The real victim of the run in between Harvard malcontent Henry Louis Gates and officer James Crowley may actually be the poor woman making the call to police. For her efforts at being a good citizen, she has been labeled a racist and received various threats. At least the policeman is permitted to carry a gun and pepper spray. At her press conference, she should have made it clear that this would be the last time she ever lifts a finger for anyone in her COMMUNITY.

North Korea has executed a mother of three for distributing Bibles. Perhaps Bill Clinton should have made a bigger fuss over this incident than the imprisoned journalists who did, it must be remembered, violated the borders of a sovereign nation. Multiculturalists often point out how much America has to learn from non-Western cultures. Perhaps we should start by emulating North Korean policies towards illegal aliens. Instead of lavishing border violators with welfare benefits and the like, we give them harsh prison sentences.

Critics of Obama's healthcare plan should know that they are being watched. The White House is asking Americans to report to them the names of anyone spreading "disinformation" regarding insurance reform proposals. One might point out that, to a liberal, disinformation is anything they disagree with. When this call for ratting out your neighbors is coupled with the dismissal of citizens speaking out at congressional open forums as contrived activism, it seems the President is not quite the fan of "community organizing" that he heralds himself to be.

As much as he rides the issue, it causes me to wonder if there is some kind of profound unhappiness in the Albert Mohler household.

Has been my experience that the ones that nag single people the most about getting married themselves come from the worst of marriages. It is like for some reason they have to hound you into their own state of misery.

Interesting how the argument is made in such a way to actually heap as much or more condemnation upon the docile and behaved not likely to leave the church than those that can't keep their pants on parenting the tidal wave of out of marriage births sweeping across the landscape.

How about a little more of minding one's own business, Dr. Mohler?

The Mohlerites and Dobsonians lift up as some kind of ideal the past where people married in their early 20's.

Perhaps they would also care to address how many unhappy marriages were formed where the partners would have been better off had they remained single but simply got married because the parties no longer wanted to be snickered at as a fagot or a lesbian even though they were neither of these perversities.

Though it no doubt pains some of the uberpuritanical who crave to control every last detail of those around them, the Bible is remarkably silent as to by what age one MUST be married.

The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors have authorized the expansion of the Saudi Islamic Academy.

Shysters on the school's payroll claim the matter was about land use and not curriculum or philosophy.

Critics of the school claim the institution advocates violence against Jews and Christians, so much so that one valedictorian has been convicted of part of a conspiracy to assassinate George W. Bush.

Though one may believe whatever one wants under the First Amendment, I wonder if the fanatic multiculturalists assenting to this vote would have easily glossed over what this school teaches if the school was run by White folks from the Ku Klux Klan.

Since both the Klan and this school are both alleged to teach violence against Jews, I don't really see all that much difference between then.

More importantly, since it is not a matter of "philosophy", I wonder if the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors will be as eager to grant requests made on the part of church groups, or does Christianity just happen to be the wrong religion?

by Frederick Meekins

If the Middle Ages are to stand in history books as the Age of Faith, it could be equally asserted that the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries will no doubt be remembered as the Era of Unbelief. Whereas unbelievers in the Middle Ages were careful in how they expressed their theological doubts for fear of befalling persecution, theists (be they Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox Jew) have today learned selectivity in how they go about expressing challenges to the prevailing lack of belief impacting fundamental cultural institutions such as government, academia, and the scientific establishment. And like the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages, the atheistic establishment of today seeks to foster a worldview influencing all aspects of society and binds all individuals whether they wish to be or not. Such an assertion will become more obvious in the following analysis which identifies significant atheistic thinkers, clarifies why some chose to adhere to this particular belief system, and critiques this worldview and contrasts it with Christian monotheism.

As an intellectual tradition, atheism has captured the minds of some of history’s most formidable thinkers. Creation science apologist Ken Ham of Answers In Genesis has astutely pointed out that social issues and public policies rest upon a foundation of thought and belief. Keeping with this analogy, atheism proceeds from a theoretical base up through a practical program designed to influence various spheres of culture such as politics and education with prominent luminaries within the movement solidifying this mental edifice along the way.

As stated elsewhere within these introductory comments, atheism did not suddenly appear on the doorstep of the twentieth and twenty-first century fully formed demanding things like the removal of school prayer and the enshrinement of evolution as biological dogma. Rather like a weed strangling the other plants around it, today's culture of unbelief sprang from the soil in which it was planted. While atheism can trace its pedigree back throughout much of human history, a number of modern thinkers have ensured this system a place of prominence within the cultural consciousness.

One pivotal intellect laying a foundation for atheism was Ludwig Feuerbach. In "The Essence Of Christianity", Feuerbach set out to undermine the claims of the supernatural by providing religious belief with a naturalistic basis postulating that the idea of God is merely a mental projection of the goodness and nobility residing within man's own bosom (McGrath, 95). Once mankind realizes that there is no transcendent deity to rely on, Feuerbach argued, his sense of alienation could be overcome by reembracing the notions of perfectibility once reserved for God as an integral component of human nature (Lawhead, 399).

Attempting to solidify these claims regarding man's position atop a materialistic universe through a veneer of science was Charles Darwin. According to "The Cambridge Dictionary Of Philosophy", Darwin was among the first to popularize theories of materialistic gradualism or evolution with a naturalistic mechanism, namely the process of natural selection where adaptations are accumulated in surviving organisms and passed on to succeeding generations (177-179). According to Darwin in "The Origin Of Species", it is through the accumulation of these adaptations in response to varying environmental conditions that biologists find the diverse plethora of organisms that inhabit the earth today. Alister McGrath points out in "Intellectuals Don’t Need God & Other Modern Myths" that "The Origin Of Species" and its ensuing theory of evolution was not accepted as much for its scientific insight than for its justification of passionately believed ideological assumptions such as the free trade policies of the English Whig Party, various strands of socialism, and assorted theories regarding the perceived hierarchy of human races and ethnic groups (161).

Standing upon thinkers such as Feuerbach and Darwin who provided atheism with theoretical and allegedly scientific justifications were other formidable intellects pursuing the implications of a social order divorced from the influence of God. One such figure drawing upon the fonts of atheism for such a purpose was Karl Marx.

Marx served as a kind of intellectual middleman between the theoretically-inclined such as Feuerbach and Darwin and the later activists such as Lenin and Mao who would adapt Marx's own writings for the actual political arena. Borrowing from the materialism of Feuerbach, Marx believed that religion and the notion of God were devised by bourgeois elites in order to subjugate the proletarian masses. Borrowing from Darwin's theory of growth through conflict, Marx believed these religious notions would have to be swept away along side with most forms of private property in order to make a way for the pending socialist utopia. Marx's call for action and summary for analysis were sounded in "The Communist Manifesto"; his beliefs received further exposition through the massive "Das Kapital", much of which was compiled by Friedrich Engels after the death of his comrade.

Another prominent twentieth century thinker dedicated to the cause of atheism was Bertrand Russell. Though best remembered in academia as a foremost philosopher of mathematics, it could be argued that Russell's most widespread contribution remains as an influential proponent of applied atheism.

The core of Russell's objections to Christianity can be found in his "Why I Am Not A Christian", which seeks to justify his religious stance as well as highlight the ramifications of such beliefs as epitomized by Russell's sexual ethics sanctioning arrangements such as trial marriages and recreational promiscuity. Russell's views regarding family life were further elaborated upon in "Marriage & Morals", a publication whose radicalism contributed to costing Russell a professorship at the City College Of New York.

Russell's primary intellectual motivation was a burning contempt for God and His divine order for man. This conclusion can be drawn from Russell's social views, which were an eclectic mixture of totalitarian and anarchistic impulses.

On the one hand, Russell supported the establishment of a world government so intrusive it would decree who would be permitted to have children. Yet Russell participated in acts of outright civil disobedience in connection with the anti-nuclear movement, thinking that the modern state had grown too powerful and destructive for mankind's own good.

In most Christian investigations into atheism, it is common to highlight the affinity between contemporary sociopolitical leftism and religious atheism. However, the increasing popularity of intellectual iconoclast Ayn Rand proves that atheism can also serve as a temptation for those more prone to classify themselves as conservatives and libertarians as well.

Calling her philosophy Objectivism, Ayn Rand argued for the primacy of reason and the individual over all other human faculties and institutions, prompting some to characterize Star Trek's Mr. Spock as the embodiment of her worldview. However, in her quest to emancipate humanity from the dangers of totalitarianism, Rand went too far in elevating reason at the expense of faith and by characterizing the living God of the universe as just another dogma bent on enslaving the minds of men not all that unlike Marxist Communism.

Ayn Rand's thoughts find expression in a number of novels and polemical discourses. "Atlas Shrugged" is remembered as Ayn's signature work extolling the virtues of nonconformity and radical individualism in the guise of a novel about an architect bending to no standard but his own. In the novel "We The Living", Rand warns of the dangers posed by collectivism to the well-being of the individual. Rand's nonfiction works include "Philosophy: Who Needs It", "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", and "The Virtue Of Selfishness".

Of Ayn Rand, it says in "Christianity For The Tough Minded", "her attempt to formulate a philosophy of creative selfishness will make no great impact (227)." Yet her impact cannot be denied be denied as her portrait adorns the walls of the Cato Institute and key national leaders such as former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board Alan Greenspan and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas count themselves among her admirers.

Looking at the matter from a certain perspective, the beauty and appeal of atheism can be found in its ability to adapt to the needs of those building systems of thought and seeking to justify individual behavioral practices. Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky realized that, if there is no God, anything is possible.

The diminished guilt available through atheism may serve as a greater incentive to those flocking under its banner than any of the answers the system might provide to the universal questions asked by thinking individuals. D. James Kenendy points out in "Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search Of Its Soul" that Bertrand Russell may have been an atheist as much to ease his conscience regarding his numerous affairs and seductions as out of a desire for alleged rational consistency (173). The idea of God posits the notion that the right to order the moral structure of reality resides in a power beyond the level of the finite individual's control.

And control is the one thing the individual atheist is loathe to relinquish. Though one can't fault her, Ayn Rand was fifty-eight years old before stepping aboard an airplane for fear of giving up control over her own destiny to the pilots and mechanics she claimed possessed a faulty "modern psycho-epistemology" (Branden, "The Passion Of Ayn Rand, 318).

Anarchist Segei Nechayev wrote in "Catechism Of A Revolutionist", "The revolutionist knows only one science, the science of destruction which does not stop at lying, robbery, betrayal and torture of friends, murder of his own family." How much easier it is to topple the tower of morality once its foundation of concrete theism has been removed.

