Patients Won't Die Fast Enough

What do you do when you're a doctor and your patients just won't die fast enough? Give 'em a hand!

A critically ill man in San Luis Obispo was going to donate his organs after he died. In fact, he was scheduled to be removed from a lung machine which was pumping oxygen into his body.

But apparently his death wasn't quick enough for the transplant surgeon, who injected the patient with a massive dose of drugs to hasten his demise.

From the LA Times:

The amounts of the painkiller morphine and the sedative Ativan that the report says were given to Navarro were 'between 10 and 20 times a usual dose of these drugs,' said Dr. Philip S. Barie, president-elect of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, who was not involved in the preparation of the document.

I believe in organ donation, and am listed as a donor on my driver's license. But this kind of attitude is making me rethink it.

When you couple this behavior with what happened to Terri Schiavio a couple of years ago, I'm almost afraid to set foot in a hospital.

It seems the overall lack of regard for human life is truly getting dangerous. Many have no qualms about harvesting human embryos for experimentation, killing their unborn children, or euthanising people that they, in their vast wisdom, deem no longer worthy of living.

Gore Pays Himself to Stop Global Warming

Algore's hypocrisy just seems to know no bounds.

From WorldNetDaily:

Al Gore defends his extraordinary personal energy usage by telling critics he maintains a 'carbon neutral' lifestyle by buying 'carbon offsets,' but the company that receives his payments turns out to be partly owned and chaired by the former vice president himself.

and

"In other words, he 'buys' his 'carbon offsets' from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself," Hobbs writes. "To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy 'carbon offsets' through Generation Investment Management – he buys stocks."

This "carbon offset" garbage looks like a plan to allow rich liberals to continue doing the things they condemn the little people for doing while making themselves look "caring" in the process. And in Algore's case, he lines his own pockets in the process.

Liberals are soooooooo compassionate!

Magazine Publisher Leaves Homosexuality

OneNewsNow reports Charlene E. Cothran, publisher of VENUS Magazine, a publication for black homosexuals, has become a Christian and has rejected the homosexual lifestyle:

'I have recently experienced the power of change that came over me once I completely surrendered to the teachings of Jesus Christ,' she continues. 'As a believer of the word of God, I fully accept and have always known that same-sex relationships are not what God intended for us.'

Cothran details a discussion with a local pastor that galvanized the doubts she had been having while trying to reconcile her homosexual behavior with the biblical prohibition on sex outside of a one-man, one-woman marriage.

This is really good news! One more person not only finds the truth about the freedom from sin they can find in Christ, but she's found eternal life as well!

The fact that her conversion was due in some part to this conversation with a local pastor reinforces that society shouldn't be pretending that homosexuality is normal, natural and health...it should instead be speaking the truth in love to help folks get out of this disappointing and dangerous way of living.

It's also a renewed call for Christians not to compromise or be silent, but to speak out and help people leave this behind for the abundant life.

Preschool Bill Bites the Dust...Again

SB 115, the South Dakota preschool bill, bit the dust again today in the full House.
It was by a pretty good margin, too: 28-42.

Let's hope it stays down this time. We simply don't need it.

How Do We Help Families?

Erin of Madison, South Dakota writes again with more thoughtful, insightful feedback:

Hi Bob,

I totally agree with you that children are better off with their parents. As a work-at-home mom to a 1-year-old, I live out that conviction daily. However, I think you’re missing the boat on something here. In this post you haven’t really addressed the issue of South Dakota having such a high rate of working mothers. You insinuate that the families with both parents working are doing so merely because they want more things. That may very well be the case for some, but there are many families for whom it’s essential to have both incomes.

I would really like to hear your proposals for making it easier for moms (or dads!) to stay home with their young children. A good portion of these moms are working out of necessity, so I think we need some proposals about how to improve the economic situation for families in our state. Any suggestions on how we can work to “ . . . bring the family back together and provide a healthy, reliable home life for our children”?

Thanks!

I realize that there are some situations where mothers simply must work outside the home, but I believe those instances are more rare than pop culture would have us believe. Still, you bring up a good point, and I believe the solutions lie on two levels. I’ll address the latter level first.

I know for a fact that in many families both parents work full time outside the home when they don’t need to. I won’t name names, but right now I am thinking of several families with whom I’m acquainted that have a combined family income of $50,000 to $100,000 (or more). Now, I have nothing against a family making that kind of money, and most of these folks are good people, but can we honestly say that it’s “necessary” to make that much money, especially when the children have to be left in the company of strangers for the best part of the day to make it happen? I simply do not think so. It wasn’t that many years ago that our family lived on my income only, which was considerably less than $25,000 a year before taxes (without tapping any type of government assistance, I should add), so I know it can be done. I know some families can make even less than that, but more on that shortly.

There are a number of things families can do to help make ends meet without having to send the children outside the home. One option many mothers already exercise is working from home. It could be something they create and market from home, it might be contracted work they can perform from home (such as stuffing envelopes, etc.), it could be work they do on the phone such as telemarketing or selling ads or collecting debts, or it might involve some type of work over an internet connection. Many companies today allow “telecommuting” even when many in that same company still go in to an office.

Other families develop creative schedules where one parent works part of the day out of the home and the other parent goes to a job outside the home after the first parent returns home. Obviously such a schedule is demanding and not a lot of fun, but it won't be forever. Besides, as I’ve asked before, “Aren’t our children worth some sacrifice?”

Family members can often help, such as grandma and grandpa, if they are nearby and are retired or semi-retired. Having family watching the children, even when it can’t be mom and dad, is infinitely better than dropping them off at an institution with people who are paid to take care of them instead of taking care of them because they love them.

Now, obviously these types of solutions are going to be impractical if not impossible for most single parents; there simply isn’t enough of one parent to spread around. This is the part where the state can have its greatest involvement to help get our society out of the terrible state it’s helped create through easy divorce and the so-called “safety net.” It comes down to what might be called “prevention.”

How many of us know people who’ve gotten married to a jerk or jerkess and ended up divorced…when the warning signs were there before they ever got married? I know a lot of people that fit that bill. In fact, I’ve been in a relationship or two in my single days that I now thank God he saved me from ending up in marriage (it wasn’t through my smarts that I was saved, just God’s intervention in scuttling the relationship before it was too late). But I, too, should have been smarter than I was, and not gotten involved with women of poor character.

