Koinonia Kids

Is "Evolution" Religion Or Science?

2011-11-29T14:34:00.001-08:00

Gateway To The Mind

2011-10-19T06:27:00.001-07:00

Watch Gateways to the Mind in Documentary | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

The Thread Of Life

2011-10-19T06:16:00.000-07:00

Watch Thread Of Life in Documentary | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

Hemo The Magnificent

2011-10-19T06:06:00.001-07:00

Plato's Cave

2011-09-18T14:09:00.003-07:00

Drive Thru History - Greece

2011-08-18T09:58:00.001-07:00

Classical Apologetics

2011-06-24T07:21:00.000-07:00

By Israel Wayne

One of the major branches of Christian Apologetics is called, "Classical Apologetics." The basic concept is that the skeptic can be convinced of the truth of Christianity by simply reasoning properly.

Rather than giving the skeptic lots of bits and pieces of evidence, as the Evidentialist approach would suggest, the Classical Apologist uses Logic and Rhetoric to persuade the unbeliever. The approach has its beginnings in Ancient Greece. Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and their contemporaries developed means of argument and persuasion that are still being used today.

Logic
Classical Apologetics tends to emphasize the forms of Logic that are deemed irrefutable (in attempting to contradict them you have to affirm their truth):

1. The Law of Identity
- An object is identical to itself.
2. The Law of Non-Contradiction
- Two contradictory statements cannot be true in the same sense at the same time.
3. The Law of the Excluded Middle
- Just because two things have one thing in common does not mean that have everything in common.
4. The Law of Rational Inference
- Inferences can be made from what is known to what is unknown.

Perhaps we can explore these in more depth in a later essay.

While Augustine or Anselm may get some votes, the man most highly favored as the father of Classical Apologetics is Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274).

Classical Arguments
Four of the main arguments for the existence of God, commonly used in Classical Apologetics are:

1. The Cosmological Argument
- Argument from a First Cause or Prime Mover
2. The Teleological Argument
- Intelligent Design implies an Intelligent Designer
3. The Moral Argument
- Existence of a Moral Law implies a Law-Giver
4. The Anthropic Principle
- A Teleological argument that says the earth was fashioned to support human life.

(full article posted at Brannon Howse's "Worldview Times" here)

Is there really a ‘Separation of Church and State?’ by Jennifer Monk

2011-06-04T11:18:00.000-07:00

How many times have you heard the phrase “separation of church and state” thrown around as a defense for limiting the religious freedom of Americans? It happens all the time—the American Civil Liberties Union in particular loves to quote this term when denying the rights of individuals and religious organizations.The truth is … this phrase never appears in the U.S. Constitution! If you are surprised at hearing this, you are not alone—most Americans believe it was an often-used concept of our Founding Fathers. To understand how we came to this collective misbelief, we have to look a bit at the history of this expression.

Original intentOur Founding Fathers, in their wise foresight and past experience with the Church of England, included the enormously important First Amendment in our Constitution, which states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Nowhere in this amendment do the framers of our Constitution state that the government should restrict the rights of religious institutions or of individuals to practice religion. This amendment was so vital to our forefathers because of the restriction and discrimination placed on them by the Church of England.
The original intent of the First Amendment is realized when we consider earlier drafts of its wording, in September 1789:
“Congress shall not make any law establishing any religious denomination.”
“Congress shall not make any law establishing any particular denomination.”
“Congress shall not make any law establishing any particular denomination in preference to others.”
And then, the final version…
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Looking at this history, it is quite obvious that the intent of this founding principle was to prevent the government from establishing a state church based on a single denomination.

Wall of separationSo…how did “separation of church and state” enter our vernacular?
In 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist association, in which Jefferson stated:
“...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
The “wall of separation” that Jefferson wrote about was meant to keep government out of the decisions and beliefs of individual Americans. We see this from the text that just precedes the above quote, when Jefferson indicated:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions…”
And so the phrase “separation of church and state” came into being and was soon utilized by the courts to rule on First Amendment issues. The United States Supreme Court quoted the phrase in a ruling in 1878, in which the court concluded, “Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.”

The result of misconceptionSo we have seen that the phrase “separation of church and state” was not found in any of our founding documents, but was meant to actually limit the invasion of government in religious and personal, spiritual matters. We are supposed to be celebrating freedom of religion, not freedom fromreligion.
As a religious freedoms attorney, I deal with First Amendment cases every day in which people misuse the “separation of church and state” idea to limit the religious liberties of both individuals and organizations. In Memphis, Tenn., a Bible study was told it could not meet in the common area of a government-funded housing complex because of the “separation of church and state” and in San Diego, a Bible study was banned from using a meeting room used by court employees for a variety of secular purposes.
Activists such as the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have used this “wall of separation” idea to try to remove prayer out of public schools and the Ten Commandments out of our courts; to limit the religious freedoms of individuals in the workplace and in schools; to undermine the value of Christian education; and more. (original article)

Other articles:
"Christians, Shut Your Mouths"

Amazing Discoveries Seminar Series

2011-04-19T07:32:00.001-07:00

Total Onslaught;
A Revelation Seminar
***************************************************

The Final Conflict
***************************************************
Radar For Eternity
***************************************************
Rekindling The Reformation
***************************************************

Yes, Unicorni exist; they are in the Bible

2011-04-12T07:35:00.001-07:00

WHAT DOES LEX REX MEAN?

2011-02-17T10:52:00.000-08:00

The literal meaning of the two words is "Law King" . . . which as Rutherford explained ( and was imprisoned for what he said and came close to losing his head for it) . . . means the King (or man) is not the supreme Law; but the Law (God's Law) is the Law over all. Rutherford preached that even the Kings and other rulers are subject to God and His Law. In other words, it's not "Rex Lex" . . . meaning the King is Law; but it's "Lex Rex" . . . meaning the Law of God is King. While man in his greed for power and control, and in denial of the Supreme Being and His "rules for living" would like to believe "man can be as God" as the Bible tells us the Devil deceived Eve and then Adam into believing in the Garden of Eden, the truth is that God is still on His throne and all creation is subject to His infinite power and wisdom. Thus, it is axiomatic that "You can deny the Truth, but you can't change it."

Rutherford's preaching inspired believers; and history tells us that their persecution by would-be "rulers of the World" down through the ages continues to the present time. Interestingly, America became the first nation on earth to be founded . . . from Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States . . . as "One Nation Under God" . . . not one nation under man. Ours is not a "Democracy" (mob rule) but a "Republic" based upon God's Law . . a part of history no longer taught in Government Schools.

You can see why Emperors, Kings, Dictators Tyrants, Nazis, Communists, Fascists, New World Order Advocates and all who have sought and are still seeking to control the people and resources of the World disagree and always will disagree with Rutherford and all others who declare that God and His Law is Supreme and all mankind is subject to Him. Witness the violence against those who say, "Our allegiance is to God. His Law is Supreme." For man's selfishness, greed and arrogance loyalty to God must be abolished. Loyalty to the State must be the order of the day.

Learn about Lex, Rex here

Most Flagrant Science Frauds of All Time

2011-01-24T11:26:00.000-08:00

by Emma Taylor

When you read about a scientific study in a book or a magazine, you probably take for granted that the methods used to conduct it or gather the information were, in fact, sound and honest. Yet there exists cases throughout history where scientists and reporters have been tricked, professionals faked results and everyday people pulled off elaborate hoaxes that fooled college professors, academics and experts alike. Here are ten of the biggest and most outrageous of these scientific hoaxes ever perpetrated, helping you learn from the past and hopefully prevent future fakers in the field.

Piltdown Man: This paleontological fraud is perhaps one of the most famous and long-lived of any in history. Spanning forty years, the hoax began in 1912 when the remains of what was purported to be the “missing link” between man and ape was unearthed in a gravel pit in England. Clues like a primitive “cricket bat” found alongside the body should have tipped off experts that the find was a bit of a hoax, but it wasn’t until 1953 that the truth was uncovered: the skull was cobbled together from a modern human and an orangutan– not an unknown form of early man as it was asserted to be.

The Cardiff Giant: One of the most famous hoaxes in American history, the discovery of this giant petrified human body was made in 1869. Workers digging for a new well supposedly discovered the remains of a ten foot tall man. In reality, what they discovered was the creation of George Hull, a wealthy tobacconist hoping to make a mockery of passages in the Bible stating there were once giants who lived on Earth. The absurdity of his creation, carved out of gypsum, didn’t stop people from believing it was the real deal, though the experts immediately declared it a fraud. The public was in love with it and a copy created by P.T. Barnum was the inspiration for the quote “a sucker is born every minute.” Adding to the ridiculousness, Barnum declared the original giant a fake, prompting its creator to sue him in court. When it was revealed that the original was in fact a fake itself, the judge threw out the case, stating Barnum couldn’t be sued for calling Hull out on the truth.

Tasaday Tribe: Throughout the 1970′s, this tribe of purportedly uncontacted Stone Age people in the rainforests of the Philippines was the talk of the anthropological and academic community. As soon as interest in the group piqued, however, officials moved to make their land a protected area and banned all contact with them – claiming only a limited number of scholars have ever interacted with them. This should have set off warning bells, but it wasn’t until the 1980s that the extent of the fraud was exposed. As it turned out, the group wasn’t isolated at all, wearing modern clothes and living in modern houses, not caves as they had been said to do. They had been pressured by local leaders to pretend to be something they were not, bribed with money, cigarettes and food. What was the purpose of this hoax? Money set aside to help protect this tribe was being stolen and spent by a less than scrupulous politician who, until his death in 1997, swore the tribe wasn’t a hoax.

Kammerer’s Lamarckian Inheritance: Anyone who’s spent time learning about evolution and genetics has likely heard of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, a predecessor to Darwin who claimed that change in species occurred through changes to individuals throughout their lives that were passed onto offspring. Paul Kammerer, a leading proponent of this theory, set out to prove its validity with an experiment performed on midwife toads in the 1920s. He believed that he could change the appearance of land-dwelling toads to resemble those that lived in the water simply by changing their habitat. It seemed that his results supported this, with the third generation of the toads bearing characteristics distinctive of their water-dwelling cousins. While his ideas helped spurred on the field of epigenetics, what he found during his studies was a fraud, with the toads having been injected with ink to give them the distinctive black pad of the water dwellers. Kammerer denied all wrong-doing, but he was so upset by the fraud that he committed suicide only two weeks later– a sad end to a sad story.

The Sokal Affair: Many scientists end up faking results to gain esteem and further their careers, but this physicist set out creating a fraud to simply prove a point. Alan Sokal contributed an article to several scientific journals in an attempt to see if they would publish something fairly nonsensical so long as it sounded good and appealed to their ideological preconceptions. As it turned out, they would. This hoax launched a huge debate on the scholarly merit of sociological studies of the physical sciences, academic ethics, the quality of academic journals and a whole host of other issues. The article appeared in publication in 1996, but the ramifications of it are still being felt in the scholarly world today.

