Carrying Concealed

October 16, 1991 is a day that will live on in Dr. Suzanne Gratia’s mind for decades to come. Gratia was eating lunch with her elderly parents at Luby’s Café in Copperas Cove, Texas. Suddenly their meal was interrupted by a loud crash from the front of the building. At first it appeared the pickup truck, driven by George Hennard, had crashed through the front window of the café by accident. When Hennard jumped out of his truck and began systematically executing customers with his Glock-19 handgun, Gratia realized the crash was no accident. Not long before, she had made the decision to leave her .38 Smith & Wesson handgun in her car, as carrying it into a public place would have been illegal. It is a choice she will forever regret. Her father and mother, as well as twenty one others, would never step foot outside the café again (Gun ownership, 1992). Gratia was a normal American citizen who led a normal life in a normal part of town. However, in an instant she was forced into a life-or-death situation in which she could not rely on any external entity to protect herself or the ones she loved. It is in light of circumstances like these that people realize the importance of being able to defend themselves and others with lethal force. For Suzanne Gratia, this would have meant carrying a concealed handgun.

According to North Dakota Century Code (2001) “A firearm or dangerous weapon is concealed if it is carried in such a manner as to not be discernible by the ordinary observation of a passerby.” In recent years, state lawmakers have instituted permit systems which regulate the type of people who are allowed to carry concealed weapons. While only two states (Illinois and Wisconsin) currently prohibit the carrying of concealed handguns completely, not every state is on the same level in their concealed carry permit system. Currently thirty seven states have “Shall Issue” laws, which are defined by legislative analysts Cleary and Shapiro (1999) as “licensing systems — often referred to as presumptive right-to-carry laws [which] require authorities to provide a license to any applicant who meets specified criteria” (p. 1). Among the more restrictive policies are the “May Issue” or “discretionary permit” laws. Employed by eight US states, these laws are defined by the same source as “systems [which] allow legal authorities to grant licenses to carry concealed firearms to grant licenses to carry concealed firearms to citizens who establish a compelling need for doing so” (p. 1). Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont, on the other hand, allow citizens to carry without a permit.

Because of the life-and-death nature of concealed handgun policy, the topic has become very emotionally charged. Proponents of gun control claim that gun ownership negatively affects communities and should therefore be outlawed. The UNICEF (2001) believes that the idea that firearms protect people and are thus necessary tools is a “destructive message.” Others claim that guns are a necessary part of our daily life in a world full of people who would like to kill us. The NRA-ILA (2008) said, “Self-defense is a fundamental right. The constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, common law, and the laws of all 50 states recognize the right to use arms in self-defense” (para. 1). Ever since Florida passed its famous Shall Issue law in 1987, a landslide of states have adopted similar programs. The number of states with these laws has gone from eight to thirty seven. Despite this progress, and correlating reductions in violent crime, many US citizens still live in states where their right to carry is infringed. While anti-gun rhetoric continues to surface in the American culture, carrying a concealed weapon for use in self defense is a constitutionally sound practice under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution (1791) which states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Therefore, because concealed carry’s protection under the Second Amendment, its ability to reduce violent crime, and its usefulness in self defense, every state government in the United States should institute its own Shall Issue legislation.

While policy makers often focus their attention primarily on the positive or negative effects of concealed handguns to determine their legality, it is important to not lose track of the constitutional principles the United States was built on. The Second Amendment was crafted to guarantee the independence and freedom through gun ownership and gun carrying. However, the purpose of the Second Amendment has been the subject of much debate because of the specific wording it uses; particularly the mentioning of state militias. According to Jacobs (2002) gun control supporters have based their argument on the first clause of the Second Amendment, which they believe supports their claim that state governments need only guarantee the right to keep and bear arms to members of an organized militia. Furthermore, because state militias have been dismantled with the creation of the National Guard, some argue that the second amendment is not relevant to our modern nation. Despite the controversy, much can be learned about intentions behind the Second Amendment by examining similar legal writings of the same time period.

There are several important documents crafted near the time of the Second Amendment which express the political climate of the time in clearer words. One writing is the New Hampshire Ratification Document (1788) which stated, “congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.” Also insightful is the Vermont Constitution (1777) claiming “that the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State.” Because both of these writings were crafted within fourteen years of the Second Amendment, they represent quite accurately the political climate which gave birth to the Second Amendment. Halbrook (2010) a celebrated Supreme Court attorney at law with over thirty years of experience, took a new approach to the issue. He examined the legal actions of lawmakers who sought to give African Americans the right to keep and bear arms in the wake of the Civil War. He concluded that the Second Amendment has been historically recognized by the American government as pertaining to an individual right. Despite the questionable wording of the Second Amendment, equivalent writings of the time reflect the idea that keeping and bearing arms is an individual right, not a collective right limited to state militias.

Though the Constitution guarantees the right to gun ownership and carrying to United States citizens, concealing a lethal weapon is a type of “bearing arms” which is not specifically mentioned by the Constitution. It follows that an extensive analysis of concealed carry’s effect on violent crime should decide whether or not it is a reasonable type of gun-bearing and should thus be considered part of the second amendment rights. One way to examine concealed carry’s effect on crime is to compare the crime rates of states and cities that have passed “shall issue” laws and those that have not. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (2010) records that in 2008, 503.8 out of every 100,000 residents of California (a May Issue sate) were victims of violent crime. In the same year, California’s “Shall Issue” neighbor, Arizona, had a violent crime rate of 447.0 out of 100,000. Considering Arizona’s immense problems with numerous drug cartels and gangs in recent years, this is a significant accomplishment. In 1998, Lott, a senior research scientist with a long-time interest in the gun rights debate, published one of the most complete and well known pieces of research regarding this subject. In “More Guns Less Crime,” Lott claimed that increases in concealed carry permits cause reductions in violent crime. In one example, he used Florida’s murder rate between 1978 and 1988 to demonstrate how increases in concealed carry permits after the 1983 adoption of a Shall Issue law decreased crime levels significantly. Of this trend, Lott said, “the available evidence indicates that the murder rate began to drop when the law was adopted, and the size of the drop corresponded with the number of concealed handgun permits outstanding” (p. 107). In numerous cases all over the USA, the adoptions of Shall Issue law and increases in concealed carry have served to decrease crime.

Since Lott’s bold claim, many supporters of gun control have sought to discredit his research. However, even the most skeptical reviews of Lott’s data, such as one study done by Marvell and Kovandzic (2003), are only able to claim that increases in permits did not cause any significant change in violent crime when controlling for other factors. In fact, the National Center for Policy Analysis (2010) said, “despite all the attacks by gun-control advocates, no one has ever been able to refute Lott's simple, startling conclusion that more guns mean less crime” (para. 2). The idea that concealed carry increases violence in our society has been disproven by research. Instead, it seems that concealed carry reduces violent crime and should therefore be considered a reasonable practice.

