Conversation is an art form that we all use daily. We should learn how to do it in a constructive and enlightening way, while keeping it enjoyable to all involved.
Many people seem to be talking at others rather than talking with them. Their “conversation” is one-sided, never taking into consideration what the other person might have to offer or might enjoy.
A good conversationalist will listen actively to the other person and ask penetrating and thoughtful questions as the discourse goes on. Conversation is more about listening intelligently than in talking about oneself.
There are times when two people are together; and no real bond is established between them indicating common interests for discussion. At times like those, one should change the subject repeatedly until some common interest is uncovered; and then, a real conversation can begin.
I believe that conversation should very seldom consist of “small talk” about inconsequential subjects, such as the weather or what was on sale at the grocery store. Surely, intelligent people can find subjects to talk about that have some real and important significance! We have all met someone who has the gift of sniffing out real subjects to talk about. With those people, it is virtually impossible to waste time talking about superficial subjects. To me, those people are to be sought out for inspiring and informative conversation.
Some lead-in comments or questions for initiating a good conversation might be such things as, “Tell me what you have been concerned about lately.” Or, “Have you been reading any books recently?” “Where do you go to church?” There are an infinite number of opening questions that might stimulate good conversation.
Always watch your respondent for signs of “listener fatigue:” Not maintaining eye contact or looking at the wrist watch or shifting stance from one foot to another might indicate that the respondent is tired of the subject being discussed.
Practice good conversation and think about it in advance: What do I want to discuss with the other person? Happy listening and talking!
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Try Journaling—You Will Appreciate it Later
This post is to recommend to our young correspondents the value of journaling your life experiences and daily activities. We have a friend who has journaled his life daily since graduating from high school. He can tell you where he and his family spent Christmas in 1984, who was there, what were the significant gifts, what happened, what dinner was like, etc., etc. The information he can glean from his journal is most interesting and even inspiring. He and his wife have fun looking into that old journal after fifty plus years of notations.
Twenty years ago, my wife and I were missionaries in West Africa. We had many very interesting experiences in those days; but, alas, we did not keep a record of them in written form, and now we cannot remember many of them. I wish we had kept a journal!
I recommend that journals be kept in an old-fashioned logbook. It would, perhaps, be easier and more economical of space to do it on a hard drive or in some other electronic medium; but one never knows in these days of rapid technology advancement, if hard drives or CD’s will be around in 40 years.
Happy journaling!
Twenty years ago, my wife and I were missionaries in West Africa. We had many very interesting experiences in those days; but, alas, we did not keep a record of them in written form, and now we cannot remember many of them. I wish we had kept a journal!
I recommend that journals be kept in an old-fashioned logbook. It would, perhaps, be easier and more economical of space to do it on a hard drive or in some other electronic medium; but one never knows in these days of rapid technology advancement, if hard drives or CD’s will be around in 40 years.
Happy journaling!
Thursday, December 23, 2010
The Rewards for Street Picketing
For years, my wife, Nancy, and I have picketed abortion clinics. We have had some interesting experiences, which I would like to share with you.
The responses from the traffic on the streets to our picketing with Pro-Life signs has been about equally divided between positive approval of our activities by thumbs-up signs and other less mentionable finger signals of disapproval. One abortionist tried to hit us with his car as he was coming out of his office parking lot. Another angry man pulled a knife on Nancy several years ago. Some have thrown paint balls at us—-fortunately for us, the paint balls did not burst. Several people have stopped to yell at us and argue with us about our beliefs concerning life issues. Their arguments are always of a rather crude and un-thought-out nature, mostly because they have not taken the time to organize their thoughts well. They almost always bring up the issue of “It’s a woman’s body; she can do as she sees fit with it.” This argument, of course, is easy to refute; but, alas, our vocal opponents never seem to be convinced. One man stopped, approached one of our fellow picketers, grabbed his sign and tore it up. Then he raced off in his car. We, of course, called the Lakewood police; and they apprehended him before he had gone four blocks. He was brought into court, fined $100, and required to pay for the destroyed sign. In these confrontational situations, we always call the police; and they have always protected us.
On the other side of the leger, we have also had people park their cars, and come over to us to express their appreciation of what we are doing. Some of them have offered to take us out to lunch, and others have brought us hot chocolate on cold days. One restaurateur invited us to eat at his pizza shop free, which we did on many occasions.
Most recently, a teenaged boy, who was obviously homeless, crossed Union Avenue with his elderly homeless companion deliberately to tell us that he and his friend approved of our street message. Then the boy reached into his pocket and gave us
89¢. It was like receiving the widow’s mite!
We picket every Monday morning from 11 AM to 12 noon. We have counted the cars and multiplied by the average number of people per car. We have calculated that in one hour, we expose our signs to 3000 people. We hope that we are doing some good on the street; at the least, we are helping to keep the Pro-Life message alive and well in our community. Come out and help us some time!
The responses from the traffic on the streets to our picketing with Pro-Life signs has been about equally divided between positive approval of our activities by thumbs-up signs and other less mentionable finger signals of disapproval. One abortionist tried to hit us with his car as he was coming out of his office parking lot. Another angry man pulled a knife on Nancy several years ago. Some have thrown paint balls at us—-fortunately for us, the paint balls did not burst. Several people have stopped to yell at us and argue with us about our beliefs concerning life issues. Their arguments are always of a rather crude and un-thought-out nature, mostly because they have not taken the time to organize their thoughts well. They almost always bring up the issue of “It’s a woman’s body; she can do as she sees fit with it.” This argument, of course, is easy to refute; but, alas, our vocal opponents never seem to be convinced. One man stopped, approached one of our fellow picketers, grabbed his sign and tore it up. Then he raced off in his car. We, of course, called the Lakewood police; and they apprehended him before he had gone four blocks. He was brought into court, fined $100, and required to pay for the destroyed sign. In these confrontational situations, we always call the police; and they have always protected us.
On the other side of the leger, we have also had people park their cars, and come over to us to express their appreciation of what we are doing. Some of them have offered to take us out to lunch, and others have brought us hot chocolate on cold days. One restaurateur invited us to eat at his pizza shop free, which we did on many occasions.
Most recently, a teenaged boy, who was obviously homeless, crossed Union Avenue with his elderly homeless companion deliberately to tell us that he and his friend approved of our street message. Then the boy reached into his pocket and gave us
89¢. It was like receiving the widow’s mite!
We picket every Monday morning from 11 AM to 12 noon. We have counted the cars and multiplied by the average number of people per car. We have calculated that in one hour, we expose our signs to 3000 people. We hope that we are doing some good on the street; at the least, we are helping to keep the Pro-Life message alive and well in our community. Come out and help us some time!
Friday, December 17, 2010
The Purpose of Music
“The aim and final end of all music should be none other than the glory of God and the refreshment of the soul. If heed is not paid to this, it is not true music but a diabolical bawling and twanging.” Johann Sebastian Bach 1685-1750
Monday, December 13, 2010
Will More Taxes or Less Taxes Help the Country?
Democrats are convinced that the United States needs more taxes to dig us out of the current recession, unemployment problem, and run-away national debt.
Nancy Pelosi claims that the "tax cuts for the rich" cannot be continued because it would be "too costly." Former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey says, "Demagoguery beats data" in politics, here are some data to help us evaluate the Democrat claim.
The first big cut in income taxes came in the 1920s, at the urging of Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon. He argued that a reduction of the tax rates would increase the tax revenues. What actually happened?
In 1920, when the top tax rate was 73 percent, for people making over $100,000 a year, the federal government collected just over $700 million in income taxes-- and 30 percent of that was paid by people making over $100,000. After a series of tax cuts brought the top rate down to 24 percent, the federal government collected more than a billion dollars in income tax revenue--and people making over $100,000 a year now paid 65 percent of the taxes.
How could that be? The answer is simple: People behave differently when tax rates are high as compared to when they are low. With low tax rates, they take their money out of tax shelters and put it to work in the economy, benefitting themselves, the economy and government, which collects more money in taxes because incomes rise.
High tax rates which very few people are actually paying, because of tax shelters, do not bring in as much revenue as lower tax rates that people are paying. It was much the same story after tax cuts during the Kennedy administration, the Reagan administration and the Bush Administration.
The New York Times reported in 2006: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year."
This country needs LESS taxation, not more!!
(This blog post was excerpted from Thomas Sowell, Townhall.com, 11/16/10)
Nancy Pelosi claims that the "tax cuts for the rich" cannot be continued because it would be "too costly." Former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey says, "Demagoguery beats data" in politics, here are some data to help us evaluate the Democrat claim.
The first big cut in income taxes came in the 1920s, at the urging of Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon. He argued that a reduction of the tax rates would increase the tax revenues. What actually happened?
In 1920, when the top tax rate was 73 percent, for people making over $100,000 a year, the federal government collected just over $700 million in income taxes-- and 30 percent of that was paid by people making over $100,000. After a series of tax cuts brought the top rate down to 24 percent, the federal government collected more than a billion dollars in income tax revenue--and people making over $100,000 a year now paid 65 percent of the taxes.
How could that be? The answer is simple: People behave differently when tax rates are high as compared to when they are low. With low tax rates, they take their money out of tax shelters and put it to work in the economy, benefitting themselves, the economy and government, which collects more money in taxes because incomes rise.
High tax rates which very few people are actually paying, because of tax shelters, do not bring in as much revenue as lower tax rates that people are paying. It was much the same story after tax cuts during the Kennedy administration, the Reagan administration and the Bush Administration.
The New York Times reported in 2006: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year."
This country needs LESS taxation, not more!!
(This blog post was excerpted from Thomas Sowell, Townhall.com, 11/16/10)
Monday, December 6, 2010
Common Sense at the Airport Body Scanner
I have just passed through the Transportation Security Administration passenger inspection routine at the Denver and Detroit airports; and I have some advice to offer my readers.
The body scanning devices being used in airports are low voltage X-rays that read the scan by backscatter from the radiation contact. They deliver about the same amount of radiation as an ordinary chest X-ray; there is a difference, however. The scanners at the airport do not deliver deeply penetrating ionizing radiation—all of the radiation is concentrated in the skin and the tissues immediately under the skin. Therefore, the radiation exposure is concentrated in that area, resulting in a significant amount of damaging radiation there—more than a chest X-ray. The scan reader sees the body in what appears to be its naked state.
The people running the scans told me that there is no ionizing radiation exposure, but they are mistaken in this matter. The scanners are X-ray machines.
In going through the airports, I have opted to have the “pat down” instead of the body scanner. That procedure was more invasive than the “wand” procedure used to check passengers who fail the metal detector test; but I did not find it to be offensive or objectionably invasive. For this reason, I recommend that my readers refuse the body scanner and have the “pat down.” My wife, also, chose to have the “pat down;” and she did not find the procedure offensive, either.
It was interesting to me that in Detroit, the airport had provided a Muslim woman to do the “pat downs” for other Muslim women. This was obviously because Muslim women are taught to demand higher levels of modesty than other women. I am fairly sure that most women feel modest, too. We seem to think in this country that Muslims deserve special privileges. Never mind the fact that if it were not for Muslims and their suicide bombs, there would not be any bomb danger in airplanes in the first place.
The body scanning devices being used in airports are low voltage X-rays that read the scan by backscatter from the radiation contact. They deliver about the same amount of radiation as an ordinary chest X-ray; there is a difference, however. The scanners at the airport do not deliver deeply penetrating ionizing radiation—all of the radiation is concentrated in the skin and the tissues immediately under the skin. Therefore, the radiation exposure is concentrated in that area, resulting in a significant amount of damaging radiation there—more than a chest X-ray. The scan reader sees the body in what appears to be its naked state.
The people running the scans told me that there is no ionizing radiation exposure, but they are mistaken in this matter. The scanners are X-ray machines.
In going through the airports, I have opted to have the “pat down” instead of the body scanner. That procedure was more invasive than the “wand” procedure used to check passengers who fail the metal detector test; but I did not find it to be offensive or objectionably invasive. For this reason, I recommend that my readers refuse the body scanner and have the “pat down.” My wife, also, chose to have the “pat down;” and she did not find the procedure offensive, either.
It was interesting to me that in Detroit, the airport had provided a Muslim woman to do the “pat downs” for other Muslim women. This was obviously because Muslim women are taught to demand higher levels of modesty than other women. I am fairly sure that most women feel modest, too. We seem to think in this country that Muslims deserve special privileges. Never mind the fact that if it were not for Muslims and their suicide bombs, there would not be any bomb danger in airplanes in the first place.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
U.S.A. Today Looks Like Rome Yesterday
As President Obama steps down the leadership role of America in world affairs and emphasizes domestic priorities, he begins to look very much like the emperors of the latter part of the Roman Empire.
Rome was the only world superpower in the late 2nd Century, A.D.; but 100 years later Rome was terminally ill, weakened first by internal corruption and unsustainable spending and then destroyed by the emergence of multi-polar contenders for power. Roman currency had been debased; and inflation was out of control. In those 100 years, the Roman bureaucracy grew about 35 fold. Military spending and commitments were scaled back, and Roman citizens were demanding all sorts of government programs to give them the things they desired. Moral life was deteriorating and Roman citizens were being entertained by the most horrible, violent, and degraded forms of sport.
External forces sensed Rome’s weakness, including its shrinking military and its lack of will. Persia’s ruler judged an unusually favorable peace offering from Rome as a reason to attack rather than negotiate. Other enemies reached the same conclusion.
By the mid-5th Century, multiple powers contended for world leadership; and it took 1000 years before the world matched the stability, technological progress, and prosperity enjoyed under Rome’s leadership.
Do you see any similarity of the United States to the situation that pertained in ancient Rome?
(This blog post was excerpted from a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal 11-2-10 by Mike Hall of Gainesville, Fl.)
Rome was the only world superpower in the late 2nd Century, A.D.; but 100 years later Rome was terminally ill, weakened first by internal corruption and unsustainable spending and then destroyed by the emergence of multi-polar contenders for power. Roman currency had been debased; and inflation was out of control. In those 100 years, the Roman bureaucracy grew about 35 fold. Military spending and commitments were scaled back, and Roman citizens were demanding all sorts of government programs to give them the things they desired. Moral life was deteriorating and Roman citizens were being entertained by the most horrible, violent, and degraded forms of sport.
External forces sensed Rome’s weakness, including its shrinking military and its lack of will. Persia’s ruler judged an unusually favorable peace offering from Rome as a reason to attack rather than negotiate. Other enemies reached the same conclusion.
By the mid-5th Century, multiple powers contended for world leadership; and it took 1000 years before the world matched the stability, technological progress, and prosperity enjoyed under Rome’s leadership.
Do you see any similarity of the United States to the situation that pertained in ancient Rome?
(This blog post was excerpted from a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal 11-2-10 by Mike Hall of Gainesville, Fl.)
Saturday, November 20, 2010
The Bathroom Bill Comes Home to Roost
The American Family Association of Pennsylvania has contacted the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to protest its recent decision to allow men and women who have not undergone sex reassignment surgery to identify as the sex of their choice on drivers’ licenses and state-issued identification cards.
“[In late August] media reports indicated that PennDOT has changed its policy concerning those sexually confused individuals who believe they were born in the wrong body,” said Diane Gramley, president of the group. However, she said the issue is not addressed on the government Web site.
In response to the policy change, Gramley wrote a letter to Department of Transportation secretary Allen D. Biehler. She included the account of a Western Michigan University nursing professor. The woman found a man who thinks he is a woman standing naked next to her in the shower area of a health club. The victim wrote that she felt violated and worried about her dignity and privacy, even having nightmares that the man was in her house.
“As we noted in the letter to PennDOT,” Gramley said, “citizens should at minimum be able to trust their state government to tell them the truth. This is a fundamental honesty-in-government issue.”
(The above was copied from the American Family Association Journal December 2010 p.7.)
It should be noted that this kind of transgender threat to women’s shower rooms is legal in Colorado according to the recent Senate Bill 200, which passed the legislature and Governor Bill Ritter’s signature in June 2010. http://bit.ly/dsVEMC
“[In late August] media reports indicated that PennDOT has changed its policy concerning those sexually confused individuals who believe they were born in the wrong body,” said Diane Gramley, president of the group. However, she said the issue is not addressed on the government Web site.
