Life is on the line

I am terrified to be living in a country that is morally indistinguishable from Nazi Germany in regards to eugenics. The state should not, and does not, have the authority to determine Lebensunwertes Leben: life unworthy of life.

Here is what Al Mohler has to say:

President Barack Obama today signed an executive order that reverses the Bush administration's restrictions on federal funding for research that involves the destruction of human embryos. In a White House ceremony, President Obama said that Americans “have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research; that the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight the perils can be avoided.”

President Obama spoke to the moral issues involved when he stated: “Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view.”

But the President clearly does not share these concerns, and it is unclear what he means by respecting the point of view of those who rightly understand the issue as tax-supported homicide

President Obama is now personally responsible for research that will involve the intentional destruction of human embryos. This comes even as the ideological roots of this conflict have become increasingly clear. Credible alternatives to research that would require the destruction of human embryos have become available, even as the most promising avenues of medical research are now using adult stem cells, which avoids the moral issues involved in the use of human embryos.

The scientific community increasingly appears to have drawn a line in the sand on this issue. The insistence that embryos must be destroyed is a matter of ideology. Some researchers seem to resist any alternative source of stem cells, no matter how great its potential.

One of his most influential scientific advisors, Harold Varmus, told The Washington Post, "This is consistent with the president's determination to use sound scientific practice, responsible practice of science and evidence, instead of dogma in developing federal policy."

When human embryos are destroyed in the name of medical advancement, we make a deal with the Culture of Death and sacrifice embryonic human beings for the hope of medical advances. We all hope and pray for those advances, and for treatments to cure or treat intractable diseases. But there are valid alternatives to the use of human embryos.

The vulnerable human embryo is now at greater risk than ever before. And this, inevitably, means that every single human life is devalued by this decision.

President Obama said that Americans “have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research; that the potential...”

I'm sure there is a "consensus" somewhere slightly greater than or equal to 50%, but that argument is entirely irrelevant.

Even if 99% of America supported destroying embryos it would still be unethical, which is the only standard that matters. We know Biblically when life begins, but more important to the political issue at hand, we know scientifically that there is no difference genetically or biologically between a single cell embryo and a 100-year-old man; they are just at different stages of development.

They distract people by talking about the potential for medical cures and they excuse it by saying these are leftovers doomed for freezers or destruction anyway, so we might as well squeeze out anything we can.

The bottom line is that 100% approval and guaranteed medical breakthroughs would do nothing to change the fact that it is murdering humans who have committed no crimes and cannot defend themselves.

Moral decay

R.C. Sproul referenced this Gallup poll today:

In 1940, public school teachers ranked the top seven disciplinary problems at public schools. They were talking out of turn, chewing gum, making noise, running in the hall, cutting in line, dress code violations, and littering. By 1990, the top seven disciplinary problems had changed somewhat. They were now drug abuse, alcohol abuse, pregnancy, suicide, rape, robbery, and assault (Harris 20).

He also referenced a 1948 paper by a Harvard sociologist who predicted a great decline in the culture because of the breakdown of the family. From 1910-1945 the divorce rate in America had increased from 10% to 25% (Sproul mentioned that it was 40% by 1980 and over 50% today). The increase to 25% was seen as untenable. Beyond that, there are many today who choose to cohabitate and have children in that setting because of the contemporary cultural mores which deems such choices as normative.

Chuck Colson mentioned in a speech recently that the popular notion among humanist sociologists is that the greatest cause of crime is poverty. Yet, when Colson left prison in 1975, the prison population in America was 320,000. Today it is over 2.5 million. At a time when the American economy, affluence and general prosperity rose to levels unprecedented in human history, the United states prison population has increased 8 fold.

Christian sociologists (do they exist? let's say Christian commentators) affirm that the greatest cause, and most likely the only cause, of crime in the world revolves around morality. Is something inherently wrong in and of itself? Is it only illegal to embezzle or is it also wrong on an objective, moral level? Secular-humanists will tell you that nothing is wrong on an objective, moral level because there are no absolute standards of morality. Take the current drug problem in America. The argument for legalization revolves around it being "a victimless crime". Even many fiscal conservatives are in favor of decriminalizing many drugs because of the financial burden investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating individuals has on the federal government (your tax dollars). What is most often lost in any discussion of crime and behavior is the question of the most importance. Is it wrong in itself?

