The Obama Chronicles, Part 8

Bill O'Reilly examines Barack Obama's worldview, specifically how he views the world, evil, national security and foreign policy.

The Beginning of the End of the Culture War?

Herbert E. Meyer has a great piece at American Thinker on what he calls the decisive battle in the culture war.

Though the "mainstream" media pooh-poohs the reality that a war of cultures has been going on in the United States for about 50 years, it is undeniable to anyone with eyes to see.

It is really a type of civil war, though unlike the American Civil War of the 1800s, this one knows no geographical lines, though the "red state/blue state" demarcations do provide some reference. It is also not fought with bullets, bombs and cannon.

This civil war is one fought on the battlefield of the heart and mind. It is a civil war of philosophies and worldviews. And the casualties are staggering: about 50 million dead on the abortion front, countless others on the substance abuse front, untold suffering on the promiscuity/STD front, generational suffering on the work ethic/personal responsibility front, and still more going downward into eternity in the secularist assault on the Christian faith.

Though I admit my doubts, I hope Meyer is prescient in his statement that this may be the "decisive" battle, because decisive battles mark a turning point in a war, one that portends an end.

And of course, I hope the battle is decisive in favor of the Christian values upon which our great nation was founded.

Though Meyer's piece sheds insight on all this, I found it notable that he did a very good job of describing the two ideological camps in this culture war, along with the values and behaviors that define them:

On one side are the Traditionalists. We believe that church and State should be separate, but that religion should remain at the center of life. We are a Judeo-Christian culture, which means we consider those ten things on a tablet to be commandments, not suggestions. We believe that individuals are more important than groups, that families are more important than governments, that children should be raised by their parents rather than by a village, and that marriage is a sacred relationship between a man and a woman. We believe that rights must be balanced by responsibilities, that personal freedom is a privilege we must be careful not to abuse, and that the rule of law cannot be set aside when it becomes inconvenient.

We believe in economic liberty, property rights, and in giving purposeful and industrious entrepreneurs the elbowroom they need to start and run their businesses -- and thus create jobs for all the rest of us -- with a minimum of government interference. We recognize that people in other countries see things differently, and we are tolerant of their views. But we believe that despite its imperfections the United States is history's most blessed country, and when attacked we will defend this country with our lives.

On the other side of this culture war are the Left-Wing Liberals. They are uncomfortable with our traditions, with the inevitable inequalities of our free-market economy, and with our military power. They dislike our values, our morality, and our unabashed displays of patriotism. At first -- back in the 1960s -- they were content merely to develop and pursue their own radical culture within ours. They tuned out, turned to drugs, and pushed the level of sexual license to a point our country had never known. They were so distressed by our imperfections that they refused to recognize or celebrate our achievements.

Meyer's description continues, as does his overall analysis of the culture war. It is a highly recommended read.

Our enemy tries to lull us into capitulation with propaganda that the culture war is "just politics" and that our religious values should not speak to public policy issues. The ranks of those who would otherwise be defending right have been thinned considerably by these deceptions, but the battle is far from over.

If it is won by truth and good, as the Civil War was, then just as that victory brought greater freedom and good to all Americans, so will this one.

As was the Civil War of the 1800s was about good and evil, so is this current cultural "civil war." It is one we should not abandon; it is one we cannot afford to abandon.

Especially when, as Meyer hopes, the beginning of the end might just be in sight.

Spain Takes Next Evolutionary Step: Rights for Apes

If, as evolutionists claim, humans are simply highly evolved animals, then there's really no significant distinction between animals and humans, other than the intelligence.

All that immortal soul, created in the image of God stuff really doesn't matter.

So if we consider human rights an important thing (strictly from a humanist perspective, mind you), then why should not the animals enjoy the same protections?

From LifeSiteNews:

A Spanish parliamentary committee yesterday gave its support to a resolution that would grant so-called "great apes" the rights to life, liberty and freedom from torture.

Spain is also banning apes in circuses, using them in TV commercials or other films.

I can see the "torture" part; even animals shouldn't be subjected to pain just so someone can get their sadistic jollies.

But the rest...this utter nonsense is where you logically end up when you abandon a Judeo-Christain value system.

And I'm not the only one who thinks so. Apparently Peter Singer, noted ultra-radical "bio ethicist" realizes this kind of lunacy doesn't fit within the Christian worldview.