In response to the policy change, Gramley wrote a letter to Department of Transportation secretary Allen D. Biehler. She included the account of a Western Michigan University nursing professor. The woman found a man who thinks he is a woman standing naked next to her in the shower area of a health club. The victim wrote that she felt violated and worried about her dignity and privacy, even having nightmares that the man was in her house.
“As we noted in the letter to PennDOT,” Gramley said, “citizens should at minimum be able to trust their state government to tell them the truth. This is a fundamental honesty-in-government issue.”
(The above was copied from the American Family Association Journal December 2010 p.7.)
It should be noted that this kind of transgender threat to women’s shower rooms is legal in Colorado according to the recent Senate Bill 200, which passed the legislature and Governor Bill Ritter’s signature in June 2010. http://bit.ly/dsVEMC
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Illogical Result at Planned Parenthood
A clearly distressed new mother, seeking to take leave of her newborn under North Carolina’s Safe Surrender law, made the mistake of leaving the child outside the entrance of her local Planned Parenthood clinic. Tragically, the premature infant did not survive the abandonment; it died on the doorstep.
The clinic’s reaction was, to put it gently, twisted. With its workers apparently distraught after having encountered the dead infant, the clinic closed its doors the following day and sought counseling for staff members who witnessed the child’s last moments. Employees whose business it was to snuff out the lives of infants just weeks or months younger than this poor abandoned child needed counseling when they witnessed an unvarnished reminder of their trade. It figures.
(The above account was copied from First Things November 2010 p87.)
It seems to this writer that, logically, they should have rejoiced at the death of another baby, since that is the product of their business. Except…for the fact that they did not make any money from this one.
The clinic’s reaction was, to put it gently, twisted. With its workers apparently distraught after having encountered the dead infant, the clinic closed its doors the following day and sought counseling for staff members who witnessed the child’s last moments. Employees whose business it was to snuff out the lives of infants just weeks or months younger than this poor abandoned child needed counseling when they witnessed an unvarnished reminder of their trade. It figures.
(The above account was copied from First Things November 2010 p87.)
It seems to this writer that, logically, they should have rejoiced at the death of another baby, since that is the product of their business. Except…for the fact that they did not make any money from this one.
Friday, November 12, 2010
The Effect of the Stimulus on Foreign Trade.
The United States’ activity in stimulus financing is drawing sharp criticism from the Euro zone, China, Japan, and Brazil. What is it about U.S. stimulus money that is making our allies and business associates so uncomfortable? The money chain policies hold the answer:
1. In order to stimulate the economy and create jobs, the U.S. prints lots of money and spends it on projects that require jobs. This, theoretically, puts money for spending in the private sector into the pockets of the American people. (So far, almost a trillion dollars of spending has not produced much of a dent in the unemployment rate.)
2. With lots of dollar bills floating around, prices are predicted to go up in an inflationary response. So far, inflation is not going up very rapidly—1.4% per annum when last checked in September. However, the rate of inflation is bound to rise considerably with all the newly printed money in the economy. This inevitable inflation is what is worrying the leaders in other countries.
3. The large amount of money in the system will make each dollar worth less—at home and abroad. For that reason, Americans will not be able to buy international products as freely as before. That will cut into the sales for exporter counties, such as China, Japan, Germany, several other Euro countries, and Brazil. Neither Americans nor foreigners will be happy with that result.
4. American products will become more affordable to foreign buyers, because their currency will be worth more relative to the dollar value of our products. This would be a desirable thing for the U.S.
5. To compensate for the loss of U.S. sales, other countries will be tempted to print more money and thereby devalue their currency to support the sales of their products. (This is exactly what the U.S. is doing, now.)
6. This whole process is likely to produce a domino effect on world economies. Each country will try to devalue its currency just to keep up with the sales deficit they will experience when other countries cannot afford to buy their products.
7. Worldwide inflation will be detrimental to everyone in the end. Devaluing currency is only a temporary fix for a sick economy. The huge effect the U.S. has on other nations’ economies could tip the whole world into a dangerous situation. I think it is a bad idea.
In the long run, a free economy without the tough government regulations seems to me to be a better idea. The fix will be difficult for many in the short term; but free markets have performed better in the past; and I think they would perform better now.
1. In order to stimulate the economy and create jobs, the U.S. prints lots of money and spends it on projects that require jobs. This, theoretically, puts money for spending in the private sector into the pockets of the American people. (So far, almost a trillion dollars of spending has not produced much of a dent in the unemployment rate.)
2. With lots of dollar bills floating around, prices are predicted to go up in an inflationary response. So far, inflation is not going up very rapidly—1.4% per annum when last checked in September. However, the rate of inflation is bound to rise considerably with all the newly printed money in the economy. This inevitable inflation is what is worrying the leaders in other countries.
3. The large amount of money in the system will make each dollar worth less—at home and abroad. For that reason, Americans will not be able to buy international products as freely as before. That will cut into the sales for exporter counties, such as China, Japan, Germany, several other Euro countries, and Brazil. Neither Americans nor foreigners will be happy with that result.
4. American products will become more affordable to foreign buyers, because their currency will be worth more relative to the dollar value of our products. This would be a desirable thing for the U.S.
5. To compensate for the loss of U.S. sales, other countries will be tempted to print more money and thereby devalue their currency to support the sales of their products. (This is exactly what the U.S. is doing, now.)
6. This whole process is likely to produce a domino effect on world economies. Each country will try to devalue its currency just to keep up with the sales deficit they will experience when other countries cannot afford to buy their products.
7. Worldwide inflation will be detrimental to everyone in the end. Devaluing currency is only a temporary fix for a sick economy. The huge effect the U.S. has on other nations’ economies could tip the whole world into a dangerous situation. I think it is a bad idea.
In the long run, a free economy without the tough government regulations seems to me to be a better idea. The fix will be difficult for many in the short term; but free markets have performed better in the past; and I think they would perform better now.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Why Does God Always Demand Praise?
Have you ever wondered why God frequently seems to demand that we praise Him? Is He some kind of egomaniac who seeks out praise and adulation, even though He is the one who needs absolutely nothing? That kind of self-admiration is something that we think unattractive in one of our own kind.
The Psalms are particularly troubling in this respect, for in the Psalms, we are repeatedly admonished to praise God. The Psalmists often say something like this, “God, you like praise. Do this for me and you shall have some.” It even sounds like the Psalmist is offering a bribe to God—how repulsive!! The amount of praise even seems to be important i.e., “…seven times a day do I praise thee.”
There must be a reason for this continuing demand for praise. Much of the reason lies in the fact that if we do not admire God, we shall be insensible losers; we shall have missed something beautiful and deserving of admiration. The omission of admiring God and its undesirable consequence is similar to the omission and undesirable consequence we experience when we walk by a famous painting in an art gallery and fail to appreciate its beauty—we have missed something that others have known.
Furthermore, in the act of worship, God communicates His presence to men. In our worship of God, He actually gives Himself to us in a concrete way.
It is a fact of the character of humankind that all of our enjoyment spontaneously overflows into praise. We praise all things we enjoy. Those who cannot praise are the malcontents of society; and they are the ones who seem to enjoy nothing. Praise seems to be the completion of our joy and appreciation of whatever the object of our joy is. We want others to appreciate the thing we appreciate. Thus, the Psalmist calls out to others to see and appreciate the thing he sees—God.
Our duty to praise God exists so that we might have the delight of knowing God, Himself. Remember, He lives in the praises of His people. We can only know Him if we frequently praise Him.
This blog post was excerpted from C.S.Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms.
The Psalms are particularly troubling in this respect, for in the Psalms, we are repeatedly admonished to praise God. The Psalmists often say something like this, “God, you like praise. Do this for me and you shall have some.” It even sounds like the Psalmist is offering a bribe to God—how repulsive!! The amount of praise even seems to be important i.e., “…seven times a day do I praise thee.”
There must be a reason for this continuing demand for praise. Much of the reason lies in the fact that if we do not admire God, we shall be insensible losers; we shall have missed something beautiful and deserving of admiration. The omission of admiring God and its undesirable consequence is similar to the omission and undesirable consequence we experience when we walk by a famous painting in an art gallery and fail to appreciate its beauty—we have missed something that others have known.
Furthermore, in the act of worship, God communicates His presence to men. In our worship of God, He actually gives Himself to us in a concrete way.
It is a fact of the character of humankind that all of our enjoyment spontaneously overflows into praise. We praise all things we enjoy. Those who cannot praise are the malcontents of society; and they are the ones who seem to enjoy nothing. Praise seems to be the completion of our joy and appreciation of whatever the object of our joy is. We want others to appreciate the thing we appreciate. Thus, the Psalmist calls out to others to see and appreciate the thing he sees—God.
Our duty to praise God exists so that we might have the delight of knowing God, Himself. Remember, He lives in the praises of His people. We can only know Him if we frequently praise Him.
This blog post was excerpted from C.S.Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Is America Being Dismantled?
For years, liberals and other “progressives” in our country have been involved in a project to erode both respect for this country and the social cohesion of our people. This erosion is what has set the stage for today's dismantling of America that is now approaching the point of no return.
Over 100 years ago, progressives began to speak about changing our Constitution so that a more elite group of intellectuals could dictate our laws and customs. They did this under the mantra of the “needs of the times.” By the early 20th Century, the movement to subordinate the constitution to the wishes of our betters was led by our only President with a Ph.D., Woodrow Wilson. He thought that judges should not take the Constitution as meaning what its words plainly say, but "interpret" it to mean whatever it ought to mean, in order to meet "the needs of the times."
In our present times, this movement is still very much alive; and it is taking some subtle twists and turns. We now have a President who has, for years, been soaked in the society of those who strongly disdain our country and its traditions—they have seemingly preferred the principles of other countries to the republican form of government that has been established in the United States.
To get their way, our leaders must erode or dismantle the Constitution, bit by bit, in one way or another. This has been going on piecemeal over the years but now we have an administration in Washington that circumvents the Constitution wholesale, with its laws passed so fast that the public cannot know what is in them, its appointment of "czars" wielding greater power than Cabinet members, without having to be exposed to public scrutiny by going through the confirmation process prescribed by the Constitution for Cabinet members.
But the greatest challenge this administration has presented to the people of our country has been in international relations, where it is alienating our long-time allies, dismantling our credibility by reneging on our commitment to putting up a missile shield in Eastern Europe and--above all-- doing nothing meaningful to stop the leading terror-sponsoring nation in the world, Iran, from getting nuclear weapons.
We could deter the Soviet Union with our nuclear weapons, and now we must design methods to deter suicidal fanatics, whether they are international terrorists of the sort that caused 9/11 or suicidal fanatics in charge of the government of Iran, who have long been supplying international networks of suicidal fanatics.
Conservatism may not be popular with large segments of the United States population; but if we do not return to our democratic and republican roots, we will lose a great country that has served our fore fathers and us well.
Over 100 years ago, progressives began to speak about changing our Constitution so that a more elite group of intellectuals could dictate our laws and customs. They did this under the mantra of the “needs of the times.” By the early 20th Century, the movement to subordinate the constitution to the wishes of our betters was led by our only President with a Ph.D., Woodrow Wilson. He thought that judges should not take the Constitution as meaning what its words plainly say, but "interpret" it to mean whatever it ought to mean, in order to meet "the needs of the times."
In our present times, this movement is still very much alive; and it is taking some subtle twists and turns. We now have a President who has, for years, been soaked in the society of those who strongly disdain our country and its traditions—they have seemingly preferred the principles of other countries to the republican form of government that has been established in the United States.
To get their way, our leaders must erode or dismantle the Constitution, bit by bit, in one way or another. This has been going on piecemeal over the years but now we have an administration in Washington that circumvents the Constitution wholesale, with its laws passed so fast that the public cannot know what is in them, its appointment of "czars" wielding greater power than Cabinet members, without having to be exposed to public scrutiny by going through the confirmation process prescribed by the Constitution for Cabinet members.
But the greatest challenge this administration has presented to the people of our country has been in international relations, where it is alienating our long-time allies, dismantling our credibility by reneging on our commitment to putting up a missile shield in Eastern Europe and--above all-- doing nothing meaningful to stop the leading terror-sponsoring nation in the world, Iran, from getting nuclear weapons.
We could deter the Soviet Union with our nuclear weapons, and now we must design methods to deter suicidal fanatics, whether they are international terrorists of the sort that caused 9/11 or suicidal fanatics in charge of the government of Iran, who have long been supplying international networks of suicidal fanatics.
Conservatism may not be popular with large segments of the United States population; but if we do not return to our democratic and republican roots, we will lose a great country that has served our fore fathers and us well.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Whence Prosperity? The Government?
Many people think that government spending can create jobs and shovel our economy out of the doldrums. It is true that the government can hire people to do jobs and supply them with money for their work. But…where does the money to pay them come from? It comes from taxes that the people pay. In other words, all the government is doing is shifting money around (these days from the wealthy to the lower economic classes). No new product is being brought forth. Rarely it may be necessary to shift money around in our republic by artificial means by government action. However, that money would shift anyway as the poor are hired by the wealthy to produce real goods and real services.
Our government is soaked in the notion that when the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. If you believe that line, then you believe that creating wealth causes poverty. The truth is that creating wealth causes more wealth. If somebody opens a very big successful company in your small town do you think that that would be bad news for the people in the town? Would that business suck up all the available money and leave the people poor? No! The people in the town would be more prosperous because they have more jobs and income. The businesses in our country are not causing our economic woes—the government is causing the woes.
If the government wants to encourage a business, there are several things that it can do:
1. Cut taxes and give tax breaks.
2. Decrease regulation.
3. Buy the company’s products for governmental tasks.
4. Subsidize the company.
If the government wants to discourage a business, there are several things it can do:
1. Raise taxes.
2. Increase regulation.
3. Buy the company’s products from another supplier, perhaps from a supplier overseas.
4. Encourage union domination.
Our government seems to be doing everything it can to discourage business. It is time we act to do something about this anti-business climate in which we live. Write to your Congressman and Senator to ask them to act in a pro-business way.
Our government is soaked in the notion that when the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. If you believe that line, then you believe that creating wealth causes poverty. The truth is that creating wealth causes more wealth. If somebody opens a very big successful company in your small town do you think that that would be bad news for the people in the town? Would that business suck up all the available money and leave the people poor? No! The people in the town would be more prosperous because they have more jobs and income. The businesses in our country are not causing our economic woes—the government is causing the woes.
If the government wants to encourage a business, there are several things that it can do:
1. Cut taxes and give tax breaks.
2. Decrease regulation.
3. Buy the company’s products for governmental tasks.
4. Subsidize the company.
If the government wants to discourage a business, there are several things it can do:
1. Raise taxes.
2. Increase regulation.
3. Buy the company’s products from another supplier, perhaps from a supplier overseas.
4. Encourage union domination.
Our government seems to be doing everything it can to discourage business. It is time we act to do something about this anti-business climate in which we live. Write to your Congressman and Senator to ask them to act in a pro-business way.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Sexting
Many parents are unaware of the frequency of what is called “sexting,” that is the sharing of sexually explicit pictures and messages on cell phones—most often posted or sent by teenagers or young adults. The prevalence of this practice is frightening! A study done by The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, http://bit.ly/bDLcMM, showed that 22% of teen girls and 18% of teen boys have shared nude or semi-nude pictures of themselves, attached either to a text message or by posting them online.
Young people are often not mature enough to grasp the truth and the relevance of God’s word in this matter; but they should be led to understand: Proverbs 5:20-23 says, “Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress? Why embrace the bosom of another man’s wife? For a man’s ways are in full view of the Lord, and he examines all his paths. The evil deeds of a wicked man ensnare him; the cords of his sin hold him fast. He will die for lack of discipline, led astray by his own great folly.”
Teenagers need to be taught that explicit sex on cell phones, the internet, magazine, or other medium is damaging to their characters; and they should avoid it. Furthermore, they should be aware of the fact that anything posted in cyberspace is there forever, and always available to future employers and university admission committees who will evaluate people for admission or employment.
Parents have an obligation to monitor this activity and protect their children from such contamination. Children will often imitate their parents’ practices in such activities, also. If children see their parents watching sexually suggestive scenes on TV or hear them telling or laughing at dirty jokes, you can be sure the children will imitate their example.
To read more about this subject, I would recommend that you refer to Randy Alcorn’s discussion, http://bit.ly/daMUyg.