If most of these people were honest, and a lot of them will admit it, that the warning signs were there before they got married…they just ignored them. So why don’t we exercise more caution and wisdom before getting into a bad marriage? Subconsciously we know we can get out of it. We know we can get an easy divorce. We know that if we have kids and have to get a divorce, that if all else fails, we can fall back on the welfare state to take care of us.

There was a time, not that many decades ago in America, when you couldn’t get a divorce without a darn good reason. In that same day and age, you couldn’t rely on the government to bail you out of bad decisions—you had to live with the consequences of living recklessly. We need to go back to those times. I know it’s no fun and I know it’s not popular to say it, but we human beings are always going to gravitate toward the easy way. If there’s no incentive to motivate us to live cautiously, then we’ll live recklessly because there’s no punishment/reward system that spurs us to do otherwise.

There’s little that can be done with families that are already broken, but we can do a lot to reduce the number of broken homes, going forward.

One is to make divorce a hard thing to get again: keep it reserved for major things like infidelity (and even this can be worked through, if the perpetrator is willing to reform and the wronged spouse can find a way to forgive them, for the children’s sake), spouse/child abuse, and debilitating addictive behaviors that cripple the health of the family.

Another thing is to get rid of the welfare state completely and go back to what we used to have in this country: private charity. Private charities and churches are in a much better position, both by moral disposition and proximity to the hurting people, to help…and help with discrimination. By helping with discrimination I mean checking out the situation to make sure they aren’t being scammed. Private institutions are also much better equipped to address the root causes of what brought people to be in need in the first place. And perhaps most importantly, if people understand that a ready, no-questions-asked handout is unlikely, most of them will think twice before hooking up with a loser or someone they can’t stand once the joy of sex with someone new wears off.

I’m for as little government intervention as possible in matters such as this, but as I said before, it was government’s dereliction of duty that made it easy for many in our society to get into this position. So I think it would be reasonable for government to mount an education campaign—once it’s cut off the flow of largess—to encourage people to date and marry wisely. We spend millions on ad campaigns to get people to stop smoking, eat right, exercise, etc., so why couldn’t we spend some money to make it clear to folks that the gravy train isn’t running anymore? Why not make it clear to people that no-fault divorce is a thing of the past, so they’d better not marry a dirtbag or some loser with a lousy work ethic, and they’d better not date someone they wouldn’t want to marry, and they shouldn’t be having sex outside marriage and putting the resulting children in a bad position.

But oh, you might say, we can’t tell people how to live their lives!!! We can’t? We do it all the time: don’t smoke, stop smoking, don’t do drugs, don’t drink and drive, buckle up, talk to your kids, be a good dad…the list is almost endless. If we can tell people they shouldn’t smoke and they should wear their seatbelt, why can’t we tell them they shouldn’t marry some jerk that they’ll hate in a year or two and by then have children that will be left in the lurch? There’s absolutely no reason whatsoever we couldn’t encourage family responsibility in our society. There is every reason from a religious foundation, and every reason from a “practical” societal perspective.

Essentially the same thing goes for unwed pregnancies and sex outside of marriage. Quit telling kids we expect them to screw around, so just wear a condom! Quit treating them like animals and expect them to act like people that can think and control their urges. And let them know that the state isn’t going to make it easier for them to land in a safety net if they ignore caution; they’ll have to take care of this child on their own, and the father will at least be held financially responsible, and if they don’t “do the right thing” and get married, then they’ll likely have to live with their mom and dad, and mom and dad will have to help raise their own grandchild. Maybe this would motivate parents to teach their children better about sex outside of marriage, and maybe motivate them to not let their teenagers run wild and end up in trouble.

Having children and taking care of them requires the same responsibility of married folk as unmarried folk. As Dr. Laura says, "Don't Have Them If You Won't Raise Them." And no, you don't have to abort them. Don't have sex if you're not married. Don't get married if you know you can't afford to raise children (because whether you plan them or not, children are the natural consequence of human sexuality, and they'll often happen despite the pill and other contraceptives). Children are more than something to make your Christmas postcard look warm and fuzzy, and they're more than just a vehicle to "carry on your family name." They're more than just a pet you can feed and scratch behind the ears when you come home at night. They're real people and they deserve far more than they're getting from us so-called adults.

You’ll never solve 100% of problem families; problem families have been around since the beginning of the human race. Sometimes people will become single parents through no fault of their own, and sometimes some families will hit poverty through no fault of their own. But with the right safeguards and incentives to encourage sacrifice and responsibility, we can keep the casualty figures low.

It comes down to caution, consideration, facing the consequences of our mistakes, and making the sacrifices that are necessary to give our children the stable home life they need to grow into healthy, productive people.

Nice cars and career plans can wait until the nest is empty. We’ve raised a generation (or two) of thoroughly screwed up and hurting people because we believed the lie that we could have it all (both parents having the satisfaction of an outside-the-home career, nice house, new car, cell phones and big-screen TVs, recreational spending money) without sacrificing a single thing. And in believing the lie, we’ve sacrificed the healthy, happy lives of too many of our children.

I hope that’s provided some of the clarification you asked for, Erin. Thanks for asking.

The Two Americas

Conservatives are examining one of the deepest divides troubling America today: the moral divide.

From CNS News:

Taking a page from the playbook of Democratic 2008 presidential hopeful John Edwards, social conservatives attending the 34th annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., Thursday agreed there are 'two Americas' -- but the division, they said, is over morals, not money.

'It's been said that there are two Americas, and what I'd argue is that if there are two Americas, we're not divided economically, we're divided morally,' Wendy Wright, president of the group Concerned Women for America, said during a panel discussion entitled 'Beyond Our Pocketbooks: Social Issues and the Conservative Movement.'

The article is a good one, but it doesn't go into detail about the relationship between moral and economic issues as much as I'd like. Still, they do at least touch on it:

"The other party doesn't seem to acknowledge or understand the interrelationship between the social and economic issues," he continued. "They think they can do one without the other."

What the Left refuses to acknowledge is that the economic problems they love to whine about are largely due to moral problems.

There will always be rich people and poor people, even if you try to build your socialist paradise (remember the "Animal Farm," where some animals were "more equal" than others?). But many of the economically disadvantaged people in this country are in that position because of poor moral choices.