From NewsMax:

Australian-born Singer, dubbed the “godfather” of animal rights, has stirred up controversy by asserting, among other things, that Christianity is a “problem” for the animal rights movement.

It IS a problem, because the Bible says God created the entire universe and everything in it, pretty much as we see it today.

The Bible says God created all life on earth within six days, and created that life to reproduce after it's own kind, not morph into other organisms.

And the Bible says that God created human beings different than any other life on earth. He created humans in his own image, with a conscience, an eternal soul, and the ability to choose right from wrong.

The Bible also put all of creation, including the animals, under the dominion of humans. We are not to indiscriminately, cruelly or wastefully destroy animal life, but it is under human dominion; animal life isn't sacred and isn't on the same level as human life.

So yes, Singer is right: the Christian worldview is a "problem" for the animal rights movement. With good reason.

'We Get It' Campaign for Christian Environmental Stewardship

WASHINGTON, May 15 /Christian Newswire/ -- Christian leaders have joined with pastors and legislators to put forth a new initiative on caring for the environment. Today marks the launch of www.WeGetIt.org, a website offering visitors the opportunity to sign up and be a part of an historic movement.

The reaction to climate change has reached deep into prevailing culture. Knee-jerk reactions with good intentions can harm more than help. The recent increase in the cost of food is one example of the consequence of diverting crops such as corn to the production of ethanol as a fuel source. The impact that steep corn price increases have had on food distribution to third-world countries has been profoundly negative. Keeping in mind this difficult lesson, the "We Get It" coalition offers recommendations by which we can honor and care for the environment along with the poor.

The "We Get It" campaign coalition includes Senator James Inhofe, Cornwall Alliance, Institute on Religion and Democracy, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and Wallbuilders. Janet Parshall, Joel Belz of World Magazine, Acton Institute and Dr. Richard Land have also joined this monumental movement.

The Rev. James Tonkowich, IRD President, commented:

"Rather than consumers and polluters, we maintain that humans are stewards and creators—co-creators with God himself in whose image we humans have been made.

"A biblical and historic Christian approach to the environment understands that Earth was shaped by a benevolent Creator to be the habitat that sustains and enriches human life. Human creativity and human industry sustain and enrich the Earth while allowing us to obey Jesus' command that we love God and neighbor.

"The 'We Get It!' campaign is nothing more than good theology, simply stated and applied to questions of the environment. It acknowledges the sovereign God as creator of all things, humans who are in God’s image as producers and stewards, the redemption available through Jesus Christ, and the obligation to love our neighbors wisely and appropriately."

www.TheIRD.org

Mark Earley: Narnia Film Reflects Current Worldview Conflict

The Christian Post has an insightful piece on the new Chronicles of Narnia installment "Prince Caspian."

Since the Naria novels were written by Christian apologist C.S. Lewis, it should be no surprise that shadows of Christian theology would be present.

But as the article points out, there are more than just shadows of similarity with our world today:

“We enter a world of skepticism that is very much like our own,” commented Mark Earley, president and CEO of Prison Fellowship Ministry, in a column this week. “Let’s just say that the best-selling books of Miraz’s kingdom could easily have been titled ‘The Aslan Delusion and Aslan is Not Great.’”

The conflict changes this time from a direct good versus evil fight – where Aslan is pitted against the White Witch in the first Narnia story – to a war between followers of the opposing powers. But on a personal level, the characters struggle individually with their faith in the stories about Aslan, including Prince Caspian himself who has never seen the lion.

“Here is something with which Christians today can certainly relate,” Earley observed. “It is one thing to be among the first witnesses who exult in the risen Christ. It is quite another to act out of faith when the stories of His witnesses are so many centuries removed from our world.”

Earley has a point. Why else would Jesus have said, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

I don't think there's a single Christian out there who hasn't examined their faith in a critical light from time to time, and even doubted. With all the skeptical and contradictory messages being sent by the secular world, faith can be a tough row to how--especially when God isn't exactly providing daily, incontrovertible miracles to bolster you.

But then, sometimes even seeing isn't necessarily believing. Remember that Adam and Eve knew God in a face-to-face way that we do not--and they still chose to believe a lie over God.