Not only do concealed weapons serve as crime deterrent, but they are also essential tools for self defense. Stories from all over the United States show this to be true, as evidenced by two stories posted by the NRA-ILA, (2010). Rob Pierce, a resident of Pennsylvania, found himself at gunpoint while walking to a restaurant. His two captors forced him into a dark ally, and were preparing to kill him when Pierce, a licensed firearm owner, drew his concealed .357 revolver, shooting one of the thugs. Both criminals quickly escaped the scene and are now behind bars. Jason Moore, from the state of Washington, arrived home one night to find two men in his house. He drew his legally carried .45 pistol and shot one of the men, who was armed. He then held both criminals captive until police arrived. These two stories, as well as thousands of others on the NRA-ILA website testify to the widespread use of concealed handguns in self defense. In fact, many experts, such as Kleck, (1997) estimate that guns are used more than 2.5 million times a year in self defense. The staggering extent to which guns are used by citizens to protect themselves, their families, and friends from violence has secured guns an irreplaceable role in self defense.

Although handguns have been proven to be useful in self defense, many members of society favor non-lethal forms of self defense, such as stun guns, chemical sprays, and Tasers. Indeed, some may argue that, with these modern alternatives, guns are no longer necessary for safety, and should be eliminated and replaced. However, these devices offer far less stopping power and are completely useless in some situations. Stun guns are non-lethal devices which immobilize an attacker using tremendous voltage at low amperage (Abbot, 2006). However, as pointed out by Abbot, an accomplished self defense expert, “The biggest downside to a stun gun is that you must be close enough to your attacker to touch him. This will mean, consequently, that he will be close enough to reach out and grab you as well” (para. 4). An attacker with a knife or gun would pose a serious problem to someone equipped only with a stun gun. Although they can be used from a greater distance, chemical sprays are only effective in certain situations. Abbot warns that attackers can avoid the irritating spray, and that even when aimed correctly, a breeze can force the spray back into the face of the user. Perhaps the most effective non-lethal defense mechanism is the Taser. These devices work in much the same way as a stun gun, but instead of requiring direct contact with the attacker, they fire electrical probes at the attacker from a distance. However, the leading brand, Taser International (2010) gives its Tasers an effective range of only fifteen feet. Additionally, Tasers can only fire one shot before they must be reloaded. If the defender misses the first shot, or is attacked my multiple people, the Taser offers little hope of survival. Although these three devices have their places in self defense, they cannot be relied upon in extreme situations and therefore cannot replace handguns.

Not everyone embraces the idea of concealed handguns becoming a norm in the United States. It is a common fear among gun control proponents that giving more citizens the right to carry arms will cause common every-day disputes to turn deadly (Kovandzic, Marvell, & Vieraitis, 2005). Liberal journalists often scare the public by painting a grim picture of guns in the American society. According to Nagourney (2003) of the New York Times, “People with guns in their homes are almost twice as likely to be killed by guns as people who do not keep them at home” (para. 1). It is understandable that casual readers could be alarmed by this statistic. However, these fears would be ungrounded, since people who choose to keep guns often do so because they live in a dangerous area. These people are not killed by their decision to own firearms, but by the pre-existing conditions under which they chose to buy them. Nagourney goes on to say, “…people with guns are 16 times as likely to commit suicide using guns” (para. 2). At first, it seems that this statistic should also cast a negative light on guns. The fact is that gun owners and non-gun owners alike commit suicide. The availability of guns does not cause suicide, but is simply the means of choice for people who have already made the decision to take their own lives. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (2010) reported that out of 1,858,018 licenses issued between October 1, 1987 and September 13, 2010, only 168 (less than one hundredth of one percent) have been revoked because of a crime committed by the permit holder involving a firearm. Although some people who obtain concealed weapons permits will use their handguns with ill intent, the vast majority of citizens who carry a concealed handgun just want to live in peace and safety, and for this, they need not be feared.

Yet another objection to shall issue legislation is the idea that more people carrying guns will mean more accidental injuries and deaths related to firearms. The Children’s Defense Fund (2009) found that one hundred and fifty four young people age one through twenty died from gun accidents in 2006. The organization claims that “the daily news is a grim reminder of the devastating impact caused by our deadly romance with guns and violence” (p. 1). Although shall issue laws would in theory put more guns in the hands of citizens, Reynolds and Burnett (2003), both lead researchers at the National Center for Policy Analysis, report that between 1982 and 2002, twenty two states adopted right to carry laws. During this same amount of time, they reported, the number of privately owned guns doubled, and accidental firearms deaths decreased. Though Kovandzic and Marvell (2003) are doubtful that concealed carry has any effect on crime, they recognize that many citizens who live where concealed carry is restricted still carry handguns illegally. One benefit of Shall Issue laws is that they “eliminate arbitrary decisions on gun permit applications and encourage gun safety training” (para. 56). People who fear for their lives are not likely to refrain from carrying an unlicensed concealed weapon simply because it is illegal. Making concealed carry permits an individual right, while requiring safety training for permit holders has in fact helped make America safer.

Concealed carry should be allowed and welcomed by all state governments. It is protected under the constitution, valuable to states by its effect on crime, and essential to individuals seeking to defend themselves. If the state governments of Alabama, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin fail to pass Shall Issue legislation, or if current Shall Issue states allow their laws to be overturned, the consequences could be sever. Violent, armed criminals who frequent these places are given a tremendous advantage over their victims, who have been forced to use inferior weapons in their defense. Their only hope is to trust their lives to an overworked police force which seems to always be minutes away when seconds count. This future must not become a reality. Just ask Suzanne Gratia. One might expect her to blame gun activists for the tragic death of her parents. Instead Gratia (1991) said “I blame [the death of my parents on] those legislators who deny me the right to defend myself” (Gun ownership, 1992, p. 13).

References

Abbot, B. (2006). Be prepared – the pros and cons of non-lethal self-defense weapons. Retrieved

November 3, 2010 from http://thephantomwriters.com/free_content/db/a/be-prepared-for-self-defense.shtml.

Children’s Defense Fund. (2009). Protect children, not guns 2009 (pamphlet). Washington, DC: Children’s

Defense Fund. This pamphlet gives statistical information regarding children shot, wounded, and killed by guns in the United States and calls for tighter gun control to help solve the issue. The CDF is a non-profit child-advocacy program designed to give children the best opportunities to succeed in life. They have been working to promote local, state, and federal pro-child policies for over thirty five years.

Cleary, J. & Shapiro, E. (1999). The effects of “shall issue” concealed-carry licensing laws: A literature

review. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/concarry.pdf. This Information brief reviews studies on the effecs of “shall issue” laws and offers working definitions of both “shall issue” and “may issue” laws. Cleary and Shapiro are legislative analysists at the Minnesota House of Representatives Department of Research with twenty, and thirteen years of experience, respectively.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2010). Crime in the United States: By state, 2008. Retrieved

November 3, 2010 from http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_05.html. This report gives statistical information on violent crime levels in all fifty states during 2008. Since 1908, The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been the nation’s foremost authority in crime and criminal behavior.