Studies show that most of the poor are in broken homes. Broken homes are almost always the consequence of a variety of moral failures on the part of at least one spouse/parent: infidelity, easy divorce, unwed pregnancy, substance abuse, gambling addiction, poor work ethic, etc.

A friend and I try to minister to a number of people who might be described as the "down and out": lots of problems such as relationship issues, poverty, etc. My friend and I talked just a couple of nights ago about our frustration in bringing people to the point where they can see that doing things God's way usually reaps benefits--not only in the life to come, but in this one, too. You may not become rich by taking the moral path, but your basic needs will almost certainly be met, and you'll have a lot less heartache.

But with all the distractions of our fast-paced and distraction-laden American lifestyle, it's easy to miss this truth. It also doesn't help that society, with the help of the media, sends out a constant drumbeat that says, "You deserve to have it all. You CAN have it all without paying a price. Doing whatever you want will bring you happiness."

That's a lie. It seeks to hide the truth that is ultimately inescapable: Moral choices have economic consequences.

No SUVs on Mars

Turns out there are no SUVs on Mars after all.

A Russian scientist points to solar activity as causing warming on both Earth and Mars.

From National Geographic:

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

'Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,' Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

How stunning a concept, that the star at the center of our solar system might be causing temperature changes on this planet! Whoda thought?!

Disciples of the global warming myth, of course, have a different explanation for both planets showing warming at the same time: "pure coincidence."

Poll: Most Americans Favor Socialized Medicine

Poll results like this are why I'm very fearful when the government starts monkeying around with health care. By the nature of the beast, politicians tend to watch for where the herd seems to be going and then try to get out in front of it.

From CBS News, a poll which says most Americans want socialized medicine:

Most Americans believe government can play a role in fixing the health care system. Two-thirds say the federal government should guarantee that all Americans have health insurance — and a similar number says providing health insurance for all is a more serious problem than keeping health care costs down.

Eighty-four percent of Americans favor expanding government programs in order to give health insurance to all uninsured children.

Less than one in three, however, say the government would do a better job than private insurance companies at actually providing medical coverage. Forty-four percent said the government would be worse as a health care provider than private companies.

SHOULD GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR ALL?

Yes 64%
No 27%


WHICH IS MORE SERIOUS?

Providing health insurance for all 65%
Keeping health care costs down 31%

More Americans do think the government can do a better job than private companies at helping hold down health care costs.

Does anyone else notice the dichotomy here? 84% want government to run things, but less than 33% believe they'd actually do a better job than the private sector? So they're saying, "Let's put the most incompetent agency in charge of the problem." I think if they had a fair and candid picture of the indirect cost (crippling taxes, waiting lists and bureaucratic inefficiency), these poll numbers would be vastly different, but with our socialist-minded media, that isn't going to happen.

Also, while I understand why most Americans think the government will do better at keeping costs down (i.e. fear of capitalism), they're on pretty strong drugs for thinking that.

Government might give the illusion that costs would be lower under socialized medicine (after all, in countries like England and Canada, it's referred to as "free health care" even though the government taxes their socks off to pay for it), but overall costs will go into orbit under a government bureaucracy.

I'm hoping the Zaniya Project task force folks will be smart enough not to buy into ignorant, conflicted polls such as this. But I wouldn't bet on it.

The Hillary Clinton Thesis

MSNBC features a lengthy and very, very interesting story on Hillary Clinton's legendary college thesis. Many people have talked about the document as the key to understanding her ideology and ruthless politics. It also examines her idol, radical Leftist Saul Alinsky, since he is the subject of the thesis.

I suspect the MSNBC piece is more of an inoculation against the true impact of the story, but there are interesting glimpses of both her and the ascendancy of the Left in America.

Here's an example that I believe still retains more than a hint of truth today:

Looking back at the 1930s, he said, “Anybody who tells you he was active in progressive causes in those days and never worked with the Reds is a goddamn liar. Their platform stood for all the right things, and unlike many liberals, they were willing to put their bodies on the line.”

Some don't buy into the idea that her college thesis is a "Rosetta Stone" for understanding the woman Hillary is now:

“It's a moronic statement,” said Hillary Rodham's thesis adviser, Alan Schechter, now an emeritus professor at Wellesley, as well as a friend and campaign contributor to Sen. Clinton.

“The notion that a 21-year-old idealist somehow remains a 21-year-old idealist their whole life — she's not a radical at all. I think she's very mainstream. She's a pragmatist. She's a much more thoughtful, cautious, careful, pragmatic person — she's been burned so often.”

I think there can be a lot of truth to that statement. I'm certainly a far different person than I was 15 years ago when I supported abortion and had far more faith in government's ability to provide solutions than I do now. What I espoused then would provide some, but little insight into the man I am today. Some of those beliefs remain, but some are more solid than ever while others have been completely thrown out.

Understanding Hillary through this thesis would depend on how much of that young woman remains in the older woman. If many of the ideas and philosophies remain, even if those ideas have "matured," it still might provide useful insight into why Hillary does the things she does.

Her actions, statements and votes demonstrate that she is still very much that "60's radical" socialist. Though perhaps she has learned to temper that perception of her with doublespeak and deception, as most socialists do.

"Hate Crime" Legislation is Un-American

This stuff is scary...and if you don't find it chilling, then you have some serious problems.

In the Democrat controlled congress, so-called "hate crime" legislation has a more than fair chance of passing.

Hate isn't a good thing. But can you legislate an emotion that otherwise expresses itself within the boundaries of the law? Apparently liberals think you can.

From OneNewsNow:

Meanwhile, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) being crafted by and set to be introduced this fall by Congressman Barney Frank will likely attempt to bar organizations with 15 or more employees from discriminating against those individuals based on their sexual preference or gender identity. Barber says that bill would have a chilling effect on religious liberty. He offers an example of how ENDA might be applied.

'For instance, ... a Bible bookstore owner [might decide] that he did not want to hire [an] individual who came and applied for the job -- a man wearing a dress and lipstick,' Barber suggests. And if that employer decided to turn away the applicant because he did not 'match the values' of the bookstore, 'then [under ENDA] they could be held accountable for discrimination,' he says.