Bower and Chorley’s Crop Circles: You might laugh off the idea of crop circles being anything other than a hoax, but when this British duo began creating geometric shapes in fields during the 1970s using only a baseball cap and a board, they were widely regarded as potential evidence of alien life visiting earth. What these fakers can’t have expected, however, is to have set off a worldwide bevy of copycats, some creating immensely complex designs that helped convince paranormal enthusiasts the world over that alien life exists. They weren’t the only alien hoaxsters, however, as a famously televised “alien autopsy” in 1995 used animal parts, jam, meat and plastic.

Perpetual Motion Machine: Physicists have long denied the possibility of a perpetual motion machine, a device that creates more energy than it consumes, allowing it to continue moving indefinitely. While this machine would violate both the first and second laws of thermodynamics, that hasn’t stopped people from making a few bucks off creating one. In 1812, Charles Redheffer claimed to have invented a perpetual motion machine. A scam artist, Redheffer tried to make money from his machines in several cities, being exposed as a fraud in every one. Most audaciously, in New York, Redheffer simply hid the power source for the machine behind a few boards. Officials removed them, exposing an old man turning a crank while eating a loaf of bread.

The Lying Stones: Many of the hoaxes on this list have been created by someone hoping to get ahead, but this one stemmed from people hoping to pull someone else down. Irritated by the arrogance of their colleague, the coworkers of Professor Johann Beringer decided to take him down a few notches. Local boys whom he had paid to bring him any interesting fossils they might find brought in some strange specimens, containing reliefs of suns, worms, plants, insects, birds, snails and even Hebrew letters. Intrigued, he felt compelled to publish the findings, putting forth various theories as to what the stones could be– at one point even discussing whether they could be modern frauds. He ultimately rejected this idea, however, because he thought it impractical for someone to want to pull off such an elaborate hoax. Beringer should have trusted his instincts, however, as he was the victim of an elaborate prank perpetrated by his fellow academics, a fraud for which he pursued charges – and won. While Beringer worked for several years after this, history hasn’t been kind to his memory, using his story as an example of the danger of pursuing unsupported hypothesis.

The Mechanical Turk: This impressive, chess playing automaton was built in the late 18th century, and at the time, its creators claimed it was a huge leap forward in technology and innovation. From 1770 until its exposure as a fake in the 1820′s as a fake, this “machine” was taken from town to town, showing off its skill at chess. As you may have already guessed, this early robot wasn’t a robot at all, only a chess master hidden within a machine. While the automaton was later revealed to be a fraud, it played against and beat big names like Napoleon Bonaparte and Benjamin Franklin during its heyday.

Archaeoraptor: We’d like to think that archaeological fakes are a thing of the past, but unfortunately those in the fields of physical science still need to be on the lookout for them today. Billed as being the link between birds and early theropod dinosaurs, this fossil saw publication around the world– though doubts about its authenticity were rampant from the very start. First brought to light in 1999, it was not until 2002 that the fossil was definitively proven to be a fake, with different parts of it coming from different species. There have been lasting ramifications of this fraud, however, highlighting the fossil trade in China as well as the publication of scientific finds in non-academic journals.

Haeckel’s Embryonic Recapitulation: German biologist and naturalist Ernst Haeckel, was a staunch adherent to Darwin’s theory of evolution. In 1866 and 1874, Haeckel published materials that contained a drawing that compares three stages of embryonic development of 8 different organisms including human. Soon after the book’s release, Wilhelm His Sr., a professor of anatomy at the University of Leipzig, knew the drawings were inaccurate so he confronted Haeckel. Haeckel supposedly confessed and told Prof. His that it was the fault of the draftsman who drew the plate. What he didn’t tell the professor is that Haeckle was the draftsman and it was he who had drawn the plate.

Knowing it to be wrong, evolutionists still continued to publish the drawing in textbooks for over 100 years. Even though the drawing was known to be wrong, no one bothered to actually compare real embryos until Michael Richardson from St George’s Hospital Medical School did so in 1997. Richardson did compare the embryos and found that there was a significant difference between all of the embryos at the three stages that Haeckel had used and that Haeckel’s fraudulent drawing was far more than the minor inaccuracies that many evolutionists claimed in their defense of it. Haeckel’s drawing was definitely a deliberate act of fraud that was created to convince people in to believing in evolution. Sadly, I have seen Haeckel’s drawing still being published in high school and college textbooks today.

Peppered Moths: In the late 1950’s, a British physician by the name of H.B.D. Kettlewell, decided to investigate why the peppered moths of Great Britain had changed color over the decades. The majority of peppered moths use to be a light gray color, but since the industrial revolution, it seemed that the predominant color had changed to a dark gray.

Kettlewell concluded that before the industrial revolution, the lichens found on many tree trunks were light in color, providing adequate camouflage for the light colored moths. Birds that preyed on the moths would be more likely to spot and eat the darker moths. The industrial revolution produced a significant amount of pollutants released into the air. Consequently, the lichens on the trees became darker over time. With the darker lichens, the darker moths now blended into the tree trunks and the light colored moths would now stand out and become easy prey for the birds.

He had photos of the moths on the light and dark tree trunks. He then had films of the birds picking off the darker moths on lighter lichens and light moths on the darker lichens. His work was touted as proof of evolution through natural selection. However, it was later discovered that the photos that Kettlewell included with his report were actually of dead moths that had been pinned or glued to the tree trunks for the purpose of the study. He also used laboratory moths that were then placed on the tree trunks.

As it turns out, the moths don’t rest on tree trunks in the daytime anyway, which further undermined the validity of his famous study. Kettlewell had purposely used unnatural staged situations to help prove his belief in evolution.

Millions of Years: There has been a great deal said about this on our website already. Basically, millions of years is a mechanism based upon unprovable assumptions designed to question and undermine the belief in the biblical account of Creation and the Genesis Flood. Every radiometric dating method used to prove millions of years are based upon the assumption that there were millions of years. Secondly, it assumes a knowledge of the original amount of all parent elements, which is impossible to know. Thirdly, it assumes that the rates of radiometric decay have always been constant and have never been altered, which has already proven to be false.

Fourthly, it assumes that no other external factors can alter the first three assumptions and we know that volcanic activity can produce new materials that date back millions of years. As for the geological layers, evolutionary geologists claim that they are the results of millions of years of both slow gradual and catastrophic processes. They deny that thousands of feet of sedimentary rock, some that stretch for several thousand miles, and found nearly all over the entire earth provide any evidence of the worldwide flood as described in Genesis 6-9. The sole purpose of the perpetuation of the millions of years hoax is to destroy the foundations of Genesis and ultimately the Gospel message of the Cross.

Theory of Evolution: The concept of evolution had been around for a number of years before Charles Darwin. His grandfather, Erasmus Darwin wrote about evolutionary principles in the 1790’s in his book Zoonomia. It wasn’t until the millions of years hoax had prepared the ground for the seeds of evolution to take root in the time of Charles Darwin in 1859. Most likely, had it not been for Thomas Huxley, it is quite probably that very few people would have paid much attention to Charles Darwin’s book. Huxley, who had a devout hatred for the Church and Christianity understood the ramification of evolution and became the loudest and most influential advocate and promoter of the theory of evolution.

Why do I include evolution as a hoax? There is no evidence for the evolution of life from nothing. The very idea goes against every law of biology, chemistry and genetics. If you have been following my series on the Simple Cell posted on Fridays, you will know that the cell is so complex that there is no way one could have somehow formed on its own is some supposed primordial ooze. If you can’t get the first cell to have evolved, the rest of biological evolution collapses.

The Laws of Information teach that information can only result from a source of intelligence. This also negates the possibility of evolution being true. Yet this hoax is pushed in virtually every avenue and media form as a supposed fact. Those that endorse this hoax the strongest and loudest do so because they would prefer to believe that they came from an ape rather than acknowledge that they were created. Admitting that you were created also means to acknowledge that you have a Creator that you need to be accountable to, and this they do not want.

Source: http://www.accreditedonlinecolleges.com/blog/2011/10-most-flagrant-science-frauds-of-all-time/

"What's In The Bible"; New DVD Series By VeggieTales Creator Phil Vischer

2010-10-15T14:06:00.000-07:00

Lots more "What's In The Bible" video clips
Jellytelly.com

US Presidents

2010-10-15T13:43:00.001-07:00

50 States and Capitals

2010-10-15T13:42:00.001-07:00

The Nations of the World

2010-10-15T13:36:00.000-07:00

Economics Plain and Simple For Kids

2010-09-15T15:19:00.001-07:00

The Signers

2010-02-05T12:55:00.000-08:00

Go to interactive painting showing delegate names and biographies. Check out the different menus at this site, www.teachingamericanhistory.org, for lesson plans, audio lectures, document library, etc.

Also, check out BeckU History lesson videos.

Overview Of America

2009-12-03T21:57:00.000-08:00

Effects of Socialism and Humanism on society.

These two interlocking philosophical points of view have gradually replaced the Founders' self-evident truths, by teaching revised history in public class rooms, designed to remove and replace the "American worldview" of the masses and replace it with the "socialist-globalist worldview" that has enslaved then destroyed every country where it has been tried.

The effects of Humanism became visible in earnest after the so-called "monkey trials" of 1925, which replaced the teaching of creation with the theory of evolution. Although ACLU attorneys placed an ad to "hire a defendant" so they could pretend to have a trial in order to attract tourism into the area, the movie version, "Inherit The Wind", made it look like a mob was out for a lynching. John Scopes, in real life, only answered the ACLU's offer to be used as a mock-defendant in the mock-trial and never taught Evolution. There are teachers today who have been lead to believe the movie version was real and use the movie to teach trusting children. This theory is now taught as fact and became the springboard upon which the religious worldview of "Humanism" was based.

If the people can be convinced that there was no creation, it necessarily follows that:

There is no creator (God)
No sacred or inalienable right to Life, Liberty, and Property (Ownership of property is unique in American and Biblical worldviews)
No divine purpose for mankind
No life after death
No Judgement Day

It then becomes much easier to promote:

Situational ethics (no absolute right or wrong),
The ends justifies the means
Abortion
Euthansia
The right to suicide
Homosexuality or any other variety of sexual exploration
The common good over individual rights
The erroneous notion that the enviroment and lower animals are more important than human beings
One World Government under socialism.

The purpose of socialism, humanism, liberalism, and most democrats is to remove God's authority so man can play God. Because the heart of man is wicked, when man becomes "god", he becomes the Devil:

They play God with the LIFE issue by promoting abortion, euthansia, etc.
They play God with the PROPERTY issue by man taking what was a gift from God, from one, and giving it to another (socialism).
They play God with the LIBERTY issue by forcing us to work many hours to pay for their socialist programs, denying parental authority to control their children, then justifying harsh laws on everyone when someone acts out that philosophy and harms another out of lack of self-control.