A classic truism teaches that if wishes were horses beggars would ride, and another piece of cherished wisdom reveals wishing for something does not make it so. These same principles apply to the longing for a deity-free universe as expressed by the thinkers profiled throughout this exposition. For even though atheists have gone to considerable lengths to implement their systems, Communists going so far as to slaughter millions of innocent individuals, atheism fails to standup to closer scrutiny on a number of grounds.

by Frederick Meekins

At least my God never forgets His word. That is more than can be said of Pseudomessiah Barack Obama.

The President confessed to knowing nothing of the provision in the healthcare bill that would forbid insurance companies from enrolling new applicants once the legislation goes into effect. Thus, he is either a liar or a halfwit. Take your choice.

Walter Cronkite might have been the most trusted man in America, but that trust might have been misplaced. According to a number of retrospectives published since his passing, one could legitimately conjecture that his support for America was questionable at best.

For example, in 1999 Cronkite accepted the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award. In his acceptance speech, Cronkite called for the creation of a global planetary union usurping national sovereignty patterned after the United States government.

However, if we dig further back into the broadcaster’s past, we discover that Cronkite may have preferred a Soviet-style system. According to researchers such as Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily and Cliff Clincaid of accuracy in media, Cronkite often sided with Communists throughout the course of the 20th century’s most dangerous conflicts.

Meteoroids weren’t the only thing space station astronauts had to dodge. The toilet there backed up and overflowed.

Eugenicist theories are gaining legitimacy with the leftwing of the American government. Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced that part of the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade was to decrease “undesirable populations”. As a Jew suffering from cancer, perhaps someone should remind her that, in the eyes of many, she likely ranks high on that list.

Some might dismiss Ginsburg’s position as the bizarre personal idiosyncrasy of a mind that has seen more rational days. However, Obama Science Advisor John Holden in a 1977 book coauthored with environmentalist Paul Ehrlich titled “Ecoscience” urges government to consider assorted population control measures. And Obama himself has enunciated a position questioning the validity of extending the lives of those deemed unproductive by bureaucrats.

Sonoa Sotomayor apparently has no problems with hacking unborn babies to pieces. However, in confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, this font of Latin wisdom couldn’t arrive at a position as to whether or not you have a right to defend yourself. Wonder if she’ll forgo any of the security protections extended to Supreme Court Justices.

Obama and his minions can’t wait to bust down your door and snoop through your stuff. Under his so-called “Cap & Trade”, government thugs will barge into your homes to conduct so-called energy audits demanding that certain repairs and upgrades be implemented.

This is not the only measure ripping asunder the sanctity of private property like toilet paper of which Cheryl Crowe insists we use only one sheet. One provision of the healthcare reform bill approved by the Senate Health Labor & Pension Committee authorizes government prickers to weasel their way through your door and to vaccinate your family against your wishes.

by Frederick Meekins

Barack Obama has taken on the role of chief booze peddler. Hoping to smooth over the controversy that has erupted over the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, the President has invited the professor and the arresting office to the White House for a beer. Given the professor's temper, is it really a good idea to get him all liquored up?

Henry Louis Gates is hardly the harmless professor the media is making him out to be. Frankly, Gates is to the Ivy League what Jeremiah Wright is to ecclesiastical circles. ,

At Harvard, Gates is the director of the W.E.B Du Bois Institute for African & African American Research, named after a known Communist. According to a WorldNetDaily profile of this academic subversive, Gates has lured other leftist rabble rousers to campus such as Cornel West and advocates Afrosupremacist positions such as Affirmative Action, reparations, and liberation theology. If one is known for the company one keeps, Americans should be very concerned about what they have let into the White House.

Michael Jackson wanted to be cloned by a UFO cult. According to Jackson's chauffer, the King of Pop became obsessed with creating a duplicate of himself after attending with Uri Geller a conference hosted by Clonaid. Clonaid is the research arm of the Raelians, a sect that believes human beings are the result of extraterrestrial genetic experimentation.

Life is apparently no circus for Ringling Brothers elephants. PETA operatives have obtained footage of handlers allegedly beating their pachyderms as a matter of course rather than when simply out of line.

Hopefully, some as intrepid videographer will capture footage of the mistreatment of animals known to go on at the hands of this animal welfare front group. It has been conjectured that PETA would rather see animals dead than in human hands.

Freedom of thought and descent have been dealt another blow during these days of the Obama regime. According to Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily, search engines such as Google are quietly dropping or downplaying links to articles questioning the validity of Obama’s birth certificate.

Some will respond that, as private enterprises, search engines should be able to establish criteria as to what information they will present as legitimate. However, should such a perspective continue to expand, what makes these tactics any more moral than those employed in Communist China were access to certain viewpoints is blocked in the name of the good of the social order?

More importantly, how long will it be until not only access to websites questioning the government disappear but people as well? Certainly an awful lot of trouble to go to if our exalter Caliph has nothing to hide.

Many no doubt think that I have gone too far by insinuating that things may get to the point where those criticizing the government in general and Obama in particular might meet with, shall we say, expedited ends. However, the foundation is now being set to neutralize in an efficiently permanent manner one segment of the population no doubt seen as being an impediment to the kind of policies Obama represents.

Tucked away within the chapters of the Obama Healthcare Bill is a provision for “end of life counseling” referred to as “Advance Care Planning Consultation”. This clause requires the elderly to meet every five years with medical authorities to determine whether or not the individual’s life is worthy of continuation.

Supporters will insist that such an assessment is simply to clarify the patient’s preferences regarding these complicated matters. However, in light of statements made by Obama and a number of his closest advisors, one must ask will medical professionals simply implement the wishes of the patient or rather pressure the patient into complying with the prerogatives of social engineers.

For example, White House Healthcare Policy Advisor Ezekial Emanuel is said to believe that public resources would be better directed towards arts spending than extending the lives of the elderly. Likewise, Obama has suggested the elderly might be just as well off simply given pain medication rather than treatments that might actually improve their conditions.

At the heart of each position is a philosophy known as utilitarianism, which determines an individual’s worth based upon what they contribute or give back to the COMMUNITY. For example, illegal aliens are valuable and deserving of healthcare for their labor as near slaves. Sodomites are valuable to the state because of their deep pockets and for eroding traditional morality and religion.

Conversely, under such a system, it is in the state’s interest to quickly shuttle the elderly out of this life. This is for the following reasons.

For starters, since they are infirm, the elderly are unable to tangibly contribute to society’s perceived economic needs. However, more importantly, the radical statist feels an overwhelming need to eliminate the elderly since, for the most part, as a bloc they represent the greatest opposition to the totalitarian agenda.

Even though I am still a relatively young man, I remember several years back receiving a comment over something I had written where the commenter remarked that they were glad people like me were eventually dying out. Before it is all over with, don’t be surprised if the healthcare you end up receiving is proportionally linked to your support of an Obamaist agenda.

by Frederick Meekins

In one of the climactic scenes of the conclusion of "Battlestar Galactica", Gaius Baltar remarks that an unseen hand had been guiding events all along up until that point. Just as the characters were propelled by something from beyond themselves, the producers behind this show may have been driven by ideas originating from sources other than their own fertile imaginations.

Even in the original "Battlestar Galactica" from the 1970's, one of the underlying premises of the saga was that "Life here began out there with forefathers of the Egyptians, the Toltecs, and the Mayans. There are some who say there may yet be brothers of man who fight somewhere to survive among the heavens." In the series finale of the contemporary retelling of the sci-fi classic, viewers got to see a bit of how this vision might have played out.

Though most can watch these compelling dramas unaware of the underlying worldviews of the authors and not be impacted by them to any appreciable degree, there is indeed a philosophy being presented that if nothing else impacts the authors' approach to the material at hand.

In the original with the narration provided by Patrick Macnee who went on to play a devil-like figure in that versions mildly Mormonesque mythos, one assumes that, when mankind arrived here on earth, there was no other intelligent life.

However, in the recently concluded version, we realize that it is prehistoric Earth (not even the actual Earth in the reimagining and if you add a third you'll have to have a crossover show with the Thundercats) that the Galactica fleet has arrived at.

To the casual viewer, either version does not seem all that different. It may comes as a surprise, therefore, that each depiction presents a slightly different viewpoint as to how civilization originated here on Earth.

In the original "Battlestar Galactica" with Earth being the home of the lost 13th tribe of man, it could be said that human life here is the result of an anthropocentric panspermia, meaning we came from elsewhere and are not native to this planet. This has a number of implications, especially for those embracing the perspective of Deep Ecology.

Going beyond a traditional environmentalist standpoint, Deep Ecology holds that mankind is an invasive species infesting the planet. As such, ripping it out through any means necessary including mass death is perfectly acceptable. Prince Phillip, whose primary accomplishment has been marrying someone else who never had to work a day n her life, basically wishes he could be reincarnated as a killer virus to wipe your family out because his own was a total drain on world resources.

The view taken by the new Galactica is much more complex and seems to ape (or at least hominid) so many other science fiction narratives these days that if one was a conspiracy theorist one might easily conclude that some kind of interplanetary catechism was trying to be conveyed to the masses. Once the Galactica fleet arrives, one sees a crouching survey team consisting of the shows primary characters such as Admiral Adama and Dr. Baltar.

These two proceed to banter back and forth about the odds of human life originating at two distinct places in the universe with Baltar remarking how the humans of the twelve colonies were genetically compatible with those there on this planet that would come to be known as Earth. It was also noted how these humanoids had not yet developed language and how the new arrivals could bestow this rudiment of civilization upon their less-developed counterparts.

Thus, in this version of "Battlestar Galactica", the scenario presented is closer to that of the "Chariots Of The Gods" hypothesis. According to that theory, culture and technology were not developed over time by earth's native inhabitants but rather something bestowed upon us by an advanced civilization "from beyond the heavens".

Even more interesting, in the final scene of the series, the bottom of the screen flashes "150,000 years in the future". We then see the "angelic" versions of Six and Baltar reading a National Geographic article over the shoulder of producer Brian Moore about "Mitochondrial Eve", the earliest known ancestor from whom all human beings can trace our ancestry. Discussing the article between themselves, Baltar and Six reveal that the human race walking this earth today is actually a hybrid one the result of interbreeding between humans and genetically engineered Cylon synthoids.