This kind of legislation shouldn't be an issue. If someone assaults another person, they're guilty of assault; whether the assault was committed because Person A wanted Person B's toys, or whether Person A hated Person B because of Person B's attributes behavior...all that is immaterial. Did or did not the assault occur, and did Person A do it? That's all that matters.

Regards Congressman Frank's scenario above, that's one that is despicable but not surprising, given its source.

Would I do business with a homosexual? I have before and I'm sure I will again. But hiring someone who overtly does not represent my values or the values of my business? Sorry. There are other jobs out there Mr. Confused can apply for.

There's a concept--and a freedom--we all should enjoy: freedom of association. This should also extend to businesses. They shouldn't be forced to associate with people who don't reflect their values. Other potential customers or clients are free to boycott them or whatever they feel compelled to do within the law, but businesses--especially those who are open about their values--should not be forced to compromise their beliefs or their freedom of association.

More Cold Water on Jesus Tomb Claim

National Geographic featured a story yesterday throwing more cold water on the sensational claim that the tomb of Jesus had been found.

"Their movie is not serious," Amos Kloner, the Bar Ilan University professor who led the excavation in the 1980s, told National Geographic News.

"They [say they] are 'discovering' things. But they haven't discovered anything. They haven't found anything. Everything had already been published.

"And there is no basis on which to make a story out of this or to identify this as the family of Jesus."

From a Jerusalem professor:

"I don't think it says Yehoshua [Jesus]. It says Hanun or something," Pfann said, after viewing high-resolution images of the ossuary inscription in question.

This has shaped up very quickly as just another Hollywood hit job on Christianity.

Maybe these God-haters just don't realize we live in a new information age. In times past, they might have been able to succeed with this kind of hit-job because the God-hating Left controlled the few media sources that existed.

But now there are other news outlets and the internet to quickly research and expose pathetic attempts like this.

Wake up, Guys! Leftist propaganda isn't a sure thing anymore. Ask Dan Rather: you often end up with egg on your face instead.

Newt Gets Nasty

From the New York Post:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich yesterday called Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton 'a nasty woman' who runs an 'endlessly ruthless' campaign machine.

Asked whether Americans are ready to elect Rudy Giuliani - a leader, the questioner noted, whom Ed Koch had called a 'nasty man' - Gingrich shot back, 'As opposed to a nasty woman?'

Bush's House More Eco-Friendly Than Gore's

President George Bush, destroyer of worlds, has a "greener" house than environmental wacko Al Gore, according to NewsMax:

An April 2001 article in USA Today described the president's 4,000-square-foot single-story limestone house in Crawford as an 'eco-friendly haven.'

'Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground - one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is so-called 'gray water,' and one tank for 'black water' from the kitchen sink and toilets,' it said. 'The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater.'

In addition, 'the Bushes installed a geothermal heating and cooling system, which uses about 25 percent of the electricity that traditional heating and air-conditioning systems consume.'

Not good enough for environmental extremists like David Roberts, a staff writer for the environmental magazine Grist:

"I wish that George Bush would back public policy that is in line with what he does on his ranch," he said.

In other words, he should worry more about talking the talk than walking the walk, like Algore.

As usual, the Left's motto: Symbolism Over Substance.

Gore: Too Much Balance in the Media

That's the Left for ya: anything less than a 100% lockdown of liberal talking points=bias.

From the Tennessean:

'I believe that is one of the principal reasons why political leaders around the world have not yet taken action,' Gore said. 'There are many reasons, but one of the principal reasons in my view is more than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly — and I say 'rejected,' perhaps it's the wrong word. They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen … balance as bias.'

The major networks and national newspapers have certainly been on-message for Gore, so Gore must be complaining about those pesky "alternative media" source that aren't in obedience to the party line. That, or those hundreds of disagreeing scientists who make his "scientific consensus" statement fall a little flat.

Every now and then, you get those little flashes of candor from the Left. I'm glad I didn't miss this one.

Argus in a Snit Over Preschool

The Argus Leader is in a snit over the rejection of SB 115, the bill authorizing preschool standards.

They especially didn't like Rep. Mike Buckingham's vote against it, and here's what they had to tell him:

Study after study after study after study has shown the benefits of preschool education. Not baby-sitting, but preschool.

Which ones are those? Is it the one where Cato policy analyst Darcy Olsen reviewed 35 years of studies and found no lasting benefits of preschool? Or David Elkind, author and professor of child study at Tufts University, who said that there is no evidence that preschool education is appropriate for middle class students? Or Ed Zigler, the Head Start architect, who said "Our four-year-olds do have a place in school, but it is not at a school desk." Or how about the Abecedarian Project that found preschool children were more likely to have behavioral problems than others, and that also found any academic advantage was "history" by the time the students were in high school. Or the 2005 Goldwater Institute report that had the same finding, that any academic benefit fades fast? The same report that found, "The preschool enrollment rate of four-year-olds has climbed from 16% to 66% since 1965. Despite the change from home education to formal early education, student achievement has stagnated since 1970." Or the Rand Corporation's cost benefit analysis which found preschool generates losses of 25-30 cents for every dollar spent.

Was it one of these reports the Argus was referencing?

Eighty-two percent of South Dakota mothers work - the highest percentage in the nation - meaning a large number of our kids are in some sort of preschool setting.

Here we have the typical liberal answer to a problem: if you have a problem area, then make it easier to create more of that problem.

That is a very sad figure--sad for South Dakota children. So the answer from the Argus is to make that figure even larger. Are they shooting for 100%? Do they want a "No Child Left with Parents" program?

Instead of coming up with new taxpayer funded programs to make the dissolution of stable family life even easier, we should be working to bring the family back together and provide a healthy, reliable home life for our children.

Children will be better off in many ways if they are home with parents, not with strangers who may or may not share their values, and who have to divide their attention among many other children.

If those settings are schools that offer education - not simply babysitting - there ought to be standards.

If we are to base our faith in preschool education on the current achievements of the public school system, then that faith is seriously misplaced. Despite throwing unprecedented amounts of money at "education" in recent decades, academic achievement is pretty much stagnant...and this even after testing has been dumbed down.

The Argus also says "Nonsense" of the assertion:

Opponents of the standards bill said it would lead not just to state-funded pre-kindergarten schooling but to forced preschool.