Young people are often not mature enough to grasp the truth and the relevance of God’s word in this matter; but they should be led to understand: Proverbs 5:20-23 says, “Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress? Why embrace the bosom of another man’s wife? For a man’s ways are in full view of the Lord, and he examines all his paths. The evil deeds of a wicked man ensnare him; the cords of his sin hold him fast. He will die for lack of discipline, led astray by his own great folly.”
Teenagers need to be taught that explicit sex on cell phones, the internet, magazine, or other medium is damaging to their characters; and they should avoid it. Furthermore, they should be aware of the fact that anything posted in cyberspace is there forever, and always available to future employers and university admission committees who will evaluate people for admission or employment.
Parents have an obligation to monitor this activity and protect their children from such contamination. Children will often imitate their parents’ practices in such activities, also. If children see their parents watching sexually suggestive scenes on TV or hear them telling or laughing at dirty jokes, you can be sure the children will imitate their example.
To read more about this subject, I would recommend that you refer to Randy Alcorn’s discussion, http://bit.ly/daMUyg.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Churches Timid in Elections
I have been very disappointed during this election season by the churches of Denver because of their unwillingness to address the Christian issues on the ballots. Their lack of support for things that are clearly designed to protect and advance Christian ethics and morals in our society is a shame to them and to the Christian people of our state.
Somehow, the pastors and the elder boards of the churches think that it is against the law for them to speak out on Christian issues and even Christian principles. They think that they will lose their coveted tax exemptions if they speak out on anything that comes up on the ballot. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, there is nothing in the law that would prohibit them from actively advocating for issues in an election that concern our faith. The following link from the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization, describes what can and what cannot be proclaimed from the pulpit during an election season: http://bit.ly/9O13mh.
I think that part of the problem with churches and pastors is ignorance of the issues. I spoke to one pastor who had already voted in Colorado. He told me that he was surprised to find the Personhood Amendment on the ballot when he got to the polling place. This issue, which would define the beginning of human life at the point of conception, is clearly a Christian issue of life. The pastor had not taken the time to inform himself of the issues on the ballot. (He did take the time, however, to deny me the privilege of informing his church on this issue.) In these days, ballots are so very complicated that one cannot decide intelligently on most of the issues by simply going to the polling place and seeing what one might vote on. One has to inform oneself of the issues long before going to vote.
This appalling situation would not have obtained during the early days of America. Preachers and churches were not afraid to proclaim the truth from the pulpits of pre-revolutionary America. Every one of the 27 reasons for revolution elucidated in the Declaration of Independence was clearly presented to the American people by the preachers of America in the 10 years before the revolution. Without the leadership of our churches, the American Revolution might not have ever happened. What a difference from the situation today when the churches are afraid to even mention Christian issues from the pulpit! GOD HELP US ALL!!
Somehow, the pastors and the elder boards of the churches think that it is against the law for them to speak out on Christian issues and even Christian principles. They think that they will lose their coveted tax exemptions if they speak out on anything that comes up on the ballot. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, there is nothing in the law that would prohibit them from actively advocating for issues in an election that concern our faith. The following link from the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization, describes what can and what cannot be proclaimed from the pulpit during an election season: http://bit.ly/9O13mh.
I think that part of the problem with churches and pastors is ignorance of the issues. I spoke to one pastor who had already voted in Colorado. He told me that he was surprised to find the Personhood Amendment on the ballot when he got to the polling place. This issue, which would define the beginning of human life at the point of conception, is clearly a Christian issue of life. The pastor had not taken the time to inform himself of the issues on the ballot. (He did take the time, however, to deny me the privilege of informing his church on this issue.) In these days, ballots are so very complicated that one cannot decide intelligently on most of the issues by simply going to the polling place and seeing what one might vote on. One has to inform oneself of the issues long before going to vote.
This appalling situation would not have obtained during the early days of America. Preachers and churches were not afraid to proclaim the truth from the pulpits of pre-revolutionary America. Every one of the 27 reasons for revolution elucidated in the Declaration of Independence was clearly presented to the American people by the preachers of America in the 10 years before the revolution. Without the leadership of our churches, the American Revolution might not have ever happened. What a difference from the situation today when the churches are afraid to even mention Christian issues from the pulpit! GOD HELP US ALL!!
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Conspiracy of Silence
Abraham Lincoln said, “To sin by silence when you should protest makes cowards of men.” Christ died for us and asks us to care about each other. Christ died for us and that gives us compassion for our fellow men, especially those in mortal danger. The bumper sticker says: “If you’re not completely appalled by now, you’re just not paying attention.” How many more babies have to die before the people of God will stand up and say, “Enough!!!?”
Abortion is a national and international disgrace. The blood of the aborted cries out. “We have been silent too long.” God is on the side of those who stand for Life. He gives victory to those on the side of truth. So, do not be afraid to wear a Precious Feet Pin or put a Pro-Life bumper sticker on your car. Support your local pregnancy centers and other Pro-Life organizations.
When you stand before the judgment seat of God, you will be glad you did something. You will also be glad that Jesus did something so you can live well now and eternally.
One practical thing you can do this election year is to vote for Pro-Life candidates and vote YES on Amendment 62, the Personhood Amendment in Colorado.
This blog post was excerpted from Pastor Wayne Riddering of Hope Lutheran Church in Westcliffe, Colorado. Pastor Riddering is a former President of Lutherans for Life in Metro Denver.
Abortion is a national and international disgrace. The blood of the aborted cries out. “We have been silent too long.” God is on the side of those who stand for Life. He gives victory to those on the side of truth. So, do not be afraid to wear a Precious Feet Pin or put a Pro-Life bumper sticker on your car. Support your local pregnancy centers and other Pro-Life organizations.
When you stand before the judgment seat of God, you will be glad you did something. You will also be glad that Jesus did something so you can live well now and eternally.
One practical thing you can do this election year is to vote for Pro-Life candidates and vote YES on Amendment 62, the Personhood Amendment in Colorado.
This blog post was excerpted from Pastor Wayne Riddering of Hope Lutheran Church in Westcliffe, Colorado. Pastor Riddering is a former President of Lutherans for Life in Metro Denver.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Vote YES on Colorado’s Personhood Amendment. Here’s Why.
Everyone should vote yes on the Personhood Amendment (#62) on November 2nd. This amendment would proclaim that human life begins at conception.
For obvious reasons, those on the Pro-Abortion side of the life argument want this amendment defeated—-it would cut into their business. But some powerful voices in the Pro-Life movement are actually joining forces with the Pro-Abortion movement to try to defeat this amendment. Those Pro-Lifers believe that inevitably, this amendment would come to a Constitutional test by the Supreme Court; and the amendment would be defeated because of the liberal make-up of the Court at this time. They would have us wait until the Court becomes more conservative and more amenable to upholding this amendment.
This thinking is not indicative of what Pro-Lifers should do now. The Pro-Life movement is presently at a high tide of public opinion; and it is gradually gaining strength according to several polls. However, it will soon be replaced in the minds of conservative voters the country over by their concern for the homosexual issue. I believe we should act now as we have never acted before. Several states are also considering a Personhood Amendment like the one in Colorado; if many people could see that Colorado has passed a personhood amendment they might be more inclined to do so, themselves. In that case, the Supreme Court would see that the vast weight of public opinion is on the side of life in this country, and they might be inclined to uphold it. (I will admit that the courts do not seem very interested in the will of the people a lot of the time.)The argument for waiting is futile because we would probably have to wait for 20-30 years for the Court to become more conservative, even if it were to do that unlikely thing in the future.
Additionally, this Amendment stands directly within the stated will of God in the Bible—THOU SHALT NOT KILL. Christians are clearly called upon to fight for the right, just as Joshua and Caleb were called upon to fight for the Promised Land. We must stand up for the right thing to do here and we should not cringe back into the shadows because we are afraid of the opposition. Vote YES on Amendment 62!
For obvious reasons, those on the Pro-Abortion side of the life argument want this amendment defeated—-it would cut into their business. But some powerful voices in the Pro-Life movement are actually joining forces with the Pro-Abortion movement to try to defeat this amendment. Those Pro-Lifers believe that inevitably, this amendment would come to a Constitutional test by the Supreme Court; and the amendment would be defeated because of the liberal make-up of the Court at this time. They would have us wait until the Court becomes more conservative and more amenable to upholding this amendment.
This thinking is not indicative of what Pro-Lifers should do now. The Pro-Life movement is presently at a high tide of public opinion; and it is gradually gaining strength according to several polls. However, it will soon be replaced in the minds of conservative voters the country over by their concern for the homosexual issue. I believe we should act now as we have never acted before. Several states are also considering a Personhood Amendment like the one in Colorado; if many people could see that Colorado has passed a personhood amendment they might be more inclined to do so, themselves. In that case, the Supreme Court would see that the vast weight of public opinion is on the side of life in this country, and they might be inclined to uphold it. (I will admit that the courts do not seem very interested in the will of the people a lot of the time.)The argument for waiting is futile because we would probably have to wait for 20-30 years for the Court to become more conservative, even if it were to do that unlikely thing in the future.
Additionally, this Amendment stands directly within the stated will of God in the Bible—THOU SHALT NOT KILL. Christians are clearly called upon to fight for the right, just as Joshua and Caleb were called upon to fight for the Promised Land. We must stand up for the right thing to do here and we should not cringe back into the shadows because we are afraid of the opposition. Vote YES on Amendment 62!
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Legalizing Prostitution??!
A pro-family activist in Canada is applauding a decision by that country's justice minister to appeal the ruling of an Ontario Judge who gutted federal prostitution laws in the province.
The Globe and Mail reports that Justice Susan Himel struck down all three Criminal Code provisions that had been challenged -- communicating for the purposes of prostitution, pimping, and operating a "common bawdy house." Himel argued the current laws endangered more than protected prostitutes.
Brian Rushfeldt, executive director of Canada Family Action, sees things a different way.
"She's in essence legalizing it as long as you do prostitution now within your home or within a brothel," he remarks. "It's atrocious to think that a judge could ever endorse prostitution, which really is an abuse and a violence against all women when it comes down to it."
Rushfeldt says as with the ongoing legal wrangling over California's marriage amendment (Proposition 8), this case demonstrates that activist judges are working both sides of the U.S.-Canada border.
"I would term it 'judicial dictatorship' -- because what these judges are doing by the rulings, whether it be in Canada or the United States, [is] overriding the elected officials; and in doing that they're overriding the will of the people," he explains. "And if that's happening, then in essence democracy is dead."
OneNewsNow.com 10-12-2010
The Globe and Mail reports that Justice Susan Himel struck down all three Criminal Code provisions that had been challenged -- communicating for the purposes of prostitution, pimping, and operating a "common bawdy house." Himel argued the current laws endangered more than protected prostitutes.
Brian Rushfeldt, executive director of Canada Family Action, sees things a different way.
"She's in essence legalizing it as long as you do prostitution now within your home or within a brothel," he remarks. "It's atrocious to think that a judge could ever endorse prostitution, which really is an abuse and a violence against all women when it comes down to it."
Rushfeldt says as with the ongoing legal wrangling over California's marriage amendment (Proposition 8), this case demonstrates that activist judges are working both sides of the U.S.-Canada border.
"I would term it 'judicial dictatorship' -- because what these judges are doing by the rulings, whether it be in Canada or the United States, [is] overriding the elected officials; and in doing that they're overriding the will of the people," he explains. "And if that's happening, then in essence democracy is dead."
OneNewsNow.com 10-12-2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
Today’s Financial Situation
It is not hard to see some of today’s troubles as a repeat of the errors of the 1930's. There is arrogance up top. The federal government is arrogant with the money supply and exhibits disregard and even hostility to all other businessmen and money handlers. It is as a result of this that economic recovery seems out of reach.
The key to recovery, now as in the 1930s, is to be found in property rights. These rights suffer under our current politics in several ways. The mortgage crisis, for example, arose out of a long-standing erosion of the property rights concept. Broadening FDR’s entitlement theories of the 1930’s, Congress has taught the country that home ownership is a “right.” This has fostered a misunderstanding of what property is. The owners of homes have failed to realize what ownership entails—that is, they haven’t grasped that they are obligated to deliver on the terms of the contract of their mortgage. In the bipartisan enthusiasm for making everyone an owner, our government has debased the concept of home ownership.
Property rights are endangered as well by the ongoing assault on contracts generally. A perfect example of this was the treatment of Chrysler bonds during the company’s bankruptcy, where senior secured creditors were ignored, notwithstanding the status of their bonds under bankruptcy law. The current administration made a political decision to subordinate those contracts to union demands. That sent a dangerous signal for the future that U.S. bonds are not trustworthy.
Three other threats to property loom. One is tax increases, such as the coming expiration of the Bush tax cuts. More taxes mean less private property. A second threat is in the area of infrastructure. Stimulus plans tend to emphasize infrastructure—especially roads and railroads. And after the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision of 2005, the federal government will have enormous license to use eminent domain to claim private property for these purposes. Third and finally, there is the worst kind of confiscation of private property: inflation, which excessive government spending necessarily encourages. Inflation is closer than the country thinks.
Property rights must be firmly established or else we will not have the kind of economic activity that leads to strong recovery. Economic growth depends on the impulse of the small businessman and entrepreneur to get back in the game. In order for this to happen, we don’t need a perfect government. All we need is one that is “not too bad,” whose rules are not constantly changing and snuffing out the willingness of these players to take risks. We need a government under which the money supply doesn’t change unpredictably. Business must be confident in the possibility of seeing significant returns on investment.
Recovery won’t happen from the top. But when those at the top step back and create the proper conditions, it will happen down there on main street.
This blog post was excerpted and modified from Imprimis, September 2010.
The key to recovery, now as in the 1930s, is to be found in property rights. These rights suffer under our current politics in several ways. The mortgage crisis, for example, arose out of a long-standing erosion of the property rights concept. Broadening FDR’s entitlement theories of the 1930’s, Congress has taught the country that home ownership is a “right.” This has fostered a misunderstanding of what property is. The owners of homes have failed to realize what ownership entails—that is, they haven’t grasped that they are obligated to deliver on the terms of the contract of their mortgage. In the bipartisan enthusiasm for making everyone an owner, our government has debased the concept of home ownership.
Property rights are endangered as well by the ongoing assault on contracts generally. A perfect example of this was the treatment of Chrysler bonds during the company’s bankruptcy, where senior secured creditors were ignored, notwithstanding the status of their bonds under bankruptcy law. The current administration made a political decision to subordinate those contracts to union demands. That sent a dangerous signal for the future that U.S. bonds are not trustworthy.
Three other threats to property loom. One is tax increases, such as the coming expiration of the Bush tax cuts. More taxes mean less private property. A second threat is in the area of infrastructure. Stimulus plans tend to emphasize infrastructure—especially roads and railroads. And after the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision of 2005, the federal government will have enormous license to use eminent domain to claim private property for these purposes. Third and finally, there is the worst kind of confiscation of private property: inflation, which excessive government spending necessarily encourages. Inflation is closer than the country thinks.
Property rights must be firmly established or else we will not have the kind of economic activity that leads to strong recovery. Economic growth depends on the impulse of the small businessman and entrepreneur to get back in the game. In order for this to happen, we don’t need a perfect government. All we need is one that is “not too bad,” whose rules are not constantly changing and snuffing out the willingness of these players to take risks. We need a government under which the money supply doesn’t change unpredictably. Business must be confident in the possibility of seeing significant returns on investment.
Recovery won’t happen from the top. But when those at the top step back and create the proper conditions, it will happen down there on main street.
This blog post was excerpted and modified from Imprimis, September 2010.
Friday, September 24, 2010
It is a true fact that marriage in America is in deep trouble. For the first time in our nation's history, a child living in a single-parent family is just as likely to be living with a never-married parent as with a divorced parent. We can see that not only the fact of marriage break-up in our society; even the definition of marriage is changing. Just about any configuration of people living together can be called a "family." All they need to say to call themselves a family in our liberal society is to say they "love" each other.
In the past, divorce was the primary engine driving family breakdown, and it still serves as a major cause. The Census Bureau explains, "the fastest growing marital-status category (over the past 25 year period) is dovorced persons. The number of currently divorced persons quadrupled from 4.3 million in 1970 to 17.4 million in 1994. The scale of marital breakdowns in the West since 1960 has no historical precedent. There has been nothing like it in the past 2000 years, and probably longer.