Maybe that has something to do with why God doesn't make it easy, why He doesn't provide daily miracles to get us to believe--if you can maintain faith in Him simply on His promises and His track record, then maybe that's the kind of people God is looking for to populate the new Earth someday.

Anyway, I'm sure that, though Prince Caspian will definitely be entertaining, you'll walk away with some food for thought...if you have eyes to see and ears to hear, that is.

Lesson 12 - Community and Involvement: God Cares, do I?

Tomorrow is the last lesson of the Truth Project at South Canyon Baptist Church in Rapid City.

You can find other Truth Project gatherings going on in the Rapid City area, and in towns across South Dakota. Check with your local churches or the South Dakota Family Policy Council.



The ethical law and the meaning of the Christian life are summed up in the commandment to love God and one's neighbor. This command is the source of the believer's motivation for self-sacrificial service to the needy and their personal involvement in our culture.

Visit www.thetruthproject.org for more information.

Myth 1: Atheists Are Smarter

Part of a Series

BY Legionary Father Thomas D. Williams

March 23-29, 2008 Issue | Posted 3/18/08 at 12:08 PM

It is a common myth of our day, not surprisingly propagated by atheists, that religious believers are undereducated folk who have abandoned the use of reason in favor of blind faith.

So in his book Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris writes that because of the religious belief of its citizens, the United States appears to the rest of the world “like a lumbering, bellicose, dim-witted giant.”

It is not surprising, in fact, that two of the most prominent neo-atheistic authors, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, are British, representing an island known in our day for its religious indifference.

I have lived in Europe for 17 years, and there is no question that Americans’ unapologetic religiosity makes Europeans uncomfortable.

Yet many eminent thinkers throughout our history, such as Alexis de Tocqueville, have interpreted religious conviction to be America’s greatest strength.

To read more, go to National Catholic Register .

Lesson 11 - Labor: Created to Create

The Truth Project continues this week at South Canyon Baptist Church in Rapid City at 8:57 am. This week will be Lesson 11 on "Labor."



Contrary to a great deal of contemporary popular opinion, work is not a "curse." God Himself is active and creative, and He calls man to share in the joy of His activity and creativity. Labor, economics, media, and the creative arts all have a role to play in magnifying the glory of the Creator.

Visit www.thetruthproject.org for more information.

Crusade to Establish State Religion to Oppress Visible Signs of Religion

Once upon a time, people flocked to a new land called America, where they could escape from religious persecution and oppression. True... religious groups might band together in the new land and form individual communities meant more so for people with like beliefs and ways, but the country itself did not have a single religion that all were required to participate in or not participate in. The Founding Fathers seemed to wish to enhance the freedom of religion and made clear no government was to establish a religion and force others to take part in it or any other religion for that matter. This is something too many seem to have forgotten along the way.

To demand that no word, action or visible sign of religion be apparent, is nothing different than a demand that all people participate in a specific religion regardless of the individual preference. It is a demand that is taking us back to the old countries and the persecution and oppression people sought relief from. It is a violation of the First Amendment, no matter how one tries to address it in defense of their so-called separation of church and state argument.

It is one thing if a child is forced to participate in a religious Christmas pageant, and quite another to deny all children the pageant because it might be offensive to the one that doesn't even have to be exposed to it. (By the way, that is forcing that child's religious beliefs upon the other children.)

How about the religion that doesn't believe in celebrations of any kind, including birthdays? Does that mean that all children have to give up their birthdays so as not to offend that one child that doesn't even have to be exposed? (By the way, that is forcing that child's religious beliefs upon the other children.)

What appears to be happening is an anti-religious crusade that is suggesting no visibility of religion should be allowed anywhere besides church and behind closed doors. It appears to be suggesting that people must hide any sign they even believe thereby demanding they agree to a modern day persecution and oppression. Of course, this isn't just a matter of religion -- it is happening in many areas of our lives.

It is amazing how some are fighting to remove religion from the view of any, while insisting on bringing sex into the view of all -- including our young children. How upside down this world and our thought has become. How upside down indeed!

Religion Not Allowed Attitude Defies 1st Amendment

The constitution makes it quite clear that forcing a specific religion upon the people is not allowed. In other words, people in power are not allowed to pick the church of their choice and force it upon the population. The First Amendment does make it clear that people have freedom of choice -- the freedom to choose and express their religious beliefs. How then can any suggest that religion is not allowed?