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services: Department of Licensing. (2010).

Concealed weapon/firearm summary report. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html. This fact sheet reports on the number of Florida residents who have applied for Concealed Carry permits, those who hold them, and those who’s licenses have been revoked. The FDACS is a government agency responsible for issuing all licenses and permits in Florida. Their facts are official state records.

Halbrook, S. P. (2010). Heller, the second amendment, and reconstruction: Protecting all freemen or

only militiamen? Santa Clara Law Review, 5, 1073-1094. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/heller_2nd_amendment.pdf. This article clarifies the purpose of the Second Amendment as an amendment guaranteeing the right of all US citizens to bear arms. Halbrook is a renowned attorney at law, a Professor of Philosophy at George Masson University, and an author. He acquired his J.D. in 1978, as well as a Ph.D. in Philosophy and a B.S. in Business. He has prevailed in four supreme court cases, as well as a multitude of federal and state-level cases.

Jacobs, J. B. (2002, December 15). Right to bear arms decision would improve gun control. USA Today.

Retrieved November 3, 2010 from http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2002-12-15-jacobs_x.htm. This article discusses the ongoing debate between gun control and gun rights activists and calls for the supreme court to define the second amendment as pertaining to an individual right. Jacobs is the Warren E. Burger Professor of Law and the director of the Center for Research in Crime and Justice at New York University Law School. He is also the author of “Can Gun Control Work?”

Kleck, G. (1997). Guns and Self Defense. Retrieved November 22, 2010 from

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html. In this article, Kleck discusses the importance of private gun ownership in America, showing that defensive gun use is common, and that gun ownership has an important role in deterring potential crime. Kleck is a Professor at the School of Criminal Justice and Criminology at the University of Florida. He is well known for his expertise in the gun rights debate, and has Authored several books, including Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, and Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control.

Kovandzic, T. V., & Marvell, T. B. (2003). Right to carry concealed handguns and violent crime: Crime

control through gun control? Criminology and Public Policy, 2(3), 363-396. doi: 10.1177/1088767905279972. This article reports on Marvell and Kovandzic’s research on Florida’s 1983 RTC law. It concludes that the law’s effect on crime was not significant when controlling for other factors. Dr. Kovandzic is a faculty member in the School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences (previously, Social Sciences) at UT-Dallas. He teaches courses on research methods, statistics, gun control, extent and measurement of crime, and crime patterns. His primary areas of research interest are gun control, crime policy, and deterrence/incapacitation. Thomas B. Marvell is an attorney-sociologist and is director of Justec Research in Williamsburg, VA.

Kovandzic, T. V., Marvell, T. B., & Vieraitis, L. M. (2005) The impact of "shall-issue" concealed handgun

laws on violent crime rates: Evidence from panel data for large urban cities. Homicide Studies, 9(4), 292-323. doi: 10.1177/1088767905279972. This article addresses concerns by gun control proponents that shall issue laws will cause an increase of violence. It studies violent crime rates in all large US cities over the course of twenty years and concludes that shall issue laws have no effect on violent crime. Vieraitis is a professor at the University of Texas. She holds a Ph.D. in criminology and a BA. in Psychology.

Lott, J. R. (1998). More guns less crime: Understanding gun control laws. Chicago, University of Chicago

Press. This book documents Lott’s research on the effects of concealed carry on crime rates across the nation using mathematical regression models. John Lott is an American senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, College Park. He holds a Ph.D. in economics, and has published over 90 peer-reviewed articles in academic journals. He is best known for his role in the gun-rights debate, and has written five books including Freedomnomics, and The Bias Against Guns.

Nagourney, E. (2003, May 27). Vital signs: Cause and effect; linking guns and gun violence. New York

Times. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/27/health/vital-signs-cause-and-effect-linking-guns-and-gun-violence.html

New Hampshire Ratification Document. (1788). Provision XII. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from

http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_nh.html. In this document New Hampshire officially accepts the United States Constitution, thereby enacting it across the nation. It also propose twelve alterations to the constitution, one of which declared that the government should never take arms away from the citizens.

North Dakota Century Code. (2001). Chapter 62.1-04; Concealed Weapons. Retrieved November 3, 2010

from http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t621c04.pdf. This state code gives legal definitions of concealed weapons, provides information on where they are allowed to be carried, and lists penalties for non-compliance.

NRA-ILA. (2008). Right-to-carry summery. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=239. This article summarizes the NRA’s beliefs about concealed carry laws and their effects on crime. With nearly 4 million members, the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action is a conservative organization dedicated to preserving the second amendment rights of all Americans. Their lawyers lobby for the rights of US citizens in all fifty state legislatures as well as congress.

NRA-ILA. (2010) The armed citizen. Retrieved November 22, 2010 from

http://www.nraila.org/armedcitizen/Default.aspx. This online collection of real-life stories from thousands of law-abiding citizens who have used guns in self defense testifies to the importance of gun ownership in the American society.

Reynolds, M. & Burnett, S. (2003). No smoking guns: How to answer objections to right-to-carry laws. In

Cothran, H. (Ed.) Gun control: Opposing viewpoints (pp. 116-117). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press. This article addresses five key objections to concealed carry, including the idea that concealed carry will cause more accidental gun deaths. Reynolds was a professor emeritus at Texas A&M and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. Burnett is the lead analyst of the National Center for Policy Analysis' E-Team with a longtime interest in the gun control debate.

Gun ownership has new champion: Killeen massacre survivor – Suzanne Gratia; Killeen, Texas. (1992,

June). Shooting Industry, 6, 12-13. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n6_v37/ai_12634747/?tag=content;col1

Taser International, Inc. (2010). Retrieved November 3, 2010 from

http://www.itaser.com/product_tour.html

UNICEF. (2001). No guns, please; we are children (pamphlet). New York: UNICEF Division of

Communication. This pamphlet explains the negative cultural impact of guns and their influences on children around the world. The UNICEF is an international organization which works in 190 countries to promote children’s rights. They use their tremendous influence to pressure policymakers and leaders to protect children and give them a better future.

United States Constitution, (1791). Amendment II. This amendment to the United States constitution

guarantees the right of Americans to legally possess firearms.

Vermont Constitution, (1777). Part 1, Article XV. Retrieved November 3, 2010 from

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/vt01.asp. This article from the Constitution of Vermont guarantees the right of its citizens to possess firearms for their own protection, and that of the state.

Homosexuality

Intolerance, or Love?
Christians are so often called intolerant. In a culture that has accepted the muddled postmodern idea of ethics, to condemn any belief or behavior can be hazardous, and is now reserved for the select few who refuse to act like they do not know the truth. I want you to be one of them. As you probably know, the controversy over gay and lesbian rights has now infiltrated the Church, and the ELCA Lutheran Church is now saying there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. But the Bible says something very different:

“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” (Leviticus 18:22).

“They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion” (Romans 1:25-27).