Today, however, the main problem seems to be the large number of people who are not even bothering to get married, at all. Seventy-two percent of all adults were married in 1970 but by 1994, the number had dropped to 61%. Many of these unmarried people are cohabiting--just living together with the benefit of a marriage certificate. Children are present in 40% of cohabiting unions, and estimates from the National Survey of Families and Households incicate that 27% of all nonmarital births were to cohabiting couples.
It is my opinion that these bad statistical facts do not apply equallly to committed Christian families and church-going families that pray daily, read the Bible regularly, and acknowledge their Savior as Lord. I believe that those who live in the Christian sub-culture are in much better shape marriage-wise than their secular associates. But Christ must some day penetrate much more deeply into our society than He does today if we are ever to reverse the miserable condition of the institution of marriage in America.
In the past, divorce was the primary engine driving family breakdown, and it still serves as a major cause. The Census Bureau explains, "the fastest growing marital-status category (over the past 25 year period) is dovorced persons. The number of currently divorced persons quadrupled from 4.3 million in 1970 to 17.4 million in 1994. The scale of marital breakdowns in the West since 1960 has no historical precedent. There has been nothing like it in the past 2000 years, and probably longer.
Today, however, the main problem seems to be the large number of people who are not even bothering to get married, at all. Seventy-two percent of all adults were married in 1970 but by 1994, the number had dropped to 61%. Many of these unmarried people are cohabiting--just living together with the benefit of a marriage certificate. Children are present in 40% of cohabiting unions, and estimates from the National Survey of Families and Households incicate that 27% of all nonmarital births were to cohabiting couples.
It is my opinion that these bad statistical facts do not apply equallly to committed Christian families and church-going families that pray daily, read the Bible regularly, and acknowledge their Savior as Lord. I believe that those who live in the Christian sub-culture are in much better shape marriage-wise than their secular associates. But Christ must some day penetrate much more deeply into our society than He does today if we are ever to reverse the miserable condition of the institution of marriage in America.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Marriage Matters. It's Important!
This blog post is a continuation of my series on the advantages and disadvantages of marriage. Today’s post deals with the impact of marriage education.
Marriage education is the key that can unlock the doors of conflict, communication, and intimacy. It can set free the power of healthier marriages.
A meta-analysis of over 100 studies on the impact of marriage education found clear evidence that marriage education programs work--"to reduce strife, improve communication, increase parenting skills, increase stability, and enhance marital happiness." (The Heritage Foundation: Backgrounder #1606, 2002)
A meta-analysis of 20 different marriage education programs across 85 studies involving 3,886 couples found an average positive effect size of 0.44, indicating that the average couple participating in any one of the marriage education programs studied improved their behavior and quality of relationship so that they were better off than more than two-thirds of the couples that did not participate in any marriage education program. (J. of Marital and Family Therapy Vol.11, 1955 p257-271)
The message seems clear--if a couple wants a healthier and happier marriage, they should strongly consider participation in a marriage education seminar.
Marriage education is the key that can unlock the doors of conflict, communication, and intimacy. It can set free the power of healthier marriages.
A meta-analysis of over 100 studies on the impact of marriage education found clear evidence that marriage education programs work--"to reduce strife, improve communication, increase parenting skills, increase stability, and enhance marital happiness." (The Heritage Foundation: Backgrounder #1606, 2002)
A meta-analysis of 20 different marriage education programs across 85 studies involving 3,886 couples found an average positive effect size of 0.44, indicating that the average couple participating in any one of the marriage education programs studied improved their behavior and quality of relationship so that they were better off than more than two-thirds of the couples that did not participate in any marriage education program. (J. of Marital and Family Therapy Vol.11, 1955 p257-271)
The message seems clear--if a couple wants a healthier and happier marriage, they should strongly consider participation in a marriage education seminar.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Marriage Matters. It’s Important!
This blog post is a continuation of my series on the advantages and disadvantages of marriage. Today’s post deals with the impact of marriage on children.
Healthy marriages have a dramatic effect on the health and welfare of children.
High school students from intact families “outperform those students from divorced families across all categories,” including having grade point averages 11% higher and missing nearly 60% fewer class periods than those from non-intact families. (J. of Divorce and Remarriage 38.3/4 2003:167-185)
Young women ages 13-19 that have ever lived with a single, solo, parent have a greater risk of having a premarital teen pregnancy than young women that have never lived with a single, solo, parent. (J. of Marriage and Families vol.66, 2004)
Healthy marriages have a dramatic effect on the health and welfare of children.
High school students from intact families “outperform those students from divorced families across all categories,” including having grade point averages 11% higher and missing nearly 60% fewer class periods than those from non-intact families. (J. of Divorce and Remarriage 38.3/4 2003:167-185)
Young women ages 13-19 that have ever lived with a single, solo, parent have a greater risk of having a premarital teen pregnancy than young women that have never lived with a single, solo, parent. (J. of Marriage and Families vol.66, 2004)
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Marriage Matters. It’s Important!
This blog post is a continuation of my series on the advantages and disadvantages of marriage. Today’s post deals with the health implications of marriage.
Higher stress hormones—epinephrine, norepinephrine, and cortisone—and three related hormones are associated with higher probabilities of a husband’s withdrawal in response to a wife’s negative behavior during a conflict (J. of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 4/96,Vol.64.No.2,324-332). Abrasive arguments between husbands and wives are linked to weakening of certain immune responses and increase in levels of stress hormones, increasing susceptibility to illness, particularly infectious diseases and perhaps cancer. The more negative behaviors couples show toward each other, the more their immune measures are weakened (Psychosomatic Medicine 59:339-349). Couples who demonstrate negative behaviors toward each other during discussions—sarcasm, putdowns, overt nastiness, and dismissals—show indications of weakened immune systems compared to other couples who behave more positively. These results are found both for newlyweds as well as older couples married for many years (ibid.). Happily married people also show greater proliferation of white blood cells when exposed to foreign invaders than do other subjects (Gottman, The Seven Principles For Making Marriage Work 1999,page5-6).
Higher stress hormones—epinephrine, norepinephrine, and cortisone—and three related hormones are associated with higher probabilities of a husband’s withdrawal in response to a wife’s negative behavior during a conflict (J. of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 4/96,Vol.64.No.2,324-332). Abrasive arguments between husbands and wives are linked to weakening of certain immune responses and increase in levels of stress hormones, increasing susceptibility to illness, particularly infectious diseases and perhaps cancer. The more negative behaviors couples show toward each other, the more their immune measures are weakened (Psychosomatic Medicine 59:339-349). Couples who demonstrate negative behaviors toward each other during discussions—sarcasm, putdowns, overt nastiness, and dismissals—show indications of weakened immune systems compared to other couples who behave more positively. These results are found both for newlyweds as well as older couples married for many years (ibid.). Happily married people also show greater proliferation of white blood cells when exposed to foreign invaders than do other subjects (Gottman, The Seven Principles For Making Marriage Work 1999,page5-6).
Monday, September 6, 2010
Marriage Matters. It’s Important!
Caring Hands Pregnancy Center, where my wife, Nancy, and I serve, is in constant contact with people who have poor quality or nonexistent marriages. For that reason, I am posting a series of articles on this blog recounting the reasons for good marriages and the problems that ensue because of their absence.
Studies now show that people with strong marriages tend to be healthier, happier, and live longer. Despite the stereotypes and negative portrayals in the media, the evidence is clear. It is good to be married!
An unhappy marriage can increase the chance of illness by 35% and shorten life by 4 years. Happily married people live longer, healthier lives than divorced or unhappily married couples (J. of Marriage and the Family 41.267-285). Non-married women have a 50% higher mortality rate than married women. Non-married men have a 250% higher mortality rate than married men (J. of Marriage and the Family 52(1990):1061).
Virtually every study of mortality and marital status shows the unmarried of both sexes have higher death rates, whether by accident, disease, or self-inflicted wounds. This is found in every country that maintains accurate health statistics (J. of Marriage and the Family 52(1990):1061)
In the most recent national surveys, married men and women have a lower risk for death from heart attacks compared to other marital status categories and enjoy a better chance of returning to health when they receive a diagnosis of cardiovascular disease (Psychological Bulletin 127,4,472-503).
Studies now show that people with strong marriages tend to be healthier, happier, and live longer. Despite the stereotypes and negative portrayals in the media, the evidence is clear. It is good to be married!
An unhappy marriage can increase the chance of illness by 35% and shorten life by 4 years. Happily married people live longer, healthier lives than divorced or unhappily married couples (J. of Marriage and the Family 41.267-285). Non-married women have a 50% higher mortality rate than married women. Non-married men have a 250% higher mortality rate than married men (J. of Marriage and the Family 52(1990):1061).
Virtually every study of mortality and marital status shows the unmarried of both sexes have higher death rates, whether by accident, disease, or self-inflicted wounds. This is found in every country that maintains accurate health statistics (J. of Marriage and the Family 52(1990):1061)
In the most recent national surveys, married men and women have a lower risk for death from heart attacks compared to other marital status categories and enjoy a better chance of returning to health when they receive a diagnosis of cardiovascular disease (Psychological Bulletin 127,4,472-503).
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
The Love of God
The love of God is greater far
Than tongue or pen can ever tell;
It goes beyond the highest star
And reaches to the lowest hell.
Could we with ink the oceans fill
And were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill
And every man a scribe by trade,
To write the love of God above would
Drain the oceans dry.
Nor could the scroll contain the whole,
Though stretched from sky to sky.
Than tongue or pen can ever tell;
It goes beyond the highest star
And reaches to the lowest hell.
Could we with ink the oceans fill
And were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill
And every man a scribe by trade,
To write the love of God above would
Drain the oceans dry.
Nor could the scroll contain the whole,
Though stretched from sky to sky.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
How To Use Money We Don’t Have
I see in our neighborhood new playground equipment being installed in perfectly good playgrounds that, to me, seem adequate for our children. Streets that are in good repair are being torn up and replaced with new asphalt we don’t need and paid for with money we don’t have to produce jobs that don’t appear. Street corners where there is negligible traffic are being provided with expensive traffic lights and pedestrian walk lights where few people ever walk.
This is all being done with TARP money in order to “stimulate the economy.” Isn’t big government wonderful!
This is all being done with TARP money in order to “stimulate the economy.” Isn’t big government wonderful!
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Sex-Starved Americans
Our society seems absolutely soaked in sex; and our population seems to be demanding even more of it! A recent Barna Group poll indicates that among Americans between the ages of 20 and 40, attitudes about sex are significantly less traditional and less moral from a Christian perspective than that of people over the age of 40. They “were twice as likely to have viewed sexually explicit movies or videos; 2½ times more likely to report having had a sexual encounter outside marriage; and 3 times more likely to have viewed sexually graphic content online.”
There is no need to recount the sexual explosion within the entertainment, advertising, and political worlds—these things are common knowledge to everyone.
This whole scenario is a disgrace to our people. We seem to have so little resource within ourselves that we can only gravitate to the basest qualities of our beings. We cannot think of anything better. So…we go to sex. Young people do not have enough strength to avoid anything but their “animal instincts” on which to rely.
David Kinnaman, the leader of the Barna Group who studied the sexual trends mentioned above had this to say about the study. “We expect to see this mindset of sexual entitlement translate into increased appetites for pornography, unfiltered acceptance of sexual themes and content in media, and continued dissolution of marriages due to infidelity.”
But those who would cling to time-honored moral values should not throw up their hands in surrender. We should remember, as Randy Alcorn has said, “…in Sodom’s sexual revolution, God fired the last round.”
There is no need to recount the sexual explosion within the entertainment, advertising, and political worlds—these things are common knowledge to everyone.
This whole scenario is a disgrace to our people. We seem to have so little resource within ourselves that we can only gravitate to the basest qualities of our beings. We cannot think of anything better. So…we go to sex. Young people do not have enough strength to avoid anything but their “animal instincts” on which to rely.
David Kinnaman, the leader of the Barna Group who studied the sexual trends mentioned above had this to say about the study. “We expect to see this mindset of sexual entitlement translate into increased appetites for pornography, unfiltered acceptance of sexual themes and content in media, and continued dissolution of marriages due to infidelity.”
But those who would cling to time-honored moral values should not throw up their hands in surrender. We should remember, as Randy Alcorn has said, “…in Sodom’s sexual revolution, God fired the last round.”
Monday, August 16, 2010
Hate America at its Worst
It seems that the “Hate America” bunch has reached its apogee of nastiness. Popular leaders seem unleashed in their freedom to bash America and the American people. It seems to me that they have no respect for the majority of decent Americans who love this country and stand for tried and true values.
For instance: Federal California District Court judge Vaughn Walker lately struck down Proposition 8 (a voter initiative that eliminated the legality of same-sex marriage in California) and opined that those who disagree with him—the majority of California voters—can be motivated only by bigotry. He stated, “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.”
Mayor Bloomberg, of New York has said that residents who want the Islamic mosque moved away from Ground Zero are people who should be “ashamed of themselves.” Apparently, he disagrees with 61% of the New York population.
Nancy Pelosi has referred to people who disagree with her and do not like the health care bill as people who should be “carrying swastikas.” Name calling like the above is sure evidence that the speakers have lost a rational basis for debate—it always happens that when good and reasonable arguments are exhausted, debaters turn to name calling.
This blog post was excerpted from the Wall Street Journal opinion page of 8/10/10.
For instance: Federal California District Court judge Vaughn Walker lately struck down Proposition 8 (a voter initiative that eliminated the legality of same-sex marriage in California) and opined that those who disagree with him—the majority of California voters—can be motivated only by bigotry. He stated, “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.”
Mayor Bloomberg, of New York has said that residents who want the Islamic mosque moved away from Ground Zero are people who should be “ashamed of themselves.” Apparently, he disagrees with 61% of the New York population.
Nancy Pelosi has referred to people who disagree with her and do not like the health care bill as people who should be “carrying swastikas.” Name calling like the above is sure evidence that the speakers have lost a rational basis for debate—it always happens that when good and reasonable arguments are exhausted, debaters turn to name calling.
This blog post was excerpted from the Wall Street Journal opinion page of 8/10/10.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Obama’s Strategy Won’t Work
On winning the White House in 2008, President depended on a very popular and appealing populist slogan, “Yes we can!” and “Change/Hope,” etc., etc. Now, his slogan seems to be, “They did it to us.” That latter idea is a popular and not unusual idea of many minority groups—a victim mentality. I think that concept is unlikely to appeal to voters in November. Democrats are also pumping up the electorate with the idea that Republican ideas will take us backwards in our progress—whatever that has been lately!
Polling results indicate differently. A poll was taken this week in 13 states where the Senate race is in serious contest; and in those states, 61%-33% voters believe that America is on the wrong track. American Crossroads, a very reliable polling company, took the poll. Republicans lead on the ballot by 47% to the Democrats 39% in favorability with the probable voters. The poll examined what probable voters had to say about health care, financial regulation, the economy, and the country’s future. Republicans were all favored in these categories by five to eight percentage points.
If Republicans can pick up 10 seats in the Senate this year, they will control the Senate; and much of the nonsense we are experiencing in national government will probably cease.
Polling results indicate differently. A poll was taken this week in 13 states where the Senate race is in serious contest; and in those states, 61%-33% voters believe that America is on the wrong track. American Crossroads, a very reliable polling company, took the poll. Republicans lead on the ballot by 47% to the Democrats 39% in favorability with the probable voters. The poll examined what probable voters had to say about health care, financial regulation, the economy, and the country’s future. Republicans were all favored in these categories by five to eight percentage points.
If Republicans can pick up 10 seats in the Senate this year, they will control the Senate; and much of the nonsense we are experiencing in national government will probably cease.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Morality and International Policy
The following blog post is excerpted from an essay by George Weigel in First Things of August/September 2010.
United States foreign policy has oscillated between two poles. One pole is the Realpolitik, self-interested policies of Theodore Roosevelt and a liberal, idealistic, interest in the welfare of the world’s people in general. In other words, it has varied between our interest and our purposes in the world. Our Realpolitik presidents have been Theodore Roosevelt, Harding, early Franklin Roosevelt, Nixon, Ford, and H.W. Bush. Presidents committed to the welfare of the international community have been Wilson, later FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan, and George W. Bush. Our policies in foreign affairs have varied with the situations and the philosophical bent of our leaders, and American foreign policy has moved according to these forces.