A number in the viewing audience will conclude what an imaginative way to resolve the destructive Human/Cylon conflict with both sides getting what they want as prophesied with each of these civilizations being saved or continued through the hybrid child Hera. However, those more attuned to these messages will notice that this theme of human-”extraterrestrial” amalgamation has shown up in so many examples of speculative fiction the past few years that one would almost say it was cliché if it did not serve some higher propaganda purpose.

by Frederick Meekins

With the passing of Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy along with the dissolution of the Center for Reclaiming America and the Center for Christian Statesmanship, the issue has arisen once again as to whether or not conservative Evangelicals should participate in political activity. Since things have not gotten any better and if anything continued their downward spiral since the advent of the contemporary conservative Evangelical movement popularly referred to as the "Religious Right", it has been suggested by some that politically interested Christians should be herded back into their pews to once again await the Apocalypse.

Interestingly, one of the foremost voices now opposed to conservative Evangelical political involvement is none other than columnist Cal Thomas, who at one time served as a Falwell underling as vice president of Moral Majority and spoke at Dr. Kennedy's Reclaiming America for Christ conference. Thomas, in a column analyzing the passing of his former colleague titled "The Legacy of Jerry Falwell", concludes of the Religious Right, "The movement also had its downside, because it tended to detract from a Christian's primary responsibility of telling people the 'good news' that redemption comes only through Jesus Christ."

While there is a degree of truth to that as during the early to mid 90's at times it seemed Falwell's ministry did place too much emphasis hawking videotapes exposing the criminality of Bill Clinton and replaying week after week snippets of homosexual excesses to the point where one had to send children out of the room or have to explain why mommy and daddy's faces were turning red, some of this is more the fault of how the Evangelical subculture is structured sociologically than the result of Christian political participation per say.

All throughout Sunday school and the Christian day school environment, those spending most of their lives in this branch of the Christian faith are conditioned with the assumption that those holding professional ministry positions such as pastors and missionaries are some how a cut above the remainder of the congregation even though the traditional Protestant position held to the priesthood of all believers and that all moral work was as equally holy. As such, it is no wonder most believers are paralyzed unless there is a so-called "man of the cloth" there on the scene to direct their every movement. Thus, it was only natural that clergy such as Falwell and Kennedy would have to play prominent roles in these movements.

Ironically, at earlier stages in his career, Thomas was one of the most eloquent voices urging Christian youth to consider callings in fields other than professional ministry such as government, politics, and the media. He even one time quipped he did not recall any Christian being called to serve Christ part time.

However, now that he's had his career, Thomas concludes that "...a Christian's primary responsibility is telling people the 'good news' that redemption comes only through Jesus Christ." If that's the case, is Thomas going to repose himself from commenting on sociopolitical matters in favor of more monastic or missional undertakings or is it part of a more natural inclination of not wanting to share notoriety. For in another column Thomas lamented the rise of consumer choice as exemplified by the growth of talk radio and the blogosphere and instead enunciated a preference that the masses all sup of the same information from the swill placed before them by traditional journalists as the nation's media gatekeepers.

When Thomas chastises Christians for participating in politics and the media since this detracts from time that should be spent directly sharing the Gospel, is he also going to level this charge against Christian physicians if they take the time to perform surgery rather than only praying for the patient's recovery? Likewise, what about the farmer that toils away all day in their fields as this is also time that could be spent in more religious pursuits.

I Corinthians 12:28 says to some God gave to be preachers, some evangelists, others government. Not everyone is cut out for the same purpose in life. As such, their level of interest and the way they contribute to the advancement of the Kingdom of God will varying by kind and degree.

Thomas writes, "But Christians must first understand that the issues they most care about --- abortion, same-sex marriage, and cultural rot --- are not caused by bad politics, but are matters of the heart and soul." While Thomas is correct that these problems won't ultimately be solved until people have a total renewing of the mind found through Christ's shed blood, it does not follow nothing else should be done to ameliorate the social impacts of these manifestations of man’s sin nature.

All it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing. In certain communities across the United States, whether or not I steal your car at a stoplight, plug your head with a bullet, and rape your mother as you lay their bleeding to death there on the pavement are as debated as the propriety of abortion and sodomite nuptials are in others. Does that mean in such jurisdictions those of good conscience should not insist that laws against these infractions should not be enforced since, well, the unrepentant apparently have few qualms or taboos against such alternative lifestyle choices?

The tendency of the human species is to take things to extremes. Luther remarked that man is like a drunkard banging his head into one wall and then the next. Granted, many believers have come to expect too much from politics as David Frum has remarked that the debate is no longer about reducing the size of government but rather about divvying up the fiscal spoils.

Many Christians probably did become dupes of the Republican Party at one point. Frankly, though, where else were they going to go?

At least the GOP would consider individualism construed through the prism of a Christian worldview. The Democratic Party has pretty much given itself over to debauchery and collectivism. If one tries really really hard one can count the number of worthwhile Democrats such as Zel Miller on one hand.

Though some Christians are loathe to admit it as they have been conditioned by overly pacifistic interpretation of passages such as turn the other cheek, sometimes Christian involvement is not about bringing the reprobates to a saving knowledge of Christ as fundamental and essential as that mission is. Rather it is about keeping these ravenous jackals away from you and what is rightfully yours.

Some might respond “But didn’t Jesus say to give them your cloak?” My friends, these blatant communalists want more than the shirt off your back. For they will stop at nothing until they not only have the souls of you and your children, but also the very house that you live in and the automobile that you drive if we adhere to the recommendations of the radical pietists if we as believers refrain from political matters such as property rights and environmental policy.

And if some preacher gets up there and blabbers on about how these are just material things we should give up willy nilly, see if he ever forgets to pass the collection plate or how antsy he gets when the IRS considers tweeking something in its code not even remotely related to the survival of religious liberty in this country such as exemptions on pastoral housing allowances. If the rest of us get hosed by revenuers, why not the clergy as well? Maybe then they won’t be so quick to bend their knee before the state’s Baphomet.

While some such as Cal Thomas seem to counsel disinvolvement from sociopolitical activism out of a sincere desire to retain doctrinal purity and separation, others embodying what in Fundamentalist circles is known as Neo-Evangelicalism do so for other reasons. Seeking to get along with other theologies for the sake of getting along, this perspective is endeavoring to take hypertolerance and unity to a whole new level even if it means downplaying or overlooking some of Scripture's most obvious mandates.

Ironically, though the word “mandate” means something else, one of the issues the Christian in the pews is being urged to keep quiet about is none other than “man dates”. For in the March/April 2007 issue of The Plain Truth Magazine, in the article “I Kissed Religion Goodbye”, Greg Albrecht lists as one of his complaints is that many churches expect members to “Vote and politically agitate in absolute, lockstep with pro-life and anti-homosexual views exactly the way your church promotes and endorses them”.

Unlike the war against terror over which sincere Christians can have differing interpretations as to how to best approach the issue, there is not much wiggle room there as to abortion and homosexuality. There is not really anyway around “Thou shalt not murder” and injunctions against carnal relations with members of the same sex unless Albrecht wants to come out and say that the unborn really aren’t human beings and that God did not create marriage to be between a man and a woman.

To many, these issues probably do seem to attract an inordinate amount of attention from conservative Evangelicals. But whose fault is that?

Would most believers even give buggery all that much thought if the gay rights movement was simply about what one did in the privacy of one's home. Seems to me, activist gays are the ones trying to get up in everyone's business as they attempt to penetrate the media, education, and now even ecclesiastical institutions.

Though opposition to such perversities should not become the sole focus of any balanced ministry as Christ died for these individuals also and one wants to avoid becoming unhinged like the Fred Phelps cult, if the churches of America are not going to stand up for the traditional family and marriage as being between a man and woman as the only legitimate form of marriage out of fear of whom they might offend, then they might as well empty the baptismal font and close up shop. For if they do deny the true nature of these fundamental human relationships, it won't be long until the true nature of the

God that instituted them will be denied as well.

In the opening of his article, Albrecht laments the "mudslinging and negative rhetoric that ridiculed 'Democrats' and lavished unadulterated praise on all things Republican." Of this, the discerning Christian must ask was this an outright political endorsement of a particular candidate or party (as today I have a hard time imaging there are that many pastors with that much of a spine left willing to jeopardize their tax exempt status as a friend relayed to me how he was pressured to drop the word "liberal" from an article written for the newsletter of what is suppose to be an Independent Baptist Church).

If believers and churches can no longer mention in a nonpartisan context where the Christian faith lines up with the conservative Republican agenda nor condemn those things traditionally thought of as being more liberal Democrat in nature, how much longer until we are counseled by those whose fortunes and notoriety are derived from holding lucrative positions of ecclesiastical leadership to downplay more fundamental aspects of the Christian faith. Already, operatives of Rev. Moon have convinced a number of churches to remove crosses. Those caving so easily will no doubt next downplay the need to be saved from our sins and eventually the need for Jesus as Lord and Savior all together.

However, don't think Albrecht is calling for the complete expunging of politics from the socio-ecclesiastical enterprise all together. For the influence he would see taken out of the hands of conservatives, he gladly places in the hands of more liberal causes.

In a bullet point list of what he perceives as the errors of more conservative or traditional congregations, Albrecht writes in a flippant attempt at humor, "Don't worry about the environment, the poor, or global warming --- those liberal, do-gooder churches have programs for those kinds of things."

What Albrecht is criticizing here are believers who do not necessarily think spending more money and who do not think more government intervention into our lives is going to solve certain problems, that things are as bad as elites would have us believe, or think that people do not necessarily bear some responsibility for their own problems.

As to the poor, it has been my experience that often the most conservative or Fundamentalist of churches of the "old school" variety probably spend larger percentages of their overall incomes on missions and outreach to the individual poor in their immediate vicinity than more leftist evangelical and mainline churches that probably spend a greater percentage on making sure everyone else sees what they are supposedly doing for the poor.

As to the environment and global warming, frankly the jury is still out on this issue as to the following reasons. (1) Does global warming actually exist? (2) If it does, what is its exact cause? So by edicts handed down from on high without these questions being answered, does this mean the average person should forfeit much of their physical mobility just because of some whim of someone further up the bureaucratic hierarchy?

Of course, such restrictions do not apply to the self-appointed such as Greg Albrecht since such figures are so much more important than the rest of us as we Neanderthals would be lost without such guidance.

As to both the environment and poverty, it is questionable that mass scale approaches are the best approach for solving these issues. Often the aide sent to Africans ends up hindering their plight.

