Atheism’s Poster Child

Thursday, March 1st, 2012

When trivializing and silence are not enough

by Dr. Tom Askew

When I became the first person in my extended family to attend college, it was by virtue of a teachers’ scholarship. Not only did I have to qualify for it academically, I had to sign a contractual obligation to teach in the state that awarded me the scholarship. That education has opened many doors for me, and I have never regretted the career choice that enabled me to obtain that schooling.

So what did 16-year-old Jessica Ahlquist do to qualify for the $40,000 scholarship being held in trust for her by the American Humanist Association? She sued her local high school in Cranston, RI, for displaying a banner given by the first graduating class in 1963, because it began with the words “Our Heavenly Father” and ended with “Amen.”

Supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, Jessica claimed victory on Facebook and Twitter when the school district took the banner down to avoid court costs for an expensive showcase trial.

Ahlquist claims her motivation was self-protection; the banner allegedly conflicted with her belief. “When I saw it there, I knew it didn’t belong,” Ahlquist was reported as saying. “And every time that I saw it, it was a reminder that my school wasn’t doing the right thing, and that my school didn’t necessarily support me and my views.”

And how is she being rewarded? When news of Ahlquist’s suit reached Chicago atheist and high school teacher Hemant Mehta, he organized a campaign through his website, “to make her future better than her present by giving her the opportunity to go to college without worrying about things like tuition and books.”

Just as a commitment to teaching was required of my scholarship, what will now be expected of Ahlquist? Already she is being featured along with prominent atheist Richard Dawkins on the flyer for the first-ever “Reason Rally” to be held on the National Mall, March 24, 2012. The event poster promises a “celebration of secular values,” with big name speakers, comedy, music and, of course, commemorative baseball caps to purchase.

Trying to understand atheist aggression

What was Ahlquist really trying to accomplish at Cranston West High School? In the spirit of free speech, the inaugural graduating class had left behind a message for future classes – a banner which was worded as a prayer. The prayer was not even offered in Jesus’ name; therefore, it was not an outrageous statement in a community that was predominantly Protestant, Catholic or Jewish at that time.

Notice that the basis of her offense was that the display conflicted with her belief. Can you imagine the ridicule (and rapid dismissal) that would ensue if a Christian coed sued her biology department because (even though it lacks firsthand observational evidence or replicable experimentation to create higher forms of life from a single self-generating cell) their evolutionary teaching conflicted with her belief?

Aggressive atheism is not content with government schooling which already:

expunges any mention of the role of Christian faith in world or U.S. history.
ignores Biblical views of human nature affecting government and psychology.
explicitly denies God’s creative power and nature while teaching science and ecology.
trivializes the role of faith by purporting to teach “all that one needs to know for success” as a U.S. citizen.
marginalizes the faith of millions of Americans by implying that school children must be taught their own faith in whatever hours are left after compulsory schooling.
disdains faith in any supernatural system by enforcing a phony pluralism which even the simplest mind can understand as meaning “all faiths are equally true (wink, wink – and equally untrue).”

No, aggressive atheism wants headliner status, favored billing, and the right to win its way with the flimsiest of excuses, such as “you offend my (un)belief.” Its very shrillness shows that the hegemony it has over the schooling of young people may not be enough.

Its aggressive agenda should impel Christians to pray:

for the success of ministries such as Summit Ministries and Ratio Christi (Reason for Christ), which are educating young people in Christian apologetics.
for local churches, that they would effectively pass on the faith “entrusted to the saints.”
for Christian families, especially fathers, that they would speak sanity to their children in the face of an increasingly hostile culture.
for Christians to intentionally educate themselves against the popular rise of secularism.

Dr. Tom Askew has been an educator in both public and private schools for 37 years, in Hong Kong, Germany, Georgia, and Arizona. He is currently doing educational consulting and instruction for Christian schools in Arizona.

Posted in opinion |

God Bless America

Thursday, February 23rd, 2012

But what does that really mean?

by James N. Watkins

Since 1973, “God bless America” has become a traditional benediction for presidential pronouncements. On April 30 of that year, President Richard Nixon addressed the nation concerning the Watergate scandal. He ended his denial of involvement with “God bless America and God bless each and every one of you.”

But do citizens of this nation really want God to “bless” America? Jimmy Carter, arguably one of the most outspoken Christian presidents, never used the phrase. And perhaps, based on the teachings of Jesus, for good reason.

