Posts
All Comments
7: “If you start with biblical assumptions about a supernatural creation, about a global flood at the time of Noah, and you look at those same facts you will actually see things that the evolutionist misses and that will guide you in your interpretation and you will see that the fossils and rock actually confirm what the bible says about earth history.” -Dr. Terry Mortenson
Read more...Hello all!
I doubt many of you will be interested in the following link, but I thought I'd share it anyway because A) it's very significant in international affairs, and B) I think it's interesting. :-) If you will recall, Georgia, a country struggling to implement a westernized values system emphasizing personal and economic freedom, was shamelessly invaded by Russia last year in a blatant power grab involving an oil pipeline running through Georgia, a pipeline that threatened a Russian monopoly on the oil supply to Europe. This article gives you an update on what's going on in Georgia as they try to recover and continue their forward progress. I hope you find it enlightening and encouraging, if not interesting. I believe it's important to support the efforts of Georgia. They are not a large country, but they are struggling to bring about social and political change that is desperately needed in that region of the world.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/05/AR2009080503091.html?wprss=rss_opinions
God bless and veritas supra omnis!
Hey all!
I ran across this story today and thought it was worth passing along.
In 2008, the city of Oakland, California, passed a “Bubble Ordinance” that prohibits pro-life protestors from outside abortion clinics from standing within 8 feet of women seeking abortions. This ruling was challenged as unconstitutional, specifically as a violation of free speech rights. The following (slightly edited) story from lifesitenews.com updates the story and fills in some details.
Oakland Abortion 'Bubble Zone' Ordinance Upheld by Federal Judge
By Patrick B. Craine
SAN FRANCISCO, California, August 4, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A federal judge ruled yesterday that the City of Oakland's 2008 'bubble' ordinance, which prohibits pro-life protesters outside abortion facilities from standing within 8 feet of women seeking abortions, is constitutional.
The law was enacted in response to the efforts of Baptist Rev. Walter Hoye, 52, who has protested for several years outside the Oakland abortion mill, Family Planning Specialists Medical Group. Hoye would approach women to offer alternatives to abortion. He was fined and jailed for 18 days this March and April for breaching the law.
In a federal lawsuit, Hoye argued that the law violated his free-speech rights and the Constitution's equal protection clause.
U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, however, found that the law's content was neutral and that it had been appropriately applied by the police who arrested Hoye. He said the law protects access to healthcare, while also allowing protesters to express their opinion.
While Hoye "appears to take a relatively mild-mannered approach to demonstrating," the judge said, not all protesters would necessarily follow his example.
"I am horribly disappointed," commented Hoye, who has vowed to continue his pro-life witness.
One of his lawyers, Michael Millen of the Life Legal Defense Foundation (LLDF), has announced their intention to appeal the ruling. "My reaction is, 'We'll see you in the Ninth Circuit,' " Millen said, referring to the federal appellate court. "It is now illegal to stand still on the sidewalk and extend your arm to hand out a piece of literature," he said. "I don't think the Ninth Circuit is going to buy it."
"Mark this day down," he commented in a press release today. "On this day, a federal court judge ruled that it is constitutional to put someone in jail for a year for holding out a hand with a leaflet."
Meanwhile, the district attorney has announced that he will be seeking to permanently ban Hoye from coming within 100 feet of the abortion facility. Hoye is currently appealing a three-year probation that requires him to stay 100 feet away.
"The District Attorney is now arguing the standard pro-abort line," said Catherine Short of LLDF. "They are arguing that Rev. Hoye should be banned from ever going to the clinic because his mere presence could upset some women. They have abandoned any pretense of 'seeking justice,' which is the prosecutor's duty. This is now blatantly ideological."
It should be noted that Paster Walter Hoye is a pro-life (obviously) African American Pastor who has been protesting abortion for many years and is described as mild mannered and non-confrontational. It is his misfortune to have been gutsy too, I guess, thus his targeting.
Keep tuned into this story as I am sure there will be more to follow!
God bless and veritas supra omnis!
6: “It is not true to say that there is different evidence for creation and evolution. Everyone has the same evidence – it is just interpreted in different ways. -Roger Patterson
Read more...5: “Many people have difficulty in accepting a Creator God because if this Creator God did create all things, then all things, including man, would have to obey the rules He places on them. Believing that
man arose by chance alleviates this responsibility and man can rule his own life.” -Ken Ham
Hello everybody!
Well, it’s obviously been a long time since I’ve posted anything due to circumstances and general business, but I’m doubling back down on several things I have neglected of late, including blogging, so you should be seeing more of me for now. :-) Hopefully my mind won’t be completely emptied of ideas now that I have actually determined to post more. :-) For today, I’m just posting to let you know that I am here, and to post my first installment of “Face the Facts of Creation”.