Likewise, the best way to save the environment is not by necessarily cordoning it off necessarily into untouchable preserves and by regulating the life out of property to the point where one cannot do anything with it as most sane people tend to care for something best when they are the ones that own it and have the largest say in how it is used.

While no Christian in his right mind advocates dirty water, to a growing number of Evangelicals this concern for the environment goes beyond keeping trash off the shoulder of the highway. Though I cannot speak to Greg Albrecht's views on the afterlife, from one of the snippy remarks made in his sarcastic bullet points one could come away with the impression that he is trodding dangerously close to embracing some of the assumptions of the Emergent Church crowd that the Kingdom of God is not so much a promise of a new heaven and a new earth but the continuation of this one in its current state. Frankly, if this world is all we've got, Christianity is a big waste of time and those snookered into it deserve a refund.

The hyperpious might begin to hyperventilate at such a bold proclamation; however, it is essentially a Biblical sentiment. I Corinthians 15:19 says, “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.”

One can deduce that Albrecht and those of like mind in the Emergent, Purpose Driven, and Church Growth movements don't place all that much importance upon the afterlife. For while certain eras of Church History such as the Middle Ages often placed too much emphasis on what comes next, these contemporary theologies don't emphasize it nearly enough.

In his tongue-in-cheek bullet points, Albrecht writes, "You need to believe in the hottest hell with billions being tortured. And you need to believe in the Rapture, the time when members of your church (at least those who are in good standing) escape hell on earth. Some call this time 'The Tribulation' --- a time when so many who richly deserve it will 'get their's'."

Sincere souls can disagree about the sequence of some of these foretold events. However, what they cannot do is deny that one day there will be some kind of ultimate accounting.

Though it has changed considerably, as a leader in the Worldwide Church Of God, frankly, Albrecht ought to be the last one to criticize an interest in eschatology as his sect or denomination was at one time infamous for their obsession with the topic. But like a former glutton that has lost all kinds of weight now telling everyone else that they eat too much, Albrect condemns as a fanatic anyone daring to suggest that there is an eerily increasing similarity between certain portions of Scripture such as Daniel, Thessalonians, and Revelation and certain political and technological developments.

Often those that run in Emergent Church circles foment the assumption that the image of a God of justice and wrath is somehow at odds with the image of God as a God of love. It is because He is a God of love and mercy that He must also be a God of justice and wrath.

he prospect of no eternal punishment for those outside the parameters by which God allows men to be saved (namely believing that one's own good is insufficient to accomplish this and only belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is going to get one to the Pearly Gates) in fact actually tarnishes those gates and makes the streets of Heaven all the more dim. For if God ends up letting anyone in irrespective of whether or not they are sorry for what they did even though God was willing to go to the extent of sacrificing His only begotten Son in order to make a spot for them with Him in eternity, that would make for a very weak God.

Though we as human beings have an innate tendency to avoid pain at all costs even if it means denying its existence, that does not eliminate it if we are unwilling to take the necessary steps. For example, if someone diagnosed with a horrible disease simply decides to say the disease of an uneducated and overactive imagination, that is not going to prevent it from ravaging the patient's body.

Then why do Modernist, Postmodernist, and Emergent theologians waltzing along the ledges of apostasy keep thinking that wishing away Hell's flames is going to make them any cooler? It has been estimated that Jesus spoke more about Hell than He did heaven; therefore, if we are to say that on this matter He is just plain wrong, then why are we to turn around and assume He's anymore correct about Heaven, His coming kingdom, or even the forgiveness of sins?

As to whether or not some Christians are vindictive about Hell has no bearing as to its existence. To say that it does is akin to saying the police department should be abolished entirely and criminals allowed to pillage through the streets simply because a few officers have abused the powers that have been vested in them.

It is only because the most orthodox of Christians believe that Hell as an actual place of torment exists that it seems to play such a prominent role in conservative theologies of varying stripes. While as fallen human beings it is easy from time to time for our anger to get the best of us and to wish someone to that dreaded realm that has ticked us off, those on the right side of the theological continuum do not emphasize the reality of Hell out of some perverse desire to see the unrepentant tossed into the Abyss but rather so that the greatest number might be able to avoid this destination of unimaginable torment.

Thus in recap, among Evangelicals such as Albrecht wanting to look cool in the eyes of the world, Heaven is downplayed in favor of a utopian kingdom. Relatedly, Hell is downplayed for fear of casting bad PR on a loving God and because it makes the unbelieving uncomfortable. Kind of makes you wonder the point of giving one's life to Christ if some saintly grandmother that loved the Lord her entire life is going to endure the same fate as Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin since it is highly doubtful these genocidal reprobates pleaded for mercy on the Blood of Christ before leaving this world.

Over the past few decades, at times Evangelicals have taken political activism to extents that can understandably cause concern among the discerning. However, to disengage to the extent some now suggest would also prove equally disastrous.

By Frederick Meekins

One might say the future is here --- and we might want to send it back for a refund. Having waited years and wondering at times whether mankind would even survive to see the day, the world now finds itself on the other side of a new millennium. In some ways, it is everything optimistic futurists dreamed of in terms of faster modes of transportation, improved forms of medicine and almost instantaneous global communication. However, one would hardly consider it the quaint but technologically sophisticated world of George Jetson whose most formidable challenges consisted of navigating Mr. Spacely's fickle temper and making sure Rosie the robot maid stayed adequately oiled. Instead, inhabitants of the early twenty-first century worry if their children will even return home alive from school in the evening or how much longer they have until turbaned fanatics turn the accumulated glories of Western civilization into a smoldering atomic wasteland.

Somewhere along the highway leading from intentions to actuality society seems to have taken a wrong turn and gotten lost along the way. When finding oneself in unintended surroundings while road-tripping across the country, one pulls over to the shoulder of the road to look at a map to determine where one's navigation went astray. Likewise, when a culture begins to display signs of being out of kilter, the time has come to examine the sociological roadmap in terms of the philosophies, beliefs, and ideas individuals use to live their lives and those in authority employ to oversee events.

The observer of intellectual trends might note the contradictory nature of today's philosophical scene. For while proponents of the status quo purport to be characterized by a considerable latitude of conscience, such professed flexibility ultimately turns back on itself and bears down harshly upon any dissident daring to question the system's most cherished assumptions. The prevailing outlook can be characterized as a pragmatic Postmodernism.

Postmodernism can be looked at as a worldview holding that truth as an objective overarching reality does not exist and is instead a subjective linguistic or conceptual construct adopted by an individual or group for the purposes of coping with existence. As such, no single explanatory narrative is superior to any other. In light of such characteristics, Postmodernism is pragmatic in the sense that ethical propositions are judged by how well they work rather than how they stand up to standards of right and wrong. Postmodernism is relativistic in that each propositional expositor is self-contained since it is inappropriate for an individual to judge someone else or another group by the standards to which he himself subscribes. James Sire notes in The Universe Next Door that to the Postmodernist the use of any one narrative as a metanarrative to which all other narratives must submit as to their authenticity is oppressive (181).

As is deducible from its very name, Postmodernism is more a response than a set of original insights. Sire argues, "For in the final analysis, Postmodernism is not 'post' anything; it is the last move of the modern, the result of the modern taking its own commitments too seriously and seeing that they fail to stand the test of analysis (174)." In other words, Postmodernists are basically Modernists having grown tired of maintaining the illusion that things such as values still matter even when the issue of God does not. Therefore, one can gain significant understanding into the Postmodernist mindset by examining the outlook's Modernist roots and where these systems ultimately diverge from one another.

As a derivative of it, Postmodernmism shares a number of assumptions with its cousin Modernism. Thomas Oden observes in Two Worlds: Notes On The Death Of Modernity In America & Russia that both outlooks embrace autonomous individualism, reductive naturalism, and absolute moral relativism (33-35). Both systems are naturalistic in the sense that in them all reality is reduced to and originates from physical components; nothing exists separate or independently of matter. As such, man is an autonomous being since, without God, man can rely only upon himself and his institutions to provide purpose, guidance, and meaning for his life. Since this is the case, all ethical and social thought is predicated on finite human understanding and therefore subject to revision in light of changing circumstances or the accumulation of additional data.

Even though the Modernists sought to set out on their own without holding God's hand, many of them endeavored to maintain a system of behavioral standards and social norms reflective of the Judeo-Christian ones embedded in the cultural consciousness but now resting on an alternative foundation. Rather than seeing the niceties governing civilized conduct as arising from the character of God and discoverable through the study or application of His Holy Word, these courtesies were seen as coming about through the unfolding of trial and error, a process most akin to biological evolution. While most Evangelicals are aware of the links between Darwinism and Nazism and Communism (both vile forms of totalitarianism), most are not as cognizant of the links between this theory of origins and what many would consider stereotypical British traditionalism. Alister McGrath writes in Intellectuals Don't Need God & Other Modern Myths, "Darwinism achieved popular success in England...because Darwin's ideas happened to coincide with advanced Whig social thinking relative to matters of competition, free trade, and the natural superiority of the English middle class...Darwin's science provided a foundation for Victorian liberalism (161)."

It did not take long for the hopes, dreams, and promises of Modernism to break down and disappoint many of its enthusiastic adherents. Psalm 127:1 says, "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchmen waketh but in vain (KJV)." Instead of utopian brotherhood as promised by Marx, millions found themselves enslaved behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains. Instead of the sexual liberation promised by the likes of Freud, for tossing aside restraint and embracing the wilds of passion, just as many found their bodies rotting under the curse of diseases unheard of just a few decades ago. Still others discovered that a life of constant entertainment was not quite as entertaining as originally intended. As John Warwick Montgomery so eloquently summarized through his courses in Apologetics at one time offered through Trinity Theological Seminary, in the nineteenth century God was killed and in the twentieth century man was killed.

Thus, with the realization that finite man was incapable of establishing any enduring standard, the Postmodernist decided that the best that could be hoped for was a kind of compulsory hypertolerance all must ascent to and embrace in order to be recognized as full members of the community. Not unlike the Roman Empire where citizens and subjects were pretty much free to practice whatever religion they wished so long as there was room enough within their beliefs for the emperor as an object of worship, those existing under hypertolerance's prevailing rule find themselves free to believe whatever they would like provided they are publicly willing to admit that what the next fellow believes is just as valid, no matter how strange or unorthodox it might seem to be.

Such an approach of live-and-let-live might work between neighbors who agree to keep their differences on their own respective sides of the fence for the sake of community tranquility. However, there are instances in life where matters cannot be glossed over simply by closing the door behind you and retiring to your living room, especially when how controversial issues are approached will end up impacting the way in which people live.