The Bible is the Truth

Both the old and new testament give us the same message: homosexuality is indecent, a perversion, unnatural, even detestable. Clearly, this is not the politically correct ideology popular today. There is today, and will continue to be for perhaps as long as the world exists, much question as to the correct interpretation of these and similar texts. The fact is, nothing is impossible to justify. You may argue about the interpretation of the Bible as long as you wish. I simply do not care. Anyone who reads the Bible to find truth will be convinced that God is against homosexual behavior. But anyone who decides what “truth” is convenient for him/her, will only try to twist the words of God into their own beliefs when reading the Bible. If the Bible says that Homosexuality is wrong, and one of the primary beliefs of Christianity is the Divine inspiration of the Bible, how are Christians to blame for intolerance?

The Reason for Homosexuality
Some argue that God created homosexuals the way they are. But Romans 1:25 tells us the very reason for Homosexuality. “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things… Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts”. What is the truth of God? Homosexuality is wrong. And the Lie? Homosexuality is natural. We have been plagued with Homosexual lust as a society because we are exchanging God’s truth for a lie.

A Christian’s Response
If God does not tolerate homosexuality, then how should Christians respond? God says there is a “due penalty for [homosexual] perversion”. As Christians, then the best thing we can do is to warn gay and lesbian people of the consequences of their behavior, and help them overcome their condition. This is not done out of hatred or “intolerance” but out of love. There are those, of course, who look down on homosexuals. This is entirely wrong, and very much outside the will of God. Christians should love the homosexual, but hate the perversion, just as Jesus would have. But while we love the gay/lesbian person, we cannot simply back down, or be silent about the moral authority of the Bible. God has given us the truth, and he has given us the power to love people a way the world cannot explain, so let’s use it!

Evolution: Winning a Defensive Battle

Things have Changed...
Evolution has changed through the years. Back in Darwin’s time, it was thought that macro evolution took place far too slowly to actually see it happen. Darwin originally thought that the little changes we see happening in micro evolution could slowly build up, and over time, cause macro evolution. Unfortunately, this would mean that intermediate links between species would have existed for generations before they were fully evolved into one of the species we see today. Darwin assumed that as people began to dig for fossils, they would find tons of these “links”. Read the words of Dr David Raup, an expert on the fossil record. “Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded… ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in north America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information.” This lack of intermediate links has driven scientists to create new scenarios.

Neo-Darwinism
The first evolutionary spin-off was Neo-Darwinism. Since we now know that there are limitations on how much change micro evolution can cause to a creature, (see “Micro Evolution Vs. Marco Evolution”), evolutionists had to think up a way for creatures to evolve that had no limitations. Their answer was mutation. The primary assumption in Neo-Darwinism is that mutations can increase the amount of information on a DNA strand, resulting in more complicated species. Although we have never seen this happen, Neo-Darwinists insist that, if given enough time, these increases in information would happen. Since we know that mutations often result in dramatic changes between parent and offspring, neo-Darwinists also believed that their explanation allowed for less intermediate links.

Punctuated equilibrium
The latest theory is really just a new version of neo-Darwinism. It is called Punctuated Equilibrium. As more and more research is done, evolutionists have to deal with the ever growing problem of “missing links”. So few have been found that evolutionists now believe that there is no need to find intermediate links to support their ideas. Instead, there were supposedly periods of time when toxic chemicals and radiation caused massive amounts of mutation. Then, when the radiation and chemicals subsided, whatever creatures were lucky enough to survive with beneficial mutations would live for millions of years without any serious change. Eventually this process would repeat itself, and leave no trace of the evolution that occurred. The problem is that this idea still depends on the fact that mutations can change a creature in a beneficial way, (which is impossible, especially when caused by toxic chemicals and radiation). However, most people accept that it explains the lack of intermediate links in the fossil record.

Excuses, Excuses!
It seems like evolutionists are not able to go out and find evidence to support their ideas, instead, they go out and find evidence that contradicts their ideas, so they continue to modify them. But, if macro evolution has become so void of factual evidence that scientists have to cook up wild stories to try and explain away the lack of evidence, why is it given so much credibility in the scientific community? Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory conceived out of a total lack of evidence, that’s all it has going for it! If there is a lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record, then wouldn’t it be logical to think that maybe evolution didn’t happen? But most scientists won’t recognize this possibility. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, and if our researchers are dismissing knowledge in order to hang onto a 200 year old hypothesis, then they can no longer be called scientists, and cannot be considered credible.

Socialism

Our Nation is in Danger
Politics is a dangerous subject that I never intended this blog to discuss. However, I feel that our nation is currently headed toward destruction, and in order to turn around, the people of America need to speak out, and take action.

Consequences of Socialism
Obama has been a socialist from the moment he entered the race for president. America didn’t see the danger until it was too late, and now we are stuck with the consequences of America’s choice. These consequences will include nationalized healthcare, government ownership of GM, Banks, and other large companies, Cap and Trade, and more to come. These might not sound all that bad to you, so I will explain why I call them consequences.

Nationalized Healthcare
First, nationalized healthcare is a socialistic ideal that makes healthcare extremely inexpensive, or even free. However, since the government must pay the hospitals, the government also controls who can get help, and to what extent. This makes it hard for older people to receive special treatment, since the government will choose to help younger people who have more life ahead of them. Nationalized healthcare in Europe has resulted in overcrowded hospitals, since it costs relatively nothing to get a checkup, or get a prescription for a sore throat. So, the minor ailments often are over treated, and people who really need help wait days before they can get attention. I heard a story about a woman who got in a car accident, and waited three days in a stretcher in the halls of a hospital in London before anyone even looked at her. Nationalized healthcare costs the government billions of dollars that they don’t have, and forces citizens to pay high taxes so that other people can get treatment that they could otherwise do without.

Corporate Government
Government ownership of large companies increases the power, and role of the government, by making us dependant on their products. Now that the government controls GM, they will undoubtedly start to limit the size, carbon footprint, and power of cars that we buy. This will no doubt sound appealing to the environmentalists, but mankind only produces less than one percent of carbon, and other greenhouse gasses, and we are already an exceptionally clean nation. Earths water and air are cleaner now than they have been in decades. More fuel efficient cars come at the expense of comfort, and safety. And if these companies get into debt, it will be our taxes that bail them out.

Tax on Life
"Cap and trade" is a bill that Obama is trying to pass gives the government control over what we can buy and sell. If this bill passes, your house will have to pass government mandated appraisals, (to make sure your house is “Green”) before you are allowed to sell it. Industries will be taxed heavily for every bit of pollution they create, and will pass this expense on to their customers. No one will be exempt from this rise in living expenses, and it is questionable whether or not future generations will be able to support themselves.