For some background on FtFoC (taken from FtFoC Facebook page), “The purpose of face the facts of creationism is to educate people about the facts of creation. We believe that the Bible’s account of creation is the truth and that science, while it cannot definitely prove any account of creation, actually fits into this account.” I like the facts they have accumulated a lot and hope that you find them edifying and/or thought-provoking.
The plan is to post one fact for everyday of August, so I’m posting today’s fact and the three days facts that I missed.
God bless and veritas supra omnis!
1: “Genesis is the foundation of the rest of the Bible, therefore if a person were to believe in creation as described in Genesis they would be more apt to believe the rest of the Bible.” -Ken Ham
2: “Facts exist in the present, and our interpretations are an attempt to connect the past to the present. The evolutionists must assume everything about the past, while biblical creationists have the Bible as a “time machine” that can provide valuable insights into the past” -Roger Patterson
3: “Faith is believing in something that cannot be seen or fully explained. Faith in God is logical and defensible. Evidence all over the world points to an all-powerful God. Faith in God is not a blind faith that goes against real science. Believing that information can arise from disorder by chance is blind faith since it contradicts real science.” -Ken Ham
4: “Design is not something that happens by chance. Design shows intelligence, and intelligence requires a source. That source as explained in the Bible is God.” -Ken Ham
Hello all!
In response to a reminder (or friendly prodding) from a long time friend, I would like to share a few thoughts on taxes. I would like to base them only on what the Bible says concerning the issue and will not discuss other practical or philosophical arguments that also merit consideration. This post will not be a comprehensive study by any means, merely a highlight of fundamental biblical principles that I believe have been largely forgotten. I do not necessarily believe the Bible speaks frequently or with can’t-miss-it clarity to the issue of taxes. But, I do believe the Bible speaks to the issue with more than adequate clarity, thus eliminating any excuse on our part not train our minds to think in a biblical orientation on the issue.
First, a disclaimer. I am not touching on the “render unto Caesar” principle in this post because I think it is the most universally known and understood of all biblical principles relating to taxation, so in the interest of time I am not devoting space to it in this post.
Here goes!
-Men have a right to all the fruits (i.e. end result) of their labor, and to use them in the manner they choose
II Timothy 2:6 states: “The hard working farmer ought to be the first to receive his share of the crops.”
I Timothy 5:18 says, “For the Scripture says ‘YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING’, and, ‘the laborer is worthy of his wages’.”
Deuteronomy 25:4 says, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.”
These passages, as well as others, teach clearly that men have a right (and a responsibility) to receive and manage ALL of their wages. I believe an income tax violates this principle by unnecessarily taking a percentage of a person’s wages away from him. I also believe capital gains taxes violate this principle for the same basic reason, only in the case of capital gains taxes they are taxing the wages of a person before he or she receives it instead of after. Withholding (keeping a certain amount of a person’s total salary from being included in the check received by the employee in order to pay for certain benefits) also violates this principle, I believe.
-The state has no right to tax the private possessions of a man
If you believe that a person has a right to own what he has earned, I believe it is then logical to agree that imposing an unnecessary tax on that person's private property is also wrong. Therefore, I believe it is logical and biblical to conclude that Property Taxes are wrong.
Ecclesiastes 5:19. It says, “Furthermore, as for every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, He has also empowered him to eat from them and to receive his reward and rejoice in his labor; this is the gift of God.” So, it is plain that riches and wealth are a gift from God, and it is a God given right of man to use and rejoice in the fruit of his labor.
Before I move on I think it is important to make a short disclaimer here. In our system of government we are not taxed without representation. Laws concerning taxes are instituted by elected representatives of the citizens, so in theory we tax ourselves through our elected officials. Thus, taxes can be justly and lawfully levied on behalf of the people with the consent of the people; so make no mistake, I am not opposed to taxes. I am only opposed to certain kinds of taxation. Others I am very much supportive of.
-Men have a right to pass ALL their possessions on to their children as an inheritance
I’ll cheat here thanks to time constraints. The following quoted section is from a David Barton article found on www.wallbuilders.com titled “The Bible and Taxes” (04/27/2006).
“The Bible speaks to the issue of inheritance numerous times. Proverbs 13:22 states “A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children” (something that is not likely with the current Estate Tax which can take up to 55% of an estate, leaving 45% to the children; when the children pass it on to the grandchildren, up to 55% of the remaining 45% can be taken. Leaving only 27% of the original that would be passed on to the “children’s children”). Ezekiel 46:18 states that “the prince shall not take any of the people’s inheritance by evicting them from their property; he shall provide an inheritance for his sons from his own property, so that none of My people may be scattered from his property.” Other scriptures that deal with inheritance are Proverbs 19:14, I Chronicles 28:8, and Ezra 9:12.”
I agree with Barton. If people have the right to the fruits of their labor then they must also have the right to pass that on to the person or persons of their choosing, especially their family.
