Response to Newsweek Article - End of Christian America

Re: The End of Christian America by Jon Meacham, Newsweek, April 13, 2009)

Post-Christianity returns Christians to the basics. It may be true, Christianity as an ethical and moral dogma to be incorporated into America’s political system has diminished. Thus your Post Christian label. You may be going a bit too far, however, if America under the banner of Christianity has changed as the moral standards of society at their highest levels still reflect on the tenets outlined in the Bible. It is the most profound and complete guide on how to live a proper life for self and neighbor. When our founding fathers put together the constitution there were less than 20% self-identified Christians – now its 76% down from 86%, but the moral and ethical principles expressed biblically held sway.

Christians need to evangelize, build and grow a community for their belief and solicit volunteers for a faith, its roots and the standards set forth biblically. For Christian Americans they need fight to preserve the liberty our deist fore-fathers established constitutionally. Freedom needs to be the mantra for all religions, to include what today may be secularist, humanist, and atheist religions. Indeed as Americans “we value individual freedom and free enterprise” and “liberty, not religion, is what holds us together.” How our leaders deal with the pressures from any religion (including the secularist and atheists, as well as Christian, Jew, Muslim and any community group, even the homosexualist) reflects not on the dogma influencing our society nationally, but on the religions and beliefs of the elected and the support groups to which they acquiesce.

One of the worst things that ever happened in America was the Supreme Court agreeing with Madalyn Murray O’Hair in 1962 about compulsory prayer and reading the Bible in schools, not so much from a Christian perspective but from a freedom perspective, the freedom of choice. Saying "no" to the "compulsory" reading of the Bible and prayer is one thing, but total removal of the historical, foundational, moral, ethical offerings of the Bible from teaching, from academia, went too far and took away from all Americas a valuable point of view to be considered. This has led to a lack of tolerance. Tolerance is a critical debate issue as this term suggests “fairness” and yet seldom do we see the tolerant atheist, pro-life, pro-choice advocate, liberal or conservative. Lack of tolerance is a form of coercion and we see it everywhere, from homosexual groups abusive campaigning for same sex marriage and the use of whatever bathroom they please, atheists attacking Mother Teresa, secularists and humanists attacking ‘Christmas’, calling any believer ‘stupid’ and so on. Christians need to be concerned less with their role in government and more the government’s role in their Christian programs. Why should Christians be coerced by a loss of their church’s tax freedom when speaking out for those they support politically? This is the change in America, an overt action by the populists to remove the bible in all forms from daily life; post-Christianity is nothing more than the eradication of Christianity from the focal point of those that prefer self actualization, in government or out. Defense of freedom, especially the freedom of speech, un-coerced in any form, should be the Post-Christian mantel. A theocracy is not a goal of Christians

Consider creation, Intelligent Design, a first cause and evolution – what is in, what is out, what religion leads the way – today it seems to be evolution (in academia anyway). Has the freedom of the creationist been denied, or everyone’s freedom for not being able to hear the other side! Believing in Christ, the inerrancy of the bible and an eternal life is Christian, and no American or any one in the world is required to believe such. And not all who believe are believers; many are doubters and can be influenced one way or another. That should occur without coercion, with access to as much information as possible so that with knowledge a person can voluntarily decide their belief system. Minds of America are being coerced by academia in other directions and that may continue in your Post-Christian era, but then again after a while the pendulum may well swing back. Sure Christians want to see their faith more fully expressed in public life, but even more they want to be able to freely express their faith in all public places. Let the individual then decide his faith, not the government. Let the individual decide without the threat of committing a “hate” crime, or being denied use of a Bible, Koran or Talmud in school, but with access to all beliefs, theories and respective apologetics. Your most critical statement was “coerced belief is no belief at all; it is tyranny.” This may be the era of “Coerced Post Christian.”

