A Side Track

OK, again this is not my usual topic, but sometimes I can't resist. I am convinced that our nation is slowly but surely becoming a socialistic society and our citizenry is OK with that and wants it to be that way. In this video we can see the difference between capitalism and socialism.

Do you want the socialist method in which the government taxes you more and then provides us with a poorer quality product for less (or even free), or do you want the capitalist method where there is open competition and the customer decides with our purchasing power who will survive?

Abortion: Open Mindedness and Responsible Learning

I read an article about how Kathy Ireland has come out in support of being pro-life. While I am glad she is doing this, what impressed me most is how she came to be of this mindset. I've pasted the article I read below.

A few points to consider before you read the article:

1. Although was once pro-choice she approached the argument with an open mind. She investigated that facts asking experts on both sides for honest information. She allowed her decision to be based on facts.
2. Pay close attention to the quote they included from the pro-choice actress at the very end of the article.

I have a few closing points after the article, so read all the way through (please).

Supermodel Kathy Ireland Speaks Out Against Pro Choice

It’s no secret that the majority of Hollywood stars are strong advocates for a woman’s right to choose whether or not she wants to terminate a pregnancy, however former "Sports Illustrated" supermodel-turned-entrepreneur-turned-author Kathy Ireland has gone against the grain of the glitterati and spoken out against abortion.

"My entire life I was pro-choice — who was I to tell another woman what she could or couldn’t do with her body? But when I was 18, I became a Christian and I dove into the medical books, I dove into science," Ireland told Tarts while promoting her insightful new book "Real Solutions for Busy Mom: Your Guide to Success and Sanity."

"What I read was astounding and I learned that at the moment of conception a new life comes into being. The complete genetic blueprint is there, the DNA is determined, the blood type is determined, the sex is determined, the unique set of fingerprints that nobody has had or ever will have is already there."

However Ireland admitted that she did everything she could to avoid becoming a believer in pro-life. "I called Planned Parenthood and begged them to give me their best argument and all they could come up with that it is really just a clump of cells and if you get it early enough it doesn’t even look like a baby. Well, we’re all clumps of cells and the unborn does not look like a baby the same way the baby does not look like a teenager, a teenager does not look like a senior citizen. That unborn baby looks exactly the way human beings are supposed to look at that stage of development. It doesn’t suddenly become a human being at a certain point in time," Ireland argued. "I’ve also asked leading scientists across our country to please show me some shred of evidence that the unborn is not a human being. I didn’t want to be pro-life, but
this is not a woman’s rights issue but a human rights issue." Ireland also asserted that she believes "no justification is adequate" (for an abortion) unless the mother's life is in danger.

"In that instant, your intention is not to kill but to save the life of another. If we’re about to demolish a building we make absolute certain there are no human beings in there before we take a wrecking ball to it, but the unborn doesn’t have a voice so it's up to us to speak for them," she added passionately. "If I see someone abusing a child I am going to stand up against that, and that’s how I feel about abortion. Women are not given all the facts, they’re told it is a harmless procedure and now it has turned into such a political football."

The committed Christian and devoted mother even dedicated the chapter "Faith & Your Family" in her new book to her foundations in Christianity and believes that this is what’s missing from so many American families today. "You have to figure out your own values and why you have them. People are going to try and push and pull at your convictions, so you have to have boundaries and put them in place," she said.

But on the opposite end of the spectrum, "Judging Amy" star Amy Brenneman has been busy voicing her views as a strong advocate of pro-choice over recent years. "My involvement is really through this feminist majority that I work with and it is
a very important issue that’s close to my heart. Unless a woman really has sovereignty over her own body we really haven’t come that far."

I believe the facts about abortion are the same no matter who considers them. We all approach this issue confronted with the same facts and we are left to make a decision regarding this issue based on those same facts. Some make a decision to be pro-life (aka anti-abortion), and other choose to support abortion. I think it all comes down to the question Amy Brenneman raised; who's sovereign? Is it me or is it God?

This is why I absolutely reject any person who claims to be Christian and yet supports abortion. The two are mutually exclusive world views. This even includes those in the so-called "pro-choice" camp. It is no excuse for you to say "I am against abortion but believe it is a personal choice" - NO! By being pro-choice and voting pro-choice you enable abortion activity. You have blood on your hands just the same as the most avid pro-abortion person out there.