Christ’s most famous and familiar sermon uses the word “blessed” nine times in the Matthew version. But it’s doubtful if presidents and politicians have His definition of “blessed” in mind.

In Luke 6:20-22, Jesus teaches:

“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

“Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied.

“Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.

“Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man!”

Luke’s version also includes corresponding “woes” to each blessing:

“But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.

“Woe to you who are full now, for you shall be hungry.

“Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.

“Woe to you, when all people speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.” (Luke 6:24-26)

No politician running for President of the United States or small-town dog catcher would get elected on that platform! And yet when Jesus says “blessed,” He means something far different than political campaign slogans.

So what’s the point? Actually, there are two:

1. Jesus’ kingdom is upside down

Christ shocked His listeners by claiming that the least shall be greatest, the last shall be first, humble yourself to be exalted, die to live, become childlike to become spiritually mature, love your enemies…Jesus took the religious world’s cherished beliefs and turned them upside down, inside out, and backward.

So while politicians would like to see the United States reign as the richest, most powerful country in the world, the Lord of all may have other desires.

Could the recent recession with record unemployment and foreclosures be a “blessing” that causes the nation to turn to its Provider? Was the national mourning that followed the evil and godless terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 a blessing as a nation searched for healing? Are Americans being blessed by a loving Heavenly Father because their enemies express their hatred with “Death to the infidels” and homemade bombs?

Are those completely upside down, inside out, and backward ways to view the challenges facing this country? Indeed!

2. Jesus’ kingdom is universal

While He was born of Hebrew heritage and came specifically as a Jewish Messiah, Jesus was no jingoist. He ministered to Roman army officers, Samaritan and Greek women, and announced He had other sheep (Gentiles) in His flock.

In fact, as Jesus talked to Jewish religious leader Nicodemus, He announced, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) The Greek word cosmos used in this verse means more than just “the world,” but everything in creation – not just Jewish males.

In Revelation 7:9, John reports, “After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands.”

Is it possible that God wants to bless all nations? Indeed!

Just some thoughts and questions before you post a bumper sticker or join in the chorus of “God bless America.” His idea of “blessing” may involve poverty, hunger, mourning and slander – which He will “work together” to conform everyone “to the image of his Son.” (Romans 8:28-29) And He wants that “blessing” for every nation, tribe, people and language.

So while it would not be politically correct, it would be more biblically correct for politicians to end their speeches with “God conform to the image of your Son America.”

James Watkins is a humorist and author and contributor to 24 books and over 2,000 articles on social and spiritual issues.

Posted in opinion |

Political “Blame Game”

Thursday, February 16th, 2012

Komen for the Cure bullied out of common sense policy

by Dr. Tom Askew

Since 1982, Susan G. Komen for the Cure has supported research and treatment for women’s breast cancer. In the 30 years of its existence, the percentage of women over 40 receiving regular mammograms has increased from 30 to 75 percent. Federal funding for breast cancer research has increased from $30 million annually to $900 million per year. The five-year breast cancer survival rate has increased from 74 percent in 1982 to 98 percent. And breast cancer survivors are now the largest group of cancer survivors in the U.S., over 2.5 million.

No one doubts the influence and contributions of Susan G. Komen for the Cure in these victories. Over the years, it has raised over $1.9 billion in support of these ends.

Some of Komen’s monies, though, have gone to Planned Parenthood, on the basis that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms for women who can’t afford them. In reality, Planned Parenthood doctors make referrals for mammograms to other doctors and agencies that are willing to provide them free of charge. According to Tim Stanley of the UK Telegraph, Komen’s annual grant to Planned Parenthood made up less than .058 percent of Planned Parenthood’s annual budget.

When Komen announced last month that it was eliminating the grant to Planned Parenthood from it budget, the reason given was a policy that stated that, in order to be faithful to its donors, Komen would not make grants to organizations under investigation. Planned Parenthood is currently under investigation in four states for overbilling, as well as a federal probe initiated by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) for potentially misusing federal funds that by law may not be used for abortions.

In 2010, Planned Parenthood received 46 percent of its funding, $487 million, from government grants. Yet according to Planned Parenthood’s latest annual report, the organization and its many affiliates performed more than 329,000 abortions in 2010 – or a full 91 percent of services rendered to pregnant women.