After all, the idea of absolutist tolerance exists for purposes beyond mediating athletic rivalries among coworkers and arbitrating those heated debates as to whether chocolate or vanilla is the better flavor of ice cream. The concept, to the Postmodernist, becomes the central organizing social and cultural principle. Harold O.J. Brown notes in The Sensate Culture, "...postmodern man is beginning to create for himself a world filled with...all manner of beliefs that would have been dismissed as absurd superstitions only a few years ago (55)."

Since Postmodernism seeks to rest asunder traditional dogmas and orthodoxies, it inevitably ends up emphasizing outlooks and perspectives not regularly brought before the public's attention. Sometimes this can be beneficial in the sense that information once overlooked is brought to light that provides a more fully-orbed picture as to what really happened such as when historians expand the scope of their research outward from diplomatic or military concerns to embrace the social realm as well. However, the approach has often sparked more trouble than what it is worth in terms of the conflict that has arisen and the rights that have been trampled upon as activists jockey for position in this moral and intellectual free-for-all.

It is this propensity for Postmodernism to deny the existence of established objective truth that makes the system so dangerous. However, it can also be this aspect that works out to be the Christian's unwitting ally in the apologetic struggle.

To the Postmodernist, what we construe as knowledge is in reality mere interpretation; the fact is, facts do not exist. Chuck Colson writes in A Dance With Deception: Revealing The Truth Behind The Headlines, "The carelessness about factual accuracy didn't come out of nowhere. It came from a shift in educational theory...Educators began to downplay facts and focused instead on changing students' values to solve social problems (47)."

The result of this has been the ascension of increasingly bizarre academic theories and assertions more about promoting trendy causes than expanding the horizons of human understanding. For example, one Feminist professor contends that Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is actually about pent-up sexual energy that "finally explodes in the...murderous rage of the rapist"; others of similar mind oppose the scientific method as an approach to acquiring knowledge, claiming the method is based on the subjugation and control of sexual domination (Colson, 55).

Some of this might be cute for a good laugh if it confined itself among a few lunatic professors who were trotted out before the students for an occasional lecture or to write articles for publication in journals barely read by anyone. Like most thinkers, Postmodernist scholars hope to exert influence over minds other than their own. Postmodernists, however, want to do more than alter the focus of classroom textbooks. Dr. James Kennedy warns in Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search Of Its Soul, "In fact at the bottom of the 'change' movement is a deep desire to dismantle this nation and to sever average Americans from their heritage of faith and freedom (74)."

It is said nature abhors a vacuum. Something will eventually step in to take the place of something else that has been removed.

In the film "The Neverending Story", the amorphous adversary known as "the Nothing" operates on the assumption that those without hope are easy to control. Postmodernists might claim to be creating a community of tolerance and inclusion free of artificial hierarchies, but end up imposing a regimen more doctrinaire than anything even the most tightly-wound Fundamentalist would devise.

This is because of what Francis Schaeffer termed "sociological law", defined in A Christian Manifesto as "...law that has no fixed base but law in which a group of people decides what is sociologically good for society at the given moment and what they arbitrarily decide becomes law (41)." This principle results in a mass of seemingly contradictory policies that are unified only in their opposition to the divine order of innate human dignity. The individual is reduced to the level of a mere cog to be tinkered with to improve the engine of the overarching societal machine.

For example, in the name of elevating minorities, certain programs such as campus speech codes and preferential employment practices turn around and infringe upon the traditional rights of those just as innocent as those these convoluted regulations claim to protect. Conversely, those justifying this social manipulation by such utilitarian standards could just as easily alter their position and justify the wholesale slaughter or detention of entire ethnic groups as in the case of Nazi Germany.

According to the Washington Times, Professor Noel Ignatiev of Harvard argues for the abolition of the White race. So long as Western institutions continue to embrace such blatantly pragmatic standards, one can no more count on the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the precepts of liberty in the end than the Chinese Community Party since, no matter how much we try to dance around the issue, both ultimately draw upon the principle of the state as the final authority. They only interpret it differently at this given time.

by Frederick Meekins

The story by Karin Zeitvogel of a Washington, DC Episcopal Church paying for the wedding of two homeless people raises a number of questions.

First, I don't care how much they love each other, if these two cannot afford to care for themselves, should they really be getting married?

As my grandmother's sister use to say, "Love can fall in a bucket of sh--."

By this she meant that while important, love was not the sole determining factor upon which one should make critical life decisions especially when one is existing at a minimal subsistence level.

For even though no one wants to say it for fear of being branded a hatemonger and the like, since these two are of prime breeding age, who is going to pick up the tab when babies come along as that use to be what married people did even though nowadays it seems the stork can arrive at any time either before or after the wedding date without an eye being raised by the hypertolerant.

Neither of these people are employed. Why should the rest of us pick up their bills when they bring unnecessary expenses into their lives when they are already in a state of being unable or unwilling to provide for themselves?

Furthermore, as Rush Limbaugh use to say, liberalism is easy; it is conservatism that's hard.

Analyzing this story, one has to wonder if the wedding is not so much for the couple as it is to make the congregation providing it feel good.

For at the end of the day, while it might be more glamorous to throw a wedding, is it really what these two people need in their lives to make it better or to face its challenges?

by Frederick Meekins

Some traditions should be so hallowed that they should not be sullied by political controversies or used as a vehicle to manipulate the participants into embracing perspectives and policies they might not otherwise be exposed to or willing to accept. As a celebration of profound cultural significance at one of America's most solemn and historic venues, the annual Easter Egg Roll at the White House ought to be just such an occasion.

Unfortunately, not even this event gets to remain one where kids and families can have a day of fun without being bombarded by a litany of questionable values. Ironically, the ones that ought to be the most vigilant about protecting the event's integrity are among those most eager to see it bastardized.

To the average American mired in outdated notions such as individuality and privacy, one would think tickets to this event would go to the first to apply for them irrespective of attributes such as race, creed, or sexual preference. However, to the Obama administration, who you like to roll around in the bedroom with should be one of the factors considered to determine whether or not your child is worthy of rolling eggs on the White House lawn.

According to an Associated Press story posted at Boston.com titled "White House Invites Gay Families To Easter Event", the Obama Administration set aside and funneled a percentage of the tickets to Sodomite front groups such as the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force. The executive director of the Family Equality Counsel said in the article, "The Obama administration actually reached out to us as an organization and said we want gay families there, and they are an important part of the American family fabric."

It is not so much that gay people want to attend the Egg Roll and have been barred in the past as gays have participated in years past. Rather, it is now they not only want to tell everybody about it but also for authorities to fawn all over them.

Are those mired in this brand of sin so guilt-ridden that they cannot simply attend this event quietly in support of the children without having to blab about their personal kinks? If a family of polygamist breakaway Mormons showed up at the Egg Roll, should White House staff ooh and ahh over them as "an important part of the American family fabric" as not all participating in this deviancy are child molesters like in the Warren Jeffs cult.

Though the attention of those interested in these kinds of cultural battles will be focused primarily on this skirmish as to what constitutes a family, this was not the only ideological struggle taking place at the White House Egg Roll. Though less likely to garnish headlines, the information families were exposed to at the event no doubt nudged many in the direction of increasing how much government control and influence they would allow over their lives.

The theme of the 2009 Egg Roll was "Let's go play". In pursuit of this policy, children were encouraged to live healthy and active lifestyles complete with cooking demonstrations (I wonder if any of the St. Louis pizza chefs flown into the White House to appease our New Lord were on hand). No doubt, much of these efforts are to get the youth fit for Fuehrer Obama's proposed mandatory service programs and work camps.

At least in regards to homosexuals infiltrating the White House Egg Roll, the Associated Press Article observed, "Some conservatives accused gays and lesbians of trying to crash the event and turn it into a forum for ideological politiciking."

Some might conclude unseemly forms of propaganda were not allowed to sully the innocence of the Egg Roll before the reign of Barack The First was unleashed upon the American taxpayer. Frankly, I heard about it last year as well under the regime of George W. Bush but didn't get around to writing about it in a timely manner as (at least until Obama pulls the plug on the Internet which is being considered in a variety of ways in the name of special emergency executive orders, the fairness doctrine, and now even online civility) a blogger's work is never done.

The theme of the 2008 Egg Roll was ocean conservation. Frankly, other than an hard boiled egg tasting good with a pinch of salt sprinkled on it, what does the ocean have to do with an Egg Roll?

This propaganda went beyond having a nifty touchtank on hand with a horseshoe crab crawling around inside. The White House declared, "Through education and volunteerism, all families can make a difference in keeping our oceans clean."

Seems, when being brainwashed, it's noy simply enough to dutifully assimilate the material our keepers expect us to. We must also pledge ourselves to manually labor without remuneration.

More importantly, we are also reminded by this story that the manipulation of the American people into indentured servitude was not something sprung upon us totally with the election of Barack Obama. Rather the erosion of liberty has been slowly put into place over a succession of presidential administrations and getting to the point where many no longer notice the noose tightening around our necks or actually have grown to accept it as a comforting embrace.

There is no reason whatsoever why an egg roll must have a theme other than being an egg roll. If the American people allow the state to draw the focus away from the higher truths these celebrations were established to commemorate in favor of extraneous policies and propaganda, eventually the state will take the place of the One such festivities were originally intended to honor.

By Frederick Meekins

The Obama progeny are well into their studies at Sidwell Friends School. As their parents, Barack and Michelle have every right to enroll their daughters in the school they think best for their children. Ironically, this is one of the many prerogatives the President’s most enthusiastic supporters would frown upon should you, the average American, decide to exercise them.

For decades now, liberals and secularists have argued that those pursuing nonpublic education for their children ought to be held in suspicion for exhibiting insufficient devotion to the COMMUNITY. Some might try to obfuscate the matter by claiming that that they do not oppose private education as much as they support the public alternatives.

This might be the line propagated for mass consumption, but the leftist opposition to private education (at least when it comes to your children) goes much deeper. For among the elites that think it is their place to mold what those below them believe and even how we live our lives, education is not so much about the accumulation of a particular body of knowledge or set of skills enabling the individual to make a way for themselves and their families in the world.

Rather, among this class education is seen about conditioning the vast majority into accepting the place predetermined for them and in such a way that they will not be able to advance beyond that. That is of course if human ambition is not engineered out of the individual human psyche all together through a combination of compulsory pharmaceuticals and a form of behavioral reinforcement popularly referred to as brainwashing.