Hidden Motivation?
Does Obama really think all these changes will help? His solutions to our problems only create new, worse problems. If you doubt this, don’t take my word for it, do your own research. Obama’s nation that he is creating is not a nation that will last. He is spending billions of dollars that we don’t have on quick fixes. Don’t think I am trying to be offensive, but I don’t think Obama is dumb enough to think he is helping America. If you notice, there is a trend in his bills; they all give him more power. Is Obama a power hungry lunatic? I am not accusing him, but I don’t think it is an impossibility. I think we need to be careful how much power we are giving to our president, because if we wait too long to take action, it might be too late. This is the fourth of July, and I am proud to be an American. Our nation is the most beautiful, powerful, and free nation on the face of the world and I want my kids to grow up as free as I am.

Morality

The Reality of the Law
When was the last time you argued with someone? Most likely it was not too long ago. People argue over all sorts of things, all the time. But regardless of the subject of the argument, one aspect is always the same. Because in order to argue, we must make reference to some sort of moral, or ethical code. We know that an ethical code exists, but how do we explain it? I recently read called “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis, and in it he made the point that we cannot logically explain this phenomenon by natural means. His book inspired me to write this post.

Moral Similarity
One point C.S. Lewis made, was that every culture on earth has had some sort of ethical code. And these ethical codes are all basically the same. C.S. Lewis says, “…but for the present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people are admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud for double crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five.” The point is, although moral codes are created by the people of a given culture, totally isolated cultures always reference the same concepts of unselfishness, justice, keeping your word, generosity, ect. This similarity must somehow be explained, and the only reasonable explanation is that there is some sort of universal standard, and each culture reflects the ideas of this ethical standard, (although with differing degrees of accuracy).

Personal Decision?
There are instances, in which a given culture’s ethical standards do seem to be different, and even seem to go against what we would consider to be good. C.S. Lewis pointed out that if a certain culture allows some sort of “immoral” behavior that we consider wrong, we instantly seem to conclude that their morality is inferior, and wrong. But how can anything be wrong, if there is no right. For instance, a football player cannot make a foul unless the teams agree on what should be considered fair, and unfair. There will be some of you who will no doubt say that there are no universal morals. But I cannot believe that you actually believe this. You see, as much as you may say that Hitler’s moral standards were just as noble as ours, you don’t mean it, your conscience knows that it is impossible to excuse the killing of innocent people. Is it possible that Hitler knew it was wrong too? Of course! When was the last time you did something even though you knew it was wrong? We do it all the time. Obviously, there is more to morality than a personal decision.

Universal Contract?
Now that we know that all of mankind is effected by the same belief of an ethical standard, the next question is, “what could possibly cause this strange phenomenon”. Some say that morality is universal because “Good” is anything that benefits mankind, whereas “Bad” is anything that harms, or causes pain or suffering. At first this makes sense; killing someone, or taking their money is obviously bad, but rescuing someone, or giving them food and shelter is considered good. Both of these are judged based on how they affect humanity. This is all well and good, but believe it or not, this does not explain morality. You see, benefiting society is a good way to describe moral law, but it is not the reason for the law. If benefiting society is why we have moral laws, then why do we feel obligated to benefit society? Think for an instant, if you could re-create moral law for yourself. If no-one, (not even God, for those of you who are Christians) would condemn you for anything, would you honestly choose to do everything that didn’t come naturally to you? Now there would be some sense in making everyone else do these things that didn’t come naturally, for your own welfare, but if it were all for your welfare, (most people think it is) then why would you feel bad when you cheated someone? Is it just because you broke a universal “niceness” contract? But if this contract is only for your wellness, the only reason to feel bad would be fear that someone else would break the contract and harm you back. This selfish reasoning would be totally acceptable if the universal contract theory was correct, but even this selfishness is looked down on. And I don’t know about you, but when I do something wrong, I feel more than fear, I feel guilt. If morality really is a contract between all of mankind, it seems that our minds refuse to believe this, and instead our conscience is constantly bombarding us with feelings of remorse, and guilt, over offenses that we cannot seem to make ourselves stop doing.

A Better Explanation
Following the reasoning that morality is more than a personal decision, and more than a contract between all of mankind, what is a better explanation? I propose that mankind was not the author of ethical standards. Instead, the morality of our diverse cultures reflect a greater standard set by God himself. When you think about it, who else would have the authority to do this, than the one who created us? We were made in the image of God, and he made many of our aspects reflect himself. This is why we have a conscience. However our sinful nature tells us that we have been distorted from out original image. Our two sides; the sinful nature, and our conscience, are fighting against each other, causing the guilt and remorse over issues we cannot change. We are a badly distorted reflection of God, but we still know what we ought to be like. God wants us to be unselfish, not only to benefit each other, but to glorify him. He also wants us to refrain from behavior that harms ourselves, (such as drunkenness, sexual immorality, and addiction) because these things harm our relationship with God. This is my explanation for morality, I personally think it fits the evidence, and reasoning, the best. If you have one that you think better, please comment on this post.

Jesus Christ
Our situation seems hopeless. The Bible says that God punishes sin with eternal suffering in Hell. And unless we are perfectly sinless, we will never enter heaven. But God has provided a way out. Jesus Christ paid the death penalty for our sin. All we need to do is confess our sin, ask God to forgive us, and believe in Jesus as our personal savior. If you are not sure if you are going to heaven when you die, please consider what I have told you. Your life on earth could be over in an instant, and this could be your last chance to let Christ save you from the punishment your sins deserve.

Jesus Freaks

Persecution is Happening
Our culture has accepted the idea that religious persecution has been getting less and less common since way back in the early A.D.’s around Nero’s reign. Everyone is familiar with the coliseum and the holocaust, but few realize the extent of persecution going on today. There are 52 nations in which it is illegal to be a Christian, or to gather together to pray and teach. In fact, there is much more persecution done to Christians now than ever before. Here is the story of

More Love to Thee
North Korea. 1950’s
For years, Pastor Kim and 27 of his flock of Korean saints had lived in hand dug tunnels beneath the earth. Then, as communists were building a road, they discovered the Christians living under ground. The officials brought them out before a crowd of 30,000 in the village of Gok San for public trial and execution. They were told, “Deny Christ or you will die.” But they refused. At this point the head communist officer ordered four children from the group sized and had them prepared for hanging. With ropes tied around their small necks, the officer again commanded the parents to deny Christ. Not one of the believers would deny their faith. They told the children, “We will see you soon in heaven.” The children died quietly. The officer then called for a steam roller to be brought in. He forced the Christians to lie on the ground in its path. As its engine revved, they were given one last chance to recant their faith in Jesus. Again they refused. As the steam roller began to inch forward, the Christians began to sing a song they had often sung together. As their bones and bodies were crushed under the pressure of the massive rollers, their lips uttered the words:

“More love to thee, O Christ, more love to thee. Thee alone I seek, more love to thee. Let sorrow do it’s work, more love to thee. Then shall my latest breath whisper Thy praise. This be the parting cry my heart shall raise; More love, O Christ, to thee.”

The execution was reported in the North Korean press as an act of suppressing superstition.
(Reference: “Jesus Freaks” by DC Talk & Voice of the Martyrs pp. 125.)