For any to suggest there is a movement towards theocracy in this country, would appear to be the results of boredom and a "let's pretend such and such is happening and we have to save the world by convincing the people it is bad" game. It would certainly be difficult to believe it was anything more.

Threat of theocracy in this country?

Prayer was taken out of the classroom. Lawsuits have been brought simply because a child was told (something to the effect) to be quiet during quiet-time because it was a time for prayer and reflection. Some schools can no longer decorate and have Christmas pageants (that had been long-time traditions) because it is offensive to non-believers. And so on and so on.

With the trend to remove anything even remotely resembling religion being stripped all around us, we are to then believe that religion is actually over-powering and threatening a "take-over" the government? Rather a far jump from reality to such a possibility in the minds of any.

The irony to the situation as it now exists is that the First Amendment granted freedom of religion -- freedom to practice (or not) the religion of one's choice. However, the anti-religion fighters have actually stripped people of that freedom, rather than claiming the freedom for itself had not been adequately (and equally) enforced.

Rather than to demand a child not be forced to participate in something religious, because it is that child's right not to -- it was a demand to deny the other children (that wish to participate) and thereby deny their right to freedom of religion. Even a moment of silence has been challenged, because one said something such as "prayer & reflection" or because it is simply implied it is actually a moment of prayer.

Mention of Jesus is not allowed in speeches even by students? Where is the freedom of speech? One may, after all, talk against the influence of religion in government. So rather than religion being forced upon people -- there are those who are adamantly working to force anything religious, whether by word, action or symbol, to be taken behind closed doors, least it taint and offend the non-believers. Never mind that the non-believers are actually forcing (against the First Amendment) their religious beliefs upon others. Forcing! Imposing!

The possibility of theocracy in this country? Only if it is the religion of not believing in religion!

Voices Carry: It's impossible to separate church and state

Who are we kidding, it is absolutely relevant what Sen. Barack Obama's church teaches and that his spiritual advisor is black liberationist Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Like gives birth to like. Though many tried to dismiss it several months ago, it was centrally important for the electorate to know the full story behind Mitt Romney's Mormonism. (Mormon salvation is that each man becomes a god of his own planet and spends eternity populating it with spirit babies - Mormon women can look forward to being eternally pregnant.)

Hypothetically, do we really think that electing a candidate with a pacifistic Mennonite or Quaker background would have no bearing on their ability to fulfill the role of Commander and Chief?...

To read more, go to Voices Carry.

What is Theocracy?

Well, the BATS are back at it again this Easter.

You might recall that last Easter, a group of secularist bloggers started a blogswarm to "Blog Against Theocracy." At first I assumed they would be blogging against the ancient nation of Israel, or perhaps some Muslim countries, but I quickly realized they were blogging against something that didn't exist in America and wasn't being worked for in America...yet they wanted people to believe it was.

I use the term BATS because the whole concept of "Blogging Against Theocracy" in a country where there has never been theocracy, is no theocracy, and is no move to institute theocracy is quite silly. Thus, BATS: Blogging Against Theocracy Silliness.

This group of misguided souls believes that any influence of religious faith in the public square constitutes "theocracy." They believe theocracy is manifested in things like teaching creationism, defending the human life of disabled people like Terri Schiavo, defending unborn children, maintaining the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, and any expression of faith in the public square or acknowledgement of the Christian heritage of America.

And though the group claimed they have nothing against Christianity, they chose to have this "Blog Against Theocracy" on Easter, the most sacred holiday in Christianity.

Then they had another on Independence Day, the day this nation was founded by a Christian people who recognized certain truths:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

And these founders did so

with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence

And now, for the second Easter in a row, they again "Blog Against Theocracy." If this is an indication that they bear no ill will toward Christianity, I would hate to see their definition of hostility."

While carrying on this activity at Easter is highly disrespectful of the 82% of Americans who identify with Christianity, still, I welcome the opportunity to address such misconceptions and distortions of the role of religion in America.

As we did last year, Dakota Voice and others will stand against this error to set the record straight. If error is allowed to stand unchallenged, it becomes accepted as truth. The things against which the BATS rail(a) do not constitute theocracy, (b) do not violate the Constitution, and (c) are perfectly reasonable in our free society, and necessary to it's good health and maintenance.