Other allegations against Planned Parenthood include employees being caught on tape giving inaccurate medical advice, and failing to report anything to authorities when 13- and 14-year-olds show up seeking abortions after being impregnated by men in their 30s and 40s.

The announcement by Komen brought a tremendous outcry from Planned Parenthood supporters. And, according to Komen Vice President for Public Policy Karen Handel, there was direct pressure placed on Komen from political leaders in Washington to reverse their decision. Handel offered her resignation from Komen after it reinstated Planned Parenthood as a grant recipient. In Komen’s public statement on the reversal, the foundation restated its position as not giving to organizations under criminal investigation as opposed to “political” investigation.

What does all of this mean?

If so little of Planned Parenthood’s budget comes from Komen, and if most of Planned Parenthood’s budget goes for abortions not mammograms, why the big fuss? The answer, of course, is political. Susan G. Komen for the Cure has a very positive public image…which it deserves. But for Komen to appear to oppose a bastion of political correctness (Planned Parenthood), no matter how egregious its crimes may be, is unacceptable to the strident politicos and media mavens who guard their special interests with volume and clout.

Perhaps columnist George Will summarized the current political entitlement battles in America best when he said, “The dialectic in this country goes like this. First you declare a right, then you say the right must be subsidized by the federal government, then institutions that don’t conform to ‘our values’ have to be bullied into it.”

There is much to pray for:

· The success of those engaged in fighting breast cancer, both the current health care providers as well as the researchers.

· The survival of women who are currently fighting this affliction.

· That Americans will think rationally about the issues in light of God’s revelation, in spite of the rhetorical noise generated in the media.

· That Americans would repent of laws, policies and private choices which are sinful and deserving of God’s judgment.

· That more Americans would find redemption through faith in Almighty God and the peace and contentment that come from a relationship with Jesus Christ – not from government provisions or popular approval.

Posted in opinion |

Congressional Disillusionment

Thursday, February 9th, 2012

Most would vote out entire Congress

by Dave Ficere

“Congress meets tomorrow morning. Let us all pray: Oh Lord, give us strength to bear that which is about to be inflicted upon us. Be merciful with them, oh Lord, for they know not what they’re doing. Amen.” – Will Rogers

When it comes to politics, Americans are divided on a variety of issues, but there is one thing on which both Democrats and Republicans agree: They don’t like Congress and would replace the entire membership if given the chance.

Congressional approval is at an all-time low among Americans. According to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 56 percent of registered voters would throw out every member of Congress if there was an election to do so. That number represents the highest percentage of dissatisfaction since the question was first asked in March 2010.

And that sentiment isn’t confined to just one survey. A Real Clear Politics average of five different polls conducted in December and January found 69 percent of those surveyed disapproved of the job Congress is doing. That number soared to 75 percent – or three out of four people – in a Gallup poll conducted in December.

But it doesn’t end there. An ABC News/Washington Post survey taken just after Congress reconvened in early January found a dismal 13 percent of those polled approved of the job the nation’s highest legislative body is doing. Eighty-four percent disapproved, giving Congress its worst poll numbers since 1974.

Even more stunning than the low approval numbers is the fact that they cut across the political divide. Pollsters Bill McInturff and Peter D. Hart, who conducted the NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, say 55 percent of liberals, 55 percent of moderates and 58 percent of conservatives all feel the same way.

“We found the one area in which all people in the country agree,” McInturff said. “People want Congress to get things done, act responsibly and fix the economy and if they don’t, they could be in (political) trouble,” he added.

At least one U.S. Senator agrees with that assessment. Senator Michael Bennet (D, CO) told Congress, “I would argue that (the low approval rating) has an awful lot to do with our inability to address problems the way people in their local community do,” adding that both the Internal Revenue Service and the handling of the BP oil spill got higher approval ratings than Congress.

But hasn’t Congress always suffered from low approval ratings? Since 1974, when the Congressional approval rating was at 37 percent, the numbers have generally trended downward. There were some spikes above 40 percent in the early 1980s, as well as a jump into the 80 percentile range after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks and a small upward tick after President Obama took office in January 2009. With the most recent numbers, Gallup reports, “Americans hold Congress in lower esteem for the job it is doing than at any point in the last 36 years.”

What then, is the solution?