I in no way claim that America before the sexual and cultural revolution of the 1960's was a monolithic Christian country and culture. All that is necessary to impress morals on a society is a majority opinion, because governments (especially in a democratic republic) are nothing more than a reflection of the culture, the will of the society. So the government can never be blamed for the breakdown in manners, the increase of crime or the absence of moral character.

People, starting at the individual level, must stand up for what is right because it is right. For no other reason than because it is the truth. And how do we know truth? Can it be found in the nucleotides of a genetic sequence? Can it be found in the redshift of a quasar? Of course not. But can truth be felt? Can it be identified through the beating of a heart or the yearning expression of a hope? No. At least not reliably. If truth were accountable to feelings, then all would be truth and nothing would be true. When you ask the Christian, or the Muslim, or the Jew, or the Hindi or even the Atheist what he feels, he will give you his truth and the sum total of all these conflicting, mutually exclusive truths is bitterly empty. The only possible way to answer the four main dilemmas in life, which according to Ravi Zacharias are origin, meaning, morality and destiny (where did we come from, why are we here, what should we do and where are we going) is through specific, Divine revelation. Answers of this nature can only come from the source of the circumstance. Now, there are competing entries for the title of the Divine revelation, and some would say that none of them truly are, or perhaps that it has been lost or exchanged, but there is one text that does answer all of the dilemmas in a consistent, concise and clear way verified by real time, real history and real experience.

Morality is the answer and the Bible is how we know it.

What's wrong with "Health-n-Wealth" preaching?

First, please read this whole article from Christianity Today.

These people are doing little more than taking Neo-Pentecostalism to its logical conclusions. This is the Word Faith movement of Benny Hinn and Joel Osteen. This is the prosperity gospel and the health gospel all rolled into one. It is no surprise that the American doctrinal export most pumped into these deceived peoples' minds is TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) which deceives well meaning Americans on a daily basis as well. Some excerpts to highlight:

"In its 2006 survey, Pew asked participants if God would "grant material prosperity to all believers who have enough faith." Eighty-five percent of Kenyan Pentecostals, 90 percent of South African Pentecostals, and 95 percent of Nigerian Pentecostals said yes. Similarly, when Pew asked if religious faith was "very important to economic success," about 9 out of 10 Kenyan, Nigerian, and South African renewalists said it was."
"I preach prosperity and the message of salvation, too," says Joe Imakando, a former cessationist Baptist who now pastors the 6,500-person Bread of Life Church in Lusaka, Zambia. The church has sprouted 53 branches around the country, as well as church plants in the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Africa, Malawi, and Tanzania. Like many successful megachurch pastors in Africa, Imakando headlines his own local television show."

"But he scoffs at the "prosperity preacher" label sometimes given him. "Our churches are growing," he says, referring to his critics, "theirs are shrinking."

"Allan H. Anderson, professor of Global Pentecostal Studies at the University of Birmingham, says African renewalists are, indeed, eclipsing denominationally based churches and missions. "The older churches," he says, "are struggling to keep up with the jet-setting entrepreneurs who head up these new organizations.""

"If you're not willing to play that [prosperity] game," says Vince Bacote, associate professor of theology at Wheaton College, "get ready to get steamrolled."

It's sad to say that American churches and denominations have nearly bought in wholesale to the idea that "numbers don't lie". To quote Waylon Jennings, WRONG. To embrace this insanity is to reject all of historic Christianity which explicitly tells us that we will be hated for the truth of God's righteousness, holiness and love. And not just hated, but ridiculed, tortured, imprisoned and boycotted.
John 15:

18 “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He who hates Me hates My Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father. 25 But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’

Jesus takes our spiritual burdens and gives us the strength to survive because His strength is made perfect in our weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9). As for physical and economic blessings, well if faith provides that, then martyrs across the ages have been cheated. Of course the "Jesus" of TBN is not the real Jesus and this ultimately is nothing more than idolatry. But it is certainly idolatry in the worst form. It is an idol that steals the name of Jesus and God and redefines it for its own gain.

To take the promises of God to the nation of Israel and apply it to modern day Christians is to take it utterly out of context. That was a unique covenant given to Israel which was BROKEN by Israel and no longer has any meaning even to Jews. Much of the Old Testament is Historical Narrative and is not commandments or deals brokered between God and Christians. Reading the covenant with the Israelites at Sinai as having any legal foundation to Christians is to reject the Analogia Fide as Peter stresses in 2nd Peter 3:

"15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen."