It's far from nonsense. Since when does any government funded program remain "voluntary" for long? Senator Bill Napoli said last Saturday that he researched the head start program and found that within 12 years it had gone from voluntary to mandatory. Preschool will undoubtedly do the same, if not faster.

I grew up poor, and I didn't even get to go to Head Start. Due to my "disadvantage," it took the other kids who went to headstart well into high school for most of them to catch up to where I was. My parents weren't genius' either; just simple farm folk who cared about their boy.

We need more folks who care about their children enough to take care of them, and less government funded programs that accomplish little other than pushing the family farther over the precipice.

Yes, it may take sacrifice. We may not have all the grownup toys we want, we may not all the trappings of modern life that we want, and we may not achieve all the goals of our self-actualization plan.

But aren't our children worth some personal sacrifice?

UFOs Can Save the Planet!

Okay, hand over the ray gun, Zeldar!

Apparently aliens (from another planet, not the undocumented worker type) can save earth from total destruction!

From Yahoo News:

A former Canadian defense minister is demanding governments worldwide disclose and use secret alien technologies obtained in alleged UFO crashes to stem climate change, a local paper said Wednesday.


'I would like to see what (alien) technology there might be that could eliminate the burning of fossil fuels within a generation ... that could be a way to save our planet,' Paul Hellyer, 83, told the Ottawa Citizen.

I'm glad this guy is on the global warming case. I feel so much safer!

It is, at least, in keeping with the genre: UFOs and global warming both fall under "science fiction."

But He Had Feelings For Her!

If feelings are the standard in our modern culture, and from abortion to homosexuality to crime, as it appears to be, then I don't know why they're persecuting this illegal alien, er, undocumented worker.

From WorldNetDaily:

An illegal alien from Mexico was sentenced in Maryland to a 10-year sentence for impregnating the 12-year-old daughter of a family with whom he was living, with 8 1/2 years suspended by the judge.

Noberto Vasquez-Fuentes, 21, was sentenced under a plea agreement that included a guilty plea to second-degree rape of the girl with whom he had sex on five occasions in September 2005.

But there was a good reason why this undocumented worker had sex with this 12-year-old: he cared for her.

Assistant Public Defender William Davis, attorney for Vasquez-Fuentes, suggested "a cultural difference" may have kept his client from realizing his actions were wrong.

"He did have feelings for her," Davis told the Annapolis Capital.

It should have been enough that he had feelings for the victim, er, object of his affection. But when you consider that this man was economically disadvantaged, you can certainly understand why this compassionate judge would suspend 85% of this undocumented worker's rape sentence.

Isn't it great to live in such a compassionate country?

At Least It's Not American

England's Prince Charles recently bashed McDonalds for the health quality of their food.

But I think he's been "Gored," which is a term I've come up with after Al Gore's "do as I say, not as I do" environmental hypocrisy was exposed.

It seems his own food company makes "worse" stuff than McDonalds. From This is London:

His Cornish pasty contains 264 calories per 100g compared to the burger's 229 calories, and 5.5g of saturated fat as opposed to the Big Mac's 4.14g.

With all the anti-Americanism going on among the elites of Europe, his excuse will probably be: "Well, at least my pastries aren't American."

Is Incest Harmful to Children?

Erin of Madison, South Dakota Writes:

I just noticed something while reading over the Dakota Voice site. You provide this quote from Dr. Donald Oliver in a column you wrote dated 8/2/06: "Just two months ago, I personally took care of a baby boy born to a very young teenage mother who was allegedly raped by her brother. So here we have the two scenarios brought forth most often by those on the pro-abortion side, rape and incest. This brave young lady carried her child to term and delivered a healthy normal boy. Here is an interesting fact that you may not be aware of. Just as two bad genes might pair up and lead to an unfortunate outcome, two good genes can pair up, and the infant of this incestuous relationship, may become the brightest person in the family, sometimes in the genius range of intellect. They are normal children at least 97 to 98 percent of the time. This young teenage mother that I just spoke of, when she found out she was pregnant, felt that besides herself, the only other really innocent person in this sad situation was her baby, and he certainly didn't deserve capital punishment for her brother's sins."

What this doctor is saying contradicts what you're saying in your 2/27/06 blog post titled "But They Love Each Other!" Here's your quote: "Whether these children suffered birth defects because of the close relation or not, it is a scientific fact of genetics that children of close relations have a greater risk of birth defects. That is why we have laws against incest: to protect children from unnecessary harm."

So, is incest harmful to the children who are its products or isn't it? I'd appreciate your clarification.

Thanks.

That's a good question, Erin, and one I suspected would come up. :-)

When two closely related people make a child, the child has a higher risk of birth defects because of genetic mutations. We all have problems in our genetic makeup, but those problems occur in different widely different places when comparing unrelated people. But as many traits are inherited (such as skin color, height, etc.), those genetic mutations are also often inherited. All this means that when the male and female DNA come together in the child, the problem areas aren't as likely to match up in the child if the parents aren't closely related. If they are closely related, they are far more likely to give two copies of a bad genetic area to their offspring. This is vastly simplified, but that's the gist of it.

It isn't a certainty, but it does increase the risk. So much that God forbade marriage between close relations when he gave Moses the Law.

But that's how the child Dr. Oliver mentioned managed to come out okay.

And just to clarify this in the context of Dr. Oliver's patient, what the perpetrator did to the incest victim did was wrong on a number of levels (rape, incest laws, risk to the child, etc.), we shouldn't try to erase one wrong my committing another--especially when the "wrong" being erased is a human life.

Many people with birth defects go on to have happy and productive lives. My wife and her three siblings, all of whom were born blind, are proof of that. My wife is a teacher with a master's degree in learning disabilities, and is a talented pianist. Her sister has a degree in ministry. One brother is a recording artist who plays more than 20 instruments. The other brother is a radio DJ with a degree in broadcasting.

The increased odds of birth defects is no justification to kill the unborn child. We should avoid situations that put offspring at increased risk, but once the child has been created, he or she deserves the inalienable right to life.

Just wanted to be clear on that point.

Thanks, Erin.

Legislator Wants to Erase Reality

A Florida legislator who finds reality unpleasant wants to ban certain language.

From news-press.com:

A state legislator whose district is home to thousands of Caribbean immigrants wants to ban the term 'illegal alien' from the state's official documents.