Whatever we, Americans, have done in the past 110 years, has been good or bad, according to one’s values and outlook. But Winston Churchill has said that Americans will always do the right thing after they have tried everything else.
We find ourselves caught, however, in a clash of which is the moral and the safest thing to do—the thing that will help the world’s people and that will secure American safety and prosperity.
On the Right side of the argument is the Protestant moralistic viewpoint that attempts to reduce international relationships to questions resolved by the Sermon on the Mount. On the other side is the camp that attempts to resolve all moral and policy questions on the basis of human reasoning in view of the situations on the ground at the moment. Neither viewpoint seems capable of resolving the problems of the world.
What seems to be needed in this conundrum of values is a combination of common sense and a good dose of Christian moral thinking, applied to situations as they arise. But it is patently evident that neither approach will do as an answer in itself. It would be nice if we could answer all our questions of foreign policy by referring to the pages of the Bible; but it seems hardly possible that one could deal effectively with such tyrants as Hitler, Pol Pot, and Saddam Hussein by turning the other cheek. Unfortunately, this dilemma will not be resolved; but we need leaders who will not ignore one pole of the argument in favor of the other.
The New Left in American politics sees all of the problems in foreign policy as being due to personal selfishness and self-interest on the part of the American people; and they would like to apologize to all the world for the bad things the United States has stood for; they decline to defend human rights activists in Russia, China, and Iran; and they turn their backs on our allies and reinforce the activities of our enemies. This is the message of the Obama administration; and it absolutely will not work. I am hoping that future administrations will correct this imbalance of thinking and bring a semblance of common sense back into American policy.
United States foreign policy has oscillated between two poles. One pole is the Realpolitik, self-interested policies of Theodore Roosevelt and a liberal, idealistic, interest in the welfare of the world’s people in general. In other words, it has varied between our interest and our purposes in the world. Our Realpolitik presidents have been Theodore Roosevelt, Harding, early Franklin Roosevelt, Nixon, Ford, and H.W. Bush. Presidents committed to the welfare of the international community have been Wilson, later FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan, and George W. Bush. Our policies in foreign affairs have varied with the situations and the philosophical bent of our leaders, and American foreign policy has moved according to these forces.
Whatever we, Americans, have done in the past 110 years, has been good or bad, according to one’s values and outlook. But Winston Churchill has said that Americans will always do the right thing after they have tried everything else.
We find ourselves caught, however, in a clash of which is the moral and the safest thing to do—the thing that will help the world’s people and that will secure American safety and prosperity.
On the Right side of the argument is the Protestant moralistic viewpoint that attempts to reduce international relationships to questions resolved by the Sermon on the Mount. On the other side is the camp that attempts to resolve all moral and policy questions on the basis of human reasoning in view of the situations on the ground at the moment. Neither viewpoint seems capable of resolving the problems of the world.
What seems to be needed in this conundrum of values is a combination of common sense and a good dose of Christian moral thinking, applied to situations as they arise. But it is patently evident that neither approach will do as an answer in itself. It would be nice if we could answer all our questions of foreign policy by referring to the pages of the Bible; but it seems hardly possible that one could deal effectively with such tyrants as Hitler, Pol Pot, and Saddam Hussein by turning the other cheek. Unfortunately, this dilemma will not be resolved; but we need leaders who will not ignore one pole of the argument in favor of the other.
The New Left in American politics sees all of the problems in foreign policy as being due to personal selfishness and self-interest on the part of the American people; and they would like to apologize to all the world for the bad things the United States has stood for; they decline to defend human rights activists in Russia, China, and Iran; and they turn their backs on our allies and reinforce the activities of our enemies. This is the message of the Obama administration; and it absolutely will not work. I am hoping that future administrations will correct this imbalance of thinking and bring a semblance of common sense back into American policy.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Affirmative Action Should Come To An End
Senator James Webb, a Democrat from Virginia, has written an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal dated 23 July 2010, in which he decries the continuing discrimination in America against white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. This anti-white discrimination has been going on since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it was put into place by the Johnson administration. Discriminatory policies against these WASP’s have effected males more than females. They have effectively prevented the hiring and college admissions of qualified Whites in preference to Blacks and other ethnic groups.
As Senator Webb and others have pointed out, this administration-initiated preference was justifiable in 1964 and for years afterwards because of an obvious discrimination bias against Blacks in the university and work-place environment. Shelby Steele, a preeminent Black sociologist from the University of California system, has written that affirmative action has done its job and now should be discontinued. The reason is that it is allowing Blacks and other minority ethnic groups to enter education programs with lower qualifications than whites at all levels of upper education, and this assures the outcome of lesser qualification upon graduation of Blacks when compared to Whites. In other words, Black Ph.D.’s, M.D.’s, R.N.’s, etc. come out of their training programs with lesser abilities than their White competitors. It is time for us to get away from affirmative action and admit all comers to universities and the job market on the grounds of their actual qualifications instead of on their ethnic background. Qualified Blacks can stand up on their own against qualified Whites; and both groups would benefit from a discontinuation of affirmative action policies.
As Senator Webb and others have pointed out, this administration-initiated preference was justifiable in 1964 and for years afterwards because of an obvious discrimination bias against Blacks in the university and work-place environment. Shelby Steele, a preeminent Black sociologist from the University of California system, has written that affirmative action has done its job and now should be discontinued. The reason is that it is allowing Blacks and other minority ethnic groups to enter education programs with lower qualifications than whites at all levels of upper education, and this assures the outcome of lesser qualification upon graduation of Blacks when compared to Whites. In other words, Black Ph.D.’s, M.D.’s, R.N.’s, etc. come out of their training programs with lesser abilities than their White competitors. It is time for us to get away from affirmative action and admit all comers to universities and the job market on the grounds of their actual qualifications instead of on their ethnic background. Qualified Blacks can stand up on their own against qualified Whites; and both groups would benefit from a discontinuation of affirmative action policies.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Quran—A Dangerous Doctrine
I am making a careful study of the Quran; and I am increasingly concerned with the frequency of admonitions in that book that encourage Muslims to resort to violence in order to promote the cause of their religion.
The Quran, itself, is difficult to read. It consists of a collection of recurring themes in an apparent jumble of text without any ongoing stream of logically flowing idea. The themes that repeatedly recur are ideas that magnify Allah and show him to be “all forgiving and all merciful,” along with many other complimentary names. The book has some admonitions toward moral behavior and commands for integrated family life, erroneous historical accounts from Old Testament sources and other references to historical events from Muhammad’s own life and times. Mixed in with the above are many admonitions and commands favorable to violence against the enemies of Muslims and of Allah, himself. Followers of Islam are guaranteed passage into paradise where there will be very pleasant surroundings—all in response to the good things they do in this life. They are especially favored if they slay unbelievers or are slain in the act of killing enemies. There is no mention of kindness to enemies or to unbelievers—all these are relegated to punishment until they pay the “jizyah,” a tax on unbelievers that allows them to live in peace in a Muslim community. Especially prevalent in the pages of the Quran are erroneous statements about Jews and Christians—claims that these two religions add gods to Allah. The Quran claims that Jews and Christians have changed the books that were originally given to them by God in order to make their religions look better and to justify their pagan beliefs.
I think that those who would claim that Islam is a peaceful religion should read this book and then make their claims, because this doctrinal statement is disturbing to the MAX.
The Quran, itself, is difficult to read. It consists of a collection of recurring themes in an apparent jumble of text without any ongoing stream of logically flowing idea. The themes that repeatedly recur are ideas that magnify Allah and show him to be “all forgiving and all merciful,” along with many other complimentary names. The book has some admonitions toward moral behavior and commands for integrated family life, erroneous historical accounts from Old Testament sources and other references to historical events from Muhammad’s own life and times. Mixed in with the above are many admonitions and commands favorable to violence against the enemies of Muslims and of Allah, himself. Followers of Islam are guaranteed passage into paradise where there will be very pleasant surroundings—all in response to the good things they do in this life. They are especially favored if they slay unbelievers or are slain in the act of killing enemies. There is no mention of kindness to enemies or to unbelievers—all these are relegated to punishment until they pay the “jizyah,” a tax on unbelievers that allows them to live in peace in a Muslim community. Especially prevalent in the pages of the Quran are erroneous statements about Jews and Christians—claims that these two religions add gods to Allah. The Quran claims that Jews and Christians have changed the books that were originally given to them by God in order to make their religions look better and to justify their pagan beliefs.
I think that those who would claim that Islam is a peaceful religion should read this book and then make their claims, because this doctrinal statement is disturbing to the MAX.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
“Disclose” Act, A Very Dangerous Piece of Legislation
The U.S. Senate is now considering a very anti-free speech act designed to muzzle the voices of corporations in American politics. Included in these corporations are issue-oriented organizations such as National Right To Life, the American Family Association, and the Family Research Council. These organizations are the ones that many of us depend upon to inform us of legislation and of legislators who would limit our civil rights to free speech and other basic human rights.
This legislation would limit our rights to intervene in the legislative process; and it would specifically avoid limiting the rights of left-wing organizations, such as labor unions to do the same sort of things. This kind of unbalanced limitation of rights was out-lawed by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC on 21 January 2010.
This so-called “Disclose Act” was passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 219-206 on 6/24/10; and it is now in the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. The bill is designated S. 3295. If you would like to read more about this bill, I would refer you to National Right To Life’s letter to House representatives concerning its predecessor, H.R. 5175. You can view their opinion on http://tinyurl.com/29pf663. You should e-mail your senator or call him/her as soon as possible about this very dangerous bill—it would greatly limit our First Amendment rights to free political speech in America.
This legislation would limit our rights to intervene in the legislative process; and it would specifically avoid limiting the rights of left-wing organizations, such as labor unions to do the same sort of things. This kind of unbalanced limitation of rights was out-lawed by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC on 21 January 2010.
This so-called “Disclose Act” was passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 219-206 on 6/24/10; and it is now in the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. The bill is designated S. 3295. If you would like to read more about this bill, I would refer you to National Right To Life’s letter to House representatives concerning its predecessor, H.R. 5175. You can view their opinion on http://tinyurl.com/29pf663. You should e-mail your senator or call him/her as soon as possible about this very dangerous bill—it would greatly limit our First Amendment rights to free political speech in America.
Monday, July 12, 2010
The Ultimate End of Things
This week, Nancy and I have been camping on the slopes of Medicine Bow Peak in the Snowy Range of southwest Wyoming near timberline. The place is the most beautiful spot I have ever seen with its mountains, trees, lakes, wild flowers, and wild animals. One of the most beautiful parts of this experience was looking up at the sky late at night. It was a clear, cloudless, moonless night. The stars were bright, large, and seemed very near. The Milky Way was spread across the sky like a huge banner. The sight was spectacular! I stood there in wonder and amazement, as men have done again and again for hundreds of years, just looking at this marvelous handiwork.
Those stars! Stars are whirling globs of super-heated gas, finally reaching temperatures of 27,000,000° F, giving off radio waves and other kinds of radiation. Scientists tell us that new stars are being produced in stellar nebular nurseries and dying after billions of years of existence—but all of them aging and gradually dying off. This temporal universe is aging; and someday, if God does not intervene, the last star will blink out.
Of course, I do not know what will become of mankind before this predicted end of the universe, but if there might be any man left watching when the old universe finally gives out of light and energy, can he help asking himself this question: “Where did it all come from? What was the meaning of all this? Was it really something that came into being without a cause? Or…Who was behind all this?”
Things that end all had a beginning—they are called “effects,” and they all have causes. Our universe had a Cause: It was a Who, not a What. That Great WHO is watching; and He is the God of order and rightness. It is He who defines good and bad, right and wrong. It is He who gave us morals and a Savior from the bad things we do. Look at the stars from Medicine Bow Peak and think about all this.
Those stars! Stars are whirling globs of super-heated gas, finally reaching temperatures of 27,000,000° F, giving off radio waves and other kinds of radiation. Scientists tell us that new stars are being produced in stellar nebular nurseries and dying after billions of years of existence—but all of them aging and gradually dying off. This temporal universe is aging; and someday, if God does not intervene, the last star will blink out.
Of course, I do not know what will become of mankind before this predicted end of the universe, but if there might be any man left watching when the old universe finally gives out of light and energy, can he help asking himself this question: “Where did it all come from? What was the meaning of all this? Was it really something that came into being without a cause? Or…Who was behind all this?”
Things that end all had a beginning—they are called “effects,” and they all have causes. Our universe had a Cause: It was a Who, not a What. That Great WHO is watching; and He is the God of order and rightness. It is He who defines good and bad, right and wrong. It is He who gave us morals and a Savior from the bad things we do. Look at the stars from Medicine Bow Peak and think about all this.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Immigration Reform, A Colorado Perspective
A recent poll of voter attitudes toward immigration reform in Colorado reported by the Wall Street Journal today indicates that 61% of Colorado voters favor an Arizona-type immigration law. Non-tax paying immigrants who are a drain on our social services, our emergency rooms, and our prisons are overrunning our state. This kind of social stress cannot be allowed to escalate. On the other hand, these poor people cannot get jobs to support their families, and they are having stress over that problem, personally. Their situations are very sad; and we owe it to them to help them as any Christian should be able to understand. As a worker in this population of immigrants, it is obvious to me that there is a triad of problems that absolutely prevent employment, i.e., no immigration papers, no transportation, and no ability to speak English—these three things often occur together; and they completely block any attempt to obtain employment.
Mexicans have been coming into this area of America for centuries—even before the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, they have considered this area their property. Unfortunately, the area of arable land in Mexico is not sufficient to produce food adequate for the burgeoning population of that country. What arable land they have is often used for cash crops such as roses (especially in the Cuernavaca area southwest of Mexico City). Mexican jobs are scarce, and crime is rampant. Can any of us blame Mexicans for trying to escape such living conditions?
The economics of the situation indicates that southwestern farmers need cheap farm labor to handle their crops. It is also a fact that Mexican and Central American laborers send $15-20 billion back home each year in remittances to their relatives.
It seems to me, that the answer to this immigration dilemma faced by our society today would be to build an impermeable fence across the Mexican border and patrol it effectively to prevent illegal entry into the United States. Then, we should establish a legal temporary immigration program to allow a certain number of Mexicans into the country to work in needed jobs, mostly in agriculture and allow them to send however much money they wish to send back to Mexico. The next step would be to severely penalize anyone who hires illegals without a permit. And, lastly, we should subtract however much money the legal workers send home from $20 billion and give that money to Mexico for agricultural and educational use—of course, that money given to Mexico should be closely supervised and administrated by American managers, because the rampant corruption in Mexico would prevent effective and efficient use of the money if given to Mexican administrators.
Mexicans have been coming into this area of America for centuries—even before the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, they have considered this area their property. Unfortunately, the area of arable land in Mexico is not sufficient to produce food adequate for the burgeoning population of that country. What arable land they have is often used for cash crops such as roses (especially in the Cuernavaca area southwest of Mexico City). Mexican jobs are scarce, and crime is rampant. Can any of us blame Mexicans for trying to escape such living conditions?
The economics of the situation indicates that southwestern farmers need cheap farm labor to handle their crops. It is also a fact that Mexican and Central American laborers send $15-20 billion back home each year in remittances to their relatives.
It seems to me, that the answer to this immigration dilemma faced by our society today would be to build an impermeable fence across the Mexican border and patrol it effectively to prevent illegal entry into the United States. Then, we should establish a legal temporary immigration program to allow a certain number of Mexicans into the country to work in needed jobs, mostly in agriculture and allow them to send however much money they wish to send back to Mexico. The next step would be to severely penalize anyone who hires illegals without a permit. And, lastly, we should subtract however much money the legal workers send home from $20 billion and give that money to Mexico for agricultural and educational use—of course, that money given to Mexico should be closely supervised and administrated by American managers, because the rampant corruption in Mexico would prevent effective and efficient use of the money if given to Mexican administrators.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Arminianism & Calvinism: What’s the Essential Difference?
The essential difference between Arminianism and Calvinism has recently been described to me by my good friend, Dr. Robert Ferris of Columbia International University. This question plagues many Christians; and I think that Dr. Ferris’ explanation is very helpful.
The only one of the 5 points of Calvinism that is agreed upon by both Arminians and Calvinists is the first doctrinal statement—the total depravity of man. Mankind, on his own, is totally incapable of responding to God’s call for faith, which will result in his salvation. Necessary for men to be saved is a special work of God in granting him the grace necessary to respond in faith. Without God’s initial act, men can never approach God in a way that will result in their salvation. Upon that point, both Calvinists and Arminians agree.