All scripture must be interpreted in light of SCRIPTURE. If anything is found to be in contradiction, it must be rejected as misunderstood (if by accident) or deception (if by purpose). The Westminster Confession differentiates scripture that is easy to understand (which includes knowledge unto salvation) and that which is harder. In order to understand the more difficult, we use the easy to bring foreknowledge of God and His purposes.

""People turn it on and assume that TBN is American Christianity, and Americans know everything, so why not listen to it?" says Bonnie Dolan, founder and director of Zambia's Center for Christian Missions, a Reformed school for pastors. "[W]e have Zambians looking to the West for direction, and they associate TBN with the West. And it's killing our churches.""

"While Christians of all types and times have relied on God's material provision, the kind of blessings that such preachers often promise—such as divine expectation of abundant wealth, runaway professional success, and unassailable physical and emotional health—spring from a relatively recent, American brand of religious thought.

"The earliest proponents of positive thinking were spiritual innovators like Phineas P. Quimby and Mary Baker Eddy, founders of the New Thought movement and Christian Science, respectively. By the turn of the 20th century, Essek William Kenyon, a pastor and founder of Bethel Bible Institute, had incorporated similar ideas into his preaching on the finished work of Christ. Kenyon wrote that Christians could make a "positive confession" to bring emotional and physical desires into being. "What I confess," he is purported to have said, "I possess."

"In the 1930s, Kenneth Hagin added Kenyon's teachings to his Pentecostal beliefs to create what would become the Word-Faith movement. An Assemblies of God pastor, Hagin taught Christians that they could get rich by mustering enough faith. "Say it, do it, receive it, tell it," he said. He touted a "Rhema doctrine," which held that words spoken in faith must be fulfilled, spawning slogans like "name it and claim it." In the 1960s, a young associate of Oral Roberts, Kenneth Copeland, began teaching that faith is a "force" which, when confessed out loud, brings material results. Within a couple decades, Word-Faith had grown into a sizable offshoot of charismatic faith.

"Like a chief leading his followers toward better lives, Oyedepo is a larger-than-life figure whose largess proves he is worth heeding. Churches like his are "very personality driven," says Wheaton's Bacote. "You have a dynamic personality who is also an authority figure. People aren't exactly thinking about democracy."

"Oyedepo teaches that "the Word of Faith is the key to triumphant living," and he lists "prosperity" as one of the 12 "pillars" of his ministry (others include "healing," "success," and "the supernatural"). But he also preaches salvation through Jesus Christ to millions and has launched a dizzying array of ministries offering hope and a better future to Nigerians."

Of course we should remember that they all aren't completely insane,

David Oginde, senior pastor of the 10,000-member Nairobi Pentecostal Church, believes he could triple his membership by promising wealth. "But if that is all I am teaching, then I have lost the message," he says. "The kingdom of God is built on the Cross, not on bread and butter."

Oginde sometimes counsels Christians burned by health-and-wealth preachers. One student "planted" his school money as a seed offering, then was thrown out of college for not paying tuition. "I gave my money to God, but it has not come back," the student said. Oginde replied, gently, "You did not give your money to God."

Desiring material provision is human nature. A roof, a coat, a bowl of food. No one should be condemned for desiring these things. The problem is when the hope of provision transcends subsistence and enters opulence. The idea that God WANTS me to drive a nice new car makes me sick. If it pleases Him to allow me to do that, fine, but I do not desire it or presume to claim that God desires it for me. Material prosperity isn't even the biggest danger in the African church. Instead, it is the cultural belief and embrace of a common and active supernatural god.

God is supernatural and CAN do anything at any time. But He is also ordered, and He designed all of the natural laws that we can observe. It pleases Him not to violate His natural laws without cause and since the days of the Apostles, historic Christianity asserts that He has not had common cause to violate them. This is because at the close of the canon, with its verification by miracles, all that is necessary for salvation is present in the scriptures. Our sickness and hunger do not give pleasure to God but it is important for our reproof, and we certainly deserve any consequences of sin that come our way. I expect no miracles in my life. It is enough that God created me, fearfully and wonderfully, let alone became flesh and died for me. What more should I desire?

Two creation stories? You wish.