By definition being a Christian means you have made God sovereign over your life. You have given your life over to Christ and asked Him to be your LORD! There is no doubt God hates abortion. The only position a Christian can have is pro-life, and being pro-choice is not being pro-life.

The Poor Will Be Made Rich

I love this article I just read. Beyond the obvious topic, it encapsulates exactly what the Love and Forgiveness of God is all about.

Jesus said that in the kingdom of God the poor will be made rich and the rich will be made poor. He also said the last will be first and the first will be last. What does He mean by that? Basically if you are full of yourself, if your pride is so great it will be impossible for you to ever see or accept the Love of God. It's only when you are broken and are sorry for the sin you've committed that you can see. Yes, God's Love and Forgiveness is available to everyone, but some are so full of themselves that they think they don't need it.

The poor will be made rich and you can see a great example of it in the story of that woman in the article.

The "Roose" of Christianity

I found this article to be fascinating. A must read: Ivy Leaguer `infiltrates' Falwell's university

It is about how a Brown University student named Kevin Roose transferred to Jerry Falwell's Liberty University in an attempt to perform research for a book he planned to write about fundamentalist Christians called "The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University"

On one hand I have to chuckle a bit that Mr. Roose felt that Christians are a group worthy of some kind of anthropological study. But, I do have to give him credit for his approach to the project. He seemed to be fairly open minded even though he came to the university with a certain amount of negative preconceptions toward Christians.

IMPORTANT! This is all I ask of anyone and it is a rule I apply to myself. We all have preconceptions and assumptions. But are we brave enough to NOT allow our preconceptions and assumptions to affect the results? Too often this is what happens. In science and in journalism the truth is compromised because the results of research differ from what I want the result to be prior to beginning the research.

All Hail Mother Earth: Kill The Humans #2

I'm not sure this stuff will ever stop, but I remain hopeful that something or someone will stand up and stop this madness. A number of things I've read today are prompting this post.

First - The Spanish Parliament’s environmental committee approved a resolution to grant legal rights to great apes and is expected to enact it into law by June 2009. Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics at Princeton University states:

Like humans, great apes are entitled to life, liberty, and protection from torture.

OK; no argument from me. My argument does not stem from protection of animals, I love animals. Rather my argument is that at the same time as these worshipers of "Mother Earth" hate humans. They promote and even celebrate abortion as a method to control population in order to "save the planet".

Second - Switzerland has declared that individual plants have “intrinsic dignity”; that “decapitating” wildflowers is a great moral wrong and when food crop research is performed, one should consider the plants dignity.

Third - Today (April 22, 2009) members of the EPA are on capitol hill discussing why American businesses should pay premiums to the government based on how they use energy. Everyone knows that energy is required to do everything we do in this country. Food production, transportation, even energy producers will be charged huge fees for using energy that emits carbon pollution. Everyone knows these fees will be passed right on to the consumer!

My argument here is two fold.

1) What good does it do even if the U.S. takes a radical approach to [supposed] global warming if no other nations contribute? It's called "Global Warming" for a reason!

2) Again, the preference is given to plants and animals while our nation could care less about human dignity and the unborn.

(Updated) Free Speech. It Comes At A Cost

I was shocked to read this morning that one of the Miss America pageant contestants was asked a politically charged question during the pageant. The normally politics-free pageant was asked by judge Perez Hilton, an openly gay gossip blogger:

Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?

Miss California, Carrie Prejean, answered:

Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.

I am going to be curious to see how this plays out. Many think her answer may have cost her the crown, as she was awarded first runner up. My initial research shows that she was the only one asked that question.

Personally I think her answer is reasonable. I am not going to call her a hate monger or publish her address on a web site so that those who might disagree with her will terrorize her. But let's wait and see what the gay and lesbian activists do.

After Prop 8 passed in California, the gay lesbian activists did just what I mentioned. Using access to public records they obtained a list of people who donated money to pre-prop 8 causes. They then created a web site that showed a google map with the addresses overlaid onto the map. This way the so-called "people of tolerance" could (and have) terrorize those that supported prop 8. Hypocrites!

We are free to say what we want, but it always comes at a cost when hypocrites are involved.

Read the entire article and you'll also be able to see some of the reaction from those in attendance and a reply by the pageant's director. It's chock full of secular relativism (aka comedy gold).

