adhere to a more literalistic form of worship have fallen for dangerous heresies resulting in aberrant beliefs regarding God.

In “Christianity In Crisis”, Christian Research Institute President Hank Hanegraaff warns that one’s conception of God is just as important as having one in the first place. Hanegraaff shows the destruction that can result from thinking not tethered to God’s revelation in Scripture.

One typical example of this faulty theological thinking can be found in television minister Kenneth Copeland who said God “….stands somewhere around 6 feet 2 inches, in the neighborhood of a couple of hundred pounds and has a hand span of nine inches across (Hanegraaff, 121).” Copeland, however, was not preaching on God’s incarnation in the person of Jesus Christ. He was, in fact, making these statements regarding God the Father, who according to John 4:24 is a spirit who must be worshipped in spirit and in truth.

These faulty theological formulations do not confine themselves to the seminary classroom. Rather, they filter down to impact man’s view of himself and his relation to the divine Creator. For example, many of these prosperity teachers have demoted the sovereign God into a cosmic department store manager by promoting the doctrine that God is to grant the Christian’s every earthly desire whether or not that is in the best interest of the individual making the request or in accordance with God’s ultimate will. In so doing, they create an undo emphasis on material wealth when in fact Proverbs 30:8 says, “Give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread.”

So what is a soul searching for the truth of God or someone seeking to lead someone to the realization of these profound realities to do as they navigate between the gulfs of outright unbelief and warped forms of theism? If the person needing to be convinced is not at the point of accepting Scripture, one can start with a set of arguments seeking to establish an intellectual basis for God’s existence through common reason. These arguments are referred to as the “classic theistic proofs” as a number of prominent intellectuals have appealed to them over the centuries in order to establish a rational basis for theistic belief, their most famous proponent being Thomas Aquinas. These classic proofs touch on the areas of ontology, cosmology, and teleology.

The ontological proof derives its name from the word ontology, the branch of metaphysics pertaining to existence or being. This proof seeks to prove God on the grounds that, since God is the embodiment of perfection, God must exist since existence is better than nonexistence.

Striving to clarify the confusion, in “Apologetics To The Glory Of God”, theologian John Frame frames the argument in the following manner. “Premise 1: God has all perfections. Premise 2: Existence is a perfection. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists (115).”

This proof has enjoyed a lengthy and controversial existence throughout the history of Western thought, stretching back to Plato and still captivating the imaginations of intellectuals both pro and con from this era such as Alvin Plantinga and Jean-Paul Sartre. The crux of this debate centers around the dispute of whether or not the forms produced by human thought correspond to an objective reality existing apart from the mind.

For example, some conjecture, because someone can think of a perfect God who must exist since existence a perfection, does that mean such a God really exists? Theologian John Frame believes so, arguing that mental forms do correspond to objective realities.

Frame writes, “Our idea of a perfect triangle is not derived from a specific object of the senses, but it must correspond to something real; else it would not be useful as a criterion (116).” Put another way, the ontological argument bears a resemblance to the innate knowledge possessed by each person regarding God’s existence mentioned in Romans 1:19-21.

But while this proof may have entertained the Western world’s most formidable minds, it has been pointed out that few have been brought to faith through it. At best, it can clarify one’s thinking and re-enforce one’s position once they have made a decision for theism in regards to these matters.

Perhaps the best known of these theistic proofs is the cosmological argument. In essence, the cosmological argument holds that every affect has a cause which itself is the affect of a previous cause. Yet this chain cannot go on forever therefore, this chain of causality must have a mover complete in itself, an unmoved mover who is God.

This argument has gained added weight in recent times with the advents of the fields of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. The first points to the need for a Creator and the second establishes the need for His preservative influence.

Thermodynamics argues that a closed system will move towards maximum entropy (a scholarly euphemism for disorder and energy loss) in a finite amount of time. This really socks it to the litany harped by metaphysical naturalists such as Carl Sagan (who claimed that the cosmos is all that was, is or ever will be) that the universe is of an infinite age.

Had the paradigm employed by these weighty academics been true, the reader would not have been able to read this sentence nor the writer able to compose it. The universe would have ground to a halt sometime in the infinitely distant past since, by definition, the amount of time needed for an infinitely old universe to have run down would have elapsed infinite ages ago.

This reality points to a startup point — a moment of creation if you will — be it the Big Bang or God speaking the ornaments of the cosmos into existence where they now sit on the celestial sphere. Surprisingly, many Evangelical Christians are now coming to grips with some kind of interpretation regarding the Big Bang theory which they once viewed as suspicious and scientists who once looked to it with cyclical modifications to fit their notions of naturalistic universal renewal are fleeing from it with the speed once reserved for seven-day Creationists discussing the matter.