Pray – For your representatives and senators daily and by name. Pray that they will make the right choices to best serve those who elected them and not only those choices sought by special interest groups and lobbyists.
Get involved – Educate yourself about your national leaders and how they vote on key issues. They want and need to hear from you, so contact them about issues important to you and your family. Most members of Congress are easily reached by letter, phone or email, so take advantage of the privilege you have to become an active participant in American democracy.
Vote – Let it be known to those who represent you that you do watch their actions and will vote accordingly. Politicians these days realize they are constantly running for reelection and that your vote matters, so encourage them when they do take action you agree with and politely speak up when you oppose their actions.
Talk to others – Let them know about both the good and bad things your representatives are doing. With Facebook, Twitter and other social media, your voice and opinion can influence your friends and others.

Your involvement will help ensure, as President Abraham Lincoln said in The Gettysburg Address, “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.”

Dave Ficere’s articles and writing have been featured in a wide array of media including radio promotions, devotional publications, websites, magazines and newsletters. Dave is married to Patt and works and lives in a suburb of Phoenix, AZ.

Posted in opinion |

Don’t Say Jesus

Thursday, February 2nd, 2012

Should courts control the content of your public prayer?

by Jim Ray

When government gets involved in deciding what should be said in a prayer, you can be sure that individual freedoms are in jeopardy. The prophet Daniel found himself in the company of hungry lions after failing to follow official protocol in his prayer routine. And Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, authored a helpful guide entitled the Book of Common Prayer. Many people appreciated the volume, but the Queen, Mary I, didn’t. In fact, she disliked it so much she had Cranmer burned at the stake.

Unfortunately, government meddling in the prayer lives of its citizens didn’t disappear in the middle ages with the bubonic plague. A recent ruling of the Fourth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals lays down the law with respect to what may or may not be said in prayers in certain places.

And the judges’ decision can be boiled down to this simple order: you may pray if you wish, but whatever you do…don’t say Jesus.

The court case was brought against Forsyth County, North Carolina by three individuals who claimed they were made uncomfortable by the Board of Commissioners’ practice of allowing clergy to begin meetings with prayer. The Board has for many years invited local religious leaders – of any and every stripe – to deliver an invocation. As the Court acknowledged, “No eligible congregation was excluded,” and the invitation was issued to religious leaders of all established local congregations in the community, regardless of denomination or faith.

And furthermore, just to be on the safe side, the Board of Commissioners created an official policy clarifying that prayer was not “a part of the public business,” that nobody “shall be required to participate in any prayer that is offered,” and that the opportunity to pray would be granted on a “first-come, first-serve” basis.

But the problem, in the view of the district court, was that too many people were referencing “specific tenets of Christianity” and praying in Jesus’ name – what the court called “sectarian invocations.” In short, it didn’t matter that leaders of other faiths freely mentioned Allah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Mohammad, or the Heavenly Father in their prayers. The court decided that references to Jesus Christ were just too frequent.

This is not surprising, given that the vast majority of the houses of worship in Forsyth County are Christian, but the court nevertheless said that too much mention of Jesus “runs afoul of the promise of public neutrality” as required by the First Amendment.

The solution, the court said, is simple. Prayers may continue if the person permitted to pray will promise to “embrace a non-sectarian ideal. That ideal is simply this: that those of different creeds are in the end kindred spirits, united by a respect paid higher providence and by a belief in the importance of religious faith.”

Federal Judge Paul V. Niemeyer dissented from the majority opinion of the three-judge panel. “The majority has dared to step in and regulate the language of prayer – the sacred dialogue between humankind and God,” he wrote. “Most frightfully, it will require secular legislative and judicial bodies to evaluate and parse particular religious prayers under an array of criteria identified by the majority.”

What happens from here? In January, the United States Supreme Court refused to review the district court’s decision, which means that it cannot be overturned, at least for now. Gleeful representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union are already at work to see that this decision is enforced across the nation, and will also be sending a bill for $200,000 to Forsyth County for its attorney fees incurred in the case.

In the meantime, Christians who have the opportunity to pray in public settings will have to choose whether they will follow the instructions of the Fourth Circuit…or the instructions in the fourteenth book of John. In verses 13 and 14, Jesus says this: “Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.”

Like the prophet Daniel and Thomas Cranmer – and countless other saints of the past who were told by others how they should pray – you have a decision to make.

Jim Ray is a writer and marketing specialist who currently serves as Estate Gift Representative with the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. He also serves on the advisory board for Street 2 Street, a New York-based charity ministering to inner-city youth through the vehicle of sports. Jim and his wife Stacey have two children and reside in Nashville, TN.