Update: Perez Hilton, the judge that asked the question went on his video blog this morning. First, watch the actual event from last night and pay attention to the crowds response:





***Content Warning****

Here is the judges response on his video blog. Real classy. This is what I am talking about. The left's idea of free speach, "Believe what I believe otherwise SHUT UP".

Side Note: Did you hear the contestant get boo'd? I heard much more applause than I did a booing. Selective hearing.

Science Is The Answer To Our Prayers

I read an article in the San Francisco Chronicle reporting that Nancy Pelosi will stay the course in regards to supporting and funding embryonic stem cell research.

In the article she states that how under the Bush administration it was either faith or science:

We've had a situation where it's faith or science - take your pick. We're saying science is an answer to our prayers. We are going forth with science ... and we will defend that investment. We need science, science, science, science, science.

In some situations science IS the answer to our prayers; no argument there. I firmly believe that all Truth meets at the top, meaning if the science is True and Good, then it is from God. But, God never sanctions any science that goes against His will. There are many things I do not know about God, but I am 100% sure God hates sin and He hates abortion and the killing of His greatest gift; Life.

iPS Cells - Oops - Killing Embryos Not Really Needed

I just came across an article that talks about iPS, or Induced Pluripotent Stem cells. How I have never heard of this before escapes me. Not only is it promising, but I am going to be interested in seeing how the Democrats will allow this to shape their thinking. I contend that the very liberal Democrat party of the 21st century is hell bent on promoting a culture of death rather than life, so let's see how this plays out.

First a quick definition courtesy of Wikipedia:

Induced pluripotent stem cells, commonly abbreviated as iPS cells or iPSCs, are a type of pluripotent stem cell artificially derived from a non-pluripotent cell, typically an adult somatic cell, by inducing a "forced" expression of certain genes. iPS cells are believed to be identical to natural pluripotent stem cells, such as embryonic stem cells.

Translation:

1. iPS cells are identical to stem cells derived from embryos.
2. Pluripotent means the cell has the capability of becoming any number of tissue types.
3. iPS cells have been created from non-pluripotent cells, most successfully from adult skin cells.

This is very good news. I was surprised to learn that this technology was successfully accomplished using mice skin cells in 2006 and on human skin cells in 2007.

Why then all the debate on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research? As I've written about in the past, I personally am against killing an embryo on moral grounds, so naturally I am also against using federal tax dollars to fund this research. However, embryonic stem cell research is not illegal. No matter what you think of the morality of embryonic stem cell research, the entire national debate has been over federal funding, not the morality.

I'll be interested to see exactly where this ends up. Will the liberal, secular congress begin to move towards funding iPS cell research over embryonic stem cell research?

Living Dinosaur?

I came across this article and found it very interesting. The article tells of the discovery of a Wollemi tree in 1994 near Sydney Australia, which was previously believed to have been extinct since the "time of the dinosaurs". Speaking of the person that discovered the tree, a hiker named David Nobles:

He discovered a small grove of bizarre looking trees. Their leaves were shaped like a stegosaur’s tail and the bark looked like it was covered with bubbling chocolate. His discovery caused quite a stir when he brought it to the Royal Botanic Gardens in Sydney. Professor Carrick Chambers declared “This is the equivalent of finding a small dinosaur alive on Earth.” This conifer was thought to be extinct for millions of years. How did it survive the climate changes that have occurred through history? How did this small grove of conifers survive the bush fires?

Those are all good questions. Remember; the botanist said that this was thought to have been extinct for millions of years because, although it's not mentioned in the article, this tree had been previously identified through fossils. Science determines the age of fossils by a process of measuring where they are found within rock layers. These layer are thought to have been laid down over very long periods of time. The further down in the rock layer, the older it is. Thus, based on the fossils of this tree previously found in rock layers it was believed to have been millions of years old and extinct.

How could this living "fossil" be explained? The only way it becomes a mystery is when you apply preconceived ideas to the problem. What preconceived ideas? One is the idea that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and life spontaneously self generated 3.5 billion years ago. If you assume that to be true then how this tree survived that long is hard to explain and quite remarkable. Another issue is the assumption of evolution. IF you assume that evolution is true and this species of tree reproduced and was alive over millions of years, why didn't it change? All very challenging to answer IF the preconceived ideas of very old earth and evolution are true.