Others will respond that, as the children of the President, these youngsters need to be protected from the assorted dangers that could befall them in a public school where access is gained more quickly than in a more disciplined private one. Such an assessment is absolutely correct.

However, the question to ask here happens to be are not your children as precious to you as the President’s are to him and are your children not entitled to the best kind of protection that you are capable of providing for them? Yet many of the very same elites applauding the Obamas’ decision to educate their children in a private school are among the very same voices insisting you are under some kind of obligation to the COMMUNITY to expose your offspring to an array of moral deviances and outright criminals.

As central as the issue of education is as the philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next, it is not the only matter the concerned citizen needs to be worried about in the dawning "progressivist" era. These social engineers hope to impose upon you a lifestyle below which you have grown accustomed and are perfectly capable of providing for yourself. Once again, this point is proven by comparing what Barack Obama has said to what he has actually done.

In a statement lamenting the environmental attitudes of the average American, Barack Obama has decreed that the world is nearing a time when we can no longer eat what we want, drive around in our SUV's, and keep our homes at 70 degrees. Of course, such hand-wringing and soul-searching agony is exhibited over how you, average American, live your life and has nothing whatsoever to do with this figure heralded as transformational lives his life. After all, as Hegel hypothesized, such figures are beyond the rules imposed upon the rest of us.

In the eyes of his Barackness, you probably eat too much and at a level higher than your social class ought to be permitted. However, our liege should be permitted to stuff his face as he sees fit. For while you are to subsist on berries and twigs not much more advanced than our gatherer ancestors of pre-agricultural times, at his inaugural lunch, Obama feasted upon seafood stew with lobster, duck, pheasant, molasses-whipped sweet potatoes, and apple sponge cake. There were also three wines to choose from (no wonder an old drunk like Ted Kennedy went into convulsions and had to be carted out in an ambulance).

Those inclined to give their new lord the benefit of the doubt will reply, “Well, why shouldn’t he have a special treat on his special day?” And who can argue with that as most (at least until Mayor Bloomberg has his way) get graduation and wedding cakes. However, does someone that complains you are eating something other than sawdust and dirt have the right to turn around and like a king day in and day out?

Most Americans either prepare their own sustenance or are blessed to have someone in their family do this for them. Yet despite admonishing the rest of us repeatedly on the need for sacrifice, Barack is not going to settle for having someone in his family prepare his meals for him even though neither Michelle nor his mother-in-law living with the family at the White House have any other obligations to fulfill other than those of wife and grandmother.

Instead, the White House has at its disposal a first rate kitchen. Some may argue that such is necessary for assorted state dinners and diplomatic receptions as the facility can serve 140 guests.

However, according to a 1/28/09 Yahoo News story titled “Hail To The Chefs”, the one chef already employed by the White House is not enough. The Obama’s are bringing from Chicago their private chef (in other words, they have been of the mind for quite awhile now that they are too good to cook for themselves). And like his massa, the Obama chef thinks the average American suffers from “overabundance” and that those in the culinary professions “should take leadership in tackling public health issues”. As what, the beat cops of the food police?

Obama’s detached elitism goes beyond enjoying a level of snobbish luxury he would wish to keep from you to that of actually endangering lives and public safety. This was especially evident during the winter months when citizens could see first hand the implications of his flippant policy announcements. It is in this analysis that we see first hand that Obama does not really think or care all that much about regular Americans.

In his campaign oration, Obama lamented about Americans keeping their homes heated at around 70 degrees. The President is as much a hypocrite on this point as he is about shaming you on the matter of food while he stuffs his face with delicacies the rest of us can barely pronounce and even less likely ever taste.

For while you are suppose to sit around your home shivering all in the name of the environment and over what the ghetto nations of the earth think of the United States of America, Obama might be sweating, but its not over what he thinks the thermostat should be set to but because of what he has set the thermostat to. From photographs taken during Obama’s first full day in office, some where shocked when the President was caught without a suit coat on in the Oval Office.

Though this fell far short of the shock value of what Bill Clinton removed while within the confines of these particular walls, once again as a historical figure of Hegelian proportions, Obama is not bound by the strictures of the epoch he is leading us out of. According to his staff, Obama likes the thermostat set at 80 degrees since he is use to the warm weather of his native Hawaii.

Well whoopteedoo!!! If his majesty likes Hawaii so much, perhaps he should have run for governor of that state in order to run it into the ground rather than for the presidency of the United States.

However, while Obama basks in the sauna, you are suppose to suck it up and head out into the freezing cold. His highness insinuated as such when he enunciated his displeasure that his daughters’ school had cancelled classes after a spate of wintery precipitation.

Of this disruption to the scholastic calendar Obama ruminated, “My children’s school was cancelled today. Because of what? Some ice?...As my children pointed out, in Chicago, school is never cancelled...I’m saying, when it comes to weather, folks in Washington don’t seem to be able to handle things.”

Well, hurray for Chicago. If he likes the way things are done there, perhaps he should have stayed there with his crooked gangland associates.

Though the Obamas’ reputations as parents seem to be impeccable and loving, one must seriously question how often Barack has actually personally himself driven his daughters to school these past few years. After all, from the looks of it, daddy was either on the road campaigning or in Washington (at least that is where he should have been instead of out campaigning) as a member of the Senate.

And now with their father as President, it is doubtful that the Obama daughters will be subjected to the dangers of Washington area traffic. In all likelihood, each school day the New Lord's progeny will be motorcaded to their destination with all other vehicles required to get out of the way as they pass by.

Your children, one can conclude from the President's own words, aren't worthy of being escorted to school in a similar degree of safety. For if Americans are to give up their SUV's as admonished by the President, how are they suppose to get to school in one of those effeminate, limp-wristed hybrids?

No wonder the Obama whelps want to go to school in the slop. They don't have to worry about slipping on the ice.

One of the marks of a great leader is the willingness to abide by the same expectations they extol upon others. Despite all the hype about Obama being such a great leader that will turn back the rising seas and all that malarkey, it seems he can’t even rise to the level of the simplest expectation.

by Frederick Meekins

The church was instituted by God in part to stand as a defensive bulwark to protect against erroneous doctrine and spiritually damaging heresies from contaminating the minds of believers and thus to an extent soften the blow of a continually degrading culture. However, often those in positions of religious leadership are so hopelessly detached that when confronted with warnings as to the spiritual dangers threatening both the individual and society they offer little in the way of a viable response grounded in a Christian worldview and instead prattle on about matters few actually care about at best or at worst condition the average congregant to eventually acquiesce to the expanding technocollectivist agenda. This trend is evidenced in the inordinate emphasis upon COMMUNITY rather than Scripture as the authoritative source of values in an increasing number of ecclesiastical circles.

In my column “Just Because You Don’t Understand Doesn’t Mean Its Not Real: Most Epistemologically Unprepared For Bioenhancement Nightmares”, I went into lengthy detail how the Transhumanist movement presented not only a threat to traditional conceptions of liberty as it simultaneously veered off into either total anarchy or nearly absolute control but also threatened what it means to be a human being itself. As an important message I felt the broader church might be in need of hearing, I decided to post it at a website where pastors, ministers, and Christian researchers of various types could publicize their homiletic endeavors to share with their peers and other interested believers.

Though my essay did not contain a single profanity and was completely nonpartisan as it did not mention a single word about Democrats or Republicans but instead focused on the moral implications of the Transhumanist philosophy, the site administrator responded, “It appears that you have some great points and some powerful truths that perhaps should be considered. However, I am unable to approve it for posting to your contributor page at this time because it is simply not a sermon of a type that would be useful to very many other pastors that use our website.”

Frankly, other than the campaign to remove God and Christ as the basis of our cultural foundation and to forbid the utterance of these holy names so that souls might be damned, what other issue is more relevant to the 21st century pulpit than the efforts to undermine innocent human life and now the very creation as we know it? Furthermore, this simmering contempt for the distinct uniqueness of human life stretches all the way to the highest levels of government, industry, and academia.

Several years ago, I attended a PCA congregation for a while where it seemed week after week, month upon month that the pastor went on and on about the life of David. This series was not from the standpoint of how the strengths and weaknesses of this particular leader might be applied or avoided in the life of the believer as this highly (one might say overly) degreed pastor made it explicitly clear that it was not his place to highlight whatever underlying object lesson might be there in the text but rather to simply to go verse by verse irrespective of whether or not the passage had any actual spiritual significance for the Christian rather than as information provided more as a background setting but nothing the average person would miss out on if somehow glossed over. For this reason coupled with the fact that I was made out to be the bigger reprobate for not ceremonially surrendering to the dictates of the group through formalized membership than those that made it known that booze would be available at Sunday school get togethers I eventually parted ways from that congregation.

Is the serious believer going to tell me that such trivialities devoid of an applied context have more relevance to their Christian walk than whether or not you and your family are going to be permitted to remain what has traditionally been classified as normal human beings? Though this threat sounds so off the wall as if it had been lifted straight from the pages of a comic book or a Star Trek marathon, credentialed scientists and other speculative academics are subtly starting to move the public conscientiousness away from seeing bioenhancement or genetic technologies as a way to correct the ravages of disease but as a way to enhance otherwise sufficient human beings.

As I stated in my previous examinations of this topic, during the 1990’s about the scariest villains in popular science fiction has to be the Borg from Star Trek’s The Next Generation and Voyager as those belonging to this species has a considerable percentage of their biological anatomy replaced with mechanical components in large part to eliminate individuality and to replace this mode of perception with a unified group consciousness. In other words, the Borg were the ultimate Communists. However, now that some time has elapsed, it is now not all that uncommon to find in popular science magazines articles extolling the wonders of the Borg as the next step in human evolution.

One such article is titled "Is There A Borg In Our Future" published in the Fall 2007 issue of "Ad Astra". The authors write, "For years, the most devoted advocates of robotic and human cooperation have envisioned mechanical devices and human beings exploring space together; but even in this vision, the two remain separate entities --- master and servant, owner and slave, flesh and machine. Technological developments now beginning to take place in some settings might permit a true merger --- humans equipped with robotic parts or machines possessing sentient qualities."

Thus, as man is reduced to the level of a biological machine as a result of materialistic evolution, the naturalist naturally begins to wonder why ought man to consider himself superior to the gadgets he employs to better enjoy his existence.

The implications of this are startling and are hinted at in the very next paragraph of the "Ad Astra" article. The article says, "The social metaphor for future space exploration may not be Luke Skywalker and his amusing companions R2-D2 and C-3PO but the Terminator." Does anyone seriously want to live in the world of the Terminator?