The main point on which these two camps in fundamental Christianity disagree is the point about God’s sovereignty. Calvinists believe that God controls everything; and Arminians believe that God has the RIGHT to control everything. Arminians believe that God gives His empowering grace to everyone on earth. Arminians also believe that God voluntarily and within the bounds of His own sovereignty, gives man the power to respond to his free gift of grace. Thus, man can voluntarily respond to God—but, he needs the empowering grace from God to do this first.
Both Calvinists and Arminians believe that man is responsible for his decision to reject God and go his own way in life. The Calvinist says that man is responsible for his own decisions, but he is totally incapable of doing otherwise. That makes no sense—nobody can be responsible for something that is impossible for him.
In the Arminian system, man becomes actually responsible for his own rejection of God. In the Calvinist system, man cannot really be held responsible for rejecting God because he is totally incapable of responding positively.
There is a lot more to this argument than I can write in a blog post; but I have not enough space for further discussion, now. I invite my readers to comment on these thoughts.
The only one of the 5 points of Calvinism that is agreed upon by both Arminians and Calvinists is the first doctrinal statement—the total depravity of man. Mankind, on his own, is totally incapable of responding to God’s call for faith, which will result in his salvation. Necessary for men to be saved is a special work of God in granting him the grace necessary to respond in faith. Without God’s initial act, men can never approach God in a way that will result in their salvation. Upon that point, both Calvinists and Arminians agree.
The main point on which these two camps in fundamental Christianity disagree is the point about God’s sovereignty. Calvinists believe that God controls everything; and Arminians believe that God has the RIGHT to control everything. Arminians believe that God gives His empowering grace to everyone on earth. Arminians also believe that God voluntarily and within the bounds of His own sovereignty, gives man the power to respond to his free gift of grace. Thus, man can voluntarily respond to God—but, he needs the empowering grace from God to do this first.
Both Calvinists and Arminians believe that man is responsible for his decision to reject God and go his own way in life. The Calvinist says that man is responsible for his own decisions, but he is totally incapable of doing otherwise. That makes no sense—nobody can be responsible for something that is impossible for him.
In the Arminian system, man becomes actually responsible for his own rejection of God. In the Calvinist system, man cannot really be held responsible for rejecting God because he is totally incapable of responding positively.
There is a lot more to this argument than I can write in a blog post; but I have not enough space for further discussion, now. I invite my readers to comment on these thoughts.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
To Have Children or Not to Have Children—the Question
An article in the Wall Street Journal dated 19 June 2010 attempted to show that families with lots of children are happier and generally more satisfying than families with no children or with few children.
The author, Bryan Caplan, Professor of economics at George Mason University makes the point that many modern people think that having children is too expensive, too much trouble, and very likely to impinge upon their own happiness—is all that true? Caplan points out that there is a kernel of truth in all this. He indicates that according to the National Opinion Research Center’s General Social Survey, in parents with only one child, that child makes their parents 5.6% less likely to be happy than those people without any children. After the first child, there is a narrow difference in happiness criteria between those who have children and those who do not. The childless seem to be slightly happier than people with children. Every additional child that the parenting group has makes them “1.3 percentage less likely to be ‘very happy.’” The first child seems to do most of the damage to happiness criteria.
The above survey showed that the real boost in happiness criteria came about with marriage—married adults are 18% more likely to be happy than the unmarried. If the data is stratified and controlled on age, marital status, and church going habits, it turns out that the older, married, and church going are happier than their counterparts—and they have more children.
The crucial question in this kind of research is “If you had it to do over again, would you or would you not have children?” Parenthood wins out hands down in this kind of research question. A Gallup poll in 2003 found that only 24% of childless adults over the age of 40 wanted to be child-free.
Many parents think that their pressure, encouragement, money, and time are the only things that stand between their children and failure. According to Caplan, research shows quite the opposite. Long-run effects of parenting on child outcomes are much smaller than one might initially think; and, therefore, parents do not need to fear the necessity of putting too much time into the raising of their children. Caplan cites several studies by behavioral geneticists that seem to indicate that parenting efforts have little to do with child raising outcomes in the long term. Parenting efforts do affect the short-term outcomes of child raising, but as children become mature adults, they often adopt different life styles and values from their parents.
This whole study seems to demean parenting and says that whatever parents do to raise their children well really does not matter—children will do as they please, anyway. Common sense says something different from all this. For instance, where do people learn to play the piano? In childhood, of course—and from their parents. What is the source of the disconcerting effect of good home schooling? College entrance committees and scholarship boards are telling the whole country that home school students are outstripping public school students in academic performance. That home school training on the part of parents is evidence that parenting efforts do pay off. Also, Caplan’s line of reasoning flies in the face of the biblical admonition that if we “Raise up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”
I do not disagree with Caplan when he says, “…good parenting is less work and more fun than people think.” But he misses the point that growing old without children is a lonely experience. One of the main joys of this life is raising children and having the satisfaction of seeing them develop into productive, healthy, Christ-honoring adults. Too many people, these days are spending all their young adult years, when they have energy and strength, on themselves and their personal pleasures of travel, sports, and a myriad of other things which have no lasting value. They take birth control pills and finally decide at the age of 35 when natural fertility is waning and when they no longer have the flexibility to deal with children, that they finally want a family. It is too late, then, for many couples. The very best time to have children is in the early 20’s. Well nurtured children are life’s greatest satisfaction. Furthermore, good parenting does count. The results are frequently very good and children, well raised, are the source of much pride, as they continue to grow and add strength and joy to the family.
The author, Bryan Caplan, Professor of economics at George Mason University makes the point that many modern people think that having children is too expensive, too much trouble, and very likely to impinge upon their own happiness—is all that true? Caplan points out that there is a kernel of truth in all this. He indicates that according to the National Opinion Research Center’s General Social Survey, in parents with only one child, that child makes their parents 5.6% less likely to be happy than those people without any children. After the first child, there is a narrow difference in happiness criteria between those who have children and those who do not. The childless seem to be slightly happier than people with children. Every additional child that the parenting group has makes them “1.3 percentage less likely to be ‘very happy.’” The first child seems to do most of the damage to happiness criteria.
The above survey showed that the real boost in happiness criteria came about with marriage—married adults are 18% more likely to be happy than the unmarried. If the data is stratified and controlled on age, marital status, and church going habits, it turns out that the older, married, and church going are happier than their counterparts—and they have more children.
The crucial question in this kind of research is “If you had it to do over again, would you or would you not have children?” Parenthood wins out hands down in this kind of research question. A Gallup poll in 2003 found that only 24% of childless adults over the age of 40 wanted to be child-free.
Many parents think that their pressure, encouragement, money, and time are the only things that stand between their children and failure. According to Caplan, research shows quite the opposite. Long-run effects of parenting on child outcomes are much smaller than one might initially think; and, therefore, parents do not need to fear the necessity of putting too much time into the raising of their children. Caplan cites several studies by behavioral geneticists that seem to indicate that parenting efforts have little to do with child raising outcomes in the long term. Parenting efforts do affect the short-term outcomes of child raising, but as children become mature adults, they often adopt different life styles and values from their parents.
This whole study seems to demean parenting and says that whatever parents do to raise their children well really does not matter—children will do as they please, anyway. Common sense says something different from all this. For instance, where do people learn to play the piano? In childhood, of course—and from their parents. What is the source of the disconcerting effect of good home schooling? College entrance committees and scholarship boards are telling the whole country that home school students are outstripping public school students in academic performance. That home school training on the part of parents is evidence that parenting efforts do pay off. Also, Caplan’s line of reasoning flies in the face of the biblical admonition that if we “Raise up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”
I do not disagree with Caplan when he says, “…good parenting is less work and more fun than people think.” But he misses the point that growing old without children is a lonely experience. One of the main joys of this life is raising children and having the satisfaction of seeing them develop into productive, healthy, Christ-honoring adults. Too many people, these days are spending all their young adult years, when they have energy and strength, on themselves and their personal pleasures of travel, sports, and a myriad of other things which have no lasting value. They take birth control pills and finally decide at the age of 35 when natural fertility is waning and when they no longer have the flexibility to deal with children, that they finally want a family. It is too late, then, for many couples. The very best time to have children is in the early 20’s. Well nurtured children are life’s greatest satisfaction. Furthermore, good parenting does count. The results are frequently very good and children, well raised, are the source of much pride, as they continue to grow and add strength and joy to the family.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Look At Both Sides of All Issues
Most of us tend to read only things with which we already agree. Liberals read the New York Times; and conservatives read the Wall Street Journal. How can we expect to grow in understanding if we continue doing that?
An editorial by James P. Rubin in the Wall Street Journal dated 14 June 2010 presented both sides of the controversy over President Obama’s foreign policies, however. Rubin was an assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration.
He pointed out that the Republican attitude toward the Obama foreign policies is that they see him as “an unreliable friend (of our allies), and a faint-hearted adversary (to our enemies). U.S. allies in Europe no longer treasure their ties to the United States. Turkey defies us without paying a price. China’s leaders question our fortitude. Iran’s nuclear weapons program continues unchecked.” And, I would add, Russia extracts a weapons reduction agreement from us without an equal reduction in their arms stores and both Russia and China continue trading in oil and arms with Iran over our weak, only verbal, arguments.
On the other hand, Mr. Rubin claims that Mr. Obama’s administration has “restored strained alliances and friendships around the world while weakening the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.” He has restored “respect for international rules on prisoners and acceptance of responsibilities associated with climate change, transformed America from a lonely superpower often seen as a threat to international order back to an indispensable leader in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.”
I have a hard time buying Mr. Rubin’s attitude, especially in his praise for the good relations built up in Europe. I feel sure that the emotions felt in The Czech Republic and in Poland by Obama’s decision to quit the construction of the missile defense shield there have not endeared those Eastern European peoples to the United States.
Never the less, I think that we all should try to look at both sides of all issues before we jump to any conclusions.
An editorial by James P. Rubin in the Wall Street Journal dated 14 June 2010 presented both sides of the controversy over President Obama’s foreign policies, however. Rubin was an assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration.
He pointed out that the Republican attitude toward the Obama foreign policies is that they see him as “an unreliable friend (of our allies), and a faint-hearted adversary (to our enemies). U.S. allies in Europe no longer treasure their ties to the United States. Turkey defies us without paying a price. China’s leaders question our fortitude. Iran’s nuclear weapons program continues unchecked.” And, I would add, Russia extracts a weapons reduction agreement from us without an equal reduction in their arms stores and both Russia and China continue trading in oil and arms with Iran over our weak, only verbal, arguments.
On the other hand, Mr. Rubin claims that Mr. Obama’s administration has “restored strained alliances and friendships around the world while weakening the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.” He has restored “respect for international rules on prisoners and acceptance of responsibilities associated with climate change, transformed America from a lonely superpower often seen as a threat to international order back to an indispensable leader in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.”
I have a hard time buying Mr. Rubin’s attitude, especially in his praise for the good relations built up in Europe. I feel sure that the emotions felt in The Czech Republic and in Poland by Obama’s decision to quit the construction of the missile defense shield there have not endeared those Eastern European peoples to the United States.
Never the less, I think that we all should try to look at both sides of all issues before we jump to any conclusions.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
America Not Prepared for Disaster
The inspector general of the federal Justice Department, issued a statement in late May, saying the department is not prepared to ensure public safety in the days or weeks after a terrorist attack in which nuclear, biological or chemical weapons are used. That is certainly a fine state of affairs for a country that has had nine years after 9/11to prepare for a terrorist disaster.
"The Department is not prepared to fulfill its role . . . to ensure public safety and security in the event of a WMD incident," says the 61-page report. Justice has yet to assign an entity or individual with clear responsibility for oversight or management of WMD response; it has not catalogued its resources in terms of either personnel or equipment; it does not have written plans or checklists in case of a WMD attack. A deputy assistant attorney general for policy and planning is quoted as saying "it is not clear" who in the department is responsible for handling WMD response. Workers interviewed said the department's operational response program "lacks leadership and oversight." An unidentified Justice Department official was quoted: "We are totally unprepared." He added. "Right now, being totally effective would never happen. Everybody would be winging it."
It is true that the federal government has done a good job in prevention of future attacks; and we hear not infrequently how individual terrorists have been apprehended. But…what will we do if one of them deploys a biological, chemical WMD or if one of them should fire off a dirty bomb, spreading nuclear material all over a large metropolitan area. Such a weapon can be carried in a suitcase and exploded in New York’s Central Park.
Many are of the opinion that it is absolutely unthinkable that anyone in their right mind would ever deploy one of these WMD in America. How naïve!! Ronald Reagan has been quoted as saying, “Man has never had a weapon he didn't use.” The question is not whether a terrorist would use such a weapon against the United States. The question is, rather, WHEN.
The above report from the Justice Department needs to be brought to the acute attention of our legislators in Washington. Write to them now and ask them if they are aware of the dangers we face from WMD. If we have another 9/11 all Americans will suffer. Our Congress and Senate are in the worst state of public opinion that has ever existed. If a disaster such as the deployment of a WMD happens, they will all be kicked out of Washington.
This blog post was excerpted from an editorial by Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal 11 June 2010.
"The Department is not prepared to fulfill its role . . . to ensure public safety and security in the event of a WMD incident," says the 61-page report. Justice has yet to assign an entity or individual with clear responsibility for oversight or management of WMD response; it has not catalogued its resources in terms of either personnel or equipment; it does not have written plans or checklists in case of a WMD attack. A deputy assistant attorney general for policy and planning is quoted as saying "it is not clear" who in the department is responsible for handling WMD response. Workers interviewed said the department's operational response program "lacks leadership and oversight." An unidentified Justice Department official was quoted: "We are totally unprepared." He added. "Right now, being totally effective would never happen. Everybody would be winging it."
It is true that the federal government has done a good job in prevention of future attacks; and we hear not infrequently how individual terrorists have been apprehended. But…what will we do if one of them deploys a biological, chemical WMD or if one of them should fire off a dirty bomb, spreading nuclear material all over a large metropolitan area. Such a weapon can be carried in a suitcase and exploded in New York’s Central Park.
Many are of the opinion that it is absolutely unthinkable that anyone in their right mind would ever deploy one of these WMD in America. How naïve!! Ronald Reagan has been quoted as saying, “Man has never had a weapon he didn't use.” The question is not whether a terrorist would use such a weapon against the United States. The question is, rather, WHEN.
The above report from the Justice Department needs to be brought to the acute attention of our legislators in Washington. Write to them now and ask them if they are aware of the dangers we face from WMD. If we have another 9/11 all Americans will suffer. Our Congress and Senate are in the worst state of public opinion that has ever existed. If a disaster such as the deployment of a WMD happens, they will all be kicked out of Washington.
This blog post was excerpted from an editorial by Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal 11 June 2010.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Against Whom are We Competing—the Muslims??
There seems to be a great fear among Western peoples that we are soon to be over-run by hoards of Muslims whose civilization is more vital and powerful than ours in some ways. Let’s look at that idea for a moment.
There are nearly a billion and a half Muslims in the world, but their footprint on world events is small. Computation and communication technology has changed many things in the world; but the Islamic world has lagged far behind in developing that kind of technology.
According to a World Bank estimate, the total exports of the Arab world other than fossil fuels amount to less than those of Finland, a country of five million inhabitants. Not one scientific discovery of note, innovative firm of international importance, or contribution to universal culture has come from the Muslim world in the past century. In 2008, only 133 patents were filed in Muslim-majority lands, about a tenth of the number in Israel, while the Israeli total exceeded that of India, Russia, and Singapore combined.
But what about the population decrease that many have noted in Western countries due to falling fertility and birth rates? That is all true, and it portends trouble for the countries involved—there are soon to be too few wage earners and tax payers to pay for the burgeoning numbers of elderly and retired persons. Will this not cause the West to succumb to Muslim population expansion? While it is true that Western countries are experiencing dropping birth rates, the birth rates of the Muslim countries are falling even faster. Muslim countries still have a higher birth rate than most Western countries, but their birth rates are falling at a faster rate. Iran is the most extreme case in the Islamic world with the fastest drop in births; but Turkey and Algeria are not far behind.