Related to the revelation of thermodynamics in that sense that it is a scientific theory with divine implications is the esoteric field of quantum mechanics, which warns that there is more to the seemingly deterministic clockwork nature of the universe than meets the eye. According to quantum mechanics, the substance of the universe does not operate in compliance with the Newtonian certainty perceived by the senses but is rather a realm where on the subatomic level a wide range of possibilities exist.

George Bernard Shaw remarked, “Everything happened because it must.” Quantum mechanics responds that a particle event is as likely not to happen as happen.

Yet, if such an absolute haphazardness were the case, would not the nightly news be filled with stories of individuals discombobulating into non-existence from the loss of their very molecular cohesion? This gulf between absolute determinism and particle anarchy allows for a creator who holds the cosmos together at all times. Colossians 1:17 says, “…and by him all things consist.” This is a reference to the role played by God in the maintenance of creation.

Taken together, the ideas of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics point to the fact that all individuals and structures standing as part of the created order exist as contingent units. Quantum mechanics disproves the deist notion that God left the universe to run its course.

In fact, God plays a pivotal role in keeping the universe together. Mortimer Adler clarifies the notion of contingency by writing in How To Think About God, “A contingent being is one needing a cause of its continuing existence at every moment of its endurance in existence (117).”

Closely related to and amplifying the cosmological proof is the teleological proof for God’s existence. The teleological proof argues for the existence of God from the apparent purpose and design of the universe. This theistic proof, with its emphasis upon intelligent design, has taken on added relevance in the early 21st century in light of Darwinism’s pervasiveness and the increased levels of knowledge scientists have garnered regarding the intricacies of the universe.

One could argue that these two developments have become one of the primary issues demarcating believers and those unwilling to alter their fundamental assumptions despite the compelling nature of the evidence. Even the most diehard skeptics admits that this argument has brought more unbelievers to God than any other.

And the more mankind learns about the universe, the stronger the argument becomes. For example, pseudo-scientists are at a loss to explain how random chance could bring about complex organic life as it now walks the earth into existence when the chances randomly aligning the twenty amino acids properly in order to form one cell of hemoglobin is reported to be 1 in 10 to the 603 power. And mind you, this is for only an organism as complicated as a single cell.

How then, without reference to a Creator is the rest of the complexity accounted for? Did the viceroy butterflies convene a conference to decide that they would mimic the coloring of the monarch butterflies in order to be avoided by dimwitted predators because the monarch is toxic?

Phillip Johnson points out in works such as “Darwin On Trial” and “Reason In The Balance” that evolution takes as much faith to believe in (if not more so in the light of the evidence) as some form of creation theory. And despite their academic hegemony, the proof evolutionists point to supporting blind chance, unlike the God being argued for in this discourse, does not exist.

The beginning of this paper elaborated in some detail how the world flounders across the stage of contemporary history without the illuminating insight of divine guidance. Related to this is what is known as the moral argument for the existence of God.

Throughout the past two centuries, mankind has striven to retain some sense of morality without reference to the Divine Legislator. And the results have been disastrous.

The role of morality in light of atheistic assumptions was set down by Marquis De Sade who had the “foresight” to realize that, without God acting as a cosmic policemen, all acts that were natural in that they could be carried out by an individual being permissible. The new golden rule became do it to others before they could do it to you.

Anarchy, though, is not the only social threat in an atheistic system. In a situation where God and His precepts are not seen as absolutes binding upon conduct, dictatorship becomes an even greater likelihood as those with a lust for power are no longer burdened by ethical restraints and the people willingly hand their inalienable liberties over to such despots in an attempt to regain some kind of social order, Draconian though it may be.

Even if the sociological climate is not as repressive as Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia (regimes epitomizing the brutalities resulting from political systems inherently hostile to God), what right does anybody have to tell anybody anything if God does not exist? If the Black man is not made in the image of God, what’s so wrong with slavery as it obviously results from his own innate inferiority in the Darwinian survival of the fittest.

Francis Schaeffer once remarked that, if God does not exist, it does not matter whether one helps an elderly lady across the street or pushes her into oncoming traffic. Yet this moral chaos is clearly not the intended moral order. Even those not enrolled in an Evangelical seminary realize that genocide of noncombatants is wrong. No one but the most rabid Skinhead or fanatical Palestinian supports Hitler’s pograms against the Jews.

In “The Abolition Of Man”, C.S. Lewis refers to this universal morality as “the Tao” or “the Way” (12). Even though the way the Way is implemented changes as man’s understanding of it grows, the Tao itself represents God’s universal standards and any reform of the Way as understood by finite human beings must come from within by its loyal adherents. To do so from without amounts to tyranny because those crafting the moral ethos in such an environment will only end up codifying their own arbitrary inclinations as law. With society increasingly marked by crime and arbitrary rule, the moral argument for God’s existence will grow in poignancy as millions will grow weary of liberty degenerating into license and justice perverted into political expediency.