In summary: as previously mentioned, the above is by no means an exhaustive study of what the scriptures say in regards to the issue of taxation; but, I believe we have seen enough to conclude that all riches are from God both as reward and blessing. God has endowed man to have the free use of them, to rejoice in them and to pass them on to their children and their children’s children. Therefore, it is a violation of God given rights to unlawfully take from the wages of man or to take of his property without his consent. Principally, I believe Income Taxes, Property Taxes, Inheritance Taxes, Capital Gains Taxes, and Withholding are biblically dubious at best, and clearly contrary to God’s will at worst. I personally hold the latter view.
As usual, I welcome comments. This issue is not one I am experienced in handling, and I am still learning a lot - at least I hope I am. I am definitely open to corrections and challenges and am willing to change my position if I can be persuaded that my position is in need of change.
God bless and veritas supra omnis!
Hello all!
As I have mentioned in several different venues, including my last blog post, I chose not to attend any of the many TEA Parties held on April 15th despite the fact that I was sympathetic to their cause, at least the basic premise. In this post I would like to lay out my reasons for not participating.
My primary motivation for this post, beyond explaining my reasons, is to offer some thoughts on grassroots activity, protestation, and related issues for future efforts. I believe strong grassroots organization and activity can and should powerfully impact our future, so it is of vital importance that all - non-professional grassroots activists, professional activists, political strategists, and politicians alike - give the matter much careful consideration.
My reasons for not participating are as follow.
First: Taxes are an effect, not a cause.
Some form of taxation is necessary to uphold and stabilize good government. Taxes, even high taxes, are not wrong in-and-of-themselves if they are being used for the right things and are obtained lawfully by the consent of the people. The problem today is not necessarily the rate at which we are taxed, it is the cause(s) that necessitate high taxes; things like an unnecessarily large and inefficient bureaucratic government, wasteful spending, political corruption, damaging social engineering programs of a highly questionable constitutional nature and massive unconstitutional bailouts of non-government enterprises all contribute to the tax problem.
Second: in connection with the previous point, grassroots energy is a precious commodity.
TEA Party protests tend (emphasis on “tend”) to not focus on root causes or education, I believe, nor does their mobilization of grassroots energy lend itself to productivity or sustainability. Our focus should be on the root causes, first identifying them, educating ourselves' on the issues, educating others and mobilizing a focused, productive and sustainable opposition.
Grassroots energy is often difficult to find and sustain, and easily tends to be unproductive. Because the vast majority of grassroots activists have a limited amount of time, energy, and resources available, they should be deployed as effectively and strategically as possible and controlled to a great degree (i.e. focused and directed, not micro-managed) with a long term focus. Fundamental or root causes should always be their focus, not effects or mere lightening rod issues.
Third: It is easy to skew perception of protests such as the TEA Parties.
Perception is important because it largely influences people’s willingness or ability to fairly evaluate our message. If our perception is good people will be receptive to our message and respond positively. If our perception is bad people will respond negatively to our message. CNN, a liberal network hostile to the TEA Party message, understood this. They knew that if they could negatively portray the TEA Party movement, even if that portrayal was false, they could destroy or minimize its positive reception. So, unsurprisingly, they portrayed the TEA Parties as negatively as they could. Unfortunately, it wasn’t particularly difficult to do so - there were more than enough seemingly angry and/or upset people who came across as merely being hot heads to provide fodder for negative coverage - and by presenting these seeming hot heads them as accurately representing the overall spirit of the TEA Parties as a whole it was easy for CNN (and others) to negatively influence perception of the movement.
Perception is something that is often beyond our control - no matter how good a job we do of presenting ourselves and our cause in the best possible light - so we can’t allow anticipated perception to dictate everything we do. Still, we should factor it in, and when an activity lends itself to an unnecessarily high degree of negative exposure and negative public perception we should be very wary of attaching ourselves to that cause or activity, particularly if our time, energy, and resources are limited and can be better used elsewhere. Ultimately, our personal involvement should always be very calculated, long term in focus, and controlled on the emotional level.
Fourth (and last): I am uncomfortable with the symbolic aspect of the TEA Parties.
Taxes have always been a lightening rod issue, prone to arouse the less admirable instincts of man.
The stereotype of angry protesters waving incendiary anti-tax and/or anti-government signs is not a stereotype without reason. Historically, taxes have proven to be a lightening rod for expression of dissatisfaction (usually justifiably) with government. Taxes are so universally disliked that it is very natural for them to be the object of expresses ones frustration, particularly when one faces a daunting array of complicated issues that need to be addressed. So I am leery of tax oriented protestations. They are strewn with pitfalls stemming from the fallen nature of man. The historical symbolism at play in the TEA Party protests only serves to exacerbate an already precarious balance and heighten my wariness.