The article downplays this particular speculative milieu by admitting, “The merger of human features and machine parts has negative consequences in The Terminator.” That’s putting it mildly.

In “The Terminator” series, a nuclear war is commenced by a defense computer called Skynet that becomes sentient. Its robotic constructs proceed to wipeout the surviving humans.

All of the Schwarzenegger versions of Terminators were robots with human skin stretched over their bodies. Is this what the authors of the "Ad Astra" article aspire to?

The authors attempt to calm the reader of the “negative consequences” they quickly gloss over by assuring that the horrors depicted in these films need not end up being reality. Ironically, those with their heads stuck in so-called “make believe” may have a more accurate understanding of human nature than those claiming to be more sensible in their approach.

The article concludes, “...if the Borg really are us, they need not be feared.” However, it is precisely because they could be us that they need to be feared.

A creation can never be morally superior to or better than its creator. Though created perfect, from the Book of Genesis, the Bible student gets the impression that it was not long before Adam and Eve rebelled against God and opened the floodgates to the evil and suffering making up the primary forces of history.

One could debate until blue in the face whether or not a robot was really alive or not.

But imagine how much quicker then if allowed to make their own moral decisions until these independent artificial consciences will turn on their metaphysical progenitors in much the same way we all do on a daily basis into what use to be called “sin”.

If the authors of the "Ad Astra" article are so keen on the amalgamation of man and machine beyond that of perhaps the replacement of a failing organic limb or organ for the purposes of alleviating suffering rather than to alter innate humanness beyond something intended by the design of providence, perhaps they should be the first to volunteer. Nothing to fear from the Borg; perhaps these authors would like to have their innermost thoughts scrutinized by the collective consciousness of that species. That will be, however, a hell these postulators would rather inflict upon those they categorize as the lesser breeds of men (in other words, the rest of us).

Sometimes, the overly pious or those merely afraid of losing their tax exempt status (though you might be surprised how often these two constituencies often overlap) might claim, "Oh, even if all that is true, we only address spiritual and religious matters and don't soil our hands with politics or even scientific matters." However, Transhumanism has permeated theological and religious thought as well.

One religion in particular, though most of its adherents would not necessarily be deceived by Transhumanism's bizarre allure, would seem to have a unique affinity for Transhumanism as one of its foundational doctrines is that God was once a man from the planet Kolob (sounding disturbingly like Battlestar Galactica's Cobol [especially in relation to the 70's version]) and that you too can become your own God if you try hard enough.

At the website of an adherent of this particular faith that was dedicated to the advancement of Transhumanism, my initial commentary on the subject is referred to for daring to point out the movement's communalist dangers as well as acknowledging how others have taken it in a radically individualist direction. This critic snaps, "Which is it? Are Transhumanists all radical individualists or radical communitarians?

The answer is not all that simple. Usually, the leftists that embrace nonsense like Transhumanism like to pat themselves on the back for being so broadminded as to be able to hold two logically contradictory notions all at the same time.

Yet they so easily dismiss the notion that Transhumanism can be both radically individualistic and collectivistic at the same time. For it is not a movement that is either/or but rather of one feeding into another.

In "The Children Of Darkness, Richard Wheeler writes, "Burke's implication is that a society of guiltless unfettered men is one ungovernable or at least governed by a tyrant (22)." Thus Transhumanism can simultaneously for now appeal to two constituencies with seemingly divergent agendas.

For example, in its initial stages, Transhumanism can appeal to freaks like those occasionally featured on the Discovery Channel who surgically alter themselves to look like tigers, lizards, or whatever other barnyard whatnots happy to catch their fancy. Albert Mohler mentioned in his examination of this subject someone who wanted to have a perfectly healthy leg amputated so this person would not have to be a source of “biopower for the state” (in other words, this lazy bum wanted to lay around all day no doubt collecting a check from the state he otherwise despises).

However, these dupes no matter how much they claim to be standing for liberty, since they are desiring to take liberty past a point to which it was never intended, are merely the pawns of the collectivists who quietly manipulate things behind the scenes hoping things will grow so marked by disorder and confusion that the masses will clamor for an iron fist to tighten around their necks.

Either as a result of willful ignorance or because they are just so burdened by the concerns of the present, the average Christian may have little idea of the dangers to both the individual and society barreling down the pike. However, those either deriving hefty salaries or at least job satisfaction from being one of those charged with watching over the Lord's flock need to take this charge seriously from wherever the danger arrives from along the timeline or get out of the pulpit.

by Frederick Meekins

Often the classics rank among the best. Even though time passes and intellectual fashions change, certain insights and perspectives address something so profound they forever earn a place as a steadfast pillar among sifting seas of opinion. Much of what comes after such a point simply serves as either confirmation, renunciation, clarification, or criticism. Though he lived and labored during the Middle Ages in the 1200‘s, the cosmological argument of Thomas Aquinas has withstood the test of time as one of those stalwart pillars of the mind pointing to a rational basis for belief in God.

Though the term “cosmological argument” sounds intimidating and the concept it strives to convey seems profound, this series of propositions endeavors to express a most elementary idea in a highly rational form. The thrust of the cosmological argument seeks to prove that the universe must have a cause and that only God can serve as an adequate explanation for the existence of the universe. Norman Geisler in Introduction To Christian Philosophy states the basic argument in the following manner: “(1) Finite changing things exist. (2) Every finite, changing thing must be caused by another. (3) There cannot be an infinite regress of causes. (4) Therefore, there must be a first uncaused cause of every finite changing thing that exists (page 267).” From here, Aquinas proceeds to argue that only God is powerful enough to serve as an explanation behind this uncaused cause.

This assertion is buttressed by Aquinas’ notion of contingency and the need for a necessary being. A contingent being, according to Ronald Nash in Faith & Reason: Searching For A Rational Faith, is one whose existence depends upon another and whose nonexistence is possible; likewise, a necessary being is one that must exist, does not depend on another being for its existence, and whose nonexistence is an impossibility (128). The necessary being ultimately serves as the sufficient reason for all contingent beings.

Despite the power of the cosmological argument, it has not escaped its share of scrutiny throughout the course of its distinguished existence. For while the conclusions of the cosmological argument seem to flow naturally within the framework of traditional Judeo-Christian theism, they are not quite as obvious to adherents of other philosophies and systems of thought or to those seeking to undermine them through a process of intense rationalistic analysis. Skeptics and opponents of the Judeo-Christian assumptions that the cosmological argument seeks to prove can call upon a number of criticisms and counterclaims in support of their contrarian position.

The first brand of criticism stems from those advocating worldviews hostile to Christian presuppositions that possess a considerable stake in finding an explanation for the origins of the universe through causes other than an instant of divine creation. Foremost among the systems opposing the premises of the cosmological argument stand the various strands of naturalism.

According to James Sire in The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog, the naturalist says matter is all there is and God does not exist (54). Or as Carl Sagan use to say, “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” Corliss Lamont, the 1977 Humanist of the Year, writes, “Humanism...believes in a naturalistic cosmology...that rules out all forms of the supernatural ... that regards nature as the totality of being and as a constantly changing system of events existing independently of any mind or consciousness (Understanding The Times, 117).”

Thus, as David Noeble of Summit Ministries responds in Understanding The Times, “For the Humanist, no personal First Cause exists; only the cosmos... There was no beginning and there can be no end. Of course, there is no need for a God to explain a beginning that did not happen (120).” Naturalists, therefore, find their explanation for the universe elsewhere

Whereas theists such as Thomas Aquinas posit the answer to this important question with God, naturalists find it in a complex interaction of matter, physical laws, and a healthy sprinkling of chance.

David Nobel writes of the naturalist perspective, “Nature...cannot create but she can eternally transform (120). “ Naturalists attempt to abolish the so-called Thomist arguments for a creator denying the very concept of creation itself.

While it is not too difficult to confront the opponents of theism over those points where such glaring differences exist, the criticism couched in the careful formulations of sophisticated philosophical analysis can be somewhat more difficult to counter. For example, John Gerstner writes in Reasons For Faith that objections could be raised that the cosmological argument hinges upon the conclusion drawn from our own observation that all things have a cause (53).

The thrust of the cosmological argument hinges upon the conclusion drawn from our observations that all things have a cause. This proposition is put forward to prove the need for a so-called first “uncaused cause”. As the nitpicky skeptic might point out, if it is deduced through observation that all things have causes, is it not unreasonable to call upon an uncaused first cause? After all, would not something have to have caused it also. Such a deadlock leads to one of Kant’s antimonies of reason where debaters of equal rationality come to two semmingly reasonable conclusions: namely either the need of an uncaused first cause or the validity of an infinitely regressing eternal series of causes and effects.

Despite this apparent loggerheads between proponents and detractors of the cosmological proof, additional lines of argumentation and evidence exist tipping the scales in favor of justifiable theism. From the time of the Enlightenment onward, practitioners of what Francis Schaeffer referred to as “modern modern science" have endeavored to establish a conceptual framework for explaining the operations of the universe capable of standing without the need for an appeal to divine support. When asked by Napoleon where God fit into his system of celestial mechanics, Laplace is said to have responded, “I have no need for that hypothesis (Barbour, 42).” But ironically, the very system of airtight physical laws many scientists approach with an almost religious devotion ultimately point to and must at least be jumpstarted if not actively maintained by the very Creator these lab-coated agnostics are scurrying to get away from.

Despite possible variations in their extraneous details, there are only a limited number of cosmologies accounting for the existence of the universe, each with its own advantages and shortcomings depending upon where one lines up in the debate regarding this theistic argument. Astrophysicist and Professor of New Testament Robert Newman describes each of these possibilities in the article “The Evidence Of Cosmology” appearing in the anthology Evidence For Faith: these systems are the Steady-State Universe, the Oscillating Cosmology, and the so-called “Big Bang” (Newman, 83-85).

The Steady-State model added a scientific veneer to the philosophical assumptions of naturalism by hypothesizing a universe eternally existing in a dynamic state of equilibrium whereby the density and energy levels of the cosmos remain constant as new matter is added as the boundaries of the system expand. Oscillating Cosmology pictures an ongoing cycle of universal birth, death, and rebirth as the universe continually expands outward in a burst of energy only to contract under the forces of its own gravity only to explode outward once again in an unending repetitive cosmic rhythm. The so-called “Big Bang”, at its most basic, postulates a singular specific moment when the universe expanded outward from a particular point at a definite moment in time.