As for moral issues we seem to be trending towards utilitarianism - the “greatest-happiness principle.” (philosopher - Jeremy Bentham) It holds that one must always act so as to produce the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people. Even so it will not prevent Christians from believing in the Risen Lord, reminded by Easter of the sacrifice made for all mankind, and the life lessons to be learned from the Bible. The future for Christians is strong. The effort is needed to reestablish the Bible as an essential book for the study of moral and ethical standards. More scientists and philosophers are seeing the need to include in their research the impact of a divine element. With the Big Bang showing the way for many scientists, and the discovery of DNA code, for many palientologists, evolutionists and philosophers, evidence is now pointing more convincingly towards a First Cause. This should in turn increase everyones awareness of God and the need to considered more than ever before their relationsip with God. Christians are returning to the basics with more evidence than ever before of the reality of the events that occurred Easter 2000 years ago.

Newsweek Article -The End of Christian America

Check out this weeks Newsweek article by Jon Meacham - The End of Christian America. It is a good one and well worth a read. I should have a response shortly and will post it here as well as send it to Newsweek via Letters to the Editor. Your thoughts on the article are welcomed.

Wake Up Wake Up - Book Trailer - Progress

We are progressing on the Book. Thanks to MB for a first draft of a Trailer. Publisher liked it too. We are in Final Draft mode with a return date to the publisher of 4/15 - tax day. Maybe before Chrismas, or next Easter, the Book will find its way to the bookstores. We'll tell you how to get your copy once the Book is available.

Big Bang and God

How did the universe begin? Today, most scientists believe it was with the "Big Bang". Cosmologists react, deflated, their "Static State" theory has been cast aside for one that now holds true as evidenced by major scientific study. In his book, Big Bang - The Origin of the Universe, Simon Singh explains the current understanding of the Big Bang. “First…all matter and energy were condensed to a point and then there was an almighty Big Bang. The term ‘Big Bang’ implies some sort of explosion, which is not a wholly inappropriate analogy, except that the Big Bang was not an explosion in space, but an explosion of space. Similarly the Big Bang was not an explosion in time, it was an explosion of time. Both space and time were created at the moment of the big Bang.” Whether intended or not I made a specific note of Singh’s use of the adjective “almighty” when noting that after everything was condensed to a point, there was an “almighty” explosion. Ironic! To his credit I did not feel Singh expressed a Creator per se as the First Cause, but what he did mention was “What came before the Big Bang?” as a question many, including the cosmologists and atheists may now be exploring; but his answer was quite clear, that question “is impossible to answer - Beyond the reach of science.” Steven Weinberg, a Nobel prize winner for Physics, has supported this revelation as noted by Singh and made mention that it is more that just idle speculation. We now know, have knowledge, are knowers of the cause of our universe and for Saint Thomas Aquinas it means, and with the Big Bang being “beyond…science”, there was a cause, a First Cause, and that is God.

This whole knowledge of the definitive nature of the start of the universe under the Fred Hoyle term “Big Bang” (a theory he rejected) takes us to consider anew the anthropic principle, which states, “any cosmological theory must take into account the fact that the universe has evolved to contain us.” Us is us! Only the Darwin Evolution theories need be reduced to fact now, as the cosmological theories have, bringing us all closer to our Maker, our Starter, our Cause, our Creator, our God.

Even with that our government still supported the launch of a space exploration exercise to determine if we are part of a multi-verse. God or multi-verse?

Christopher Hitchens wrote, “Religion…is…fully aware of the ever-mounting evidence, concerning the origins of the cosmos and the origin of species, which consign it to marginality if not irrelevance.” To this I say – not so fast – have you studied that “silly phrase”, as you call the Big Bang theory and the discovery of DNA, which certainly seems to make the “cosmos is all there is” theory and man emanating from the “ooze” irrelevant thus suggesting strongly God as the First Cause of everything – time, space, matter, energy, earth, motion, animals, plants and man.

The circle that so many scientists and philosophers attempt to contain, studying only that which is within, and not allowing for the eternal law to provide an answer where there may be doubt, needs to be viewed from afar and seen in the light which shines upon the circle. In so doing this will allow for a complete picture to be taken when the flash bulbs illuminate the whole of an idea, theory, or study. Conclusions drawn will be done so without an empty feeling that something critical has been left out or not considered. Doubt can be erased and answers found in the First Cause, if only that is enabled in the knowing. The Big Bang is compelling to the point that looking outside the circle is more justifiable than ever. Next we need to find the “Big Bang” of evolution, and for me that is the Watson & Crick discovery of DNA. Bang, bang, cosmologist, evolutionist, God is back.