But before we begin to examine some of these fallacious assumptions and point to the truth, we should examine exactly what "theocracy" is so that we have a proper understanding of the subject matter.

A "theocracy" is defined as "government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided."

"Immediate" is defined as "acting or being without the intervention of another object, cause, or agency" or "present to the mind independently of other states or factors."

Therefore, a theocracy would have to be the government of a state by divine guidance or those regarded as divinely guided (i.e. a pastor, priest or other holy figure), which has no other consideration or object than obedience to a deity. In other words, their foremost and overriding concern must be that the commands of the deity are adhered to.

The Encarta Encyclopedia refers to "theocracy" with the Greek root of the word theokratia, meaning “government by a god”. As examples it refers to Old Testament Israel, Muslim communities, and modern-day Iran.

Wikipedia also sheds light on the meaning of "theocracy" and provides several examples. The United States is not found among them.

Since in the United States our leaders are elected by a majority vote of the people, there are no appointments of holy figures to ensure religious doctrine is adhered to. Further, most do not even come from an officially religious background.

The oath of office taken by United States leaders also indicates that their primary objective is not to ensure compliance with religious directives. Instead, it states that their primary concern and obligation is to respect and implement our United States Constitution.

Consider the oath of office taken by congressmen:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Note that their first obligation is to "support and defend the Constitution," and to be true to the Constitution and hold allegiance to it. There is no reference of allegiance to a religious deity or code or creed. The only reference to divinity in the oath is where the oath is affirmed with an appeal for help from God in carrying out that oath, and an implicit accountability before God if the oath-taker breaks the oath.

The president takes his oath as prescribed by Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

And since George Washington added "So help me God," that tradition has been carried on by U.S. presidents.

Again, you will note that the highest priority of the president is to carry out the duties of his office and safeguard the U.S. Constitution. Other than the same appeal to God for help, there is no hint of theocracy.

We have seen theocracies in world history, and there are theocracies in the world now, primarily in the Muslim world.

At the end of the day, there has never been a theocracy in America, despite America having been a far more religious culture in the past than it is today. In fact, the farther back you go, the more the character of our culture was overtly Christian. Yet you find no theocracy.

And today you find no theocracy. Our government is not run by pastors and priests, nor is anyone advocating it be run by pastors and priests. Nor do we see anyone wanting to do away with the Constitution and replace it with the Holy Bible.

We do, however, see a number of people who feel threatened by Christian values and the Christian worldview. We see many people who would rather the Christian faith remain within the walls of the church and never escape into the "real world" Monday-Saturday.

They want to live their lives the way they want without ever being confronted when they're wrong. Being rebuked when you're wrong offends, but there is no right not-to-be-offended in the Constitution.

They want unhindered freedom to build a secular world where God, the Bible and Christians have no relevance or influence. The Constitution provides no such right; if secularists want such a world, they should work for it the way every policy group does--and do so without resorting to the fake boogeyman of "theocracy" fear mongering.

Several of the writers at Dakota Voice will spend some of their precious Easter time this weekend, again refuting the implication that the Christian influence of individual citizens somehow constitutes a violation of the doctrine of "separation of church and state" or constitutes "theocracy."

Additionally, some other blogs, also concerned about the encroachment of secularism and the silencing of faith will join us this weekend. As they post their contributions, we will alert our readers; they will likely do the same with other blog posts for their readers. All posts from the group will also be listed at "Blogging Against Secularism."

The blogs joining us to earnestly contend for the faith are:

Ft. Hard Knox

Sibby Online

Ron's Musings

Voices Carry

To all of you, Dakota Voice is grateful to partner with you!

Thought for the Day

From Steve Turner's Creed:

We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth
that there is no absolute truth.

Lesson 10 - The American Experiment: Stepping Stones

The Truth Project continues this week at South Canyon Baptist Church in Rapid City at 8:57 am on Sunday. Join us this week for Lesson 10.



America is unique in the history of the world. On these shores a people holding to a biblical worldview have had an opportunity to set up a system of government designed to keep the state within its divinely ordained boundaries. Tour #10 follows the history of this experiment and explores what happens to freedom when God is forgotten.

Visit www.thetruthproject.org for more information.