Posted in opinion |

Who Would Jesus Elect?

Thursday, January 26th, 2012

His criteria to decipher the spiritual sound bytes

by James N. Watkins

As I listen to the 2012 presidential candidate’s fiery speeches, I’m not always sure if I’m at a political campaign rally or an old-fashioned tent revival. It seems that every candidate has seen the light and walked the sawdust trail to electoral salvation.

Candidates professing their faith in God is nothing new. Sociologist Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, notes, “Since [President] Carter’s 1976 profession that he is born again, voters have expected a faith narrative. More and more candidates are going to find out that Americans are going to want them to say something about their faith and how that affects their life.”

Question is, how will what they say affect your vote? Even more, what criteria would Jesus Christ use if He were a voting American today?

The candidate’s faith dialogue

Newt Gingrich was raised in the Lutheran tradition, but was baptized in a Baptist church while a graduate student at Tulane University. Recently, Gingrich joined a Roman Catholic church in D.C. where his wife sings in the choir. The former speaker of the House told the Cathedral of Praise in North Charleston, “I don’t come here today as a perfect person. I don’t come here today without baggage.”

Texas Senator Ron Paul writes on his official website, “My faith is a deeply private issue to me, and I don’t speak on it in great detail during my speeches because I want to avoid any appearance of exploiting it for political gain. Let me be very clear here: I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate.”

Texan Governor Rick Perry, arguably the most outspoken evangelical, recently told a crowd, “At age 14, I walked down that aisle and gave my heart to Jesus Christ.” Mitt Romney, a high-ranking Mormon and former governor of Massachusetts, is running an ad called “Shared Values” in which he argues his common ground with evangelicals: “Today, Christian conservatives are supporting Mitt Romney because he shares their values: the sanctity of life, the sacredness of marriage and the importance of the family.”

Rick Santorum, Roman Catholic and former Pennsylvania senator, actually aligns more closely with evangelicals on social issues than his fellow American Catholics. Over half of Catholics (52 percent) support same-sex unions, while only 19 percent of evangelicals do. He also has evangelical support for his strong pro-life stance.

Meanwhile, in the other column of the November ballot, President Barack Obama told the National Prayer Breakfast last year, “My Christian faith has been sustaining for me over the last couple of years and even more so when Michelle and I hear our faith questioned from time to time. We are reminded that ultimately what matters is not what other people say about us but that we are true to our conscience and true to our God.”

WWJE: Who would Jesus elect?

It’s not an easy question, but here are criteria He would likely employ:

First, Jesus warns, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.” (Matthew 15:8). Not every candidate who claims to be a Christian may be living out biblical teachings.

Second, Jesus would warn against those who parade their faith for personal – and political – gain. “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 6:1)

Third, Jesus would ask, “What’s your record on issues that are important to Me?” “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.” (Matthew 25:35-36)

And, fourth, Jesus would probably evaluate how the candidates are treating each other on the campaign trail based on that “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” command (Matthew 5:44).

So don’t support someone simply because the person mouths the right spiritual sound bytes. Rather, follow Christ’s warning as you evaluate the candidates: “Be wise as serpents.” (Matthew 10:16)

James Watkins is a humorist and author and contributor to 24 books and over 2,000 articles on social and spiritual issues.

Posted in opinion |

Faith, Hope, Votes

Thursday, January 19th, 2012

Iowa result shatters evangelical stereotype

by Dave Ficere

“Evangelical voters, it turns out, are a more sophisticated bunch, judging candidates on a broad continuum of considerations from their personal faith and character to leadership attributes and electability.” – Ralph Reed, Christian Coalition Executive Director

More than 60 percent of those who call themselves evangelicals voted for either a Roman Catholic or a Mormon in the recent Iowa Caucuses. The combined votes cast for Catholics Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum along with Mormon Mitt Romney exploded the popular media myth that characterizes the evangelical faction as a giant monolith looking for the “right” candidate.

Truth be told, the results of the January 3 vote showed evangelical voters are paying close attention to so-called “values issues” such as abortion and marriage. These voters also aren’t being wooed by “Christian talk” as they consider who should be the Republican nominee for president.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed after the Iowa balloting, Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land called Santorum “the truest of true social conservatives” and described the former Pennsylvania Senator’s near win as a sign the religious right is “alive and flourishing.”