America’s fear of the Muslim world may be ill founded. The Soviet Union, which liberal thinkers thought was invincible, fell before the economic and cultural power of the United States under Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, America has elected a President who has no faith in the American system nor in the strength of our country. He seems bent on apologizing to the Muslims; and his obvious deep sentimental attachment to the Muslim world is plain to see. The only thing we have to fear from the Muslims is our own fear, itself. We need to stand up and proclaim the truth that we have the character and the strength to lead this world into a veritable principle that individual freedom and enterprise can bring about great blessings to all peoples.
I am reminded of the beginning of the Reagan administration. America had been humiliated for months by the tiny regime of Libya, which was in the business of blowing up passenger planes over the Mediterranean. President Carter had faced that problem by sitting in his office and wringing his hands. When Ronald Reagan came to office, he sent one or two fighter bombers over Libya, dropped a bomb on the factory producing explosives in Libya, and the whole problem ceased. We need another Ronald Reagan in the White House!!
Parts of this post were excerpted from First Things, the Morality of Self-Interest, June 2010.
There are nearly a billion and a half Muslims in the world, but their footprint on world events is small. Computation and communication technology has changed many things in the world; but the Islamic world has lagged far behind in developing that kind of technology.
According to a World Bank estimate, the total exports of the Arab world other than fossil fuels amount to less than those of Finland, a country of five million inhabitants. Not one scientific discovery of note, innovative firm of international importance, or contribution to universal culture has come from the Muslim world in the past century. In 2008, only 133 patents were filed in Muslim-majority lands, about a tenth of the number in Israel, while the Israeli total exceeded that of India, Russia, and Singapore combined.
But what about the population decrease that many have noted in Western countries due to falling fertility and birth rates? That is all true, and it portends trouble for the countries involved—there are soon to be too few wage earners and tax payers to pay for the burgeoning numbers of elderly and retired persons. Will this not cause the West to succumb to Muslim population expansion? While it is true that Western countries are experiencing dropping birth rates, the birth rates of the Muslim countries are falling even faster. Muslim countries still have a higher birth rate than most Western countries, but their birth rates are falling at a faster rate. Iran is the most extreme case in the Islamic world with the fastest drop in births; but Turkey and Algeria are not far behind.
America’s fear of the Muslim world may be ill founded. The Soviet Union, which liberal thinkers thought was invincible, fell before the economic and cultural power of the United States under Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, America has elected a President who has no faith in the American system nor in the strength of our country. He seems bent on apologizing to the Muslims; and his obvious deep sentimental attachment to the Muslim world is plain to see. The only thing we have to fear from the Muslims is our own fear, itself. We need to stand up and proclaim the truth that we have the character and the strength to lead this world into a veritable principle that individual freedom and enterprise can bring about great blessings to all peoples.
I am reminded of the beginning of the Reagan administration. America had been humiliated for months by the tiny regime of Libya, which was in the business of blowing up passenger planes over the Mediterranean. President Carter had faced that problem by sitting in his office and wringing his hands. When Ronald Reagan came to office, he sent one or two fighter bombers over Libya, dropped a bomb on the factory producing explosives in Libya, and the whole problem ceased. We need another Ronald Reagan in the White House!!
Parts of this post were excerpted from First Things, the Morality of Self-Interest, June 2010.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Constitutional Changes of the Future—Part 6
Ninth Amendment
Another looming constitutional battleground concerns the meaning of the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.” Many modern constitutionalists understand this amendment to say that there is some unknown array of unremunerated rights that lie fallow in the Constitution, waiting only to be unearthed by far-sighted judges.
Professor Thomas Grey of the Stanford Law School has suggested, for example, that the Ninth Amendment constitutes a “license to constitutional decision makers to look beyond the substantive commands of the constitutional text to protect fundamental rights not expressed therein.” Rights to abortion, contraception, homosexual behavior, and similar sexual privacy rights have already been imposed by judges “detecting” such rights in the Ninth Amendment. The problem is that, in the words of Justices Stewart and Black, this understanding of the amendment “turns somersaults with history” and renders the courts a “day-to-day constitutional convention.”
The more conventional understanding of the Ninth Amendment has viewed it in the historical context of the Bill of Rights, of which it is a part. By this understanding, it was written to dispel any implication that by the specification of particular rights in the Bill of Rights, the people have implicitly relinquished to the new federal government rights not specified. Like the Tenth Amendment—which serves as a reminder that powers neither given to the federal government nor prohibited to the states in the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people—the Ninth Amendment was adopted to emphasize that our national government is one of limited powers. Its principal purpose was to prevent an extension of federal power, not to provide an open-ended grant of judicial authority that would have the opposite effect.
This post was excerpted from Imprimis, April 2010.
Another looming constitutional battleground concerns the meaning of the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.” Many modern constitutionalists understand this amendment to say that there is some unknown array of unremunerated rights that lie fallow in the Constitution, waiting only to be unearthed by far-sighted judges.
Professor Thomas Grey of the Stanford Law School has suggested, for example, that the Ninth Amendment constitutes a “license to constitutional decision makers to look beyond the substantive commands of the constitutional text to protect fundamental rights not expressed therein.” Rights to abortion, contraception, homosexual behavior, and similar sexual privacy rights have already been imposed by judges “detecting” such rights in the Ninth Amendment. The problem is that, in the words of Justices Stewart and Black, this understanding of the amendment “turns somersaults with history” and renders the courts a “day-to-day constitutional convention.”
The more conventional understanding of the Ninth Amendment has viewed it in the historical context of the Bill of Rights, of which it is a part. By this understanding, it was written to dispel any implication that by the specification of particular rights in the Bill of Rights, the people have implicitly relinquished to the new federal government rights not specified. Like the Tenth Amendment—which serves as a reminder that powers neither given to the federal government nor prohibited to the states in the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people—the Ninth Amendment was adopted to emphasize that our national government is one of limited powers. Its principal purpose was to prevent an extension of federal power, not to provide an open-ended grant of judicial authority that would have the opposite effect.
This post was excerpted from Imprimis, April 2010.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Constitutional Changes of the Future—Part 5
Political Questions:
In areas that were once viewed as inappropriate for judicial involvement, federal courts have begun to assert themselves in an unprecedented and aggressive manner. The limited role of the judiciary, for example, with regard to matters of national defense and foreign policy is not explicitly set forth in the Constitution, but such matters have from time immemorial been understood to be non-justiciable and within the exclusive responsibility of the elected branches of government. As far back as Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall recognized that “Questions in their nature political…can never be made in this Court.”
Yet just in the last several years, the Supreme Court, in a series of 5-4 decisions, has overruled determinations made by both the legislative and executive branches regarding the treatment of captured enemy combatants. Most notably, the Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) that foreign nationals captured in combat and held outside the United States by the military as prisoners of war—a war authorized by Congress under Article I, Section 8, and waged by the President as Commander-in-Chief under Article II, Section 2 (both parts of the Constitution)—possess the constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal court. Thus, in yet one more realm of public policy—one on which the sovereignty and liberty of a free people are most dependent, national defense—judges have now begun to embark upon a sharply expanded role.
If there is no significant realm left of “political questions,” if there are no longer any traditional limitations upon the exercise of the judicial power, then, every matter coming before every president, every Congress, every governor, every legislature, and every county commission and city council can, with little difficulty, be summarily recast as a justiciable dispute, or what the Constitution, in Article III, Section 2, describes as a “case” or “controversy.” As a result, every policy debate taking place within government , at every level, will become little more than a prelude for judicial resolution.
This post was excerpted from Imprimis April 2010.
In areas that were once viewed as inappropriate for judicial involvement, federal courts have begun to assert themselves in an unprecedented and aggressive manner. The limited role of the judiciary, for example, with regard to matters of national defense and foreign policy is not explicitly set forth in the Constitution, but such matters have from time immemorial been understood to be non-justiciable and within the exclusive responsibility of the elected branches of government. As far back as Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall recognized that “Questions in their nature political…can never be made in this Court.”
Yet just in the last several years, the Supreme Court, in a series of 5-4 decisions, has overruled determinations made by both the legislative and executive branches regarding the treatment of captured enemy combatants. Most notably, the Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) that foreign nationals captured in combat and held outside the United States by the military as prisoners of war—a war authorized by Congress under Article I, Section 8, and waged by the President as Commander-in-Chief under Article II, Section 2 (both parts of the Constitution)—possess the constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal court. Thus, in yet one more realm of public policy—one on which the sovereignty and liberty of a free people are most dependent, national defense—judges have now begun to embark upon a sharply expanded role.
If there is no significant realm left of “political questions,” if there are no longer any traditional limitations upon the exercise of the judicial power, then, every matter coming before every president, every Congress, every governor, every legislature, and every county commission and city council can, with little difficulty, be summarily recast as a justiciable dispute, or what the Constitution, in Article III, Section 2, describes as a “case” or “controversy.” As a result, every policy debate taking place within government , at every level, will become little more than a prelude for judicial resolution.
This post was excerpted from Imprimis April 2010.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Constitutional Changes of the Future—Part 4
State Action on privileges and immunities clause of 14th Amendment
The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court since the Civil Rights Cases of 1883 as applying only to the states. It has not been applied to individual private citizens or private institutions. In other words, if a state law violates a person’s privileges and immunities under the Bill of Rights, then the federal courts will hear and judge the complaint. But…if a private person or institution violates these privileges and immunities, then, the federal government would not assume the authority to judge between the two competing parties. It is only after a state steps in to adjudicate a case of alleged violation of rights that a federal court can act.
In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has heard cases for adjudication between private organizations and other agencies without the intervention of state courts. This tendency has made the Fourteenth Amendment a party to a further takeover of judicial power by federal courts. The federal government has increasingly treated private institutions as the equivalent of the state, thereby extending public oversight in a way the framers of our Constitution never intended.
If this tendency continues, the policies of private institutions in the various states will have to pass the scrutiny and receive the imprimatur of federal judges.
The federal judiciary violates the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in other ways by invading common sense and precedent: For instance, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (amended) clearly defines groups that deserve to be protected under the Fourteenth Amendment, e.g., racial and religious groups, etc. That Act does not list sexual orientation as a protected group. But…the Supreme Court in a decision regarding preferential housing for homosexuals in Boulder, Colorado in recent years, found in favor of homosexuals under the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thus violating the rights of recognized people groups in Boulder. It mattered not to the Court that bills to recognize homosexuals as a special privileged group have been voted down in Congress every year for at least 15 years.
Well…we can see that the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is being misused by liberal groups to change the meaning and intent of the Constitution. More of this activity will be up-coming in the future if nothing is done to stop this judicial take-over.
The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court since the Civil Rights Cases of 1883 as applying only to the states. It has not been applied to individual private citizens or private institutions. In other words, if a state law violates a person’s privileges and immunities under the Bill of Rights, then the federal courts will hear and judge the complaint. But…if a private person or institution violates these privileges and immunities, then, the federal government would not assume the authority to judge between the two competing parties. It is only after a state steps in to adjudicate a case of alleged violation of rights that a federal court can act.
In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has heard cases for adjudication between private organizations and other agencies without the intervention of state courts. This tendency has made the Fourteenth Amendment a party to a further takeover of judicial power by federal courts. The federal government has increasingly treated private institutions as the equivalent of the state, thereby extending public oversight in a way the framers of our Constitution never intended.
If this tendency continues, the policies of private institutions in the various states will have to pass the scrutiny and receive the imprimatur of federal judges.
The federal judiciary violates the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in other ways by invading common sense and precedent: For instance, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (amended) clearly defines groups that deserve to be protected under the Fourteenth Amendment, e.g., racial and religious groups, etc. That Act does not list sexual orientation as a protected group. But…the Supreme Court in a decision regarding preferential housing for homosexuals in Boulder, Colorado in recent years, found in favor of homosexuals under the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thus violating the rights of recognized people groups in Boulder. It mattered not to the Court that bills to recognize homosexuals as a special privileged group have been voted down in Congress every year for at least 15 years.
Well…we can see that the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is being misused by liberal groups to change the meaning and intent of the Constitution. More of this activity will be up-coming in the future if nothing is done to stop this judicial take-over.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Constitutional Changes of the Future—Part 3
Positive Rights
For people who believe that we need a new constitution, perhaps the greatest virtue of redefining the privileges or immunities clause is the prospect of transforming the Constitution from a guarantor of “negative liberties” into a charter of “affirmative government,” guaranteeing an array of “positive” rights. As President Obama has observed in a radio interview in criticism of the legacy of the Warren Court of the 1950s and 1960s, “[It] never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and . . . more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. . . . [T]he Warren Court . . . wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. . . that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”
President Obama is correct. The original Constitution defines individual rights in terms of what the government cannot do to you. For example, the government cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore the individual has a constitutional right not to be subject to such punishment; the government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures, and therefore the individual has a constitutional right not to be subject to such searches and seizures, and so forth. By contrast, the Framers’ Constitution does not guarantee rights to material goods such as housing, education, food, clothing, jobs, or health care—rights that place a related obligation upon the state to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.
Proponents of constitutional change would like to change the document’s requirements into a document that requires many positive rights for the benefit of the people, rights such as those listed in the above paragraph, i.e., housing, education, etc. And, for today, that specifically refers to health care, which many people are claiming as a basic right that ought to be guaranteed under the Constitution or, at least, under statute law. For them, lack of universal health care abridges and limits the “privileges and immunities” of our citizens. Therefore, these changers of the Constitution like to use the “privileges and immunities” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as their springboard into a new constitutional understanding.
As various advocates of a 21st century constitution have urged, a privilege or immunity might be interpreted to allow the invention of a host of new “rights,” and thus be construed to guarantee social or economic equality. However pleasing this might sound to some people, there should be no mistake: adopting this interpretation will supplant representative decision-making with the decision-making of unelected, unaccountable, and life-tenured judges. Should the privileges or immunities clause be used in this way, as a charter of positive rights, ours will become an America in which citizens are constitutionally entitled to their neighbors’ possessions; in which economic redistribution will become as ingrained a principle as federalism and the separation of powers. If this happens, a succession of new “rights” will be parceled out as people are deemed worthy of them by berobed lawyers in the judiciary.
Much of this post was excerpted from Imprimis April 2010.
For people who believe that we need a new constitution, perhaps the greatest virtue of redefining the privileges or immunities clause is the prospect of transforming the Constitution from a guarantor of “negative liberties” into a charter of “affirmative government,” guaranteeing an array of “positive” rights. As President Obama has observed in a radio interview in criticism of the legacy of the Warren Court of the 1950s and 1960s, “[It] never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and . . . more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. . . . [T]he Warren Court . . . wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. . . that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”
President Obama is correct. The original Constitution defines individual rights in terms of what the government cannot do to you. For example, the government cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore the individual has a constitutional right not to be subject to such punishment; the government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures, and therefore the individual has a constitutional right not to be subject to such searches and seizures, and so forth. By contrast, the Framers’ Constitution does not guarantee rights to material goods such as housing, education, food, clothing, jobs, or health care—rights that place a related obligation upon the state to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.
Proponents of constitutional change would like to change the document’s requirements into a document that requires many positive rights for the benefit of the people, rights such as those listed in the above paragraph, i.e., housing, education, etc. And, for today, that specifically refers to health care, which many people are claiming as a basic right that ought to be guaranteed under the Constitution or, at least, under statute law. For them, lack of universal health care abridges and limits the “privileges and immunities” of our citizens. Therefore, these changers of the Constitution like to use the “privileges and immunities” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as their springboard into a new constitutional understanding.
As various advocates of a 21st century constitution have urged, a privilege or immunity might be interpreted to allow the invention of a host of new “rights,” and thus be construed to guarantee social or economic equality. However pleasing this might sound to some people, there should be no mistake: adopting this interpretation will supplant representative decision-making with the decision-making of unelected, unaccountable, and life-tenured judges. Should the privileges or immunities clause be used in this way, as a charter of positive rights, ours will become an America in which citizens are constitutionally entitled to their neighbors’ possessions; in which economic redistribution will become as ingrained a principle as federalism and the separation of powers. If this happens, a succession of new “rights” will be parceled out as people are deemed worthy of them by berobed lawyers in the judiciary.