See what Humanism leads to:

This is a link to the "Humanist Manifesto I" written in 1933, and "Humanist Manifesto II", written in 1973, the official faith statements of "Humanism" for your perusal.
You will notice one of there objectives is to teach falsities about opposing philosophy, so they can more easily silence their competition. Because God's mandate "do not lie" is treated as irrelevant by them, this "lying in order to win" doesn't qualify as "immoral" to them; they have no standard. This "Humanism" and it's denial of morality, is the "religious worldview" of today's public institutions, both government and education.
The word "morality" means "rights and wrongs".
The word "sacred" means "that which cannot be questioned".
The word "secular" means "profane".
We have not removed "religion" from our schools and government; we have removed "Christianity" and replaced it with the religion of "Humanism".

******************************************************************************

Are We Living Under the Communist Manifesto?

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known, and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor. He speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in hearts of men. He rots the soul of a nation. He works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city. He infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A Murderer Is Less To Be Feared." Cicero, 42 B.C.

The only difference between communism and socialism is its method of imposition. Communism is forced upon the people against their will. Socialism on the other hand is entered into voluntarily by the majority of voters.

Even though the goals are the same, socialism is much more dangerous because it gradually enslaves the people without the use of visible force, while artfully disguising its evil motives with a variety of so-called noble causes.

Socialism and humanism cannot survive exposure unless "good men and women do nothing". The following is offered in hopes that you will join our efforts to expose those evils. Your comments are WELCOME!

The 10 planks of the communist manifesto written in 1848 by Karl Marx appear below in red.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Communist Manifesto

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. Property tax paid annually prevents the outright ownership of property, because if property can be confiscated for taxes owed, it can never truly be owned. The application of our rents of land (property taxes)are used for public purposes as envisioned by Karl Marx.

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. The income tax was imposed upon the people briefly after the War Between The Southern States and The dictatorial Federal Government. In 1895, The US Supreme Court abolished it with the words, "The income tax is indeed a direct tax and therefore unconstitutional". The Court understood that, "No capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid,..." Art. 1, Sec. 9, of the US Constitution, means exactly what it says. However, in 1913 there were enough socialist in Congress to again foist the income tax upon the people with the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. The income tax is not designed just to raise taxes, which could be accomplished very easily with a national sales tax. Instead, its goal is to punish achievement, invade privacy, and control the people through fear and intimidation from the most gestapo-like arm of our government, the I.R.S.

Abolition of all right of inheritance. Our inheritance tax puts all rights of inheritance in jeopardy. Property tax, income tax, and inheritance tax, should be abolished because they are all direct taxes and they all violate our God-given property rights. They could be replaced with indirect taxes like sales tax, tobacco tax, alcohol tax, or gasoline tax. Some advantages of indirect taxes are:

They are indeed Constitutional.
Our privacy would be protected.
Everyone who spends money participates including the super-wealthy, foreign visitors, illegal aliens, drug dealers, and others now in the underground economy.

It is a pay as you go system - no April 15th.
The IRS and all associated collection cost would be eliminated.
Lower production cost will allow business to compete internationally.
Prices would come down more than enough to cover the sales tax increase.
Business would expand creating new jobs.
The money now in off-shore tax-havens would flood back into this country stimulating the economy.
Manufacturing would come back home absent the over-taxation and over-regulation that drove them to foreign countries.

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Our government does not normally confiscate property of emigrants, however, many laws and regulations have been passed in recent years which allow many government agencies such as the I.R.S., O.S.H.A., E.P.A., B.L.M., and drug enforcement agencies to confiscate property from citizens that are considered rebels. Much of this confiscation is achieved without due process of law.

Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. The Federal Reserve System was created in 1913. It is not federally owned and nothing is in reserve. It is a private corporation with the power to increase or decrease the money supply by changing the interest rates and the reserve requirements of its member banks. It can create money out of thin air, lend it to the government and then collect the principal and interest from the taxpayers. That is why its owners always have and always will promote war and socialism to create inextinguishable government debt.

"Permit me to control the currency of a nation and I care not who makes its laws" Baron De Rothschild, brainchild of the Federal Reserve Bank.
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson

Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. Communication and transportation are controlled by a number of government agencies, e.g., The Federal Communication Commission (FCC), The Dept. of Transportation (DOT), The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Public Television is also a good example of state control of communication for the indoctrination of the concepts of socialism and humanism.

Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvements of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. Dan Smoot's book, "The Business End of Government" revealed that, the federal government owned 1165 different businesses like AMTRAC. The Bureau of land Management, The Department of Agriculture, The Department of Commerce, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), etc., all promote a common plan of more and more regulation and control from government with less and less freedom enjoyed by the people.

Equal liability of all to labor and the establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. Heavy taxation, over-regulation, and other economic problems caused by our government's adoption of socialism has forced women to labor equally with men. Our industrial army is the Social Security System which requires membership at birth.

Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of population over the country. We are not living under this plank totally. However, we do have many large agriculture corporations who have combined all levels of production from the farm to the consumer. It appears that the goal of this plank is to reduce the number of family farms making it easier to gain control of all food and fiber production. This goal is fast becoming reality.

Free education for all children in public schools.... Communist and socialist have long recognized the value of indoctrination through a free educational system. And, it has produced a people with no understanding of the vast differences between the Free Enterprise System and socialism. During our Bicentennial celebrations (1986), a national poll of school children revealed that 46% of them believed that "From him with the most ability - to him with the most need" was part of our Constitution. Today all socialist, all liberals and most democracts believe the same thing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would it surprise you to learn that "The Democractic Socialist of America" are alive and well in the U.S.A.. Its "Progressive Caucus" list 58 members from the U.S. House of Representatives. All are democrats except their chairman, Benard Sanders, who ran on the socialist party ticket. You can find the list at: Democratic Socialist of America

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds." Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850).

Some thoughts on the Declaration of Independence

2009-12-03T10:07:00.000-08:00

By Gary McLeod

The Declaration of Independence served two purposes at the time of its adoption. It set forth the proper function of government and the causes of separation from the King of England. Today the citizens of the United States have many more causes of separation from our own government than the Founders had for their separation from the King. Those many causes exist because of a lack of understanding of the self-evident truths discussed below:

That all Men are created equal, presupposes a Creator (GOD). It did not say that all men evolved equally from apes and yet our schools have been teaching that insidious lie to our children since the days of the "monkey trials" of 1925. Neither does it guarantee equal results. It means that all men are viewed equally by GOD and should be viewed equally by man's judicial system. It could be said that all men are created with an equal opportunity to become unequal.

That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, unalienable Rights are Rights that cannot be taken away legitimately unless one forfeits his own Rights by taking the Rights of another.

That among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, Among these indicates that these were not ALL of the rights granted by GOD but the most basic. According to other writings of the Founders and the Constitution, Pursuit of Happiness included Property Rights. Life, Liberty and Property are all esential elements for the Pursuit of Happiness. If any one of these rights are taken by government without due process of law, the result is tyranny.

That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, These words clearly indentify the proper function of government, which is to protect God-given rights. That protection was meant to extend only to protection from other people and other countries. It is NOT a proper function of government to protect the people from themselves. Individuals are responsible for themselves and must suffer or benefit from the consequenses of their own actions.

Deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, Consent does NOT mean majority opinion as some would have us believe. We The People can only grant consent for government to do a thing on our behalf that we ourselves have the right to do (e.g. protection of Rights). Most of our government's current activities are redistribution of the wealth schemes (socialism), which enslave both the taxpayer and the recipient.

The Founder's self-evident truths apply to all governments, which is why "Citizens For Constitutional Government" accepts members and affiliates from all countries. Our goal is to secure "The Blessings Of Liberty" envisioned by the Founders and we need your help spreading the word!!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

(Including all 27 reasons for separation, not just the one reason of "Taxation without representation" taught in public schools)

Action of Second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America

WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

HE has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.

HE has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

HE has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.

HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.

HE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.

HE has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of the Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and the Convulsions within.

HE has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.

HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.

HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.

HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us;

FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World: FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:

FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:

FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rules into these Colonies:

FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.

HE has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

HE has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.

HE is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.

HE has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.

IN every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.

NOR have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.

WE, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATED OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Benjamin Rush: The Doctor of America’s Revolution

2009-11-30T21:06:00.000-08:00

by Jonathan Board

There are many names synonymous with the cognomen of “founding father;” names like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams. Yet the aforementioned hold something else, perhaps far greater than status immortality, in common: that of the wise counsel and friendship of a little known medical doctor. This doctor was held in such high regard that his death prompted Thomas Jefferson to pen these words to John Adams, “[a]nother of our friends of seventy-six is gone, my dear sir; another of the co-signers of the declaration of independence of our country. A better man […] could not have left us, more benevolent, more learned, of finer genius, or more honest,1” to which Adams sorrowfully replied, “[a] man of science, letters, taste, sense, philosophy, patriotism, religion, morality, merit, usefulness, taken all together, has never left his equal in America; that I know, in the world. In him is taken away […] a main prop of my life.2” The “benevolent” co-signer of the declaration of independence Jefferson mentioned was indeed a patriot unmatched in America as Adams suggested; his name: Benjamin Rush.

Early Life

Benjamin Rush was born on December 2, 1745, in Byberry Township, near Philadelphia.3 Tragically, Benjamin’s father, John, died six years later, leaving his mother Susanna to tend to the needs of the farm and her seven children.4 As a Quaker in the vein of John Fox, Susanna was determined to see to the children’s education, both academically, and spiritually. In an attempt to provide for her family, Susanna sold the Rush farm and moved into Philadelphia, a feat rarely attempted by single mothers in those days.

In late 1754, Benjamin was sent to live with his as yet relatively unknown uncle, Dr. Samuel Finley, an ordained minister. Finley, who later became the president of Princeton University,5 was far more than a simple caregiver to little Benjamin – he was a full-fledged father figure. It was said that Finley “not only regarded the temporal but the spiritual welfare of those committed to his care.6” That same year, Benjamin entered Dr. Finley’s renowned West Nottingham School in Maryland. Rush excelled in academia, a trait that was to follow him throughout his life, and by 1759, had exhausted all his uncle’s school had to offer.

With no intention of remaining in Maryland, Rush took and successfully passed the Princeton University entrance examination. It was at Princeton that Benjamin, at the tender age fifteen, was introduced to the teachings of Dr. John Redman, a well known medical doctor from Philadelphia. It is of little speculation that Dr. Redman had a lasting affect on Rush’s life, as, upon entrance into Princeton, it was Rush’s outspoken intention to study religion (following in the footsteps of his uncle), but later changed his interest to that of law, and ultimately, settled on Dr. Redman’s profession of medicine. Upon graduation, Rush entered an apprenticeship under Dr. Redman in Philadelphia. During his apprenticeship, Rush participated in the arts of classical surgery and the development of the (then) modern administration of medicine.7 To aid in his understanding of the profession, Rush entered the College of Pennsylvania (which later became the University of Pennsylvania) School of Medicine.8 However, after only two years in Philadelphia, Dr. Redmond urged Rush to leave the colonies and further his education at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. Susanna Rush strongly encouraged the move, and Benjamin, then seventeen, wisely heeded their advice and left the comforts of home for the unknown of Scotland in 1766. Rush was granted entrance into the University of Edinburgh, where he earned a medical degree.9

Rush expanded his experience by using university holidays to travel to numerous small towns throughout the region, and while there, practiced medicine. During these travels, Rush found a working knowledge of the native languages to be a necessity, and with his typical zeal toward learning, went about mastering Italian, German, French, and Spanish.10 This zeal of learning ultimately led him to volunteer his own digestive system to “otherwise unknown” exploratory experiments in attempt to add further credence to his doctoral thesis “The Digestion of Food in the Stomach.” 11 After receiving his medical degree, Rush accepted a position in London under the famed Royal Court Physician, Sir John Pringle. While in London, Rush became Joseph Black’s lecture assistant and claimed that Black “has honored me with his particular friendship.12” It was in London that Benjamin, now Dr. Rush, was introduced to Benjamin Franklin, however, little is known about this first of many meetings.13 In an attempt to complete his medical tour of Europe, Dr. Rush traveled to France, where he was introduced to numerous surgical techniques which he would later employ heavily in his practice in America.