What if the earth isn't millions of years old, rather only several thousand years old? Isn't it more feasible that a tree species, although rare, could survive over that periods of time? I say yes. But what about the fossils of this very same species of tree in rock layers dated to millions of years old? Could it be that the science is wrong? Yes they could be wrong. It's not a mystery if those layers are not millions of years old, but rather only thousands of years old and in fact fossilization doesn't take as long as main stream science says. I am just asking which is more logical? Which solves the problem with less effort?

If you dig your heels in and say whatever the evidence is, my answer has to support my preconceived truth about an earth that is billions of years old and evolution, then that is how you work yourself into a corner. Most scientists that do this then have to fall back on the old soft pillow of science to explain the data; chance. It occurred by chance.

That is poor science!

One last thing to think about. Do you know that scientists have discovered Tyrannosaurus fossils with soft tissue still in place. I just gave you a link to one of many articles you can find on this discovery. How could soft tissue survive 70 million of years? Scientists agree that if an animal dies, soft tissue is either eaten by scavengers or rots away rather quickly. Unless the body is covered by sediment quickly so to avoid the previous two situations from happening. But if covered by succeeding layers of sediment over 70 million years that is more than enough time for all soft tissue to be fossilized. Fossilization is the process of replacing organic material with mineral substances in the remains of an organism. Scientists all agree that they are stymied by this discovery. Of course they are! Because they are trying to force the data to fit their preconceived truths about the age of the earth, life and the dating techniques.

Again, which is more logical? I say a young earth, fossilization that occurs faster than scientists say, rock layers laid down quickly rather than millions and billions of years.

Repeat After Me: Abortion Is An Honorable and Loving Choice

I've written quite a few articles arguing against the sin of abortion. I've also stated my disgust at how abortion "rights" are celebrated in the U.S. I read this article titled We Already Have An Abortion Pride Movement, which puts the pro-abortion mind set on full display.

Just a few quotes from the article:

The importance of abortion as a human right integral to women's dignity, the destigmatization and normalization of the experience as common for women.

Yes, normalization of this horrible practise is what they need. It's like anything else; the more people I convince to agree with me and my values, the less wrong it becomes until everyone changes their definition of right and wrong on this issue. That's the world view of the relativist.

one in three U.S. women will have an abortion by the age of 45 - and ending the silence and shame that women may still feel cannot be underestimated in the global struggle for reproductive justice and gender equality.

HUH!? Reproductive justice!? Hey you fetus. I didn't really plan on having you and this whole idea of bringing you into the world is bad timing so I am charging you with the crime of disrupting my plans. I sentence you to death. And what is the gender equality part all about?

I want you to see the ideology of a secular relativist being presented here. It's very important you see this. From the last quote, let's break down each part:

"one in three U.S. women will have an abortion by the age of 45" - Secular meaning: Since the abortion rate is currently at 33.3% of the population and rising, we now consider this normal behavior and therefore not wrong.

"and ending the silence and shame that woman may still feel" - Secular meaning: since were telling you that abortion is normal and not wrong, we're here to help you get over those misguided feelings of shame.

(Note: Why did they have feelings of shame in the first place? Because deep down they know it's really wrong!)

"cannot be underestimated in the global struggle for reproductive justice and gender equality" - Secular meaning: Don't feel ashamed, abortion is a right and you are part of a struggle for reproductive justice and gender equality. Aren't those worthy causes?

We continue.....

When we normalize abortion as a fact of women's lives, and discuss abortion as an honorable and loving choice that helps women to become better mothers in the future, we are showing respect, understanding, and support for the complexity of women's choices.

Double HUH!?Having an abortion will make you a better mother? And Oh, OK; it's a fact that women will get abortions so lets just normalize it and discuss it as an honorable and loving choice..blah blah blah blah. And all this needs to be honored because, hey, women are faced with complex choices.

The article is chock full of this language and ends with a proclamation of abortion pride. I pity this person. God forbid she should die and come before the all consuming fire with this on her head.

It's so sad. In the time it took you to read this post (not even the link to the actual article) 6 abortions were performed in the U.S.

Follow Up: Public Education = Humanist Indoctrination

I wrote my last post at 10:00am this morning. It is now 9:45pm and came across this article which reports exactly what I am talking about. While my focus is on the humanist world view and the article I linked to is about leftist ideology; they are pretty much one in the same.