Keeping the Faith

Focus on the Family - Dr. James Dobson

About the program:

The Bible admonishes Christians "to contend earnestly for the faith" (Jude 1:3), yet as Chuck Colson traveled around the nation, he was alarmed to find that many believers were unable to explain the fundamental tenets of Christianity. The bestselling author addresses this problem with the recent release of what he says is one of the most important books he's ever written: The Faith: What Christians Believe, Why They Believe It and Why It Matters. Colson talks with Dr. James Dobson about basic Christian doctrines and why Christians must return to them if our nation is to ever experience a much-needed spiritual revival.

"[The church] doesn't know what it believes, or doesn't believe what's it's been taught to believe. So if that's the case, we can't live it, and even more serious, we can't define it to the world." - Chuck Colson

Click here to listen.

From OnePlace.com

Lesson 9 - The State: Whose Law?

The Truth Project continues this weekend on Sunday at 8:57am at South Canyon Baptist Church in Rapid City. Lesson 9 is about government and law.



Of all the social spheres, the state, to which God grants the power of the sword for the punishment of evil and the preservation of the good, has the greatest potential to go awry if it oversteps its authority. The civil magistrate must always remember his place under the sovereignty of God -- otherwise, havoc will ensue.

Visit www.thetruthproject.org for more information.

Gods Made in Our Image: Politicians As Entertainers

By John W. Whitehead

We’ve got to face it. Politics have entered a new stage, the television stage. Instead of long-winded public debates, the people want capsule slogans—“Time for a change”—“The mess in Washington”—“More bang for a buck”—punch lines and glamour.— A Face in the Crowd (1957)

We have entered a new age of political discourse in which Americans are content to think in sound bites and elect a president based on who can deliver the best campaign slogans and punch lines. But the campaign rhetoric of the leading presidential contenders tells us absolutely nothing about what the candidates can actually deliver: “Believe,” “Can Do,” “Ready to Lead on Day One.”

The candidates may very well hold substantive positions on critical issues of the day. Yet what we hear are 30-second platitudes, and all we see are airbrushed images and smiling faces. Between the incessant campaign commercials and televised debates, America is being treated to a tightly crafted entertainment spectacle that gives credence to Ronald Reagan’s assertion that “Politics is just like show business.” And the politicians have become the entertainers.

We are, of course, accustomed to being entertained, amused and distracted. Television, after all, is our national pastime. On average, American households watch more than eight hours of television per day, which includes nearly three hours of commercials. “An American who has reached the age of forty will have seen well over one million television commercials in his or her lifetime, and has another million to go before the first Social Security check arrives,” writes professor Neil Postman in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death.

The candidates understand this. That’s why television, and television advertising in particular, has become such a favored medium for politicians. Television has altered the nature of political power, the means of political discourse and the way in which Americans think about and relate to their government. And television in general is driven by commercials.

The effect of TV ads upon the viewing public has been so successful and pervasive that it is impossible for a politician to wage a successful election campaign without the use of television advertising. Recognizing how powerful and manipulative a tool this can be, certain countries such as France, Germany and the UK actually forbid paid political advertisements on television.

People, it must be remembered, make their gods in their own image. Television politics has added a new wrinkle. “Those who would be gods refashion themselves into images the viewers would have them to be,” notes Postman. Like television commercials, image politics is so much more about charm, good looks, celebrity and personal disclosure than it is about truth.

Yet very little happens in front of the camera that is not pre-planned, strategized and intended to manipulate the viewer’s response. Much like toothpaste, politicians have become products for consumption. Driven by market research, political ads are designed to sell you what you desire, as opposed to actually giving any in-depth information about the candidates themselves. This is an invaluable tool for politicians who can gear their message toward what the voter wants, rather than what the nation needs. In this way, television politics does not attempt to convey who might be best at being president but rather who has the best slogans and can get the best ratings.

There is no such thing as a 60-second solution to the world’s problems. And there’s no way to decide on the best candidate for the White House by watching a heavily scripted debate. Unfortunately, television advertising and our entertainment culture have adapted us to commercial-style content. As a result, Americans are fast losing the ability to think for themselves, let alone think analytically or contextually.