'I personally find the word 'alien' offensive when applied to individuals, especially to children,' said Sen. Frederica Wilson, D-Miami. 'An alien to me is someone from out of space.'

Sometimes I can't figure out how some people get elected. Oh, sorry: I missed the "D" after her name. That explains a lot.

Anyway, if Senator Wilson would watch a little less TV and wipe the dust off a dictionary she'd learn that alien means

belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing

"Alien" has nothing inherently to do with Spock, Martians, Sigourney Weaver, or anything from space.

But people who are in America illegally definitely fall within the realm of "belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing," namely being a citizen of another country. That makes them an "alien." I was once an "alien" when I lived in England for several years. I was there legally, but I was an "alien" nonetheless.

And if they are in this country without following the laws specified by this country for entrance and residency, then "illegal" speaks for itself.

But I'm being too hard on Senator Wilson. I don't honestly believe her problem is an intellectual or educational deficit. It's actually a problem dealing with the law. She'd like to ignore the fact that there are many people in our country who are here illegally, and she'd like to conveniently erase that fact.

Homosexual Bishop Wants to Set Aside the Gospel

It's the work of the Gospel that homosexual V. Gene Robinson wants to set aside.

From Breitbart.com:

New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson said in a statement that Episcopalians should set aside the Anglican Communion's request for now 'and get on with the work of the Gospel' even at the risk of losing their place in the Anglican fellowship.

The gospel of Jesus Christ, when accepted, sets people free from the sin that enslaves us. It doesn't excuse it, it doesn't call it "normal, natural and healthy;" it enables people to call it what it is and break free of it.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 says

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

The church is full of nasty people (I'm one of them)...who are turning away from their nastiness.

The whole of Romans chapter 6 addresses this changed freedom, but here's an excerpt:

When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.

This man V. Gene Robinson has no credibility at all on this issue, because he is deep, deep in unrepentant sin.

Even born-again Christians still sin sometimes. But you'll seldom see one trying to excuse his sin by saying it isn't sin.

The Gospel is about Jesus setting the captives free, not telling the captives that their slavery is normal, natural and healthy.

Don't Give up on Life

You never know what God may do.

From Fox News:

A 2-month-old baby written off for dead miraculously returned from the brink of death upon reaching his father's arms at a Leeds hospital, according to published report.

Keep Those Children Out of the Way

This is interesting, from the Argus Leader today about the demise of the emergency contraception bill:

Supporters of a bill that would give information about emergency contraception to rape survivors decided to drop the issue Tuesday rather than risk possible amendments to turn it into an abortion ban.

Sounds like, "No thanks, we'd just rather kill unborn children."

Or was it more like, "Don't you get it? This bill is about killing unborn children!"

Environmentalism: The New Vogue Religion

If this doesn't ever hit the nail on the head...

From The Age, about a new book on the global warming myth:

"Environmentalism has largely superseded Christianity as the religion of the upper classes in Europe and to a lesser extent in the United States," Mr Evans says in the publication.

"It is a form of religious belief which fosters a sense of moral superiority in the believer, but which places no importance on telling the truth," he says.

"The global warming scam has been, arguably, the most extraordinary example of scientific fraud in the postwar period."

Let's face it: Christianity just isn't trendy anymore. Too many of the little people ascribe to it. Besides, all those pesky rules...

Portrait of Integrity

Now here's a fantastic example of integrity.

From the Christian Post:

Elliot Huck, one of the nation’s top spellers, has decided to sit out from this year’s regional spelling bee, because the event occurs on the Sabbath Day.

The 14-year-old, who placed 45th last year at the National Spelling Bee, felt that the competition would conflict with the Christian tradition to rest on Sunday.

'I always try to glorify God with what I do in the spelling bee because He is the one who gave me the talent for spelling,' said the spelling phenom to the IndyStar. “Now I think I'm going to not spell and try to give glory to God in that.'

Our whole country used to have this kind of integrity toward honoring the Lord's Day: businesses and other functions did not operate on Sunday. But that has gone the way of honoring God in general: mostly extinct.

This 14-year-old is an example of integrity we all, old and young alike, can look to.

Bush Wrecking the Economy

The sad state of the U.S. economy is Bush's fault (as is everything). Why are we allowing this president to wreck our economy?

From the Washington Post:

Consumer confidence rose to its highest level in five-and-a-half years amid optimism that the nation's economy is creating enough jobs, a private research group said Tuesday.

The New York-based Conference Board said that its Consumer Confidence Index rose to 112.5, up from a revised 110.2 in January. Analysts had expected the reading to be 109.

The February index was the highest since August 2001, when the reading was 114, indicating that consumers will continue to fuel the nation's economic growth in the near future.

Who We're Dealing With

Given the American predilection for denying the existence of evil, I doubt many Americans have a clue what and who it is we're dealing with in the Middle East and with terrorism.

From WorldNetDaily today, an update on the latest olive branch from the Religion of Peace:

Immediately after the Israeli evacuation was completed, Palestinians mobs destroyed most of the Gaza synagogues, including two major synagogues in Neve Dekalim, the largest Gush Katif community. In front of international camera crews, the Palestinians ripped off aluminum window frames and metal ceiling fixtures from the Neve Dekalim synagogues, which were situation close to each other in the center of town. Militants flew the Palestinian and Hamas flags from the structures before mobs burned down the synagogues.

Speaking to WND from Gaza, Abu Abir, spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees terrorist organization, said the area where the synagogues once stood now is used to fire rockets at Israel.

'We are proud to turn these lands, especially these parts that were for long time the symbol of occupation and injustice, like the synagogue, into a military base and source of fire against the Zionists and the Zionist entity,' Abu Abir said.

Meanwhile, the US pressures Israel into appeasement...er, peace, and congressional Democrats discuss emasculating our President's war authority and our military...

Al Gore: I'm not as Hypocritical as I Used to Be

According to Fox News, Algore has responded to charges that he uses vastly more energy than the little people do:

Al Gore responded to charges that his house consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, with the new Oscar winner saying he has taken many steps to reduce the carbon footprint in his home.

The former vice president and former presidential candidate told Thinkprogress.org that he has signed up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installed solar panels and uses compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy-saving technology. He said he also buys carbon offsets — a service that tries to reduce the net carbon emissions of individuals or organizations indirectly, through proxies that reduce their emissions and/or increase their absorption of greenhouse gases.