A Testimony to Christ
These people were Jesus freaks. Ordinary people who experienced something so powerful, and so life changing, that they were able to stand up against communists, and die a terrible death with peace and even joy. Throughout history, persecutors have been amazed by the love and joy of Christians even in such horrific circumstances. This is a testimony to something greater than human strength, not a mental disorder, not a false hope of eternal life, but the power of God in someone’s life. Christian persecution is alive and well. This particular story was from the 1950’s but I assure you nothing has changed since then. Click on the link below for more information on recent occurrences.
http://www.persecution.com/public/newsroom.aspx?clickfrom=bWFpbl9tZW51

Prepared for Persecution

This is a Problem!
I found this story on the AIG website and thought it was a great example of how Christian's rights are being neglected in schools. This isn't just a freak thing, it happens all the time. In fact, I'm just going to be blunt and say that Christians are persecuted by peers an teachers more often than others. This can't be excused by saying that the teacher was being religiously neutral by being atheist or agnostic, because even the most devout scientist base their lives on faith assumptions. I'm not saying that people of different faith are never persecuted, or that it's always Christians getting picked on. But the persecution of Christians is an especially big problem that needs to be addressed.

Prepared for Persecution
by Kelsey H., Class of 2008
On the first day of my college philosophy class, the students in the class introduced themselves. Along with telling our names, we had to tell where we were from and the most important thing we have learned in our lives. When everyone finished, our professor told us her name and what was important to her. She ended by saying, “If any of you are Christians, don’t plan on being one when this class is done.” My jaw dropped when I heard this; I wasn’t quite sure what I was getting into. I reminded myself that this was a class I needed for my major, so I had to stick with it.
Throughout the year, we talked about all the different religions; it seemed like every day Christianity got thrown into the discussion. There was never anything positive that was said about Christianity. My professor said that the Bible is a cute little story but has no real meaning.
. . . At the end of the semester we had a final project. We had to give a ten-minute presentation and write a four-page paper on our presentation, and these two things were worth 50% of our final grade. I decided to write my paper/presentation on the “Seven C’s of History” by Answers in Genesis. The “Seven C’s of History” is a brief history of the Bible and includes Creation, Corruption, Catastrophe, Confusion, Christ, Cross, and Consummation.
The big day came and I had spent hours working on my presentation and paper with my dad. I was the first one to present that day and had everyone’s attention the whole time, which was very unusual. Normally kids are texting or doing other homework. When I was done, I thought I had done well, especially since I had everyone’s attention; but little did I know what was in store for me. For the next forty minutes of class, my professor picked apart my presentation and was furious. She yelled at me for saying that on the last day God will judge all the people and there will be a separation between the believers and the unbelievers. She thought those were my words and didn’t understand that that is what the Bible tells us. She also thought that it was too harsh. She went through every “C” and found something about it to pick apart. I wasn’t even able to stand up for myself or for Christianity, because there was no break in her anger.
I found this class period interesting because two weeks before, I stayed after class talking with her and two other students; and she had told us that it was wrong of us to think that Christians get persecuted. Rather, we (Christians) are the ones persecuting others.
After the class, all the students handed me their evaluation forms. When I went through them, I noticed that I received high marks, and all A’s from the class, except two which gave me B’s. I had one girl come up to me after class and tell me that she was sorry for how the class went and that our professor went overboard. I told her it was okay, and thanks. She then asked me, “What do you mean it was okay?” I told her, “I’m a Christian, and I’m going to get persecuted for standing up for what I believe in (Matthew 5:10–12).” She shook her head, and said, “Wow, I can’t believe you found something positive to take out of this last class.” Hearing her say that really showed me that I did do something right, and even though I had many people against me, I know that God was with me and proud of me, and He was the only one I cared about.
When we got our final grades, I received a “No Grade” on my presentation and paper. My professor said that she was too heartbroken to give me a grade, because I obviously didn’t do any of the readings or take anything from this class. I emailed her and told her that just because I don’t believe everything that was taught in this class, doesn’t mean I didn’t learn anything. I did, in fact, learn a huge lesson, and that was to stand up for what I believe in, even if I’m the only one.
I don’t think I have ever dug as deeply into my Bible as I did this past semester. I found so many verses telling me that this would happen, and that there is a reward for those who share God’s Word. Some of the verses I read numerous times were, Matthew 5:10–12, Matthew 28:18–20, Mark 13:13, and John 3:16. Although I didn’t learn the lessons my professor wanted me to, I learned an even bigger lesson that I will carry with me for the rest of my life.
As I look back on this event, I’m thankful for the Christian home and high school that helped prepare me for this. It is great to have role models to look back on as I face new situations in my life.

Is God Scientific?

Beyond Nature
“It is obvious we cannot examine God in a test tube or test him by the usual scientific methodology. Furthermore, we can say with equal emphasis that it is not possible to prove napoleon by the scientific method. The reason lies in the nature of history itself, and the limitations of the scientific method. In order for something to be proved by the scientific method, it must be repeatable…” (Know Why You Believe by Paul E. Little) You know, so many people today classify God as something totally separate from science. In a way, his supernatural nature defies science. But is this really a reason to question his existence? Science has limitations, it can only relate to measurable, repeatable, material things. God is none of these things. But if God really does exist, why wouldn’t we put science into perspective with God? Perhaps God himself isn’t provable by science, (He isn’t exactly from our universe, or confined by it’s laws) but since he created our universe, he would have drastic effects on all branches of science.

Cause and Effect
A good example of this comes from the law of cause and effect. The law of cause and effect basically says that nothing ever (EVER) happens without a cause. This applies to everything in our universe, and even our universe itself. Ok, so let’s say you fall off a cliff. (This seams to be my favorite illustration… ok, I’m not very creative) let’s say the cause of this effect was a brake failure. The brake failure is a cause, but also an effect of a clumsy mechanic. The mechanics clumsiness is the effect of staying awake till 4:00 in the morning three nights in a row. And the Cause of this… Let’s just say that this could go on for days! Eventually you would have to arrive at something called an “Uncaused Cause”. Now, In our universe, an uncaused cause is a scientific impossibility. Never the less, we know that there was one somewhere down the line. So how do scientists explain this uncaused cause? There are only three ways to explain this. (1) The uncaused cause was not from our universe, or confined by its laws. This is the general definition of “God” don’t you think? (2) the law of cause and effect is false, (this goes against reasoning, and hundreds of years of science). (3) Time has existed forever, thus eliminating the need for an uncaused cause. But there are several problems with explanation #3, which point to an uncaused cause.

Time
Imagine a timeline pointing in two directions
< --------O------- >
the present time is marked by the “O”. Time spans in each direction infinitely. Here’s the problem, If time has existed infinitely, how did we ever arrive at the present time? Let me explain. Lets say you went back in time to the beginning of eternity. When would you arrive? The answer of course is never. But what if you started an eternity ago and headed toward our present time. When would you get there? Never. This strongly suggests that it is impossible for time to exist infinitely. Even Stephen Hawking said, "Time itself must have had a beginning". So this disproves the idea that no un-caused cause was needed due to infinite time. In fact, Time in itself is evidence for a God. We cannot create, reverse, stop, or destroy time in any way. Only an infinite power could have set in motion such a unique and almost unexplainable dimension.