How can any reasonable, intelligent person claim that there are two creation stories in Genesis? Here is what the UK's Times Online and some Catholics say about it. This theory has always amazed me as grasping at straws. We have an outline and then we have a more specific account of the specific creation of man, what is so complicated here?

When Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system.

Except what Galileo stated did not refute the Bible, just what many theologians (and virtually all natural scientists) believed. R.C. Sproul actually talked about this a couple days ago. If the Bible claimed that the earth was not stationary but revolved around the sun, virtually everyone would have rejected it because the scientific consensus for thousands of years was that the universe was geocentric. What Fools!!! you say, but be reasonable. The basic observational evidence was that the earth was stationary (do you feel any motion?!?). In fact, as historians have pointed out:

If Copernicus had any genuine fear of publication, it was the reaction of scientists, not clerics, that worried him. Other churchmen before him — Nicole Oresme (a French bishop) in the fourteenth century and Nicolaus Cusanus (a German cardinal) in the fifteenth — had freely discussed the possible motion of the earth, and there was no reason to suppose that the reappearance of this idea in the sixteenth century would cause a religious stir.

And since the Bible does not make claims either way, it is irrelevant. When it does mention the motions of celestial objects it obviously describes them in a way that we observe them (as we still today refer to the sun rising and the sun setting while also knowing that we only mean that it appears to rise and set), why would we expect the Bible to do otherwise? People always get this wrong when they try to cite geocentrism as proof that the Bible is inaccurate. It's not the Bible, it's the church.

They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways "appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries".

Wow, if that's not pandering, I don't know what is. The Bible claims to be true and it points out that most people hate the truth and love the darkness, therefore we shouldn't darken the truth in order to appeal to people. Embracing false doctrine won't save anyone.

The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters."

The Bible leaves no room for secular matters. Romans 1 points out that God reveals Himself through nature and that anyone who sees creation and studies nature sees the works of God and is without excuse for rejecting His lordship.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Of the notorious anti-Jewish curse in Matthew 27:25, "His blood be on us and on our children", a passage used to justify centuries of anti-Semitism, the bishops say these and other words must never be used again as a pretext to treat Jewish people with contempt. Describing this passage as an example of dramatic exaggeration, the bishops say they have had "tragic consequences" in encouraging hatred and persecution.

The Bible does not create false testimony in historical narrative for "dramatic" or any other effect. They actually said this. They, of course, had no idea that they were crucifying God and that people would hold them to their words for thousands of years. Of course we shouldn't use it as a pretext for antisemitism but they DID say it.

The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.

Someone point out when creation legend ends and historical narrative begins because God hasn't sent me a memo pointing it out. . . anyone? Bueller?

Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb.

The bishops say: "Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come."

The prophecies are true, we just don't know what the symbols are. Everything is completely true in that what it stands for will happen in the way described. They are emblematic. Technically it is not literal because it is apocalyptic writing just like the parables did not literally happen (but what they describe explains the objective reality that we live in), but the prophecies are true and the details are true. It is important to always remember that the Bible is always true (since it is inspired by an infinite-personal God who is omniscient, it cannot be un-true ever). It can be misunderstood as the Roman Church misunderstood it, but it cannot be false. It is also important to remember that the Bible, while it IS true truth, it is not exhaustive truth. God did not take the space or have the need to reveal all truth. The truth of the Bible is all the truth and knowledge necessary unto salvation and holy living. He didn't need to reveal to us why the protons in the nucleus of an atom are held together despite polar opposition (what would nuclear physicists have to do all day if He did?).

The new teaching has been issued as part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council document explaining the place of Scripture in revelation. In the past 40 years, Catholics have learnt more than ever before to cherish the Bible. "We have rediscovered the Bible as a precious treasure, both ancient and ever new."

Wow, you're only 1900 years late boys, welcome to the party. . . pitiful.

"There are over 12 million children in the UK and only 756,000 of them go to church regularly."

All their parents must have stopped attending church because they were interpreting The Bible literally as we all know that that leads to unbelief and spiritual apathy. . .

I wouldn't care what these fools think if it wasn't showing up in the media where ignorant people will read it and think these fools know what they are talking about. God help us.

Open Letter to Ethanol

Dear Ethanol,

Thank you for making my latest gallon of 2% Milk cost over four dollars. And for robbing my car of precious miles/gallon.