Reed says evangelicals have matured in their voting choices, evaluating the positions of candidates on a variety of issues, and not just supporting those who quote Scripture and use Christian buzz phrases.

Luis Cataldo, director of The Response prayer movement, says he was encouraged by Santorum’s second place performance in the Iowa caucus, crediting his surprisingly strong showing to the former senator’s consistent message. “He continues to engage abortion, marriage and life in the debate,” Cataldo said.

Santorum, a devout Catholic who has been outspoken about his pro-life views, touts his experience fighting partial-birth abortion and ushering in welfare reform during his time in Congress. Prior to the January 3 vote, he was languishing near the bottom of the national polls, but finished just eight votes behind winner Mitt Romney.

In a television interview, Reed told CNN the evangelical vote historically has never been monolithic. Pat Robertson, Reed says, won strong support from “religious” voters in Iowa in 1988, vaulting him to national prominence. However, Robertson still lost the Iowa Caucuses to Bob Dole as well as the evangelical vote in South Carolina to George H.W. Bush.

Similarly, George W. Bush won one-third of the evangelical vote in Iowa in 2000 but split that vote with Steve Forbes and much more socially conservative candidates Gary Bauer and Alan Keyes.

While social issues remain important in 2012, a CNN entrance poll taken at the Iowa Caucuses found 42 percent of attendees listed the economy as the number one issue determining their vote. Another 34 percent cited the budget deficit but only 14 percent listed abortion as their most important concern.

As Kimberly Strassel recently observed in The Wall Street Journal, the poll suggests evangelicals, like many Americans, are motivated by a wide range of concerns, including jobs, taxes, the debt and national security, as well as social issues.

So what should you make of the voting process as it relates to “values issues” and evangelicals? Ralph Reed has an answer: “So when commentators prognosticate about the ‘evangelical vote,’ we might want to ask them, ‘Which one?’ For there are many evangelical votes, many candidates who win their support, and a multitude of motivations for their engagement in the rough-and-tumble of American politics.”

This, Reed says, is all for the good because it demonstrates that the civic involvement of evangelicals is “a cause for celebration, not alarm; a sign of the health of our political system, not that it suffers from an anti-democratic or sectarian impulse.”

In the days leading up to your state’s primary and the November presidential election:

Continue educating yourself about the issues facing the United States and the Republican candidate’s positions on those issues.
While the focus of the presidential election process until November will be on the Republican candidates, Democrats offer four more years of President Obama. Continue to examine his positions and leadership on issues that matter to you.
Ask yourself who will best lead America through 2016: President Obama or a Republican or Independent candidate, and pray that God will guide you in making your choice in November’s 2012 presidential sweepstakes.

Posted in opinion |

Military Divorce Rates Rise… Again

Thursday, January 12th, 2012

Troops preserve national security, but many struggle at home

by Nikolas Grosfield

War always produces casualties beyond the battlefield. Seclusion, drunkenness, unemployment, suicide and – infamous in the past 10 years – post-traumatic stress disorder have all devastated soldiers and their families alike. Less public, but likewise tragic, are the many broken homes in the military.

As the middle son of two divorcees, it is terrible to read about the rising divorce rate among U.S. military personnel. In 2011, about 30,000 marriages ended where at least one spouse was serving in the military. This number represents 3.7 percent of all military marriages, and it is the highest rate in 12 years. By contrast, 3.5 percent of all civilian marriages in America ended in 2011.

The Air Force had worst divorce rate while enlisted women in all branches suffered the most divorces, almost 10 percent, far outpacing enlisted men or commissioned husbands or wives. Age can play a role, too, with more divorces among those in their teens and early twenties. Statistics such as these can be traced to a plethora of causes – some obvious, others less so.

Root issues

Much of contemporary American culture lends itself poorly toward strong and lasting marriages. Pornography, television, pre- and extra-marital sex, and no-fault divorce laws in most states have badly damaged the institution of marriage in military settings, no less than in civilian ones.

Perhaps one little-known yet grievous consequence of this culture is the readily available online legal “support” for divorce. Browsing some of these websites makes for a grim evening activity. It is easy to find charming links like “Download Divorce Pack” or “Get Divorced Online.”

One team of military divorce lawyers in Texas, John H. Carney & Associates, cite this quote on its home page: “Too many lawyers have forgotten that the main purpose of the legal profession is to serve the public interest.” Yet the entire website is devoted to individuals getting the most out of their divorce, without a word of compassion or a hint of hope for anyone’s marriage. (Besides, preserving marriages would mean fewer clients.)