In 1769, at the age of twenty-four, Benjamin Rush left Europe with the training, education, and experience of several lifetimes. It is unquestionable that young Dr. Rush did not forget the instruction of his mother while traveling abroad; it was so evident that, upon his return to the colonies, famed physician and congressman Dr. David Ramsay exclaimed, “such was the force of pious example and religious education in the first fifteen years of his life, that though he spent the ensuing nine in Philadelphia, Edinburgh, London, and Paris, exposed to the manifold temptations which are inseparable from great cities, yet he returned at the age of twenty-four to his native country with the same purity of morals he brought with him […] the serene allurements of pleasure, the fascinations of diversions, had no power to divert him from the correct principles and sober orderly habits which had been engrafted on his mind in early youth.14

The Father of American Medicine: Hero, Reformer, and Visionary

In the colonies, especially in the early years of Dr. Rush, most men of science were more men of affairs, who were far more “intimately concerned with the wider interests of people than science,”15 or medicine for that matter. Dr. Rush broke that mold, and that is why, according to the scientific writers of the day, “the nation knew few more eminent figures than Benjamin Rush […] Indeed, if one were obliged to name the one greatest figure in our medical annals, perhaps Rush would be the man.”16

At the age of twenty-four, Dr. Rush became the first professor of chemistry in America when he was appointed Chemistry Chair at the College of Philadelphia.17 He opened his own highly-respected practice in Philadelphia; people of all stations in life were accepted in his practice, beginning with the poor, whom Dr. Rush took special note and care of throughout his life.18 As his practice grew, so to did his renown as a “modern” practitioner who used different styles and systems in achieving health, including the so-called art of “natural medicine.”19 Although his methods were considered progressive amongst his peers in the medical field,20 for certain ailments, Dr. Rush still practiced the somewhat antiquated art of bloodletting—which was later found to be more detrimental to the patient than at first thought. However, his expertise in the field of natural medicine, knowledge largely acquired while in Scotland, proved invaluable, not only to his practice, but to his later political appointments of war.

Although his work as a physician was demanding, Rush’s love of scholarly pursuits continued. His disdain for slavery, which he based primarily on his study of societies and his religious belief that all mankind was created equal, became well-known when, in 1773, he published, “An Address to the British Settlements in America, Upon Slave Keeping.”21 In it, he chastised certain leaders of the day who claimed that the Bible neither condemned nor prohibited slavery; he likened such comments to the justification of a highway robbery because, “part of the money acquired in this manner was appropriated to some religious use.” 22 He further exclaimed that, “a Christian slave is a contradiction in terms.” 23 His strong abolitionist beliefs proved vital in the creation of the first anti-slavery society in the colonies, known as the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage, of which he later became president.24 Thereafter, Dr. Rush, along with Benjamin Franklin, wrote the constitution for the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery.25

Although Dr. Rush and his ideas enjoyed much recognition, especially in the north, a catastrophe loomed that would require all of his social and political interests to be trumped only by the necessity of his medical knowledge. In the summer of 1793, the Yellow Fever epidemic began innocently enough, causing discomfort to only a small number of inner-city residents in Philadelphia. However, by June of that year, the number of deaths attributed to yellow fever was in the hundreds. It was at this time that Dr. Rush demanded that all inhabitants of Philadelphia depart for the relative safety of the surrounding countryside with “greatest haste.” 26 Of those numerous thousands that fled the city, many were politicians, as Philadelphia was serving as the interim capitol (because John Adams had brokered a deal with the Virginian federalists to remove the capitol from New York).27 Alexander Hamilton, who was stricken with the fever, left for New York to recover, George Washington, who was serving as president at the time, retired to Mt. Vernon, and even the stoic Thomas Jefferson, who claimed that his duties within government required that he remain in the city, acquiesced to Rush’s warning and fled to the refuge and clear air of Monticello.28 Dr. Rush, however, stayed behind, claiming that “[I have] resolved to stick to my principals, my practice, and my patients, to the last extremity.” 29 He even called upon his own medical students to stay, stating “as for myself, I am determined to stay. I may fall victim to the epidemic, and so may you gentlemen, but I prefer, since I am placed here by Devine Providence, to fall in performing my duty, if such must be the consequence of staying… I will remain, if I remain alone.” 30 The last words of his charge nearly came to fruition, as at one point, Dr. Rush noted that over six-thousand men, women, and children, were in need of a physician, yet only he and two other doctors remained in the city. Yet many of his medical students, whom he liked to call his “little scholars,” 31 heeded his charge and remained with him in the city in an attempt to abate the spread of the dreaded fever; three paid the ultimate price for their selflessness. In a rare showing of emotion, Dr. Rush wrote, “My ingenious pupil, Mr. Washington, fell a victim to his humanity… Mr. Stall sickened in my house… Scarcely had I recovered from the shock of the death of this amiable youth, when I was called to weep for a third pupil, Mr. Alston, who died… the next day.” 32 Perhaps in an attempt to disassociate himself from grief, or simply as the consummate scholar, Dr. Rush researched the plague, and found that his own prior work from 1762 as a medical student was the most thorough.33 However detailed, his paper yielded little as to a cause or cure for the deadly fever.

Dr. Rush again turned to his knowledge of natural systems gained while traveling abroad. Rather than blood-letting, the standard practice of the day for curing the fever, Dr. Rush turned to medical cocktails, a move that many claimed to be the foolish final grasp of a beaten physician. Dr. Rush proved otherwise. Patients who were given the cocktail, consisting of specific roots and herbs, began to improve within a few hours, and most showed complete recovery within a number of days.34 Although the concoction was not perfect, as some, especially the elderly, still succumbed to the fever, it was so successful on such a large portion of the afflicted that it became the common prescription for the fever.

As the fever crisis in Philadelphia subsided, Dr. Rush turned his attention toward another crisis—one which affected many more thousands, and yet was viewed by the upper class as unimportant, primarily because the afflicted class had no voice and were simply known as, the deranged. Many years before, in 1783, Dr. Rush accepted membership with the Pennsylvania Hospital, at which time he was given charge of the mental ward. Now, some 11 years later, Dr. Rush was able to commit the full weight of his academic and histological reasoning upon the subject.

His first reform simply demanded that hospital officials treat those suffering from mental illness as, at a minimum, human. As such, those individuals could handle certain tasks, like grinding corn for the livestock, weaving clothes, and maintaining the local hay barns; in so doing, Dr. Rush gave these people far more than simple tasks—he gave them purpose.35 In a time where the mentally ill and deranged were considered little more than wild animals, and far more dangerous, Dr. Rush’s recommendations were nothing less than revolutionary, and highly controversial. Yet Dr. Rush remained steadfast in his reformation, going even further in demanding that someone of sound mind, on a routine basis, accompany an individual suffering mentally, someone who could walk and talk with them, and by doing so, perhaps bring the lost vessel to his proper mind.36 For the next three decades, Dr. Rush continued to advocate for the rights and interests of the mentally handicapped while dissuading public opinion about these special and important individuals of society.37

Although many claim Dr. Rush was made famous by his heroism and ultimate success during the Yellow Fever epidemic, closer inspection reveals that it was his scholarly tenacity, his heart for humanity, and his complete selflessness in the protection of his fellow man that were the true driving factors. Indeed, it was those seldom noted concerns for the health of the poor and mentally ill that truly supplanted Dr. Benjamin Rush as the father of American medicine.

A Life of Service: Patriot and Friend

Long before the plague of 1793, and shortly after Dr. Rush’s return from Europe, there was growing tension between the colonies and England. Factions arose whose members clamored for recognition at any cost. Without hesitation, Rush joined with the likes of such separatists as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin.

With years of experience in London and much of Europe, Rush knew firsthand what evils monarchial rule could wreck on the natural desire of human independence, ingenuity, and spirit. It was with those thoughts in mind that Rush began to discuss the idea of complete independence from the crown. During one such debate, Rush encouraged Thomas Paine, an English immigrant, who, under the recommendation of Benjamin Franklin, was appointed as a columnist at the Pennsylvania Magazine, to write something to “the propriety of preparing our citizens for a perpetual separation of our country from Great Britain.”38 According to Rush, Paine “seized the idea with avidity and immediately began his famous pamphlet in favor on that measure.”39 The document created a binding relationship between Rush and Paine, as often, Paine would compose and read portions of it aloud to Rush at his residence. Rush applauded the logic and persuasiveness of the pamphlet, yet made one dramatic recommendation: they changed the name of the document to Common Sense (rather than Paine’s suggestion of Plain Truth),40 and the rest is of course, history. Numerous newspapers, commentaries, and politicians touted Common Sense as the single most influential document in changing the colonist’s opinion—away from servitude and toward independence. Samuel Adams declared that Common Sense “unquestionably awakened the public mind and led the people loudly to call for the declaration of independence.”41 Rush’s involvement with Common Sense and Thomas Paine led to political scrutiny, perhaps more than he wished. This rise in prominence continued until he was considered a mainstay among the political elite. John and Abigail Adams lived in his home for a time, he dined with George Washington on a regular basis, and strolled the streets of Philadelphia and participated in friendly debates with Patrick Henry, John Jay, and Richard Henry Lee.42

Rush’s desire for independence was so strong, that when the Pennsylvania legislature stood against breaking from Brittan, he personally penned orders rallying citizens to oust any members who voted for fealty to the crown. His work was persuasive enough that the opposing members where indeed ousted; it surprised no one when, only one week later, Rush was elected to replace one such member.43 Later that year, on August 2, 1776, Rush, along with a nine member delegation from Pennsylvania, signed the Declaration of Independence.