So what's the explanation? I'm not as hypocritical as I used to be, so gimme an Oscar?

But They Love Each Other!

There are reasons for defining the parameters of marriage. Some are more discernible, others less discernible but just as important.

From Fox News, here's one that's more tangible:

A German brother and sister who have four children together are calling for the country's incest laws to be abolished so that they can continue their sexual relationship.

Patrick Stubing and his sister Susan — who grew up separately — have had three of their children taken into foster care.

Two of the children have disabilities although it is not known if these are due to inbreeding or because they were born prematurely.

Whether these children suffered birth defects because of the close relation or not, it is a scientific fact of genetics that children of close relations have a greater risk of birth defects. That is why we have laws against incest: to protect children from unnecessary harm.

That is also why we define marriage as between one man and one woman: so that children aren't subjected to the loss of a male or female role model, and subjected to an emotionally unstable lifestyle.

Preschool Bill Defeated

SB 115, the bill that would have authorized preschool standards in South Dakota, was voted down in an 8-7 committee vote this morning.

Apparently the majority recognized we don't need to be taking young children out of the home, we don't need the extra expense of this, or that there's no bang for the buck with preschool...or a combination of these.

As Senator Napoli said at the cracker barrel Saturday, it was 12 years from the implementation of "voluntary" head start to mandatory head start. We don't need mandatory preschool, which is certainly what we'd have in time.

Education on the Issues Goes a Long Way

I've received some good but predictable emails on my Rapid City Journal piece on Governor Rounds' Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccination plan.

Here are a couple of excerpts:

Perhaps you should read the information on when the vaccination is effective for a girl. By the time your child is an adult, the vaccine will be of no value.

This reader should check out what the Centers for Disease Control has to say about the vaccination. Age isn't a factor; only previous sexual contact.

Here's another:

...you go to far in talking about "irresponsibility." Girls ought to be protected--not necessarily from their lack of responsibility--from the possible lack of responsibility by their future husbands.

I addressed that in my column:

If someday she plans to marry a man who made the mistake of not waiting for marriage, I would encourage her to get the vaccination during her engagement.

A little reading and education goes a long way in understanding the issues. When we take the time to investigate matters for ourselves, and stop relying on the pablum we're fed by a media that has an agenda, we often find things aren't as they've been portrayed.

And we often find that virtue and responsibility, while still no cake walk, are more attainable than we might have thought.

Homosexuals Seek HPV Vaccination

Seems young girls aren't the only ones who can be immunized against the consequences of sexual irresponsibility.

From Gay.com in the UK, now homosexuals are getting Gardasil shots in the hopes it will prevent one of the many health hazards of homosexual sex:

Gay men are queuing up to get a vaccine licensed to protect women against cervical cancer – because it may protect against anal cancer too.

Private healthcare clinics in the UK are reporting a high level of demand from men for Gardasil, the new vaccine against the human papilloma virus (HPV), even though it’s only licensed for adult use in women.

Dr Sean Cummings of gay men’s clinic Freedom Health told the BBC he had vaccinated dozens of men since the vaccine became available in the last few weeks.

Hans Blix: Friend of Evil

Looks like the nuclear-bent, terrorist-supporting tryants of Iran have a new buddy: former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix.

From YNetNews:

Former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said Monday the United States, Europe and the UN Security Council are "humiliating" Iran by demanding that it suspend uranium enrichment before any negotiations and then dictating its rewards.

It must be comforting to know that appeasement is still alive and well in the world today. Comforting to oppressive, belligerent regimes, that is.

Soap Operas Aim for New Low

I have long considered the American soap opera as an open sewer for decades. The rot portrayed by the actors and situations in these shows personifies the absolute worst in humanity. I believe the poor behavior seen in these shows has preceded the commonality of such behavior in society by a number of years, so I would safely guess that it had its part in helping society reach new lows.

So now comes this from MovieWeb.com about "transgendered" actors and actresses (how do you know the difference?) being hired for "All My Children."

In the episode to air March 9, Zoe (Jeffrey Carlson), a transgender woman who has recently come out to the denizens of Pine Valley, attends support group sessions to help get through her transition. Additionally, Jennifer Boylan, a transgender author, professor and expert commentator on transgender issues, has been cast in the role of the support group leader.

When I was in high school, these shows were already displaying the worst in backbiting and heterosexual behavior. They have since moved on to showcasing homosexual matters:

In 2000 television history was made when "All My Children" became the first daytime drama to incorporate a lesbian character, Bianca Montgomery (Eden Riegel), in a contract role. In 2003 another historic moment was made when the show aired daytime television's first same-sex kiss between two women in a loving relationship.

Now, apparently, homosexuality has lost its shock value, so they must dig a hole in the basement and introduce "transgenderism."

Does anyone remember what Edward Gibbon is famous for writing? Get ready for the sequel.

Al Gore: An Oscar for Do as I Say, Not as I Do

Drudge has a link to a press release from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research that shows Algore is using just a little bit more electricity than the rest of us:

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

But then, he deserves to use more energy than we of the little people.

Jesus Coffin Empty Too

Further information is coming out on this Jesus tomb documentary. I'm beginning to wonder if it's 100% empty hype.

From This Is London:

Crucially, he is not denying the resurrection - as there were no bones in the caskets.

Well then, this really proves or disproves nothing. If I remember the purported "facts" surrounding this film, that would only leave the assertion that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had a son as the only remaining controversial piece.

Interestingly, the archaeologist who oversaw the work at the tomb doesn't put a lot of stock in the film makers' theories:

Amos Kloner said the names found on the coffins had been found in tombs before, adding: 'It makes a great story for a TV film, but it's impossible.

'Jesus and his relatives were a Galilee family with no ties in Jerusalem. The Talpiot tomb belonged to a middle-class family from the first century.'

It's true that in those days, the names Jesus and Mary were as common as Bob and Karen are today. The confluence of all the names listed is noteworthy, but as Kloner points out, Jesus and his family weren't even Jerusalem residents.

From a piece on Breitbart.com quoting Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem:

Pfann is even unsure that the name "Jesus" on the caskets was read correctly. He thinks it's more likely the name "Hanun."

