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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.