His unsurpassed knowledge of the medical sciences led to his immediate appointment as Surgeon General in the Continental Army, where he served on the battlefields of Princeton and Trenton.44 Rush later published, “Directions for Preserving the Health of Soldiers” in which he recalled his experience on the battlefield and the proper methods for treating common war injuries. The work was found to be so insightful that it was used over nearly a century later during the American Civil War.45

Rush’s service to Pennsylvania never ceased as, in 1790, he and James Wilson co-authored the state’s constitution. Seven years later, he was appointed Treasurer of the U.S. Mint, a position that spanned the presidencies of Adams, Jefferson, and Madison—each of whom represented a different political party. Rush, however, declined to claim any party or faction, stating that, “I have alternately been called an aristocrat and a democrat. I am now neither. I am a Christocrat. I believe that all power… will always fail of producing order and happiness in the hands of man. He alone who created and redeemed man is qualified to govern him.”46

Rush’s political experience was not without intrigue, however, as he recalled, “[a] bit of gossip was passed on at third hand by [John] Adams to the effect Washington had once said ‘He had been a good deal in the world, and seen many bad men, but Dr. Rush was the most black-hearted scoundrel he had ever known.47’” It is important to note that Adams, knowing the type of man that Washington was, only mentioned the comment to expose it as nothing more than fallacious gossip. However, Dr. Rush did not accept the anecdote as unfounded and expressed privately that he was deeply hurt by the comment. Revisiting the incident years later, he wrote, “When Calvin heard that Luther had called him ‘a child of the devil,’ he coolly replied, ‘Luther is a servant of the most high God.’ In answer to the epithet which G. Washington has applied to me, I will as coolly reply, ‘He was the highly favored instrument whose patriotism and name contributed greatly to the establishment of the independence of the United States.48’” That said, one wonders if such sentiments pre-dated the quips and gossip recounted in his letter, as years earlier, while Washington lead the continental army out of valley Forge, Rush and several other members of congress created a society known as the Conway Cabal,49 whose primary goal was the ousting of Washington from command. Only after the Cabal’s failure did Rush lament his involvement in it.50

Conclusion

From humble beginnings, toils, and struggles, Benjamin Rush rose to the forefront of American prominence—academically, medically, and politically. Rush died on April 19th, 1819 of natural causes. It was said that Rush was prominent in the halls of science on both sides of the Atlantic.51 It was further noted that, the event of his death:

Threw a general gloom upon the community, and multitudes followed him to his grave with marks of profound grief and affliction… The loss of no individual of this country, excepting that of Washington or Franklin, has been lamented with more universal and pathetic demonstrations of sorrow… [S]ermons were preached, eulogies pronounced, and processions formed throughout the United States as a just tribute to the memory of the departed sage, patriot, scholar and philanthropist… When the sad tidings reached England and France, the same demonstrations of respect were manifested there… [T]he graves of but few men have been moistened by as many tears from the rich and poor—high and low—as that of Dr. Rush.52

Dr. Charles Meigs summed up Rush’s life by proclaiming, “Dr. Rush looks like an angel of light; his words bear in them… irresistible persuasion and conviction; in fact, to me he seems more than mortal. If ever a human being deserved deification, it is Dr. Rush.”53

Great praise was lauded upon Rush, yet to his own success, he deferred to his father and mother when he stated, “I have acquired and received nothing from the world which I prize so highly as the religious principles I inherited from them; and I possess nothing that I value so much as the innocence and purity of their characters.”54 Surely his parents must be pleased.

Of all the great names associated with the founding of our country, Benjamin Rush is most deserving of a place among them.

The Story Of Jonah

2009-11-10T06:35:00.000-08:00

The story of Jonah from Corinth Baptist Church on Vimeo.

Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher About Intelligent Design

2009-10-01T11:49:00.000-07:00

William A. Dembski & Sean McDowell

1. Design Detection
If nature, or some aspect of it, is intelligently designed, how could we tell?

Design inferences in the past were largely informal and intuitive. Usually people knew it when they saw it. Intelligent design, by introducing specified complexity, makes the detection of design rigorous. Something is complex if it is hard to reproduce by chance and specified if it matches an independently given pattern (an example is the faces on Mt. Rushmore). Specified complexity gives a precise criterion for reliably inferring intelligence.

2. Looking for Design in Biology
Should biologists be encouraged to look for signs of intelligence in biological systems? Why or why not?

Scientists today look for signs of intelligence coming in many places, including from distant space (consider SETI, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence). Yet, many biologists regard it as illegitimate to look for signs of intelligence in biological systems. Why arbitrarily exclude design inferences from biology if we accept them for other scientific disciplines? It is an open question whether the apparent design in nature is real.

3. The Rules of Science
Who determines the rules of science? Are these rules written in stone? Is it mandatory that scientific explanations only appeal to matter and energy operating by unbroken natural laws (a principle known as methodological naturalism)?

The rules of science are not written in stone. They have been negotiated over many centuries as science (formerly called "natural philosophy") has tried to understand the natural world. These rules have changed in the past and they will change in the future. Right now much of the scientific community is bewitched by a view of science called methodological naturalism, which says that science may only offer naturalistic explanations. Science seeks to understand nature. If intelligent causes operate in nature, then methodological naturalism must not be used to rule them out.

4. Biology's Information Problem
How do we account for the complex information-rich patterns in biological systems? What is the source of that information?

The central problem for biology is information. Living things are not mere lumps of matter. Life is special, and what makes life special is the arrangement of its matter into very specific forms. In other words, what makes life special is information. Where did the information necessary for life come from? Where did the information necessary for the Cambrian explosion come from? How can a blind material process generate the novel information of biological systems? ID argues that such information has an intelligent source.

5. Molecular Machines
Do any structures in the cell resemble machines designed by humans? How do we account for such structures?

The biological world is full of molecular machines that are strikingly similar to humanly made machines. In fact, they are more than similar. Just about every engineering principle that we employ in our own machines gets used at the molecular level, with this exception: the technology inside the cell vastly exceeds human technology. How, then, do biologists explain the origin of such structures? How can a blind material process generate the multiple coordinated changes needed to build a molecular machine? If we see a level of engineering inside the cell that far surpasses our own abilities, it is reasonable to conclude that these molecular machines are actually, and not merely apparently, designed.

6. Irreducible Complexity
What are irreducibly complex systems? Do such systems exist in biology? If so, are those systems evidence for design? If not, why not?

The biological world is full of functioning molecular systems that cannot be simplified without losing the system's function. Take away parts and the system's function cannot be recovered. Such systems are called irreducibly complex. How do evolutionary theorists propose to account for such systems? What detailed, testable, step-by-step proposals explain the emergence of irreducibly complex machines such as the flagellum? Given that intelligence is known to design such systems, it is a reasonable inference to conclude that they were designed.

7. Similar Structures
Human designers reuse designs that work well. Life forms also reuse certain structures (the camera eye, for example, appears in humans and octopuses). How well does this evidence support Darwinian evolution? Does it support intelligent design more strongly?

Evolutionary biologists attribute similar biological structures to either common descent or convergence. Structures are said to result from convergence if they evolved independently from distinct lines of organisms. Darwinian explanations of convergence strain credulity because they must account for how trial-and-error tinkering (natural selection acting on random variations) could produce strikingly similar structures in widely different organisms and environments. It's one thing for evolution to explain similarity by common descent-the same structure is then just carried along in different lineages. It's another to explain it as the result of blind tinkering that happened to hit on the same structure multiple times. Design proponents attribute such similar structures to common design (just as an engineer may use the same parts in different machines). If human designers frequently reuse successful designs, the designer of nature can surely do the same.

8. Fine-Tuning
The laws of physics are fine-tuned to allow life to exist. Since designers are capable of fine-tuning a system, can design be considered the best explanation for the universe?

Physicists agree that the constants of nature have a strange thing in common: they seem precisely calibrated for the existence of life. As Frederick Hoyle famously remarked, it appears that someone has "monkeyed" with physics. Naturalistic explanations that attempt to account for this eerie fine-tuning invariably introduce entities for which there is no independent evidence (for example, they invoke multiple worlds with which we have no physical way of interacting). The fine-tuning of the universe strongly suggests that it was intelligently designed.

9. The Privileged Planet
The Earth seems ideally positioned in our galaxy for complex life to exist and for scientific discovery to advance. Does this privileged status of Earth indicate intelligent design? Why or why not?

Many factors had to come together on earth for human life to exist (chapter 9). We exist in just the right place in just the right type of galaxy at just the right cosmic moment. We orbit the right type of star at the right distance for life. The earth has large surrounding planets to protect us from comets, a moon to direct important life-permitting cycles, and an iron core that protects us from harmful radiation. Moreover, the earth has many features that facilitate scientific discovery, such as a moon that makes possible perfect eclipses. Humans seem ideally situated on the earth to make scientific discoveries. This suggests that a designer designed our place in the world so that we can understand the world's design. Naturalism, by contrast, leaves it a complete mystery why we should be able to do science and gain insight into the underlying structure of the world.

10. The Origin of the Universe
The universe gives every indication of having a beginning. Since something cannot come from nothing, is it legitimate to conclude that a designer made the universe? If not, why not?

For most of world history, scientists believed the universe was eternal. With advances in our understanding of cosmology over the last forty years, however, scientists now recognize that the universe had a beginning and is finite in duration and size. In other words, the universe has not always been there. Since the universe had a beginning, why not conclude that it had a designer that brought it into existence? Since matter, space, and time themselves had a beginning, this would suggest that the universe had a non-physical, non-spatial, and non-temporal cause. A designer in the mold of the Christian God certainly fits the bill.

Taken from: Understanding Intelligent Design
Copyright © 2008 by William A. Dembski and Sean McDowell
Published by Harvest House Publishers
Eugene, Oregon 97402
http://www.harvesthousepublishers.com/

David Berlinski on Darwinism

2009-09-28T11:02:00.001-07:00

Articles by David Berlinski

Is President Obama Correct: Is America No Longer a Christian Nation?

2009-09-26T13:17:00.000-07:00

Is America A Christian Nation?
by David Barton

The best antidote to the type of revisionism embodied by President Obama’s statement is for citizens (1) to know the truth of America’s history and (2) share that truth with others.

Over the past several years, President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that America is not a Christian nation. He asserted that while a U. S. Senator, 1 repeated it as a presidential candidate, 2 and on a recent presidential trip to Turkey announced to the world that Americans “do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.” 3 (He made that announcement in Turkey because he said it was “a location he said he chose to send a clear message.” 4 ) Then preceding a subsequent trip to Egypt, he declared that America was “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world” 5 (even though the federal government’s own statistics show that less than one-percent of Americans are Muslims. 6

The President’s statements were publicized across the world but received little attention in the American media. Had they been carried here, the President might have been surprised to learn that nearly two-thirds of Americans currently consider America to be a Christian nation 7 and therefore certainly might have taken exception with his remarks. But regardless of what today’s Americans might think, it is unquestionable that four previous centuries of American leaders would definitely take umbrage with the President’s statements.

Modern claims that America is not a Christian nation are rarely noticed or refuted today because of the nation’s widespread lack of knowledge about America’s history and foundation. To help provide the missing historical knowledge necessary to combat today’s post-modern revisionism, presented below will be some statements by previous presidents, legislatures, and courts (as well as by current national Jewish spokesmen) about America being a Christian nation. These declarations from all three branches of government are representative of scores of others and therefore comprise only the proverbial “tip of the iceberg.”

Defining a Christian Nation

Contemporary post-modern critics (including President Obama) who assert that America is not a Christian nation always refrain from offering any definition of what the term “Christian nation” means. So what is an accurate definition of that term as demonstrated by the American experience?