Government as a Charity

When the Government gets into the business of charity it no longer is in the business of government. The liberals have never been as charitable as conservatives, seeking the government to fund their desired programs, vs. non-profit private groups funded by the supporters directly. I am not just labeling liberals as such, as all in Wahsington, Congressmen and Senators, seem wanting of our tax dollars to be used for their pet projects, and then named in their honor. The Obama Administration has proposed legislation that would reduce deductibility of charitable gifts, a direct assault on the money needed to continue and support conservative based community organizations and churches. Are we in the midst of a unique form of mass revolutionary politics? Shouldn’t those people that believe in abortion be the ones than support Planned Parenthood (somewhat of a politically correct nomenclature for an organization that supports selective births), or sheep herders in Montana support the Montana Sheep Institute (included in the pork part of the 2009 Obama legislation passed as part of the operation bail-out) or Japanese Americans support funding for a museum in San Francisco honoring Japanese-Americans (another 2009 earmark) or local music lovers raise local funds for a Stamford, CT. Symphony, or locals support their hospitals (many included in the 2009 pork portion of the bill), or marine animal lovers support marine projects, or Puerto Rica support its own art museum, or environmentalists support their desires for the environment, and on and on it goes. This money could have gone a long way to helping our economy and not pet programs, or programs the legislators are not willing to support on their own (the want their name on things for which they give nothing personally – look at the name Byrd in West Virginia). Take at look at the charitable giving of our Vice President – Joe Biden, according to USA Today he gave a few hundred dollars each year. (“Democratic Vice presidential candidate Joe Biden and his wife gave an average of $369 a year to charity during the past decade, his tax records show.” ) Why is the Government spending the peoples money on these charities (ask Joe Biden – I am assuming that is why he does not give) – why can’t the people make that choice themselves. The Federal Government should not and the people, we the people, should be the supporters of the charities of our choice – not theirs. If Congressmen or Senators want to support favorite charities or projects why can’t they do it out of their pocket and not ours.

In a rare speech by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on March 16 (Monday), 2009 at Washington and Lee University in Virginia he said “Our country and our principles are more important than our individual wants.” Quoting President John Kennedy’s famous remark, “Ask not what your country can do for you….”, Thomas noted Americans are more inclined to say, “Ask not what you can do for yourselves or your country but what your country can do for you.” Secularist thinking has turned the concept of virtue, morals and charity on its ear. They look to the government to do for them what they are not willing to do, and that is give. Take they do well.

Freedom of Speech

The First Amendment guarantees Freedom of Speech. The answer, if this is viewed as a question, should be “yes!” But be aware that there are efforts, movements afoot, to restrict that very right. We are seeing it in schools, in public places and in the media, and the target appears to be Christians more than others. Why? Know that Washington is considering legislation that could curb our precious rights.

"Hate Crimes" Legislation. The Left believes people who engage in homosexual behavior deserve special legal protections and wants to punish those who speak out (a restriction on one's freedom of speech) publicly against the homosexual agenda. This can lead to requirements that certain sections of the Holy Bible be changed to remove sections homosexuals consider offensive. Also ministers can be arrested for even reading such passages from the pulpit, regardless of what they may say separately. It could enable Authorities to meet with your friends and neighbors and ask about your views, and if indeed you are a Christian and read the Bible you could be on the list of those who hate. Since when did Christians go from being "prudes" to “bigots.” And if this can succeed as a standard depiction of Christians even bigotry may be considered a hate crime. Are we seeing the rise of another form of McCarthyism? Heterosexuals may require the same protection if such a bill is ever passed.

"The Employment Non-Discrimination Act." Imagine an America where radicals can use the federal government to force businesses and churches to hire homosexuals, the way that Canada enforces its so-called tolerance laws. The Left thinks that is a good idea. Canada does not have a First Amendment and we do, so we must insure freedoms established in that clause are maintained. The word to be emphasized is “forced”. No one should be forced to do other than what is right. Hire the best person for the job, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation, a person befitting the standards of the position to be filled. The First Amendment helps to make America the country that it is. In that regard we must also be concerned about any positions in court cases that refer to International Laws and practices in other countries, countries without similar First Amendment Rights, in an attempt to justify practices, certain conduct, in this country – even it such practices are not allowed in our First Amendment.