Fibonacci Numbers
Another evidence for God is found in every corner of the universe. Fibonacci numbers are found in spiraling galaxies, flowers, the human hand, musical notes, tree trunks, sea shells, and thousands of other natural designs. Fibonacci numbers are a sequence of numbers starting at zero, and then one, and adding the last two numbers of the sequence to get the next. 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144… So what is so special about these numbers? They happen to be very beautiful when incorporated into design. In fact, artists use them in a variety of ways to create stunningly beautiful masterpieces like the Mona Lisa. So are Fibonacci numbers just chance? And why do we have such a strange attraction to them? The best explanation would be that the ultimate artist who created our universe liked the way they looked, and used them multiple times throughout his creation. This isn’t rocket science, but it makes sense.

Personal Challenge
Although we cannot prove scientifically that God exists, or prove that he created our universe, God fills in an empty hole in science that makes everything make sense. To anyone who scoffs at people who believe in God, and think we need to directly prove that there is a God before our schools can teach intelligent design, I want to challenge you to commit to your own expectations and prove scientifically that there is not a God. Just because something can’t be seen, repeated, or tested in a laboratory, does not mean it doesn’t exist.

Setting a High Standard

Combating Low Expectations
In the forward to “Do Hard Things” by Alex and Brett Harris, Chuck Norris says, “Today we live in a culture that promotes comfort, not challenges. Every thing is about finding ways to escape hardship, avoid pain, and dodge duty. ... Today, our culture expects very little from teens - not much more than staying in school and doing a few chores.” As a teenager, I find this statement to be true for my generation. We, as teens, tend to meet the expectations set before us, and no more. If the expectations are set high, we rise to the occasion. However, if they are set low, unfortunately, we stoop to the standard. I want to change the mindset of teens from the idea that we only need to do what is required and nothing more, into one that says that we can and should rise far above the standard. If teens got this, we would realize our God-given potential and make an impact on the world.

One example to illustrate the idea that teens will rise up to meet the expectations set before them is an experience I had in my scout troop. The meals our patrols used to plan and cook were simplistic and disgusting. We cooked things like hot dogs for every meal. However, when we instituted patrol cooking competitions, we started to cook better and better. We went from “shake-n-bake” pancakes, to chocolate-cherry cobblers and breakfast burritos. The rise in expectations forced us to improve our planning and cooking abilities; and now we actually look forward to the delicious food.

Another example of how high expectations can spur a person on to success can be seen in Charles F. Kettering. He was an American engineer who invented the electric starter. He is quoted as saying, “High achievement always takes place in the framework of high expectation.” This is shown through his achievement of the inventing of the electric starter. He set a high goal, and he met it. As a result our lives are made simpler.

Some people believe conversely. They say that high expectations set a child up for failure, while low expectations foster a sense of success. They believe that experiencing failure leads to low self esteem. I found a web site that presented suggestions as to the appropriate chore levels for all ages. In the section “11 years and older”, one of the suggestions was for the kid to “clean room with direction”. This site also said, “One kid may be fully ready to handle sorting the laundry at 13 while another kid will still be putting red clothes with the whites at 16, wondering why the clothes keep coming out tinted pink.” Zach Hunter started a campaign in 7th grade to free slaves around the world. Through his “Loose Change to Loosen Chains” (LC2LC) he has raised money to end modern day slavery. Zach Hunter is just one example of what a teen is capable of and how our culture expects far to little from us teens.

The main thing I’m getting at here is that the ridiculously low expectations set for us teens need to be defeated. They must be defied. If my generation doesn’t, we will become a bunch of lazy adults who don’t do anything with excellence. The point I’m making is not that we, teens, are lazy bums; it is that if we don’t start showing the world what we are capable of, we will never get practice at doing anything great. I say that regardless of age setting low expectations sets one up for failure, because the low expectations are not a realistic example of the demands of real life.


Works Cited

Harris, Alex and Brett Harris. Do Hard Things. Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books,
2008.

McNulty, Joanne. “Age Appropriate Chores for Kids.” freeprintablebehaviorcharts.com.
2007

ThinkExist.com Quotations. “Charles F. Kettering quotes”. ThinkExist.com Quotations
Online 1 Feb. 2009.

The Evolutionary Worldview

Everyone Has One
Everyone has a religion of some sort that they follow. You may doubt this because when you think of religion you think of Angels and harps, or misled old people at a tent revival shouting “hallelujah!” But that’s not what I’m talking about. In fact, religion is a tricky word to use because of the way people view it. Maybe “Worldview” is a better word. A religion (or worldview) is a set of primary assumptions about our world. Worldviews can go hand in hand with science, as people try to prove their assumptions right. And the Assumptions of your Worldview will decide how you live your life. Based on what I have just said, you may still be wondering how evolution fits into all this.

It starts with assumptions…
The primary assumption in evolution is that there is no God. Now here’s the interesting part, from this one assumption we can use a solid line of reasoning to figure out what evolutionists think about a number of worldview questions. From the assumption that there is no God we can conclude that we must have come about by some natural process. And if we came about by natural processes, we must be accidents, and if we are accidents, there is no one to tell us what to do. And finally, if there is no one to tell us what to do, who cares what we do? So, from the primary assumption that there is no God, we have found the evolutionary view of ethics; “there is no right and wrong”. In the same way we can conclude that, after death we rot (that’s all), mankind is blameless, the meaning of life is to have fun, and evil and suffering are natural, you can’t blame those who inflict it because they have no set of ethics to follow.

It is Testable by Science…
To most, Evolution means science,and nothing else. Actually, evolution is an attempt to prove scientifically that the evolutionary worldview is true. Think about it, what are scientists who develop elaborate evolutionary charts, and search endlessly for missing links trying to prove? They are trying to prove that our world did not need to have a supernatural creator, (God). If you read the posts on this blog with an open mind, I don’t think you can come to the conclusion that science supports evolution. Rather, our world shows evidence of design by a loving, wonderful, creative, superpower. So evolution really isn’t about science, because if you started with science you wouldn’t arrive at the evolutionary worldview. But if you start at the Worldview of evolution, you would be forced to believe in the supposed science behind it.

It Decides How You Live…
No matter what you say, blindly believing in evolution will have a huge affect on how you live your life. And you know what? I think we see evidence of this everywhere we look. For generations, kids all over the world have been taught evolution in schools as a scientific fact, and have been forced to accept the Worldview that follows. This is why we need to let America’s kids hear both sides of the case in our schools. If we let them hear both evolution, and intelligent design, we won’t be forcing anything on them. They will be free to believe whichever worldview they think is most supported by science. But as it is, we are forcing “religion” on them in the form of “science”. Do you realize how destructive this has been? A blog series that I have been publishing lately called, “Evolutionary Concepts” explains some of the catastrophes that have resulted from the worldview of evolution. In short, I want you to realize that even evolutionists who claim faith and reason are incompatible, have based their entire lives, and risked eternal suffering, on the blind faith that there is no God. They have blinded themselves to the overwhelming evidence for a creator, and instead prefer to view themselves as worthless accidents.