Crises in military marriages also arise from long periods of separation – typically due to multiple deployments. According to Army Chaplain Carleton Birch, “As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan draw down, we’re going to put more families together who haven’t been used to being together.” Both spouses change during a deployment, and sometimes those changes are not communicated well when they are reunited. If those changes involve combat, financial struggles, insufficient re-entry preparations, or extra-marital relationships, the chances for successful marriages decrease.

Air Force Master Sergeant Todd Gaff has been deployed 13 times since 2001. His wife Valerie shares, “We had to renegotiate our roles, routines and relationship…I was totally in charge and fully responsible for our children and household. When he returned, it was hard to let go of some of those roles. It was also scary getting reacquainted.”

Key solutions

The military has an interest in preserving the marriages of its servicemen and women. Problems at home can weaken morale, which can retard performance on the job or even on the battlefield. Each branch of the U.S. military has various programs to help couples work through their issues. Chaplains are often at the forefront of these efforts.

U.S. Army Reserve Colonel David Ragusa notes a 2010 study which recommends that veterans should not be sent home immediately following a deployment. They may need some “R and R” in order to process some of their experiences. Dennis Rainey, president and founder of Family Life, a nonprofit organization that focuses on marriage and parenting issues, says that returning soldiers need to work hard in “the first 90 days” to establish good habits and communication at home.

Many solutions lie with the spouses. In Kentucky, a nondenominational group of military wives started an organization called Lantern, in which women gather in small groups to study the Bible and how it applies to modern military marriage issues. Those involved consider their connection with each other to be very important, since less than one percent of Americans are in the military.

Finally, prayer is always one of the greatest weapons against failing military marriages. Families and churches alike should participate in this genuinely patriotic duty. If a veteran’s struggles do not end after his deployment, then a praying American’s compassion should not end there, either.

Nikolas Grosfield edits media reports on U.S. foreign policy and national security. He has a B.A. in History from Cedarville University in Ohio. A columnist from Montana, he has published over 50 articles. He and his bride currently reside in the Middle East.

Posted in opinion |

The Cosmological Constant Scientists Can’t See

Thursday, January 5th, 2012

What the God Particle means for Christians

by Jim Ray

“We are in the position,” Albert Einstein once told an interviewer, “of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is.”

Einstein was referring to scientists’ understanding of the universe – and the need for a modicum of humility in approaching a subject filled with complexity beyond the complete understanding of man. But now some scientists believe we are closer than ever to discovering exactly how the universe works, thanks to new developments in the search for the missing link of physics – otherwise known as the “God Particle.”

The first thing to understand about the “God Particle” is that scientists don’t want you calling it by that name. They prefer to call it the “Higgs boson” and worry that the moniker favored by journalists, which invokes a Higher Power, is misleading and inappropriate.

The excitement involves new experiments made possible by the Large Hadron Collider, a mammoth underground apparatus in Europe with a 17-mile circumference that allows scientists to smash particles together at near light speed. Many Americans may recall that a similar project was planned in Texas some years ago. The Superconducting Super Collider was slated to be even larger than the European model, and Congress was told that it would cost $4.4 billion. However, the government pulled the plug on the project when it was badly mismanaged and cost estimates swelled beyond $12 billion.

The Europeans, though, have their supercollider in operation, and they believe they are on the cusp of uncovering a great secret of how the universe came to be. What they are seeking to prove is the existence of a sub-atomic particle that gave mass and energy to matter. They believe it would help explain how the Big Bang occurred and provide the “missing link” in this area of evolutionary theory. Last month the scientists announced with great fanfare that they have found signs of the elusive Higgs boson, but need another year of experimentation before they can reach definitive conclusions.

What does the so-called God Particle – assuming it exists and is identified – say about creation and God’s handiwork? It depends on who you ask. Providing a typical response, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg of the University of Texas-Austin says that “as science explains more and more, there is less and less need for religious explanations.”

Many Christians, however, believe it simply would provide new insight into how God created and upholds the universe today. And Vern S. Poythress, Ph.D, of Westminster Theological Seminary says that while the God Particle would be an exciting discovery in the highly specialized field of particle physics, it also would say something about the age-old issue of human pride and hubris. “Physicists…like to get ‘to the bottom’ in understanding the physical character of the smallest particles, and…getting to the bottom gives scientists the feeling that they have achieved a God-like knowledge.”