The point being that these so-called "free thinking progressives" are some of the most closed minded people ever. Just recently the Texas Board of Education made a decision requiring examination of "all sides of scientific evidence" in new science standards, but rejected language requiring teachers to teach the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories. The science in question was evolution. WHAT!? Teaching that there are weaknesses in the theory of evolution!? Pro-evolutionists wouldn't hear of it. Why? On the surface it's because they reject any notion that they might be wrong. Deep down it's because they are insecure, academic snobs. They refuse to recognize anything or anybody who tries to present alternative theories.

Public Education = Humanist Indoctrination

Here is another unconstitutional and illegal attempt by a college to try and punish students for free exercises of religion; in this case praying for a sick teacher.

As the article points out, it's one thing for an institution to make decisions based on ignorance of the law, but why do they have to dig their heels in once they learn what the law really allows? I'll admit that most school administrators have been scared into a state of ignorance by what they see the UCLU doing. But once law suits are brought against them and they are advised of what the law is, why do they fail to reverse course?

My theory: Because the public education system; that's K right on up to the college and universities, is under control of humanists. Teachers, professors and administrators alike have aligned their thinking and have set the doctrine of humanism to be the new "truth". Humanists don't care what the constitution says or what is actually legal. To them if it goes against the humanist world view, then they don't recognize it as being authoritative.

Parents be aware that when you send you kids to public school they will be indoctrinated with the humanist world view. If you are a humanist, then you should be happy. However, for you parents that teach values at home different than what humanism ascribes to and chose to include Christian values in that teaching, the school will be setting them on a course opposite of yours.

Why I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus

As a Christian I see no good reason to reverse my assessment of the general reliability of the Gospel's when it comes to the narratives regarding supernatural events. And this applies also to their Resurrection accounts. If someone is going to deny the reliability of these accounts, then the burden of proof is on him to say why. But this, I think, is very difficult to do. So for you out there who say, "Well your the one who believes in this resurrection, what's your proof it DID happen?" I say hold on to your hat!

The evidence for the histerocity of the Resurrection is, in my estimation, stronger than any other event in Jesus' life - and stronger than the evidence for the histerocity of many other historical events we take for granted.

Here are 8 reasons why I believe the Resurrection did occur:

1. The Resurrection event is testified to by five independent sources. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul who also refer to numerous other sources as well, such as Peter and James (in 1 Cor. 15). This plurality of sources greatly enhances the credibility of each. One might hold that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark here as they did in some of their other material. But what's interesting is that their individual narratives of the resurrection completely differ from Mark and from each other. In fact, each of the testimonies has more unique material than it has material in common with each other. This creates a problem with harmonizing the accounts. But that problem is nothing compared to the problem of explaining how each independently testifies to the Resurrection in the first place - if, in fact, the Resurrection never occurred.

2. The location of Jesus' tomb was well known by all, so if Jesus had not risen from the dead, if His body were yet in the tomb, this could have been easily checked out. Both Jesus' followers (who would suffer persecution for their faith) and the opponents of Jesus (who would want to falsify the Christian claim) would have a motive for checking this out. But, all agreed, the tomb WAS empty. How is this agreement explained?

3. Related to #2, no one disputes the Christian church began in Jerusalem just a few weeks after Jesus' crucifixtion. It exploded in growth. And the content of the message that caused this explosion was that Jesus was the Messiah, the Lord of all, as was evidenced by His miracles and resurrection from the dead (see Acts 2:16ff). They do not present to their audience some unknown figure in the distant past. They are talking about their audiences contemporaries! How is this growth to be explained?

4. There is no way of accounting for the transformation of the disciples except on the basis of the Resurrection, the very basis themselves give. If you compare the disciples before the death of Jesus with the disciples after the Resurrection appearances, you will see a world of difference. One day they are fearful and hiding; the next day they are facing hostile audiences preaching (what else?) the Resurrection!

5. The Resurrection narratives lack the characteristics common to late legendary narratives, and embody many of the characteristics common to early eyewitness-based reports. There is, for example, much detail, much of it being irrelevant to the story line. To give one illustration, Mark mentions the name of a well known member of the Sanhedrin (a Jewish councilman) who donated a tomb for Jesus - Joseph of Arimathea. Now if one is going to fabricate an account, one doesn't create this sort of detail. One certainly doesn't drop names of such prominent people, people who can easily be cross examined.

There is also a great deal of counter-productive material. Legends lack this. The role of women in the story, for example, could, in the first century context, do nothing but damage the testimony of the authors. Women were, as I said in first century context, regarded as being incurable liars. Why would the authors add the testimony of women if it could only hurt them unless they were just giving a truthful account of the events?