Click here to read my personal worldview.
http://culturaldeceptions.blogspot.com/search/label/Elijah%27s%20World%20View

Separation of Church and State

Jefferson’s Letter
This topic one of the most misunderstood topics in America today, so be prepared to hear this in a way you may have never heard it before. Today, separation of church and state is an argument that is used by the ACLU to outlaw Christian idea’s and symbols from anything associated with government. The actual phrase was coined from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The story goes like this; the Danbury Baptist Association was concerned that in their state, religious rights were not recognized as “Inalienable Rights” but as “Privileges” granted by the government. In response, Jefferson wrote a letter that basically says that he thinks government should have as little to do with enforcing religion as possible. Here is what he said.

…"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state”…

Did you catch that? Sure the phrase is in there, “wall of separation between church and state”. But what about the context? It says that legislature should make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That’s exactly what the ACLU is trying to do. It appears that those who use this phrase are severely taking it out of context to fit their anti-Christian agenda.

The First Amendment
Anyone who has heard the phrase “separation of church and state” will have probably heard of the first amendment of the constitution, (even if they didn't know what it was). In fact, most people associate separation of church and state directly with the first amendment.

“The Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

When I read this, my suspicions were confirmed. Separation of church and state, as it has become today, is unconstitutional. By writing the first amendment, our founding fathers weren’t making our government religiously neutral, (which is in fact, an impossible task) they were making sure that the government didn’t control our religion. As Jefferson’s letter says, “legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions”.

“Offending Someone”
Today the ACLU is pressuring our government to reach further than actions. Already it is illegal to pray in schools, wear Christian T-shirts in schools, display the Ten Commandments in courthouses and soon, “in God we trust” may be removed from our currency. Why? Because it might “offend someone”. For this same reason I’ve heard that a library is Colorado is refusing to fly our nation’s flag! Strangely enough, the same people who are pushing Christianity out of our country, (with separation of church and state), have no problem with Muslim prayers, songs about Hanukkah, and homosexual awareness days in schools. I heard that a school near where I live was actually studying the Muslim “steps to heaven” or something like that. I have nothing against Muslims, (except the extremists who want to kill me), but it cannot be right to Give them the freedoms that Christians are loosing. The American constitution supports freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. So anyone who is offended by the ten commandments needs to, (pardon the expression) suck it up and deal with it. Nowhere will freedom ever be complete while offending someone is considered a crime.

Evolutionary Concepts Part 2

Abortion
I’ve actually heard the phrase “human animal” on T.V. This is perhaps the most appalling effect that macro-evolution has had on our culture. Even though science clearly contradicts macro-evolution, most people stubbornly argue that we did indeed evolve from apes. Why is there such an appeal in this belief? Well, I have two theories, either macro-evolutionist are jealous of the ape’s looks, or they want the freedom from morality that animals have. Our culture is so full of murder, theft, and sexual immorality that we have actually ceased to be ashamed of our disgusting sin, and we now look for a way to excuse it as “ok” or “normal”. And evolution has offered a perfect excuse.

The sanctity of Human Life
By far the most drastic way that the “human animal” idea has affected our culture is our view of the value of human life. As a Christian, I believe that we were created in the image of God, which makes us different from the animals. Genesis 9:6 says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” Clearly, God values every human life. But in our culture, that is not the case. Our hospitals now kill over 132,000 innocent human lives every year. Abortion is the American holocaust. And what’s worse, the doctors who perform abortions often will tell their patients that all they are doing is removing a “lump of tissue”. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What are we really Killing?
Abortion stops beating hearts, in fact if most of the babies that have been aborted were born premature, they would still need special life support systems, but they would be under the full protection of the law. Aborted babies can also feel pain, they have fingerprints, and the ability to grow up to have a normal life even if born premature. So it’s really not a question of whether or not it’s a person. It’s just a matter of if the baby is born, or unborn. What’s the difference? Further demonstrating the inconsistency of our laws, did you know that if someone kills a pregnant woman, they are charged with DOUBLE homicide! But the doctors would say that this same baby was just a lump of tissue.

Abortion is murder
I had no idea how bad it has gotten until I saw a pro-life bumper sticker that said something like, “3000 Americans have been killed by terrorists since 1990, 4000 Americans have been killed by abortionists since yesterday.” If we ever get through this American holocaust, historians will no doubt wonder how we could have been so barbaric! This country needs to make a fast U-turn, and start valuing every human life as a gift from God.

The ACLU

Define “Liberties”
I recently read a tract titled “The ACLU vs. America”. What I read was so disturbing that I decided to write this post to inform you what measures are being done by the ACLU to destroy the freedoms of Americans. The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) is a multimillion dollar corporation that “defends” our civil liberties, (at least, the liberties they think should be defended) by pressuring authorities and filing huge lawsuits to anyone who opposes their practice. Let’s take a close look at the “liberties” that the ACLU defends to get an idea of what they stand for.

The ACLU vs. Prayer
In 1963 the ACLU outlawed prayer and the devotional reading of scripture in public schools in Pennsylvania. Since then they have banned graduation invocations, pregame voluntary prayer, and even moments of silence, from schools nationwide. Not only have the ACLU targeted our public schools, but in one case in Louisiana, they actually “demanded jail time for any politician who prayed in a manner they disapproved of”. In South Carolina and Virginia they threatened those who used “Jesus’ name” in prayer with lawsuit. Although against Christians praying, in Virginia the ACLU filed suit demanding that a wiccan witch be allowed to pray during a town meeting. They also work to prevent Christians from sharing the gospel in Public places.

The ACLU vs. Family
The ACLU has also tried, (and failed) to force Boy Scouts of America to accept homosexual scout leaders. “Since the ACLU’s founding in 1920 its leaders have sought to redefine marriage and the family in a relentless campaign to separate sexual activity from morality and responsibility”. The ACLU is currently fighting for same-sex “marriage” in states coast to coast. The ACLU also stands for the degrading of human life from conception until death, and defends the distribution of childhood pornography.

The ACLU vs. God
It’s easy to make excuses to do what we want to do. We could sell murder as a “civil liberty” since we have the right to be happy and do what we want. But the truth is, we are not free to do whatever we want to do. Christians believe that God decides what is right, and what is wrong. Unfortunately, it seems that the ACLU doesn’t understand this. Maybe it’s because we stand up for absolute morals that they attack us so consistently. In my family the ACLU will always be the “Anti-Christian Lunatics Union”. When you give a liberty, you often have to take one. When you give people the liberty to not hear Christian ideas in school, you take away a Christian’s liberty to talk about those ideas. The ACLU is not fighting injustice, they are fighting God. and this is why they can’t win.