These theories may all be well and good in terms of allowing the curious to speculate until their heart’s content. Yet ultimately they must correspond to actual reality if they are to be of any value beyond mere academic amusement.

It is against the cold hard wall of truth that these systems are forced to measure up against. These unavoidable truths eliminate the faulty explanations for the origins of the universe and point us back to the conclusions of the cosmological argument.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the sum total of matter and energy in the universe can neither be created nor destroyed; it remains constant. This is appended by the Second Law of Thermodynamics stating that the amount of energy available for useful work constantly decreases and the amount of entropy or disorder increases.

Any theory of origins seeking to undermine the need for a Creator by positing an everlasting cosmos is by definition scientifically impossible as one deduces from these physical laws. For every system that possesses a finite amount of useful energy must have a definite startup point.

If the universe is infinitely old as speculated by steady-state cosmologists, the universe would have wound down already. As D. James Kennedy notes in How I Know There Is A God, “...everything is running down; ... everything is wearing out; everything is growing old. So if the universe were eternal, it would have already wound down (6).”

Like it or not, the mechanics of the universe, as they exist as unvarnished facts, point to a theoretically specifiable beginning and cannot be compelled to testify against their designer. Dr. Kennedy further notes, “There was a time when there were men who believed that it [the universe] was [eternal] but with modern scientific discoveries it is no longer possible to believe that... For the last 150 years, scientists have been scurrying around trying to avoid the implications of the laws they have discovered (5).”

Despite harkening unto the exhortations of science when it is believed this manner of inquiry might prove a valuable ally in the ongoing struggle to dethrone the God of all space and time, this epistemological method is conveniently overlooked when it points in the direction of conclusions standing in opposition to cherished preconceived assumptions. Astronomer Fred Hoyle, a developer of the Steady -State Model, himself admitted that his affinity for this particular system was not so much born out of pure science but rather because this particular variety of cosmology was more philosophically satisfying than those characterized with a beginning (Newman, 83). Thus, the unvarnished facts may have little initial impact upon those holding such a viewpoint who feel seemingly remote matters such as the origins of the universe have little bearing upon their average workaday lives.

The Christian thinker must proceed by showing how one’s position regarding the data pointing to the divine origins of the universe impacts one’s relation to the remaining branches of knowledge and how one cannot ignore the issue without felling the entire noetic tree. The laws of objective physical science clearly teach that the universe came into existence at a particular point in time.

This leaves the cogitator with two possible explanations: either the universe came into existence of its own accord or was brought into existence by some entity greater and more complete in and of itself. Diehard agnostics will continue to insist upon the alternative excluding the influence of deity, which means they would select the alternative suggesting the universe came into existence on its own. Yet reason dictates that only nothing can come from nothing.

As an experiment, take a first-full of nothing and plant it in a flowerpot and see how long it takes to grow a plant from it. Now how much longer will it take for an entire developed universe with complex organisms and sophisticated civilizations to sprout from it? John Frame in Apologetics "To The Glory Of God: An Introduction", argues that those refusing to assent to the theistic conclusions in light of such compelling logic and evidence must concede to the madness of irrationalism since it flies in the face of common sense to hold that everything in the physical universe requires a cause but the finite contingent universe itself (111).

While advocates of the cosmological argument will spend much of their time trying to convince their nontheistic counterparts as to its validity, they might be surprised to learn significant suspicion of it lurks within certain corners of the Christian camp. Ronald Nash examines a number of these Christian criticisms and concerns in his analysis of the cosmological argument as detailed in "Faith & Reason: Searching For A Rational Faith".

Foremost among the cautions raised by Christians skeptical as to the value of the cosmological argument ranks the realization that the God attested to by this renowned theistic proof could very well fall short of the Lord boldly proclaimed in the pages of the Bible and could very easily resemble something more akin to deism (Nash, 122-124). For example, the purpose of the cosmological argument is to postulate a God that gets the proverbial ball rolling. However, on its own it does not initially provide enough argumentative steam to establish argumentively a God who actively sustains the universe, to say nothing of one that loves and cares for that part of the creation molded in his own image.

Furthermore, since the world and the universe are a composite of a number of complex interactive systems, one could argue that each was set in motion by its own unique first cause. According to Norman Geisler in Introduction To Philosophjy: A Christian Perspective, Aristotle himself believed in between forty-seven and fifty-five of these entities, each responsible for a particular sphere of the heavens (172). At best, such an arrangement would give one a situation something akin to polytheism where one god ruled the sky and another the sea. And in bringing the Greek and other ancient pantheons into the mix, Ronald Nash points out that the cosmological argument fails to address the moral and redemptive natures of God so central to the message of Scripture that sets the Christian message apart from other world religions. One could very well maneuver the most vile reprobates into acknowledging the existence of such a God without having it make the slightest impact on such a libertine lifestyle.

Of the cosmological argument, Ronald Nash writes, “...if we reject special revelation and attempt to reason our way from what we know about the world to the existence of a supposed First Cause, the most we can establish still leaves us a long way from...(the) God of the Bible (124).” Thus the Christian following in the footsteps of Aquinas comes to a very important fork in the road. On the one hand, the intellectually engaged believer finds that the given of the universe needing a creator is not quite universally assumed as they originally thought it to be; on the other, there are those within the Christian’s own camp who insightfully warn as to the potential dangers and shortcomings of this hallowed argument. What is the Christian to do?

The good news is that the cosmological argument does not need to be tossed aside with the rest of the philosophical rubbish. Just as an army cannot rely on any one weapon system if it hopes to carry out a successful military campaign, if they are going to utilize the cosmological argument as part of their apologetic arsenal, they must incorporate it into the framework of a comprehensive strategy of evangelization. It might be best to look at the cosmological argument not so much as some epiphanial revelation silencing all opposition from then on out but rather as a tool to extract knowledge already buried in the deep recesses of the soul.

Romans 2:14-15 reads, “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law...since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them (NIV).” Likewise, Psalms 14:1 reads, “The fool says in his hear, ‘There is no God.’.” Thus, whether they choose to admit it or not, a primordial knowledge of God exists somewhere within the human soul. The trick is getting the individual to assent to this as they are being guided down along the path to belief in Christ. The problem is that man has gone out of his way in the attempt to shake free from the truth of God’s existence that weighs down the sin-laden conscience.

Romans 1:20-21 says, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities...have been clearly seen, being understood for what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened (NIV).” The task of the Christian becomes to show the unbeliever how it is untenable to live in a theistic Christian world with non-Christian, atheistic assumptions.

In Van Tillian terminology, this is the point of contact (Frame, 82-83). The cosmological argument is best used as one of these conversation starters rather than as the be-all and end-all of the discussion. In essence, the cosmological argument is more a defense of already held belief rather than a foundation upon which belief in the true God is built upon.

Ronald Nash writes, “Suppose...that we regard it [natural theology] as an inquiry into whether the Christian world-view fits what we know about the outer and inner worlds (Nash, 96).” Nash continues, “...instead of seeking coercive proofs for conclusions that all right-minded and open-minded persons would accept, we view our task as the more modest one of seeing if the Christian worldview does what we expect any worldview to do (97).”

The cosmological argument has enjoyed a robust history throughout the course of Western intellectual and ecclesiastical history. It has sparked considerable discussion and debate as its advocates herald it as a tool through which to apprehend a slice of the infinite while its detractors dismiss it as the leftover mental baggage of a less rational era. But regardless of where one lines up along this ongoing debate, one cannot help but admit that the discussion will continue until the Lord Himself decides to intervene and settle the issue on His own once and for all before then.

by Frederick Meekins

During a recent trip to a local Wal-Mart, I saw something quite disturbing as I stood in the checkout line. In the magazine wrack was a commemorative edition of some publication with a portrait of Barack Obama on the cover.

That was not the disturbing part even to someone that did not vote for him. Behind him on the cover was a glow making him look angelic or even messianic in appearance. Above the image, the words read "Barack Obama: The Hope Of America".

As the new President, even Americans that did not vote for him hope that Obama does well within a specified context in regards to those duties delineated within the confines of the Constitution if for no other reason than that he is the head of state of the country in which we live. However, he is not America's hope.

Firstly, America's hope is in God in general and in the person of His Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ in specific. It says in Colossians 1:17 that by Him (not Barack Obama) all things consist.

It is Jesus Christ, not Barack Obama, that will forgive you of your sins.

It is Jesus Christ, not Barack Obama, that has the whole world in His hands.

Despite the call for a new domestic intelligence and security force with a budget projected to surpass that of the entire U.S. military, it is Jesus Christ, not Barack Obama, that hears you crying on those nights when you feel that your world has been shattered and you don't know what can be done to make things right.

Even for those uncomfortable about making public acknowledgement of personal and national dependence upon deity there are earthly sources of hope that the American people ought to look to before Barack Obama.

For example, Americans ought to look to the U.S. Constitution for guidance and inspiration before they look to Barack Obama. In the United States, an oath of loyalty is taken not to a man but to defend the document by those in government all the way from the President down to the youngest private in the U.S. army.

It is the U.S. Constitution, not Barack Obama, that keeps power from being unduly concentrated in the hands of a few through a system of checks and balances and separation of powers.

It is the U.S. Constitution that RECOGNIZES in law (note does not grant) a number of rights the individual possesses as an individual created in the image of God. Barack Obama cannot do this.

Secondly, the American should look to himself for hope and not Barack Obama. If you are an upright citizen, you are the one through the grace of God that gets up and goes to work everyday whether you like your job or not to provide for you and your family, not Barack Obama's beguiling handouts he promised in order to dupe the masses.

Those holding office can indeed bring hardship and earthly ruination into the lives of those residing in the jurisdictions over which such officials exercise authority. Most often this comes about when elected officials intervene in those areas of life where the physically able ought to provide for themselves.

by Frederick Meekins

When I heard during the NCIS marathon on USA Network during one of those "Characters Welcome" segments that the individual coloring that creepy Communist-looking Obama "Hope" poster was a "street artist", I figured that was just an euphemism for graffiti vandal.

It has now been reported that the artist has been arrested on charges likely related to that particular form of urban mischief.

Ironically, some praising this hoodlum would applaud him as more of an artist than Norman Rockwell or Thomas Kincaid who actually drew and painted things that actually looked like things rather than toss a dab of color on something and claim it was theirs.

Rather fitting the artist heralded as embodying the spirit and values of the Obama administration would be someone with almost no respect for private property whatsoever.

Wonder if his opulent benefactors would be as enthusiastic if it was their property being spray painted?

by Frederick Meekins