Love,
Wood

Relevant to any student

This Town Hall article puts lyrics to the song that many educators, judges and journalists sing. Give it a read.

Now, the worst part is most American students don't even realize how horrible their public education is. Because they never learn the true and important lessons of civics, American history, economic and free market policy and so on, they have no choice between preferring or even believing one side over the other. They are only given one worldview.

This is most clearly demonstrated in my life in a lit theory class in college, in which the texts were written exclusively by female authors save for one which was written by a gay man whose subject was three women, specifically Virginia Woolf. Each text was an example from one school or set of critical theory, such as Romanticism, Marist criticism, Feminist criticism, Stream of consciousness, Realism, Naturalism et cetera, but each was always similar to the rest in that it was written by a female. The class was not a female authors class; it was a lit theory class that had been co-opted to show the brilliance of female authors without the mention that there were literally hundreds of male authors who had tackled the same subjects or methods of writing. In a word, it was absurd.

It should shock no one that college seniors at institutions across America fail tests on American civics. These are not dumb kids by any means. It is simply a matter of not being given the material, the teaching. You do not give a ten-year-old a pile of wood with some rivets and bolts and tell him to build a bridge. Therefore, it is not surprising that Americans who are never instructed on our history and triumphs of our free market system fail to appreciate those systems and consistently slide towards accepting increasing government control, beaurocracy and other socialist ideals. For further reading of this travesty, please read Cal Thomas' column. We can no longer rely on public education to give us a fair and complete tutorial on history, sociology or science. It is up to us.

Blaise Pascal

So, I heard a quote from him this morning that turns out to be this, paraphrased into modern and simple English:

"There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of every person, and it can never be filled by any created thing. It can only be filled by God, made known through Jesus Christ."

While he technically never said this in so many words, he certainly believed it and used much loftier words to express it. Either way, it is true and goes along with this quote I found and love:

"We would never travel on the sea if we had no hope of telling about it later... We lose our lives with joy provided people talk about it... Even philosophers wish for admirers."

This is the ca. 1650s, so travel was confined to sea travel, but the point is even more relevant today. Back then only the wealthy could afford to travel and be admired as "cultured," "worldly" and so on because of the things they have "seen" or "experienced". Today, most Americans can travel (if they have a high enough credit limit anyway) and the human heart has not changed. We go to Bermuda for a week so we can spend a lifetime telling people about it. I have been troubled by this for some time. True joy can only be found in God, and as Solomon concludes Ecclesiastes (12:13-14):

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:
Fear God and keep His commandments,
For this is man's all.
For God will bring every work into judgment,
Including every secret thing,
Whether good or evil.

Pascal was quite a prodigy, coming to the attention of the best French thinkers like Descartes by the age of 16 for mathematical proofs. He was also advanced in physics, philosophy, theology and literature. After converting to true Christianity, he put aside most of the math and science and focused on defending the faith and understanding God. No doubt, modern scientists curse the day that Pascal found God much the same as they do with Newton, who spent the majority of his life studying God instead of advancing science.

Sexual purity is for your own good

I never really thought about this before, but the left is insanely vehement against the suggestion that we should encourage teenagers to consider and practice sexual purity. They consider it a lost cause and conservatives as old maids who are spreading disease and pregnancy instead of condoms and complicit sexual advice.

It derives from a misunderstanding of God's commandments for sexual purity. Sexual restraint isn't for dedication and obedience to God, though it can be used for that. God created sex and He knew that if abused it could only cause dire and traumatic consequences, which are the reality of rape, pedophilia, homosexuality, group sex and adultery.

I've never heard of a couple who said, "I regret waiting for my husband/wife." It is only people who never tried who are convinced that it "could not happen, and I would be miserable if I only had one partner," and so on. On the other side, there are plenty of people who do say that they regret not waiting or regret taking part in some deviant sexuality. These are the people who have tried both sides and they always come out on the side of God. His side is the side of the human heart which He knew could not handle deviant sexual behavior. The only people who regret not having sex or deviant sexual behaviors, like threesomes and so on, are people who wanted to but could not because they could find no partners. In reality though, if you want it, you can have it at any age and in any condition.

2037: Remember the good ole' days of the 1980s?