6. The conversion of Paul is unexplainable except on the basis he himself gives. He confronted the risen Lord (see Acts 9 and 1 Cor. 15). Here was a man who was at the onset dead set against Christianity, even overseeing the stoning of one of its preachers, and then in one moment he's converted. Similarly James, the brother of Jesus, was also a nonbeliever in Jesus until the Lord appeared to him (1 Cor. 5:7). What explains this conversion if not the actual resurrection.

7. Paul gives us an early list of the resurrection appearances. It's found in 1 Corinthians 15, written 15-20 years after the resurrection. he is attempting to convince some Corinthians the the Resurrection of Jesus did in fact occur, and to do this he lists Christ's appearance to the apostles, and to James, and "to more than 500 at the same time, most of whom are still living" (1Cor. 15:6). The thrust of noting the large number of living people who saw Christ resurrected is to say "if you don't believe me, the evidence is still around. Go and ask those who saw it." By the standards of any law court, this must be taken as strong evidence.

8. Finally, there is no motive for the disciples to fabricate this story. They had nothing to gain and everything to lose. Nor is there anything to lead us to believe that they were disposed to fabricate such a story, or had the sort of characters which would be capable of such an incredible fabrication. Nor is there anything to suggest that they could have successfully pulled such an incredible fabrication off, even if they had wanted to.

In short, the denial of the Resurrection has nothing to recommend itself as a historical hypothesis, while the admittance of the Resurrection has everything to recommend itself as a historical hypothesis.

It's a Man Caused Disaster All Right

I know this isn't typically what I focus on. As a reminder I tend to write about God and His Christ, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, support of life and creationism. But now and then I get wind of something that I just can't let go by without a [wise] reply:

A few weeks ago, to my unbelieving ears, Secretary of State Clinton announced that the U.S. no longer would use “war on terror” to describe the fight against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other affiliated terrorist groups. Huh? Shortly after, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano went so far as to suggest we avoid the word "terrorism" altogether in favor of “man-caused disasters”. Double-huh?

Surely we can be a little more creative than that! Here are a few of my choices. Feel free to suggest some yourself:

1. Grievance Flare-ups
2. Hoo-ha Eruptions
3. Objection Breakouts

Why do we allow these fools to rule? The reasons are in the Bible.

I Want Freedom of Religion!!

How far we've drifted. I know society progresses, but our founding fathers would not even recognize our nation in it's current state. Doesn't that say something about the direction we're headed? I know that not everyone believes the same thing, but our nation was setup to allow open and free expression of our beliefs. If you choose not to believe, then fine, just don't impede my right to freedom OF religion. The loud minority has succeeded and is continuing to succeed in erasing any public expression of religion and we've allowed them to succeed based on a lie; separation of church and state. Where in the constitution is that found?

"To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there." Benjamin Franklin 1787 speaking to Europeans thinking of relocating to America.

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." John Jay, 1797, the first chief justice of the United States, appointed by George Washington.

"Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohamed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the New Testament." Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration and a member of the presidential administrations of Adams, Jefferson and Madison.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." George Washington, Farewell Address.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Declaration of Independence

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, NOT freedom from religion. Let's elect people who will return us to this original condition.

Let's Fight Muslim Bashing by Bashing Christians

A British charity funded by the British government published a cartoon story entitled Standing Up For What You Believe In, appears in the latest issue of Klic!, a quarterly magazine aimed at children aged from eight to 12. The charity set up in 1992, is described on the cover as ‘the best ever mag for kids in care’ and is widely distributed.

In the cartoon strip, a boy wearing a large cross around his neck is shown telling a friend that a smiling Muslim girl in a veil looks like a terrorist. He later confronts her and shouts: ‘Hey, whatever your name is, what are you hiding under your turban?’ She replies that the garment is called a hijab and it is part of her religion, ‘like that cross you wear’. The girl is then shown standing up for another boy, who is being bullied, and her behaviour is contrasted with that of the boy wearing the cross.

This is typical of what is happening in the world that makes Christians easy targets for prejudice and discrimination. Can you imagine if a Christian organization published such a thing only with the roles reversed?

Christian religious leaders requested that the publisher withdraw the article and apologize, but the publisher replied that they had no intention of withdrawing it, describing the cross as ‘bling’ rather than a religious symbol.

You know what, it's no biggie. It'll all work out in the end.