One thing that’s clear is that many atheistic scientists today operate with nothing of the humility that characterized Albert Einstein’s work and thoughts. Although he was not a Christian believer, Einstein was far from an atheist and “displayed a profound faith in the orderliness of the universe,” wrote the biographer Walter Isaacson, and he saw the universe as “marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws.”

Whether or not scientists establish the existence of Higgs boson, there will always be a missing link for those who reject the Creator. Einstein once coined a term to help explain his theory of a static universe: he called it the cosmological constant. Like all things scientific, the theory has been introduced…subsequently rejected…then reconsidered…and still debated.

But the Cosmological Constant of Scripture has always been and always will be this: “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible…all things were created through him and for him.” (Colossians 1:16) Pray that this will be revealed and confirmed in America, to His glory!

Posted in opinion |

A City on a Hill

Thursday, December 29th, 2011

America’s biggest challenges of 2011

by Dave Ficere

America faced a variety of challenges in 2011, both foreign and domestic, but none larger than jobs and the economy.

According to a poll conducted by the Libertarian-leaning Reason Magazine, the top three categories of concern among those surveyed were jobs, the economy and debt/spending. Fifty-six-percent of participants named one of those three categories as the major problem facing the United States…giving you much to pray about as you approach the advent of a New Year.

Over the past year, Americans continued asking, “Where are the jobs?” and the economy will be the driving issue in the 2012 presidential election. Despite November’s drop in the unemployment rate to 8.6 percent, unemployment for most of 2011 hovered close to nine percent; meaning more than 13 million Americans are out of work. In addition, the government’s Bureau of Labor statistics reports another 2.6 million Americans are unemployed but have given up looking for work.

Americans are also concerned about runaway government spending and the huge $15 trillion deficit. The U.S. government borrows about 42 cents of every dollar it spends and the debt has increased by more than $1 trillion in each of the last three fiscal years. That $15 trillion hole amounts to $40,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

The poor economy and Washington’s apparent inability to tackle tough issues leads to another challenge facing America. Eleven percent of those polled in the Reason public opinion survey cited political discord and/or government as a big problem. They see America as sharply divided along political lines, leading to doubt and cynicism that any political leader can solve or is even willing to tackle the country’s toughest problems.

About four percent say big government is the most pressing problem America faces. That includes government intrusion into health care, business and even what type of light bulbs Americans should buy. An increasing number of citizens want less government and more of the self-determination they believe this country was founded upon.

Surprisingly, terrorism wasn’t mentioned at all in the survey, although war was. Perhaps in the ten years since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the nation has forgotten about the terror threat and subsequent plots that have been foiled by those who keep diligent watch over America. Sadly, it would probably take another 9/11 type attack to vault terrorism to the top of the list again.

To summarize, the top problems facing the U.S. in 2011 were:

The economy, jobs and unemployment
The nation’s deficit and out-of-control spending
Division (politically) and cynicism about leaders
Overly intrusive government

How can you pray about these issues as you head into 2012?

Prayer for the nation’s leaders is the key to righting the American ship – and a good place to start is on this website. Each week, the Presidential Prayer Team suggests key legislative and judicial leaders, government officials and members of the military to pray for. Ask God to give them wisdom in the decisions they make that affect all Americans.

Pray, too, that the president and Congress will come together and make hard choices about the economy, jobs and unemployment as well as the nation’s deficit. As Americans watch them work together, it’s possible much of the nation’s cynicism will disappear.

Finally, Jesus spoke of a “city on a hill,” a phrase quoted by two presidents: Democrat John F. Kennedy and Republican Ronald Reagan.

In 1961, Kennedy said:

“We must always consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. Today the eyes of all people are truly upon us – and our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state and local, must be as a city upon a hill – constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities.”

Reagan summed it up in his January 11, 1989 farewell speech to the nation:

“I’ve spoken of the shining city. It was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.”

Pray that America may once again become that tall, shining city on a hill.

Posted in opinion |

Archive for the ‘opinion’ Category

When trivializing and silence are not enough

But what does that really mean?

Komen for the Cure bullied out of common sense policy

Should courts control the content of your public prayer?

His criteria to decipher the spiritual sound bytes

Iowa result shatters evangelical stereotype

Troops preserve national security, but many struggle at home

What the God Particle means for Christians

America’s biggest challenges of 2011