When I was coming of age in the 1960s, Americans had more than a rudimentary understanding of their government and its philosophical underpinnings. The Constitution meant something, as did the freedoms enshrined in it. The Constitution was composed at a time when most free people had access to their communities through leaflets, newspapers or the spoken word. They were literate and eager to share their political ideas with each other in forms and content over which they, as citizens, had control.

Our information environment today is completely different from what it was in 1787. We may have less to fear from government restraints than from television glut. In fact, we have no way of protecting ourselves from information disseminated by corporate America. One reason is that Americans have become nonreaders, due in large part to the fact that television has replaced books.

This does not mean that those who control television limit our access to information. They widen it. Everything possible is done to encourage us to watch continuously. “But what we watch is a medium which presents information in a form that renders it simplistic, nonsubstantive, nonhistorical and noncontextual,” writes Postman.

Some of us worry that our freedoms are being constantly eroded and undermined by a government that amasses more power with every passing day. And yet too often we overlook our own culpability, not just in failing to defend our freedoms but in allowing ourselves to be so distracted by our entertainment culture that we cease to be aware of or even care much about what happens in the world beyond the TV screen.

Two of the greatest prophetic thinkers of the twentieth century were George Orwell and Aldous Huxley. Contrary to common belief, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing.

Orwell warned in his novel 1984 of an authoritarian government run by Big Brother that would oppress the people. In Huxley’s vision of the future, no Big Brother would be required to rule the people. People in Huxley’s vision would come to love their oppression and to adore the very technologies that were destroying them. While Orwell feared that books would be banned, Huxley feared, as Postman recognizes, “that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.” While Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information, Huxley feared those who would give us so much information that we would be reduced to “passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.”

Huxley remarks in Brave New World Revisited that civil libertarians, who oppose tyranny, “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” While the government in 1984 controlled people by inflicting pain, in Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. “In short,” as Postman notes, “Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.”


Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Lesson 8 - Unio Mystica: Am I Alone?

The Truth Project continues this weekend at South Canyon Baptist Church in Rapid City, this Sunday at 8:57 am. Here is a video previewing this week's lesson:



Is it possible for the infinite, eternal Creator to dwell within the heart of an individual? The implications of this great mystery, which represents the very core of the Christian faith, are explored at length in this examination of the most intimate of the social spheres.

Visit www.thetruthproject.org for more information.

The Normalcy of Brokenness

BreakPoint - Chuck Colson and Mark Earley

The movie "Juno" sends both a good message, and a bad one.

Click here to listen.

From OnePlace.com

The Divine Imprint on Social Structure

The following are from my notes taken at Lesson 7 of the Truth Project today entitled "Sociology: The Divine Imprint."

It examines how, just as God's "fingerprints" are all over creation, and that "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands," so God's fingerprints are all over the social order He has established for humanity.

In this capacity, the lesson is somewhat linked to Lesson 5 on science, this lesson picks up there by examining a passage from Job 12:7-8 which says

But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea inform you.

As an illustration, Dr. Del Tacket, leader of the Truth Project, examines the simple chicken egg, and how perfectly engineered it is (the pores, the yolk, the albumen, and the little air compartment inside). If any of the facets of the egg were just a little bit off, life would not be possible for the new chickens.

The lesson examines briefly, as it did in more detail in Lesson 5, that ORDER presents a problem for materialists and evolutionists. Even this egg is an example of order. Evolutionists tell us the universe came about through a random, purposeless, mindless chain of events; it would be logical to conclude that a random, purposeless, mindless, chaotic universe should be the result. Yet it isn't.

That's because the universe was engineered by God, who is a God of order, just as Job 25:2 tells us

Dominion and awe belong to God; he establishes order in the heights of heaven.

And 1 Corinthians 14:33

For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.

There are countless systems of order in the universe that testify to God's imprint: the water cycle, DNA, photosynthesis, lunar tides, the chicken egg, blood clotting.

But, as this lesson focuses on, God's genius and order are every bit as magnificently displayed not only in His scientific constructs, but His social constructs. Consider the God-established social systems of marriage, family, church, labor, government, and community.

Yet the world in it's willful blindness is just as ignorant to the genius of God's ordered plan in social constructs as it is to the genius of His scientific handiwork. Remember from Lesson 5 how Darwin said he was disturbed by the apparent design of the peacock's tail? And how Francis Crick stated that evolutionary biologists must work hard to ignore the implications of design in science?