In thirty years, we will look up from our piles of ash that we till endlessly praying for crops to spring forth from and we will think back on a time when the providence of God was with us because we prayed and worked earnestly to see that it was. Then we will think of the days when the providence of God slowly faded from American society in the name of universalism and equal protection under the law, and we will remember this (and we will weep bitterly):

“An illustrious day for all Americans and a memorable day for us.” So declared Rajan Zed, a Hindu priest from Nevada, after being invited to open the July 12, 2007 session of the United States Senate with a Hindu prayer ...

The architects of American civilization would be aghast. To give credence or credibility to pantheistic religion (“God” is inside the Earth, sky, etc.), that advocates belief in thousands of “gods” while rejecting the one true God of the Bible, would be unthinkable in 1776. It was equally unthinkable for most Americans up until the last 40-50 years ...

It was on June 28, 1787, in the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, that one of the least religious of the Founders, Benjamin Franklin, then in his 80s, rose to his feet and made the proposal that Congress open their sessions with prayer. Yet, on that occasion, the God, the religion, and the sacred Scriptures that Franklin had in mind were certainly not the gods, religion, and scripture of Hinduism.

Read Franklin's exact words (chock full of allusions to the one true God and the Bible) in the Apologetics Press article.

I'm sure some senators silently boycotted by not attending the July 12th sesion, but they would get slammed in the press if they said anything that wasn't politically correct or could get labeled as intolerant. I don't blame them. We need good men silently serving and voting the right way; I can speak the truth without fear of the press or losing to a "tolerant" democrat who will destroy our country -- maybe not the geographic features of a continent spanning nation, but certainly the foundation that enabled America to become the preeminent state in the world today.

For sure, the Founders of America desired religious freedom. Technically, by “religious freedom” they meant that all Protestant denominations should have the right to pursue their own interpretation of the Bible and to worship the God and Christ of the Bible according to their own consciences without governmental interference ...

Nevertheless, the Founders were perfectly willing to extend the right of religious freedom to those who did not share the Protestant brand of the Christian religion. They opposed all religious persecution for the simple reason that Christian people love their fellowman and do not mistreat others (Matthew 7:12).

But make no mistake: the Founders believed in the God of the Bible, and the vast majority of them believed in the validity of the Christian religion to the exclusion of all other gods and religions. They would not have countenanced giving non-Christian religions any sort of public endorsement or favorable encouragement.

This is evidenced very clearly in the article. The worst part today is how the democrats are co-opting other religions to tear down Christiantity. They think they can weaken Christian morals and dominance in America by creating an education system that tells children that all religions are equal; Since all are equal we can't listen to any of them because they differ in teaching and policy. The truth is they hate all religions and all morality but they will use the means of promoting cults and false world religions in order to pollute the minds of children, so eventually they can do away with all external moral authority in this country.

This is the morality and rule of law that we are heading for -- one with complete exclusion of external moral authority (article from Town Hall).

Mythbusters: Ethanol is better than oil

First off, read this article by John Stossel. He explains the myth of ethanol very well.

Now, after reading that and gaining a little perspective I think we can all agree that it would be better for everyone involved if farmers had to compete in the food business and stop cheating in the energy business with subsidies. Oil exists only to be consumed by humans. It has no other function, while soil can be used to grow other foods and other resources. That's what we should use soil for - not some pipedream of driving cars with corn.

Don't get me wrong - ethanol isn't completely useless. It's just not a lot better than oil. In fact, it may even be worse than oil because oil is free and basically one small, cheap step away from gasoline.

Ethanol gets less miles per gallon than gasoline on the order of about 70%. So if E85 costs $2.15/gallon, Super 90/10 blend can cost $3.07/gallon and be exactly the same price per mile. They don't brag about this of course because they want people to assume that a gallon is a gallon, but in practical terms, it is very different.

Proponents of ethanol want Americans to assume a lot of things that just aren't true. Americans are stupid and grew up in horrible schools that taught them that oil is bad and it's "going to run out," which just isn't true.

I don't have a problem with ethanol if it can compete fairly with oil, but it can't right now. If technology improves, that's a different story. It may be a viable alternative to gasoline with advancements which yield more energy from less corn more easily. This would, of course, consume less money and energy. Until this happens, the government should not subsidize research and development or production, which only hinder true ingenuity. We can use farmland to grow food that can feed hungry people. We can't feed hungry people oil (yet) so we should use that to fuel our cars.

The market chooses the fittest and the fittest is, indeed, oil.