While the classic theistic proofs and other arguments such as that for moral values are intellectually formidable, they are merely a starting point as their conclusion could eventually lead to a deity wearing any number of sectarian hats ranging from historic Christianity to deism to Islam depending on the spin put on the proofs. Furthermore, most of the proofs fail to comment on whether or not the deity arrived at intimately cares for the human creation apart from setting up some kind of legal framework, making Him more akin to some kind of metaphysical traffic cop holding the universe together like some kind of subatomic Elmer’s glue.

While quite persuasive, these arguments are just that, arguments, not unlike those bandied about night after night on Fox News debate programs where issues are never resolved and the highest goal being to get a rouse out of the opposition. The theistic proofs also bring to mind the Wisdom/Flew parable mentioned by John Warwick Montgomery in “The Suicide Of Christian Theology” where the theist argues that, while God’s handiwork can be deduced through the magnificence of creation there is no concrete way to point out God to those that doubt (89).

It is because that these arguments present a somewhat distant God that there must be a source to bridge the gap. For man steeped in sin to care about God, he must know that God care for him because before such an awakening man is so full of sinful pride to concern himself with his relation to the Creator. The proof of that love and the reality of God’s existence was made certain in the incarnation and redeeming work of Jesus Christ.

Despite the power of the theistic proofs, one cannot come to a knowledge of salvation through them alone. In order to give this intellectual starting point a solid foundation, one must turn to this God’s personal revelation, the Bible.

Wheaton Professor of Biblical Studies Gilbert Bilezikian in “Christianity 101″ points out that the Bible never tries to prove the existence of God but assumes it as a given (25). However, Scripture does contain internal indicators as to why it can be trusted. For starters, the Bible is historically accurate.

Paul Little of Intervarsity Fellowship in “How To Give Away Your Faith” quotes archaeologist Nelson Gluek as saying, “No archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference (Little, 77).” In fact, the Bible had the historical record straight long before modern historians as evidenced by the controversy surrounding the Hittites, an ancient people once thought mythological but eventually proven an historical reality. Since the Bible has proven itself historically accurate and capable of providing a code of conduct cognizant of human nature, there is little reason to doubt the existence of a God who reveals Himself in its pages and preserved them so that man might come to know Him through this special book.

But perhaps the greatest proof of all regarding the existence of God is His earthly manifestation in the person of His only begotten Son Jesus Christ, an act proclaimed in Scripture and making that book the compelling work that it is. While not accepting His claims of deity, most religions and philosophies look to Jesus (or rather a warped version of Jesus) as an exemplary figure above the remainder of the human fray in terms of example.

Yet one cannot have it both ways. C.S. Lewis said that either one accepts Christ’s claims to His own deity or one must think him to be a raving lunatic. There can be none of this “Jesus was a good teacher but…” nonsense.

Jesus says in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me.” He reveals that He is God as only God has the power to tell God who is to have access to God. In John 8:58, Jesus says, “Before Abraham was, I am,” revealing that Jesus shares the same sacred name of “I am” telling the world that God is the pinnacle of existence.

To further authenticate His claims, Scripture records the accounts of hundreds witnessing Him after the Resurrection. Surely, that many people over a series of different occasions could not all have been hallucinating and, from the persecution they faced, it seems these loyal disciples had little to gain from lying about the issue.

From the arguments presented, it can be concluded that God does exist and that He has placed a sufficient number of indicators to this reality throughout the layers of creation so that man might come to this knowledge. It has been seen that some of this knowledge can be arrived at through common logic.

For example, through the theistic proofs man can conclude that a God exists through an analysis of the creation. The fact that man can engage in this intellectual quest at all points to a rational Creator seeking to imbue His most cherished creations with a finite portion of His own rationality. The scientific understanding of the cosmos also points to God’s existence. Even the most simple components of the universe testify to a complexity beyond human comprehension. This is even the case with the so called “simple” organisms such as bacteria and viruses.

Even more importantly, this complexity testifies that God is not beyond the pale of legitimate conceptual discussion. Mortimer Adler argues that, if man can expound on theoretical constructs such as blackholes and subatomic particles without having directly experienced them, then God is therefore not necessarily off limits conceptually.

The contemporary social climate testifies to God’s existence as civilization becomes more chaotic with anarchy and tyranny gaining ground simultaneously. Without Scriptural principles under-girding the nation’s laws, one can kill their child through abortion but can be sent to jail for disciplining the child should the child be privileged to see the world outside of the birth canal.