Contrary to what critics imply, a Christian nation is not one in which all citizens are Christians, or the laws require everyone to adhere to Christian theology, or all leaders are Christians, or any other such superficial measurement. As Supreme Court Justice David Brewer (1837-1910) explained:

[I]n what sense can [America] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world. 8

So, if being a Christian nation is not based on any of the above criterion, then what makes America a Christian nation? According to Justice Brewer, America was “of all the nations in the world . . . most justly called a Christian nation” because Christianity “has so largely shaped and molded it.” 9

Constitutional law professor Edward Mansfield (1801-1880) similarly acknowledged:

In every country, the morals of a people – whatever they may be – take their form and spirit from their religion. For example, the marriage of brothers and sisters was permitted among the Egyptians because such had been the precedent set by their gods, Isis and Osiris. So, too, the classic nations celebrated the drunken rites of Bacchus. Thus, too, the Turk has become lazy and inert because dependent upon Fate, as taught by the Koran. And when in recent times there arose a nation [i.e., France] whose philosophers [e.g. Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Helvetius, etc.] discovered there was no God and no religion, the nation was thrown into that dismal case in which there was no law and no morals. . . . In the United States, Christianity is the original, spontaneous, and national religion. 10

Founding Father and U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall agreed:

[W]ith us, Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people our institutions did not presuppose Christianity and did not often refer to it and exhibit relations with it. 11
Christianity is the religion that shaped America and made her what she is today. In fact, historically speaking, it can be irrefutably demonstrated that Biblical Christianity in America produced many of the cherished traditions still enjoyed today, including:

* A republican rather than a theocratic form of government;
* The institutional separation of church and state (as opposed to today’s enforced institutional secularization of church and state);
* Protection for religious toleration and the rights of conscience;
* A distinction between theology and behavior, thus allowing the incorporation into public policy of religious principles that promote good behavior but which do not enforce theological tenets (examples of this would include religious teachings such as the Good Samaritan, The Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, etc., all of which promote positive civil behavior but do not impose ecclesiastical rites); and
*A free-market approach to religion, thus ensuring religious diversity.

Consequently, a Christian nation as demonstrated by the American experience is a nation founded upon Christian and Biblical principles, whose values, society, and institutions have largely been shaped by those principles. This definition was reaffirmed by American legal scholars and historians for generations 12 but is widely ignored by today’s revisionists.

American Presidents Affirm that America is a Christian Nation

With his recent statement, President Barack Obama is the first American president to deny that America is a Christian nation – a repudiation of what made America great and a refutation of the declarations of his presidential predecessors. Notice a few representative statements on this subject by some of the forty-three previous presidents:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. 13 JOHN ADAMS

[T]he teachings of the Bible are so interwoven and entwined with our whole civic and social life that it would be literally….impossible for us to figure to ourselves what that life would be if these teaching were removed. 14 TEDDY ROOSEVELT

America was born a Christian nation – America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture. 15 WOODROW WILSON

American life is builded, and can alone survive, upon . . . [the] fundamental philosophy announced by the Savior nineteen centuries ago. 16 HERBERT HOOVER

This is a Christian Nation. 17 HARRY TRUMAN

Let us remember that as a Christian nation . . . we have a charge and a destiny. 18 RICHARD NIXON

There are many additional examples, including even that of Thomas Jefferson.

Significantly, Jefferson was instrumental in establishing weekly Sunday worship services at the U. S. Capitol (a practice that continued through the 19th century) and was himself a regular and faithful attendant at those church services, 19 not even allowing inclement weather to dissuade his weekly horseback travel to the Capitol church. 20

(The fact that the U. S. Capitol building was available for church on Sundays was due to the Art. I, Sec. 7 constitutional requirement that forbade federal lawmaking on Sundays; and this recognition of a Christian Sabbath in the U. S. Constitution was cited by federal courts as proof of the Christian nature of America. 21 While not every Christian observes a Sunday Sabbath, no other religion in the world honors Sunday except Christianity. As one court noted, the various Sabbaths were “the Friday of the Mohammedan, the Saturday of the Israelite, or the Sunday of the Christian.” 22 )

Why was Jefferson a faithful attendant at the Sunday church at the Capitol? He once explained to a friend while they were walking to church together:

No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example. 23
President Jefferson even closed presidential documents with “In the year of our Lord Christ” (see below).

Even President Jefferson recognized and treated America as a Christian nation. Clearly, President Obama’s declaration is refuted both by history and by his own presidential predecessors.

The U. S. Congress Affirms that America is a Christian Nation

Declarations from the Legislative Branch affirming America as a Christian nation are abundant. For example, in 1852-1853 when some citizens sought a complete secularization of the public square and a cessation of all religious activities by the government, Congress responded with unambiguous declarations about America as a Christian nation:

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect [denomination]. Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation. . . . In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. 24

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: We are Christians, not because the law demands it, not to gain exclusive benefits or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education; and in a land thus universally Christian, what is to be expected, what desired, but that we shall pay a due regard to Christianity? 25

In 1856, the House of Representatives also declared:

[T]he great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 26

On March 3, 1863 while in the midst of the Civil War, the U. S. Senate requested President Abraham Lincoln to “designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation” 27 because:

[S]incerely believing that no people, however great in numbers and resources or however strong in the justice of their cause, can prosper without His favor; and at the same time deploring the national offences which have provoked His righteous judgment, yet encouraged in this day of trouble by the assurances of His word to seek Him for succor according to His appointed way through Jesus Christ, the Senate of the United States do hereby request the President of the United States, by his proclamation, to designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation. 28 (emphasis added)

President Lincoln quickly complied with that request, 29 and issued what today has become one of the most famous and quoted proclamations in America’s history. 30

Across the generations, our national reliance on God, the Bible, and Christianity has been repeatedly reaffirmed. In fact, consider five representative images produced by the U. S. Government. The first three are from World War II: one shows the Nazis as the enemy because they want to attack the Bible, and the other two encourage Americans to buy War Bonds by pointing to Christian images. The fourth and fifth images are from the Department of Agriculture in the 1960s, using the Bible and even Smokey Bear in prayer as symbols to encourage Americans to be conscious of fire safety and to help preserve and conserve nature.

There are scores of other official actions by the U. S. Congress over the past two centuries affirming that America is a Christian nation.

The Judicial Branch Affirms that America is a Christian Nation

From the Judicial Branch, consider first some declarations of prominent U. S. Supreme Court Justices regarding America as a Christian nation.

Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) was appointed to the Court by President James Madison. Story is considered the founder of Harvard Law School and authored the three-volume classic Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833). In his 34 years on the Court, Story authored opinions in 286 cases, of which 269 were reported as the majority opinion or the opinion of the Court 31 and his many contributions to American law have caused him to be called a “Father of American Jurisprudence.” Justice Story openly declared:

One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations. . . . I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. 32

His conclusion about America and Christianity was straightforward:

In [our] republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion as the great basis on which it must rest for its support and permanence. 33

Justice John McLean (1785-1861) was appointed to the Court by President Andrew Jackson. McLean served in the U. S. Congress, as a judge on the Ohio Supreme Court, and then held cabinet positions under two U. S. Presidents. His view on the importance of Christianity to American government and its institutions was unambiguous:

For many years, my hope for the perpetuity of our institutions has rested upon Bible morality and the general dissemination of Christian principles. This is an element which did not exist in the ancient republics. It is a basis on which free governments may be maintained through all time. . . . Free government is not a self-moving machine. . . . Our mission of freedom is not carried out by brute force, by canon law, or any other law except the moral law and those Christian principles which are found in the Scriptures. 34

Justice David Brewer (1837-1910), appointed to the Court by President Benjamin Harrison, agreed. Brewer held several judgeships in Kansas and served on a federal circuit court before his appointment to the Supreme Court. Justice Brewer declared:

We constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world. 35
Brewer then chronicled the types of descriptions applied to nations:

We classify nations in various ways: as, for instance, by their form of government. One is a kingdom, another an empire, and still another a republic. Also by race. Great Britain is an Anglo-Saxon nation, France a Gallio, Germany a Teutonic, Russia a Slav. And still again by religion. One is a Mohammedan nation, others are heathen, and still others are Christian nations. This republic is classified among the Christian nations of the world. It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, 143 U.S. 471, that Court, after mentioning various circumstances, added, “these and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.” 36

Brewer did not believe that calling America a Christian nation was a hollow appellation; in fact, he penned an entire book setting forth the evidence that America was a Christian nation. He concluded:

[I] have said enough to show that Christianity came to this country with the first colonists; has been powerfully identified with its rapid development, colonial and national, and today exists as a mighty factor in the life of the republic. This is a Christian nation. . . . [T]he calling of this republic a Christian nation is not a mere pretence, but a recognition of an historical, legal, and social truth. 37
Justice Earl Warren (1891-1974) agreed with his predecessors. Before being appointed as Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Warren had been the Attorney General of California. Warren declared:

I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under law, and the reservation of powers to the people. . . . I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country. 38
There are many similar declarations by other Supreme Court Justices, but in addition to the declarations of individual judges, the federal courts have repeatedly affirmed America to be a Christian nation – including the U. S. Supreme Court, which declared that America was “a Christian country,” 39 filled with “Christian people,” 40 and was indeed “a Christian nation.” 41 Dozens of other courts past and present have repeated these pronouncements 42 but so, too, have American Presidents – as in 1947 when President Harry Truman quoted the Supreme Court, declaring:

This is a Christian Nation. More than a half century ago that declaration was written into the decrees of the highest court in this land [in an 1892 decision]. 43
In addition to its “Christian nation” declarations, the Supreme Court also regularly relied on Christian principles as the basis of its rulings on issues such as marriage, citizenship, foreign affairs, and domestic treaties.