"Fairness Doctrine." In 2008 Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) signaled her strong support for revival of the 'Fairness Doctrine', The Broadcaster's Freedom Act, -- which would require radio station owners to provide equal time to radio commentary. Fines for certain activities of as much as $200,000 would be possible, basically a restriction on our Freedom of Speech. In other words, broadcasters like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Hugh Hewitt, Laura Ingram, Focus on the Family, Family Life Today, etc. could be fined repeatedly simply for disclosing what bills are being brought to the Senate floor that will directly affect the public, marriage/family, the religious/Christian sector, etc. This will also lead to fines for repeatedly disagreeing with Washington. The Fairness Doctrine would force conservative stations to broadcast liberal viewpoints. It is a balancing act that masks an attempt at restricting free speech.

Be aware, be informed, fight for the rights of every American.

Christians Fighting Back

Freedom of speech is a standard for America. A new proposal for hate crime legislation in the pipeline, however, suggests what is said or written can be deemed a hate crime if opposition to certain groups is suggested. It tosses out the old "sticks and stones will hurt my bones, but words....." What if the Bible story of Sodom and Gommorah had to be removed to satisfy government hate crimes laws. Would that raise a concern as to freedom of speech, even freedom of religion? Looking for motive may become a way of establishing a criminal offense for hate, whether it is actually hate, or simply a different point of view and an expression of a preferred way of life (the other way of life then may feel hated since your stated preference was mentioned.) What you say or write or even read may be motive enought. How wrong would that be?

There is talk in Wasington of restricting radio stations, a balancing act as it were, from broadcasting one viewpoint over another. In other words if conservative talk radio was more popular than liberal talk radio - the case today - thus engendering more ad revenues for the stations by supporting such programming (makes business sense), regardless of the point-of-view of the station itself, the Fairness Doctrine as being discussed, would necessitate the radio station allow for the same amount of liberal talk - even if was costly to the station. I do not consider National Public Radio equal - it is definitely slanted more towards a liberal standard, but has anything been done by the Government itself to balance their own station - at least a station they support?

Texas, to the credit of that State, has allowed for freedom of speech, but a court battle had to be waged to allow school children to mention the bible, quote verses, or even use the name Jesus in school. In 2007 the Governor signed a bill protecting the rights of children in Texas public schools to express their religious beliefs. It is the Schoolchildren's Religious Liberties Act (actual name - Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act). Go Texas. Today's paper (the Palm Beach Post) mentioned another accomplishment for Texas, the court affirming a Texas law that calls for schoolchildren to have a moment of silence during which they can pray, reflect or meditate. There was a group opposing such action as unconstitutional thus requiring a court case to settle this challenge. It cost time and money, but resulted in freedoms kept. Go Texas. Maybe these standards will find there way into the law of the land - State by State if necessary. Christians can fight back and do.

If you know of similar laws in other States, I'd like to know too. Please respond.

Groups like the ACLU, and others, with a liberal, secularist agenda, often propagandize their postions making many school administrators and personnel in public places think the postions they espouse are the norm, using legal threats and statements that are simply not true. The threat of legal action alone is scary. Lack of knowledge, or appropriate information causes cases where freedom of speech or content in written pieces, even public discussions is being restricted in error. We need to know our rights and fight for those rights. School principals, college deans, government personnel in positions of authority, even corporate personnel, especially human resource directors need to know all the facts, so that Christian freedoms, individual freedoms are not being wrongly subjected to restraint. Why would a group in an office having a bible Study - open to everyone - be prevented from such a group session if conducted on their own time?

We all need to know our rights and the law, and any proposals that might restrict our freedoms in any way. Christians - fight back. Be prepared. Be aware. But be loving.