I'm beginning to strongly suspect that it isn't merely the subject of this film that's the hoax, but the film itself is a hoax...a hoax full of empty innuendo and strained speculation.

More on the "Jesus Family Tomb"

The brief press release I posted on the main Dakota Voice website Friday received a huge amount of hits that day and over the weekend. Rev. Schenk has a follow up statement today.

WorldNetDaily is also carrying the story now. The article mentions something I saw on the website for the film:

Jacobovici is trying not to alienate the faithful, by suggesting the ascension into heaven by Jesus could still have occurred spiritually if not physically.

This might sound all fine and dandy on the surface of it, but it still presents irreconcilable problems biblically. Here's what the film website has to say on this subject:

The writer of the Gospel of Matthew (28:12-15) addresses a rumor that was circulating in Jerusalem at the time of the Crucifixion, a rumor that we suggest can be taken for the truth. The rumor was that the disciples came by night to remove Jesus’ body from the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. They would have done this to safeguard his remains from desecrators.

His followers then would have taken the body of Jesus to a permanent tomb.

Even if Jesus were moved from one tomb to another, this does not negate the possibility that he was resurrected from the second tomb. Our documentary does not address this issue. Belief in the resurrection is based not on which tomb he was buried in, but on alleged sightings of Jesus that occurred after his burial and that are documented in the Gospels.

First, the Bible doesn't say the disciples moved Jesus' body from the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, and no second tomb is mentioned. What it clearly states is that Jesus' body disappeared from the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. It clearly states his body was gone, so this talk of a "spiritual-only resurrection" can't be reconciled to the Bible.

And that's not even getting into the theological and biblical implications of Jesus having married Mary Magdalene and producing a son with her.

As it is with many attempts to undermine the Bible, either it is or it isn't. Either things happened the way the Bible said, or the Bible is a lie. There's no room for fence sitting.

While I'm open to whatever the truth may be (just as I'm open to the remote possibility that the earth could be flat), I have every confidence that this will prove to be some sort of hoax.

Interesting sidenote: this whole things sounds a lot like a book my wife and I read about 13 years ago called "A Skeleton in God's Closet," a novel about the supposed finding of Jesus' skeleton. It, too, was eventually found to be a hoax.

Competing Worldviews

Crosswalk has an interesting article on the war of worldviews we're engaged in today. A "worldview" is a philosophy through which we view the world around us, from the big political stuff, all the way down to what goes on in your home. You have a worldview, whether you realize it or not.

If you're not familiar with this war of worldviews, it can provide tremendous insight into why there is so much disagreement in Western culture today: it's because the traditional Christian roots of Western civilization are under assault by secular humanism:

There is a struggle underway in American culture and it is ultimately a battle between two competing worldviews or explanations of reality. These two perspectives are the secular humanist explanation versus the biblical explanation of reality. The former is man-centered while the latter is God-centered.

The conflict between these two worldviews is made most apparent in their respective views of sex and sexual morality.

Sexuality isn't the only aspect important in this war of worldviews, but as this article points out, it is the most apparent, because practically everyone is sexual, it is a deeply rooted drive within us, and the family--the natural outgrowth of human sexuality--is the foundational building block for our civilization.

The article pronounces an indictment of the Church and its derelict conduct in this war:

The consequences experienced in the last four decades should serve as convincing condemnation of the secular humanist worldview. Sadly, the Church still remains largely sidelined in this battle – seemingly ill-equipped to respond with a persuasive and convincing defense of God’s truth related to all of life. The absence of an adequate response only further marginalizes the Church and its message.

This article actually pulls its punches. The Church is not only sidelined, in many cases it is actively consorting with the enemy or even aiding the enemy.

So how should the Church (i.e. Christians) be fighting this war of worldviews? Not with guns and violence, but in a different, perhaps even more difficult way:

We constantly challenge false worldviews by publicly testing them against their apparent and predictable results and then displace them through effective persuasion pointing out the truth’s apparent and predictable benefits. The truth works while efforts based upon a false assessment of reality will inevitably and always fail to achieve their original intent and likely do a lot of damage in the process. The secular humanist approach to sexuality is a prime example.

The failure of the welfare state (e.g. LBJs "Great Society") is another. We spent $5-6 trillion dollars to eradicate poverty (they originally said $5 billion would completely eliminate it), and in the end, had made no progress whatever.

Why did this fail? Because it came at the problem from a secularist worldview that assumed people would make the right choice if only environmental factors were right. But the biblical worldview could have told them that people have a sin nature and will usually make the wrong choice...until their nature is regenerated or "born again" in a true relationship with Jesus Christ.

I would encourage you to read this whole article--and more on the subject. If you are really a Christian, but you're sidelined as this article describes, then you are AWOL, and the Commander in Chief isn't happy with you. But the Good News is the Commander in Chief is very forgiving to those who genuinely repent, and he'll restore you to good standing and get you on the way to a brilliant "military career."

So go ahead: run to the battle!

In the Wrong Camp

The Rapid City Journal features an article today on the conflict in the Anglican/Episcopal church over homosexuality; ultimately it boils down to following the Scriptures.

Conflict between liberal and orthodox church members in the United States and abroad reached a crisis in 2003 when the Episcopal Church consecrated its first openly gay bishop. The tensions with conservatives grew last year when the American church elected a woman, Katharine Jefferts Schori, as presiding bishop.

Bill Kunerth, a member of St. James Episcopal Church in Belle Fourche, has high praise for Jefferts Schori as a leader of peace and inclusivity and little patience for the Anglican ultimatum that was issued at the meeting in Tanzania.

“I thought it was very narrow and perhaps a little unrealistic,” Kunerth said.

Unrealistic to do what the Bible says? No human or church obeys the Bible perfectly, as we are all fallen creatures and the church is made up of fallen creatures. But to throw up your hands and admit defeat at the git-go...there's something wrong with that.

Hebrews 12:4 says, "In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood." This biblical admonition is a long way from, "...that's a little unrealistic."

And as for "narrow," here's what Jesus himself said about narrow (Matthew 7:13-14): "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Yes, the Bible is tough. Yes, the way of God's truth is narrow. But it's worth it!

And if you're going to call yourself a Christian, there is no other path for you. If you're looking for the easy, wide way, then you're in the wrong camp. You might as well move over and quit trying to fool people...and yourself.