For example, when some federal territories attempted to introduce the practice of bigamy and polygamy, the Supreme Court disallowed those practices because:

Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. 44
In another case, the Court similarly explained:

The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is . . . . contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western world. 45

And when the issue arose of whether marriages made in foreign nations would be recognized in the United States, the federal court held that foreign marriages would be recognized only if they were not “contrary to the general view of Christendom.” 46

The Supreme Court also decided military service issues in accord with Christian principles and standards. For example, in 1931, when a Canadian immigrant refused to take the oath of allegiance to the United States, the Supreme Court explained why he was therefore excluded from citizenship:

We are a Christian people (Holy Trinity Church v. United States. 143 U.S. 457, 470 , 471 S., 12 S. Ct. 511), according to one another the equal right of religious freedom and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God. But also we are a nation with the duty to survive; a nation whose Constitution contemplates war as well as peace; whose government must go forward upon the assumption (and safely can proceed upon no other) that unqualified allegiance to the nation and submission and obedience to the laws of the land, as well those made for war as those made for peace, are not inconsistent with the will of God. 47

The Supreme Court also relied on Christian principles in its rulings on international policies. For example, if an American citizen living in a foreign land was accused of a crime under the laws of a fundamentally different nation (such as in Islamic nations, secular nations, and most recently in Japan following World War II), by means of international treaties, the U. S. citizen would be tried in front of the U. S. Consul in that nation (in what were called Consular Tribunals) rather than before the courts of that country. Of this practice, the Supreme Court explained:

In other than Christian countries, they [the Consuls] were by treaty stipulations usually clothed with authority to hear complaints against their countrymen and to sit in judgment upon them when charged with public offenses. . . .
The intense hostility of the people of Moslem faith to all other sects, and particularly to Christians, affected all their intercourse [transactions] and all proceedings had in their tribunals. Even the rules of evidence adopted by them [the Muslims] placed those of different faith on unequal grounds in any controversy with them. For this cause, and by reason of the barbarous and cruel punishments inflicted in those countries and the frequent use of torture to enforce confession from parties accused, it was a matter of deep interest to Christian governments to withdraw the trial of their subjects, when charged with the commission of a public offense, from the arbitrary and despotic action of the local officials. Treaties conferring such jurisdiction upon these consuls were essential to the peaceful residence of Christians within those countries. 48

For example, an Islamic nation might charge an American with the capital-offense crime of blasphemy merely because the American attended Christian worship or used a Bible in that country; or a secular nation might accuse an American of the crime of proselytizing simply for sharing his faith with another (currently a crime in France, 49 across India, 50 Pakistan, 51 Saudi Arabia, 52 Malaysia, 53 and many other nations). In such cases, the Consul tried the offense under America’s laws as a Christian nation. However, if another nation accused an American of a crime such as murder, the charge would stand since murder was also a crime in our Christian nation. 54

The Supreme Court commended this position 55 and federal courts observed the policy until deep into the twentieth century, 56 when many foreign nations finally began to adopt what the Supreme Court had earlier called “a system of judicial procedure like that of Christian countries.” 57

Federal domestic treaties were yet another area in which the federal judiciary relied on Christian principles and standards. For example, by 1877 a number of disputes had arisen in which Indian lands were wrongly being taken for timber, minerals, and other resources. When those cases reached the Supreme Court, the Court affirmed the occupancy rights of the tribes to the lands because:

It is to be presumed that in this matter the United States would be governed by such considerations of justice as would control a Christian people . . . 58 The Court repeated this position on numerous subsequent occasions – as in 1903 when it reiterated:

[I]n decisions of this court, the Indian right of occupancy of tribal lands, whether declared in a treaty or otherwise created, has been stated to be sacred. . . . Thus. . . . “It is to be presumed that in this matter the United States would be governed by such considerations of justice as would control a Christian people . . . ” 59

The Court’s position was subsequently enacted into federal statutory law in 1906, 60 and in 1955, the Supreme Court was still praising this position 61 – a position regularly cited by other courts for decades, 62 including in the late 1990s. 63

These are just a few examples of the literally hundreds of similar cases at both federal and state levels affirming that America is indeed a Christian nation.

American Jewish Leaders Agree with History

Jewish leaders, although firmly committed to their own faith, understand that by defending Christianity they are defending what has provided them their own religious liberty in America. For example, Jeff Jacoby, a Jewish columnist at the Boston Globe explains:

This is a Christian country – it was founded by Christians and built on broad Christian principles. Threatening? Far from it. It is in precisely this Christian country that Jews have known the most peaceful, prosperous, and successful existence in their long history. 64
Aaron Zelman (a Jewish author and head of a civil rights organization) similarly declares:

[C]hristian America is the best home our people have found in 2,000 years. . . . [T]his remains the most tolerant, prosperous, and safest home we could be blessed with. 65

Dennis Prager, a Jewish national columnist and popular talkshow host, warns:

If America abandons its Judeo-Christian values basis and the central role of the Jewish and Christian Bibles (its Founders’ guiding text), we are all in big trouble, including, most especially, America’s non-Christians. Just ask the Jews of secular Europe. 66
Prager further explained:

I believe that it is good that America is a Christian nation. . . . I have had the privilege of speaking in nearly every Jewish community in America over the last 30 years, and I have frequently argued in favor of this view. Recently, I spoke to the Jewish community of a small North Carolina city. When some in the audience mentioned their fear of rising religiosity among Christians, I asked these audience-members if they loved living in their city. All of them said they did. Is it a coincidence, I then asked, that the city you so love (for its wonderful people, its safety for your children, its fine schools, and its values that enable you to raise your children with confidence) is a highly Christian city? Too many Americans do not appreciate the connection between American greatness and American Christianity. 67
Don Feder, a Jewish columnist and long time writer for the Boston Herald, similarly acknowledges:

Clearly this nation was established by Christians. . . . As a Jew, I’m entirely comfortable with the concept of the Christian America. 68 The choice isn’t Christian America or nothing, but Christian America or a neo-pagan, hedonistic, rights-without-responsibilities, anti-family, culture-of-death America. As an American Jew. . . . [I] feel very much at home here. 69 In fact, Feder calls on Jews to defend the truth that America is a Christian Nation:

Jews – as Jews – must oppose revisionist efforts to deny our nation’s Christian heritage, must stand against the drive to decouple our laws from Judeo-Christian ethics, and must counter attacks on public expressions of the religion of most Americans – Christianity. Jews are safer in a Christian America than in a secular America. 70
Michael Medved, a Jewish national talkshow host and columnist, agrees that America is indeed a Christian nation:

The framers may not have mentioned Christianity in the Constitution but they clearly intended that charter of liberty to govern a society of fervent faith, freely encouraged by government for the benefit of all. Their noble and unprecedented experiment never involved a religion-free or faithless state but did indeed presuppose America’s unequivocal identity as a Christian nation. 71
Burt Prelutsky, a Jewish columnist for the Los Angeles Times (and a freelance writer for the New York Times, Washington Times, Sports Illustrated, and other national publications) and a patriotic Jewish American, gladly embraces America as a Christian nation and even resents the secularist post-modern attack on national Christian celebrations such as Christmas:

I never thought I’d live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. . . .How is it, one well might ask, that in a Christian nation this is happening? And in case you find that designation objectionable, would you deny that India is a Hindu country, that Turkey is Muslim, that Poland is Catholic? That doesn’t mean those nations are theocracies. But when the overwhelming majority of a country’s population is of one religion, and most Americans happen to be one sort of Christian or another, only a darn fool would deny the obvious. . . .

This is a Christian nation, my friends. And all of us are fortunate it is one, and that so many millions of Americans have seen fit to live up to the highest precepts of their religion. It should never be forgotten that, in the main, it was Christian soldiers who fought and died to defeat Nazi Germany and who liberated the concentration camps.

Speaking as a member of a minority group – and one of the smaller ones at that – I say it behooves those of us who don’t accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours. Merry Christmas, my friends. 72

Orthodox Rabbi Daniel Lapin of the Jewish Policy Center unequivocally declares

[I] understand that I live . . . in a Christian nation, albeit one where I can follow my faith as long as it doesn’t conflict with the nation’s principles. The same option is open to all Americans and will be available only as long as this nation’s Christian roots are acknowledged and honored. 73
In fact, with foreboding he warns:

Without a vibrant and vital Christianity, America is doomed, and without America, the west is doomed. Which is why I, an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, devoted to Jewish survival, the Torah, and Israel am so terrified of American Christianity caving in. 74 God help Jews if America ever becomes a post-Christian society! Just think of Europe! 75

— — — ◊ ◊ ◊ — — —

President Obama’s declaration that Americans “do not consider ourselves a Christian nation” is a repudiation of the declarations of the national leaders before him and is an unabashed attempt at historical revisionism. Of such efforts, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wisely observed, “no amount of repetition of historical errors . . . can make the errors true.” 76

Americans must now decide whether centuries of presidents, congresses, and courts are correct or whether President Obama is, but historical fact does not change merely because the President declares it.

The best antidote to the type of revisionism embodied by President Obama’s statement is for citizens (1) to know the truth of America’s history and (2) share that truth with others.

Photos Credits and Endnotes

The Bible Wheel

2009-09-25T12:06:00.000-07:00

The Bible Wheel

The Government Can

2009-09-25T06:50:00.000-07:00

I Samuel, Chapter 8

1 And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel. 2 Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: they were judges in Beersheba. 3 And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.

4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, 5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. 6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.

7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. 8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. 9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

10 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. 11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you:

He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. 12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. 14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. 16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. 18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; 20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. 21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD. 22 And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king.

Scripture on God's Way or Man's Way

2009-09-18T15:25:00.000-07:00

God's Way or Man's Way?

Isaiah 55:9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.

Proverbs 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.

Proverbs 21:2 Every way of a man [is] right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.

Proverbs 21:8 The way of man [is] froward and strange: but [as for] the pure, his work [is] right.

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where [is] the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk [therein].

Proverbs 12:26 The righteous [is] more excellent than his neighbour: but the way of the wicked seduceth them.

Isaiah 28:15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: I Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Exodus 1:10 Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and [so] get them up out of the land.

I Corinthians 1:20 Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? I Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

I Corinthians 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

I Corinthians 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

I Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. There are words which man's wisdom teaches, but they are not the pure words of God.

Psalms 111:10 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do [his commandments]: his praise endureth for ever.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy [is] understanding.

Exodus 20:20 And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.

Deuteronomy 6:24 And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as [it is] at this day.

Deuteronomy 31:12 Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that [is] within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law:

Joshua 4:24 That all the people of the earth might know the hand of the LORD, that it [is] mighty: that ye might fear the LORD your God for ever.

II Chronicles 19:7 Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do [it]: for [there is] no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.

Nehemiah 5:9 Also I said, It [is] not good that ye do: ought ye not to walk in the fear of our God because of the reproach of the heathen our enemies?

Ecclesiastes 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man.

Jeremiah 2:19 Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee: know therefore and see that [it is] an evil [thing] and bitter, that thou hast forsaken the LORD thy God, and that my fear [is] not in thee, saith the Lord GOD of hosts.

Romans 3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Revelation 14:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

Psalms 97:10 Ye that love the LORD, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked.

Proverbs 8:13 The fear of the LORD [is] to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

Amos 5:15 Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate: it may be that the LORD God of hosts will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph.

Micah 3:2 Who hate the good, and love the evil; who pluck off their skin from off them, and their flesh from off their bones;

Zechariah 8:17 And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath: for all these [are things] that I hate, saith the LORD.

I Samuel 2:3 Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let [not] arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the LORD [is] a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.

Psalms 119:104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.

Psalms 119:128 Therefore I esteem all [thy] precepts [concerning] all [things to be] right; [and] I hate every false way.

I Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Exodus 1:10 Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and [so] get them up out of the land.

For a good reason to trust God's word see the Bible study on words and the purity of God's word.

Psalm 119 In Song

2009-09-16T09:04:00.000-07:00

This music was created by Tom Qunlin. He has also provided a study of Psalm 119 at his website Zion Christian Press.

What's in the name?

Zion - Strongs Hebrew Dictionary lists the word as follows:
Tsiyown tsee-yone' a mountain of Jerusalem
tsiyuwn tsee-yoon' a monumental or guiding pillar:--sign, title, waymark.
tsiyah tsee-yaw' from an unused root meaning to parch; aridity; concretely, a desert:--barren, drought, dry (land, place), solitary place, wilderness.