Much of this post was excerpted from Imprimis April 2010.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Constitutional Changes of the Future—Part 2
Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment
The text of the “privileges or immunities clause” of the 14th Amendment reads as follows: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Since shortly after the Civil War, the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment has been understood as protecting a relatively limited array of rights that are a function of American federal citizenship, such as the right to be heard in courts of justice and the right to diplomatic protection. In defining the protections of the privileges or immunities clause in this manner, the Supreme Court has rejected the argument that the clause also protects rights that are a function of state citizenship, asserting that this would lead to federal courts serving as a “perpetual censor” of state and local governments. This decision has served as a bulwark of American federalism.
Although a considerable amount of federal judicial authority has since been achieved over the states through interpretations of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, many proponents of a “living and changing Constitution” seek additional federal oversight of state and local laws. Their strategy in this regard is to refashion the privileges or immunities clause as a new and essentially unlimited bill of rights within the 14th Amendment. The practical consequences of this would be to authorize federal judges to impose an ever broader and more stultifying uniformity upon the nation. Whatever modicum of federalism remains extant at the outset of this century, considerably less would remain tomorrow.
Changes such as the one outlined above would be another strike in favor of more and more power for the Federal Government and less power for the people to act through their elected representatives.
Much of this post was excerpted from IMPRIMIS April 2010.
The text of the “privileges or immunities clause” of the 14th Amendment reads as follows: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Since shortly after the Civil War, the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment has been understood as protecting a relatively limited array of rights that are a function of American federal citizenship, such as the right to be heard in courts of justice and the right to diplomatic protection. In defining the protections of the privileges or immunities clause in this manner, the Supreme Court has rejected the argument that the clause also protects rights that are a function of state citizenship, asserting that this would lead to federal courts serving as a “perpetual censor” of state and local governments. This decision has served as a bulwark of American federalism.
Although a considerable amount of federal judicial authority has since been achieved over the states through interpretations of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, many proponents of a “living and changing Constitution” seek additional federal oversight of state and local laws. Their strategy in this regard is to refashion the privileges or immunities clause as a new and essentially unlimited bill of rights within the 14th Amendment. The practical consequences of this would be to authorize federal judges to impose an ever broader and more stultifying uniformity upon the nation. Whatever modicum of federalism remains extant at the outset of this century, considerably less would remain tomorrow.
Changes such as the one outlined above would be another strike in favor of more and more power for the Federal Government and less power for the people to act through their elected representatives.
Much of this post was excerpted from IMPRIMIS April 2010.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Constitutional Changes of the Future—Part 1
As you look at our America, do you ever get the impression that we are living in a country that has drastically changed from the old America you studied in school—the America of ethics, morals, and true religion? Well, if you have that impression, you are exactly right. The America of today does not have the moral anchors that were plainly expressed by our founders.
George Washington said on October 3, 1789 as he proclaimed a national day of prayer, “It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and to humbly implore His protection and favor.”
Daniel Webster wrote in 1821, “If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.”
The U.S. Supreme Court wrote in 1892, “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.”
On the other hand, modern thinking is characterized by such statements as this one by John Dewey (often called the father of modern education) in the early 20th Century: “…faith in the prayer-hearing God is an unproved and outmoded faith. There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, the immutable is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes.”
President Obama has made his position clear in a group of interesting quotes: “We are not a Christian nation. …therefore, the Bible isn’t common ground for all Americans. …therefore, the Bible can’t be the template for how we govern.”
At one time we had a constitution that embodied very different values than the ones which are espoused today by American society, as a whole. And these days, we are seeing that our Constitution is considered outdated and unfit for continued use as a guide for our government. The court system is continually finding new and liberal ideas hidden in its words, so that its precepts are hardly recognizable as the words of its writers. As we will see in the next six blog posts, our Constitution is in the process of drastic change that will very probably take place within the next fifty years. These ideas will be excerpted from IMPRIMIS, April 2010.
George Washington said on October 3, 1789 as he proclaimed a national day of prayer, “It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and to humbly implore His protection and favor.”
Daniel Webster wrote in 1821, “If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.”
The U.S. Supreme Court wrote in 1892, “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.”
On the other hand, modern thinking is characterized by such statements as this one by John Dewey (often called the father of modern education) in the early 20th Century: “…faith in the prayer-hearing God is an unproved and outmoded faith. There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, the immutable is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes.”
President Obama has made his position clear in a group of interesting quotes: “We are not a Christian nation. …therefore, the Bible isn’t common ground for all Americans. …therefore, the Bible can’t be the template for how we govern.”
At one time we had a constitution that embodied very different values than the ones which are espoused today by American society, as a whole. And these days, we are seeing that our Constitution is considered outdated and unfit for continued use as a guide for our government. The court system is continually finding new and liberal ideas hidden in its words, so that its precepts are hardly recognizable as the words of its writers. As we will see in the next six blog posts, our Constitution is in the process of drastic change that will very probably take place within the next fifty years. These ideas will be excerpted from IMPRIMIS, April 2010.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Oral Contraceptives: Blessing or Curse?
Oral contraceptives have been on the American market for the past 50 years. Have they done more good than bad? An April issue of TIME Magazine examined this question.
Oral contraceptives were the first medicines ever designed to be taken regularly by people who were not sick. Its main inventor was a conservative Catholic who was looking for a treatment for infertility and instead found a guarantee of it. It was blamed for unleashing the sexual revolution among suddenly swinging singles, despite the fact that throughout the 1960s, women usually had to be married to get it. Its supporters hoped it would strengthen marriage by easing the strain of unwanted children; its critics still charge that the Pill gave rise to promiscuity, adultery and the breakdown of the family. In 1999 the Economist named it the most important scientific advance of the 20th century. One of the world's largest studies of the Pill — 46,000 women followed for nearly 40 years — was released this March. It found that women who take the Pill are less likely to die prematurely from any cause, including cancer and heart disease, yet many women still question whether the health risks outweigh the benefits.
The big change the pill has wreaked on the American people has been the social changes that have taken place. In 1960 the typical American woman had 3.6 children; by 1980 the number had dropped below 2. For the first time, more women identified themselves as workers than as homemakers. "There is a straight line between the Pill and the changes in family structure we now see," says National Organization for Women (NOW) president Terry O'Neill, " with 22% of women earning more than their husbands. In 1970, 70% of women with children under 6 were at home; 30% worked. Now that's roughly reversed.
The pill has seemingly forever separated the sex act from reproduction for many people. Women who use the pill for recreational sex say that it has liberated them for competition in the work place and from the necessity of taking care of children in the home! The pursuit of pleasure has seemed to replace the pursuit of integrity in family life.
In the early days of pill use, there was a strong tendency and even legislative force behind the prohibition of pill use, except for married women. But in 1960, the Supreme Court “discovered” a right to privacy implicit in the Constitution. That occurred in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut; and the doors swung wide open for widespread use of contraceptive pills.
As the pill became more popular, the birth rate dropped; and employers became more willing to hire women, knowing that they would probably not become pregnant. For the first time, women were admitted to professional schools on an equal basis with men.
Of course, the TIME article presented all this information in a very positive light—apparently seeing nothing derogatory about the widespread use of birth control pills. However, I think that there can be no argument about the fact that birth control pills have facilitated lots of sexual promiscuity outside of marriage (and probably inside marriage, too). We are witnessing the advancing deterioration of the family; and birth control pills are playing a large part in that effect.
Oral contraceptives were the first medicines ever designed to be taken regularly by people who were not sick. Its main inventor was a conservative Catholic who was looking for a treatment for infertility and instead found a guarantee of it. It was blamed for unleashing the sexual revolution among suddenly swinging singles, despite the fact that throughout the 1960s, women usually had to be married to get it. Its supporters hoped it would strengthen marriage by easing the strain of unwanted children; its critics still charge that the Pill gave rise to promiscuity, adultery and the breakdown of the family. In 1999 the Economist named it the most important scientific advance of the 20th century. One of the world's largest studies of the Pill — 46,000 women followed for nearly 40 years — was released this March. It found that women who take the Pill are less likely to die prematurely from any cause, including cancer and heart disease, yet many women still question whether the health risks outweigh the benefits.
The big change the pill has wreaked on the American people has been the social changes that have taken place. In 1960 the typical American woman had 3.6 children; by 1980 the number had dropped below 2. For the first time, more women identified themselves as workers than as homemakers. "There is a straight line between the Pill and the changes in family structure we now see," says National Organization for Women (NOW) president Terry O'Neill, " with 22% of women earning more than their husbands. In 1970, 70% of women with children under 6 were at home; 30% worked. Now that's roughly reversed.
The pill has seemingly forever separated the sex act from reproduction for many people. Women who use the pill for recreational sex say that it has liberated them for competition in the work place and from the necessity of taking care of children in the home! The pursuit of pleasure has seemed to replace the pursuit of integrity in family life.
In the early days of pill use, there was a strong tendency and even legislative force behind the prohibition of pill use, except for married women. But in 1960, the Supreme Court “discovered” a right to privacy implicit in the Constitution. That occurred in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut; and the doors swung wide open for widespread use of contraceptive pills.
As the pill became more popular, the birth rate dropped; and employers became more willing to hire women, knowing that they would probably not become pregnant. For the first time, women were admitted to professional schools on an equal basis with men.
Of course, the TIME article presented all this information in a very positive light—apparently seeing nothing derogatory about the widespread use of birth control pills. However, I think that there can be no argument about the fact that birth control pills have facilitated lots of sexual promiscuity outside of marriage (and probably inside marriage, too). We are witnessing the advancing deterioration of the family; and birth control pills are playing a large part in that effect.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Drug Trafficking
The United States is the world's largest market for illegal drugs, with some 13 million Americans spending about $60 billion each year. In the past, marijuana, cocaine, and heroin were the most heavily abused drugs, but synthetic drugs such as amphetamines and "designer" drugs such as Ecstasy are claiming a larger share of the market. Methamphetamine is the cause of the fastest-growing drug problem in the United States.
Societies have tried to prohibit the sale and use of harmful drugs by prohibition laws, but these prohibition laws have been problematic in the past because often the targets of these laws are the only ones who are harmed; and the laws produce a perceived conflict between violation of statute and violation of free will. The use of addictive drugs by individuals is seen as enjoyable, and enforcement of the anti-drug laws is seen as more harmful to the individual law-breaker.
The difficulty of enforcing prohibitionist laws has been criticized as resulting in selective enforcement, wherein the enforcers select the people they wish to prosecute based on other criteria, resulting in discrimination based on race, culture, nationality, or financial status. Drug prohibition has been criticized as being a technique of social control of the "so-called dangerous classes."[ The first laws against the use of opium in the United States were enacted in San Francisco in 1875 when smoking opium was outlawed for Chinese immigrants; but taking liquid opium by mouth for white Americans was considered legal. Thus, the laws were based on the form in which the drug was ingested. This obvious discrepancy led many to think that the laws were basically a racist measure.
Laws prohibiting alcohol use in the United States were in place between 1920 and 1933. Although these laws resulted in a discernable decrease in alcohol-related diseases, such as cirrhosis of the liver, they were rescinded because they lead to high rates of violent crime, especially among drug runners and their customers.
Prohibitionism based laws have the added problem of calling attention to the behavior that they are attempting to prohibit. This can make the behavior interesting and exciting, and cause its popularity to increase.
In response to rising drug use among young people and the counter-culture movement, government efforts to enforce prohibition of drug use were strengthened in many countries from the 1960s onward. Mandatory jail sentencing laws in the United States have caused prison crowding and have lead many to question the used of jail time to curtail the use of drugs by non-violent drug users.
The former Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, The Drug Czar, John P. Walters, has described the drug problem in the United States as a "public health challenge," and he has publicly eschewed the notion of a "war on drugs." He has supported additional resources for substance abuse treatment and has touted random student drug testing as an effective prevention strategy. However, the actions of the Office of National Drug Control Policy continue to belie the rhetoric of a shift away from primarily enforcement-based responses to illegal drug use.
Social conservatives have long advocated illicit drug enforcement laws. I ask my readers: Do you think we need these laws? Are they doing more good than bad? What is the solution to the character disintegration that comes from illicit drug use? Please comment on this blog post.
Societies have tried to prohibit the sale and use of harmful drugs by prohibition laws, but these prohibition laws have been problematic in the past because often the targets of these laws are the only ones who are harmed; and the laws produce a perceived conflict between violation of statute and violation of free will. The use of addictive drugs by individuals is seen as enjoyable, and enforcement of the anti-drug laws is seen as more harmful to the individual law-breaker.
The difficulty of enforcing prohibitionist laws has been criticized as resulting in selective enforcement, wherein the enforcers select the people they wish to prosecute based on other criteria, resulting in discrimination based on race, culture, nationality, or financial status. Drug prohibition has been criticized as being a technique of social control of the "so-called dangerous classes."[ The first laws against the use of opium in the United States were enacted in San Francisco in 1875 when smoking opium was outlawed for Chinese immigrants; but taking liquid opium by mouth for white Americans was considered legal. Thus, the laws were based on the form in which the drug was ingested. This obvious discrepancy led many to think that the laws were basically a racist measure.
Laws prohibiting alcohol use in the United States were in place between 1920 and 1933. Although these laws resulted in a discernable decrease in alcohol-related diseases, such as cirrhosis of the liver, they were rescinded because they lead to high rates of violent crime, especially among drug runners and their customers.
Prohibitionism based laws have the added problem of calling attention to the behavior that they are attempting to prohibit. This can make the behavior interesting and exciting, and cause its popularity to increase.
In response to rising drug use among young people and the counter-culture movement, government efforts to enforce prohibition of drug use were strengthened in many countries from the 1960s onward. Mandatory jail sentencing laws in the United States have caused prison crowding and have lead many to question the used of jail time to curtail the use of drugs by non-violent drug users.
The former Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, The Drug Czar, John P. Walters, has described the drug problem in the United States as a "public health challenge," and he has publicly eschewed the notion of a "war on drugs." He has supported additional resources for substance abuse treatment and has touted random student drug testing as an effective prevention strategy. However, the actions of the Office of National Drug Control Policy continue to belie the rhetoric of a shift away from primarily enforcement-based responses to illegal drug use.
Social conservatives have long advocated illicit drug enforcement laws. I ask my readers: Do you think we need these laws? Are they doing more good than bad? What is the solution to the character disintegration that comes from illicit drug use? Please comment on this blog post.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Result of the Health Care Bill: My Opinion, Part 2
The alternative to the 1st possibility I outlined in my last blog is that many people will be disenchanted with the new health care deal; and they will revolt. Already we are seeing that companies that insure their employees are revising their health care contracts, preparing for new expenses. It is reported in the Wall Street Journal today that drug companies are raising drug prices 10%--the largest hike in years. The drug companies are anticipating increasing costs mandated by the new bill.
These tendencies give more fodder to Republicans who want to win in November; and if voter discontent with the bill is strong enough, they certainly will. When the Republicans recover control of Congress and the Senate, they will most certainly make modifications to the health care bill. Hopefully, they will keep some of the good parts and insert some good things. They will keep the features that allow sale of health care policies across state lines. They may well keep the parts called “rationing” by opponents of this bill, i.e., the committees that supervise distribution of questionable surgeries and treatments. I hope that they will make marked inroads into lowering tort claims, and I hope that they will institute a prohibition against using Federal dollars to fund abortion.
There is no doubt that President Obama will veto most of the changes that Republicans make to the bill, and it is quite likely that the hoped-for Republican take-over will not include a filibuster-proof majority in either house. However, public opinion may be so strong that even President Obama may bend to the wishes of the American people, at last, and do something acceptable to us.
I sincerely hope that this last option will be the one that finally takes place. The present bill is ill-conceived and will be horrendously expensive.
These tendencies give more fodder to Republicans who want to win in November; and if voter discontent with the bill is strong enough, they certainly will. When the Republicans recover control of Congress and the Senate, they will most certainly make modifications to the health care bill. Hopefully, they will keep some of the good parts and insert some good things. They will keep the features that allow sale of health care policies across state lines. They may well keep the parts called “rationing” by opponents of this bill, i.e., the committees that supervise distribution of questionable surgeries and treatments. I hope that they will make marked inroads into lowering tort claims, and I hope that they will institute a prohibition against using Federal dollars to fund abortion.
There is no doubt that President Obama will veto most of the changes that Republicans make to the bill, and it is quite likely that the hoped-for Republican take-over will not include a filibuster-proof majority in either house. However, public opinion may be so strong that even President Obama may bend to the wishes of the American people, at last, and do something acceptable to us.
I sincerely hope that this last option will be the one that finally takes place. The present bill is ill-conceived and will be horrendously expensive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