The triune (i.e. Trinity) nature of God is examined in this lesson as the first example of community and social construct. God is one, but manifest in three natures: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The three of them perform different roles, yet they are not jealous, working in perfect peace, love and harmony.

The fact that Adam was made first, with no female counterpart, is examined. Tackett theorizes that perhaps God carried on his continuing act of creation during the Creation Week with this "pause" so as to emphasize to humanity the need for community. Otherwise, Adam might have been tempted to say (as men often are today): "I'm self-sufficient. I don't need anybody." Yet Adam saw community and relationships even in the animal world, as God brought the animals to him to be named.

Tackett says he finds it interesting that the threefold or triune concept can be observed in many places in the universe: God himself, states of matter (solid, liquid, gas), the construct of the atom, the primary colors, and even the family (husband, wife, children).

Yet just as the world has come to reject God's authorship of science, so it has come to reject his authorship and authority over social order.

God laid out from the first week of creation the basic foundation of all His social constructs: marriage.

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

God made it clear in both the Old and New Testaments that one man and one woman for life was to be his plan, even to the point that He says He hates divorce. While God makes it clear in the Bible that there are a few reasons when divorce is permissible, even the fact that those situations arise by the misconduct of one marital party demonstrates a violation of His design for marriage and the most basic social construct. Can you imagine the Son being divorced from or estranged from the Father? Or the Holy Spirit being divorced or estranged from the Son?

God has also provided us instructions on how husbands and wives are supposed to treat each other.

Yet now we seem to think we can take anything we want and call it marriage: two men, two women, one man and two women, three men and one woman, or whatever.

And children are the natural outcome of a marriage union (provided everything is functioning biologically, and there are no contraceptive measures utilized). Yet we now say it's okay to place children with two men or two women, when their sexual union is not capable even under the best circumstances of producing children. Why? They are using the sexual function of their bodies in a manner for which God did not design it; in fact, they are using it in a way contrary to how God has designed it. Perhaps this is why God makes it so clear in both the Old and New Testaments that He so vehemently disapproves of homosexuality--it turns his creative and social design for human sexuality upside down.

And single parenthood violates God's design. He made it clear that, barring death or divorce beyond one's control, that children should have two parents. This enables the child to have the most stable home life with the basics of life provided for. The child also has both sex roles modeled for him or her, so that the child can see demonstrated in his parents how males and females are supposed to interact socially and in the marriage bond.

And our society has also decided that those children, which are the natural product and outcome of a marital union, can be murdered if they interfere with the financial or career plans of the couple. The parent-child relationship and creation-process can be short-circuited by the self-centered designs of a mother and/or father, and we call that alright.

How do you think God feels when a husband mistreats his wife? How do you think God feels when a wife shows disrespect for her husband? How does God feel when a child is beaten, abused or ignored?

God's social constructs exist not because He is a control-freak. God's social constructs exist not only for order itself, but because our lives are better in an ordered environment. We have peace, security, safety, and our basic needs met. God wants us to live happy, peaceful, productive lives. Besides, what kind of relationship can a person of a disordered, chaotic life have with a God of order? And God wants us to have a close relationship with Him.

When we violate God's design for social order, beginning with marriage and family, we bring about great chaos, disorder, pain and suffering. It shows in the figures we see on teen rebellion, teen suicide, teen substance abuse, teen crime statistics, children struggling in school, and the poverty rates of broken homes which are about seven times higher than intact two-parent homes. We also see children more often abused when boyfriends or new husbands have replaced the father in the home.

We see drastically increased disease rates when we don't save sex for marriage. Disease rates for homosexuals are phenomenally higher in many areas; in AIDS infections alone, over 70% of AIDS cases are due to homosexual behavior. Homosexuals also suffer more anxiety, depression, substance abuse, suicide, and reduce lifespans.

No matter how we violate God's design for social order, there is a price to be paid. Too often, it is paid most heavily by those who are innocent and helpless: the children caught in the middle of their parents self-serving games. But everyone suffers.

Just as God's authority over nature is under attack in the modern world, so is His authority over social order. It's no wonder that a world which has embraced hatred of God's influence in science would also hate His influence in the social order.

There is no area of our existence to which God has not spoken. That is a key theme of the Truth Project, and this lesson on sociology is an excellent illustration.