Despite the power of these proofs to any unprejudiced individual with any degree of mental acuity, the best proof for God’s existence is His revelation to man in the form of Jesus Christ as detailed in Scripture. The only begotten Son of God, whose claims cannot be legitimately dismissed by His enemies, predicted His own resurrection in Matthew 12:39. And unlike the false prophets, hucksters, and shysters who refuse to subject their claims to verification, the risen Christ was authenticated by over 500 witnesses. One of these witnesses was so skeptical that he insisted on sticking his hands into the Lord’s wounds in order to be convinced otherwise.

One’s alignment in the debate of whether or not God exists is the most important position one will ever take as it will ultimately impact every facet of one’s existence. And while this decision is ultimately up to the individual in consultation with the Holy Spirit and cannot be made for them by longwinded apologists attempting to persuade them, they should know that their final decision in these matters will dramatically impact their eternal destinies. There is much more at stake in this conflict than where one will be spending Sunday morning.

By Frederick Meekins

For example, one of the cardinal principles to understanding contemporary liberalism is that the policies that they initially enact as voluntary will ultimately be enforced as mandatory..

Gaining in popularity in large cities and metropolitan areas across the United States is an occasion called “Car-Free Day.” It is pretty much as it sounds. For no other reason than that they have duped most into believing that they are better than everybody else, social planners have told us that we are suppose to voluntarily forego the use of our personal automobiles for a day in favor of public transportation and bio-locomotion (forms of transit such as walking where we want to go or riding a bike).

Eventually, this will go from occasional and voluntary to mandatory and permanent. Some will denounce such a conjecture as typical conservative and conspiracy fearmongering.

But is it? It seems more like rational analysis of the mass media.

In a Washington Examiner column titled “Car-Free In DC In Your Future”, Harry Jaffe makes this very proposal. Specifically he contends, “Why not make Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House to the foot of the U.S. Capitol car-free on Sundays? Imagine the inaugural route, America’s Main Street, a peaceful parade of strollers, bikers, and walkers.”

Another law of human nature is that what is called for (especially when the demand involves extending control over the lives of other human beings) is never enough.

Those opposed to the automobile won’t be satisfied with Pennsylvania avenue closed on Sundays. Eventually the call for it to be closed everyday will go out and ultimately this policy will engulf larger and larger portions of the city.

Such a policy could very well come to engulf much of the population of the United States. Impossible, the skeptical scoff. But once again, is it?

Already in the most blighted portions of Detroit and in Katrina-devastated New Orleans, a protracted campaign of systematic low grade depopulation has been underway for sometime. For instead of sending in SWAT teams to interdict and remove criminally recalcitrant segments of the population, municipal authorities need only deny those utilities necessary to enjoy a technologically advanced standard of existence.

The argument is made that too many resources would be expended to maintain or repair such infrastructure. Residents would be relocated to areas of higher population density where police and bureaucratic operatives do not have to exert themselves to as a great of an extent (we wouldn’t want to interrupt those coffee breaks and doughnut runs). The abandoned properties would be reforested or whatever the lovely sounding word of the month happens to be for infringement of property rights in the name of the environment.

Yet another law regarding how liberals tend to behave manifests itself in regards to the car free issue. That is none other than that liberals tend not to abide by the rules imposed upon and the deprivations expected of the rest of us.

For example, one enthusiastic supporter of Car Free Day so much so that he extended the festivity to an entire week is Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. In 2011 on the very first day of the commemoration, however, he was caught riding in an automobile wherever it was he needed to go.

Those that have surrendered their free thought in return for what Mark Levin refers to as the proverbial government cheese will respond, “But a governor is so much more important and must get wherever it is that he needs to go in a safe and timely manner.”

But in terms of your own life and in the lives of your family members, aren’t you just as important and in many ways even more so than the assorted governmental figureheads and functionaries?

For example, if you are fired for getting to work late or too far geographically from the places of gainful employment, is this governor going to put food on your table? If you are unable to get to your progeny quickly after school, will the youngsters be given a police escort home to ensure they are not victimized by child predators?

Celebrations are about much more than having a good time. Such commemorations also convey the values those holding them want to build civilization and morality around.

For example, Mother’s and Father’s Day uplift the importance of children honoring their parents as well as parents providing the kind of nurturing care deserving of such respect. Christmas and Easter remind that there is a God who so loved the world that He gave us His only begotten Son. And in its own dark way, Halloween reminds that we only get to enjoy the life in this world for a brief while so we had better get thinking about what lies beyond.

Throughout much of the modern and now into the postmodern era, the value of the individual has been increasingly downplayed. It is only to be expected that the celebrations commemorating what these epochs herald as the ideal would reflect as such. By discerning this, the astute patriot is better able to comprehend and counter these exact threats to our liberty.

by Frederick Meekins