Multiverse Space Exploration

Is there another Earth? With Friday's (3/6/09) launch of the Kepler mission NASA scientists will attempt to determine if the earth is unique or if there are others like us. If alone in the galaxy what then will they say. Will the 100,000 stars this mission can study be insufficient, and still doubts exist. If not alone - then what? Find a like planet or not and the results will be profound. Can a parallel universe exist? The exacting conditions for our planet to support life are profound; just the right distance from the sun, the appropriate mix of chemicals, atmospheric conditions perfect, and life - man with a complex DNA composition. From the Big Bang til now. Cogito Ergo Sum - Descartes - I think therefore I am. We exist. Do we do so with understanding from both cosmological (the totality of space and time) and ontological (the nature of being) studies - a reality transcending science. Fodder for the philosophers of the Enlightenment, the atheists and the theologians, our existence, our being, our purpose, the why of being here on earth, has been verbalized, studied and discussed. Existentialism - we are the essence and our existence preceded such (otherwise the essence preceding our existence would be from God) is in play with this space odyssey. Will this tell us whether man defines himself, or if the influence of the supernatural (as many philosophers prefer to call God, or the eternal force) is clearly defining man. Under the term Absurdism it is believed it is humanly impossible to find meaning in the universe. Now NASA has entered space, probing deeper and deeper to find meaning. For those that philosophize that man creates his own meaning and purpose space awaits. God wants man to explore all the possibilities. The Creator's expressed desire was for man to "subdue" (Genesis 1:28) the earth. Scientists were encouraged to explore, study, question and improve the earth. Man is not perfect, born with a sin nature, and having free will, man can debate, analyze, think, conduct experiments and conclude. The process only makes life better for man, and helps to explain the reality of God's gift to mankind. Our ability to think, to be mindful of our surroundings, to see the beauty in the world, to explore space, and to have the aptitude necessary to perform the needed functions to accomplish many missions, had a source. Consider that!

Speechless

Reading Speechless by Rev. Don Wildmon. A good read and reflective of the attacks on Christians nationwide, the battles lost and the battle won. It raises the question of when did Christians turn from being prudes to bigots. The freedom of speech of all peoples needs protection, including Christians. And Christians need to stop being the judge; it is not ours to judge (lest we be judged). Christians need to be Christians first, love our neighbors and demonstrate the qualities Christ exhibited. Christ loved and associated with all manner of man. From the Reformation, through the period of Enlightenment up to now Christians (from the Roman Catholics to Catholics and Protestants today) have been attacked and the result the Bible, The Word, has been questioned. The cause for the slander of the Bible is the man behind the Christian veil and the problem for the opposition is they tend to see the foundation for man's principals as the cause of persecution, not the misguided man. We are asked to love our neighbors and we cannot demostrate that love by burning abortion clinics, or hating homosexuals. God is the judge; we are in God's house (as my wife would say). We need to live our lives as Christians as an example, and let others live too, knowing there is hope for them in their time of despair. Let them reach out to God knowing his hand is always extended to grab theirs. We need to be like Christ. Our views need not change. If asked to share what we believe we share, but do not impose our beliefs on those not willing to hear. We can preach, we can teach, but we are not the judge.

Start Thinking 2010

With 'change' in Washington having arrived we need to be mindful that what may be the residual of the Obama Administration is loose change and loose morals. Christians need to be on-guard for a future where continued oppression of Christian values, which equate also with family values, will be under atack by the secularists, the postmodernists, and the liberals as a whole. Already mentioning the Lord or Christ in many public schools in written essays or speeches is verboten. Why is God any less free speech than anything else? Passage of the anti-hate legislation proposed (see prior Blog on HR 1592) suggests ministers may find their clarification of the Bible can subject their Church to loss of non-profit status, or incarceration for the man in the pulpit. This 'change' will be hard to stop, at least for the next two years, but then there is a new opportunity to correct some of the wrongs that are underway. All of Congress, the House of Representatives, will be up for election. One-third on the Seante will be up for election. Are you up for voting in 2010 to stop this oppression of free speech? Vote out the incumbants. That is a simple start. If they are good people vote them back in two years later, but we need to work to have a freshman batch in place, untainted by the temptations that have seduced our representatives.