The first mention of the word Zion in Scripture is 2nd Samuel 5:7 - "David captured the fortress of Zion, the City of David".

Zechariah prophesied: This is what the LORD says: "I will return to Zion and dwell in Jerusalem. Then Jerusalem will be called the City of Truth, and the mountain of the LORD Almighty will be called the Holy Mountain." Zech 8:3

The last mention in scripture is from Revelation 14:1 - "Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads."

Just as Zion was one of the final places the children of Israel conquered, so in these last days it is a place of contention in the purposes of God. Like David, those who would be pillars in the house of God, and co-laborers with Him, must be willing to be cast out into solitary, dry places, devoid of the rewards, accolades and approval of the world. The last vestiges of our human strength will be dried up there, but we will emerge from that wilderness "leaning on the arms of our beloved".

Christian - Follower of Messiah, the Anointed One.

The word "Christian" has been all but ruined for many Jewish ears from centuries of abuse by those wielding the sword in the name of Jesus. Mercifully, Messiah's ability to heal is greater than our ability to hurt. Remember when Jesus healed the ear of Malchus, after Peter cut it off with the sword? John 18:10-11; Luke 22:51

A true Christian is moved by the same Holy Spirit that is the Spirit of Jesus and that raised Him to life after He nailed our sin to the cross in His own body.

So, let us examine ourselves to see if we are really in the faith that submits to the same suffering and death to the natural man that Jesus did, but then also demonstrates the same resurrection life to the glory of God the Father. Only in that way (which is His way), can we ever provoke the remnant of Israel to jealousy.

Press - In Revelation 14 it is written: "Still another angel, who had charge of the fire, came from the altar and called in a loud voice to him who had the sharp sickle, “Take your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of grapes from the earth's vine, because its grapes are ripe.” The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God's wrath. They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press..."

These verses are talking about precious souls, the fruit of God's labor. Are we being prepared by the word to be crushed? "He was crushed for our iniquities." Is there not a yearning to lay down our lives like our Lord? Let us not be so anxious to leave this earth until the Lord has completed His work in us. In the letter to the Philipians Paul wrote: "I want to know Christ (Messiah) and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead."

"Hebrews 11 says: "By faith... Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection."

Let these vital words be inscribed on the tablets of our hearts, as we bear the pressures and trials that God has ordained for our perfecting, and makes us living epistles (letters) for others to read.

Servant of God

2009-09-16T07:19:00.001-07:00

Romans 13

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Bible in a Minute

2009-09-01T11:26:00.000-07:00

Psalm 119:11 "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee."

Nothing A Little Glue Can't Fix

2008-08-18T14:24:00.000-07:00

Psalm 19:1 "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork."

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

"There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard."

During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, "artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.

Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.

The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names.

The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Click here to download a PDF copy of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list

Survival of the Fakest
The Cambrian Explosion
Microevolution VS Macroevolution

Scientism and Totalitarianism, And The Global Warming Fraud

There's a totalitarian subtext to scientism. Scientism entails a militant certainty of truth, and an utter intolerance for dissent that is remarkably akin to totalitarian political movements. Scientism is increasingly a spawn of the political left, which has been the primary source of totalitarianism in the past century.

The reaction of Darwinists or of global warming scientists to even the most mild skepticism is remarkably vicious. They hunt down skeptics and suppress differing opinions using practically any means at their disposal. If a school district attaches a sticker to a textbook that says "Darwin's theory is a theory, not a fact, and evidence for and against it should be considered." it will find itself in federal court, facing financial ruin, with jail a possibility for individuals who don't comply. Who would have imagined, a few decades ago, that scientists would use courts to settle scientific disputes?

As the ClimateGate emails amply demonstrate, scientists who believe in global warming systematically exclude and professionally destroy scientists who express skepticism. The emails show a remarkable demand for doctrinal purity in climate science. These pro-global warming scientists manufacture a "consensus" using strong-arm tactics, and enforce it with singular purpose. And when asked why scientists use such brutal tactics, they reply 'because it's consensus science!"

Particularly disturbing to me is the appellation "denialism" applied to mere questioning of scientific orthodoxy. It's an effort to drive anyone who questions orthodoxy out of acceptable society. Bourgeoisie, reactionaries, revisionists, denialists. It fits well in the Leninist lexicon.

Melanie Phillips at the British Spectator has a fine essay on this totalitarian current in the global warming movement. It applies as well to other encroachments of scientism in our civilization.

Green TotalitarianismLord Lawson was right to call in today’s Times for an inquiry into the global warming scandal. As noted below, through a set of hacked emails a group of some of the most influential scientific proponents of anthropogenic global warming have been revealed to have been manipulating, suppressing and distorting scientific evidence in order to bolster their claim. They in turn have said the email messages have been taken out of context. And with so much material now in the public domain, it is possible that some of it has an innocent explanation. But in an awful lot of it it is hard to see such innocence. As Lawson observes:
There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay.
This is the kind of thing these emails have revealed.

Here is lead IPCC scientist Keith Briffa admitting:

I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same.
Here are Phil Jones, Director of the Hadley Centre’s Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University and Michael Mann, creator of the infamous (and false) ‘hockey stick curve’ that underpinned AGW theory, discussing how to suppress the work of AGW sceptics, including changing the peer-review rules to do so:

In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes. "I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.

Here is Phil Jones proposing to delete data to avoid having to reveal it under a Freedom of Information request:

The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone.
And here is lead IPCC scientist Kevin Trenberth effectively acknowledging the sceptics’ case. On a thread fretting about the likely influence of the BBC’s ‘climate change reporter’ Richard Black in reporting that there had been no warming since 1998 and that Pacific oscillations would ‘force cooling for the next 20-30 years’, Trenberth wails:

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather)... The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
This material has revealed what has been described as ‘Nixonian-style paranoid plotting’ by these scientists to defraud the public. Actually, I think it reveals something even worse.

What appears to be the case is that these scientists did not set out to mislead the world so much as try to force data which did not correspond to their ideology of anthropogenic global warming to support that ideology. For me, one of the most telling emails was this one from Phil Jones on the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

Bottom line - their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility. (My emphasis)

In other words, despite the fact that science (or history) tells us that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, thus destroying the basis of the AGW myth that we are living through an unprecedented warming of the climate caused by carbon dioxide arising from industrialisation, it cannot be true – because the Hadley CRU Director’s ‘gut’ tells him so.

All the manipulation, distortion and suppression revealed by these emails took place because it would seem these scientists knew their belief was not only correct but unchallengeable; and so when faced with evidence that showed it was false, they tried every which way to make the data fit the prior agenda. And those who questioned that agenda themselves had to be airbrushed out of the record, because to question it was simply impossible. Only AGW zealots get to decide, apparently, what science is. Truth is what fits their ideological agenda. Anything else is to be expunged.

Which is the more terrifying and devastating: if people are bent and deliberately try to deceive others, or if they are so much in thrall to an ideology that they genuinely have lost the power to think objectively and rationally?

I think that the terrible history of mankind provides the answer to that question. Nixon was a crook. But what we are dealing with here is the totalitarian personality. One thing is now absolutely clear for all to see about the anthropogenic global warming scam: science this is not.

Don't Be Imprisoned By Believing False Prophets

2007-09-17T17:28:00.000-07:00

I Kings 18:17-39

17 And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel? 18 And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the LORD, and thou hast followed Baalim. 19 Now therefore send, and gather to me all Israel unto mount Carmel, and the prophets of Baal four hundred and fifty, and the prophets of the groves four hundred, which eat at Jezebel's table.

20 So Ahab sent unto all the children of Israel, and gathered the prophets together unto mount Carmel. 21 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word. 22 Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's prophets are four hundred and fifty men. 23 Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: and I will dress the other bullock, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: 24 And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken.

25 And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress it first; for ye are many; and call on the name of your gods, but put no fire under. 26 And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made. 27 And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked. 28 And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them. 29 And it came to pass, when midday was past, and they prophesied until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that there was neither voice, nor any to answer, nor any that regarded.

30 And Elijah said unto all the people, Come near unto me. And all the people came near unto him. And he repaired the altar of the LORD that was broken down. 31 And Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, unto whom the word of the LORD came, saying, Israel shall be thy name: 32 And with the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD: and he made a trench about the altar, as great as would contain two measures of seed. 33 And he put the wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid him on the wood, and said, Fill four barrels with water, and pour it on the burnt sacrifice, and on the wood. 34 And he said, Do it the second time. And they did it the second time. And he said, Do it the third time. And they did it the third time. 35 And the water ran round about the altar; and he filled the trench also with water.

36 And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said, LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things at thy word. 37 Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that thou art the LORD God, and that thou hast turned their heart back again. 38 Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. 39 And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God.

Psalm 102:26 - The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - Documented In Scripture Prior To 580 BC

2007-09-17T17:26:00.000-07:00

'God is the all sufficient explanation, the eternal rapture glimpsed in every Archimedean cry of eureka' - Bernard Lonergan

Notable Discoveries;

Time frame, Passage & Year the Bible told us before science did:

Hygiene/hand washing 19th century Leviticus 15:13 1405 BC
Germs in porous containers 19th century Leviticus 6:28, 11:33 1405 BC
Germs in clothes 19th century Leviticus 11:25 1405 BC
Bleeding is deadly 19th century Genesis 9:4 PRE 1445 BC
Spherical earth 8th century Isaiah 40:22 740-680 BC
Ocean hot springs 1977 Job 30:8 pre-exilic-pre 580 BC
What Light is Still unknown Job 38:19 pre-exilic-pre 580 BC
2nd Law of Thermodynamics/Entropy 1850 Psalms 102:26 pre-exilic-pre 580 BC
Cholera 1830 Deuteronomy 23:13 1405 BC
Matter made up of microscopic parts 20th century Romans 1:20 55 AD
Quantity of Stars post Hubble Hebrews 11:12 60s AD
Dinosaurs 1841 Job 40:17 pre-exilic-pre 580 BC
Time has a beginning 1993 II Timothy 1:9 62-63 AD
Fission 1932 II Peter 3:10 63-64 AD
Ocean mountains 1950s Jonah 2:5-6 760 BC
Pure water/water cycle/distillation 100 BC Eccles 1:7, Job 36:27 935 BC
Jet stream mid 1700's Eccles 1:6 935 BC
Cause of wind Not dated Job 38:24 pre-exilic-pre 580 BC
Ocean current 1845 Isaiah 43:16, Psalms 8:8 740-680 BC
Circumcision 19th century Genesis 17:11 PRE 1445 BC
Coagulation in newborns 20th century Gen 17:12, Luke 1:59 PRE 1445 BC
Cholesterol 1985 Lev 7:23 1405 BC
No one has special access to truth Still widely unknown Romans 1:22 55 AD
Babies are born liars 2007 Psalms 58:3 pre-exilic-pre 580 BC
The Scientific Method 17th century I Thessalonians 5:12 50-51AD
Moral shift w/Near Death experience Still unknown John 3:3 80-90 AD

Tracks

2007-09-17T07:32:00.000-07:00

http://media.chick.com/preview.swf"><embed src="