Anger should never be a primary (perhaps even significant) catalyst in our political and social activism. Anger should never be uncontrolled or semi-uncontrolled. It distorts our reasoning and rightfully mars the nobleness of our cause, casting reasonable doubt on our causes rightness and worth. It is a self inflicted impugning of our character.
It is unwise and potentially debilitating to automatically refuse participation in any activity that could include people involved for the wrong reasons. We can’t dictate or control the motives of those we work with in all of our political and social activity. Sometimes we just have to accept the fact that perfection will not be achieved (understatement) and make the best of things. Still, I believe it is wise as a general rule to avoid participating in the events and campaigns most likely to be fueled by wrong motives.
I by no means believe that all people involved with the TEA Party movement were involved for the wrong reasons. Remember, I am speaking not only of TEA Parties but also of activism generally. I believe the majority of those involved with the TEA Parties were involved for the right reasons and conducted themselves in a manner befitting the rightness of their cause. But, I also believe enough people were involved for the wrong reasons to dramatically damage the integrity of the TEA Parties in the eyes of the general public, especially with an incredibly biased MSM leaping on every available opportunity to negatively portray them.
At the end of the day, I think the net effect of the TEA Parties could be negligibly good, but more likely to be damaging to the TEA Party cause in the long term. Positively, they mobilized and energized a very significant number of people, some of whom may continue to stay involved in the future or increase their current participation. They demonstrated that there is a strong grassroots opposition to the policies our new government is seeking to implement and (in some cases) has already implemented, and they presented an opportunity to spread a constructive conservative message. Negatively, they diverted precious grassroots energy away from more fundamental issues, promoted among the grassroots a focus on effect instead of cause, were easily mischaracterized by the MSM, and fed a spirit of anger and frustration that is ultimately more damaging than it is helpful. Only time will tell what good the TEA Parties have done or will do.
If I had to take the over/under (over being positive, under being negative) on the effect of the TEA Parties I would take the under, which is why I didn’t participate. Still, I understand and recognize that there were good reasons to participate and respect the decision of those who did participate.
I know that was a long post, but I believe it accurately, though perhaps clumsily, presents my reasons for not participating in the TEA Parties. Keep in mind that many of the above thoughts and points were not aimed specifically at the TEA Party movement but were more broadly oriented thoughts on grassroots activism and political protestation in general.
As usual, I welcome any added thoughts, agreements, disagreements, corrections, etc. I am acutely aware of my own shortcomings in knowledge and philosophic development and coherency, so I am sure that virtually anyone reading this post has something beneficial to add.
God bless and veritas supra omnis!
Hello all!
April 15th is here! Yippee! I love tax time, the New Years or Christmas of taxes. Even though I don't pay many taxes at the moment I would, in a fashion somewhat resembling traditional Christmas euphoria, like to wish you all a happy new tax year!
Okay, so I am being silly and sarcastic. I don't really love taxes and I don't really love April 15th. However, I am not ideologically opposed to taxes. I believe they (taxes) are necessary in many situations to uphold and support good government. That is one reason I chose not to participate in todays Tea Party's being held across the nation. I feel the thinking behind them was reasonable in it's complaint (it is true that we have been taxed beyond what is reasonable) but I think they missed the mark in addressing the real underlying root causes. I may try and post a summary of my reasoning behind those remarks in the future; but in the meantime, because I believe taxes are not inherently wrong, and because I believe an excessive tax burden is only a symptom of a larger underlying problem or problems, I would like to offer up an alternative to our current tax system that both lowers our current tax rate and installs a much sounder, sustainable, and equitable means of taxation.
As the title suggests, the system I would like to advocate is known as the “FairTax.”
The thinking and rational behind the FairTax is by no means new. It has been around for a long time, but the FairTax is unique in that it has been recently developed to fit our current situation while remaining true to the old principles upon which it is built.
I thought of writing my own summaries of the FairTax, but I think it would be much better for those reading if they read the explanation of those who have studied it and much more and have a better understanding of economics and the tax system as a whole. So, in presenting the FairTax, I'll just copy and paste some things, and link to others.
With all that out of the way, allow me to begin.
The best source for information about the FairTax from an advocates perspective is www.fairtax.org, a research organization. I will use it as my primary reference (all my outside references in this post are taken from www.fairtax.org), though there is information on the FairTax elsewhere, neutral, critical, and positive.
In a nut shell, the FairTax is:
Hey all!
I thought y'all might find this interesting bit of news from Newsmax.
Stopping to smell the coffee, and to enjoy a cup of it, before your morning workout might do more than just get your juices flowing. It might keep you going for reasons you haven’t even considered.
As a former competitive cyclist, University of Illinois kinesiology and community health professor Robert Motl routinely met his teammates at a coffee shop to fuel up on caffeine before long-distance training rides.
“The notion was that caffeine was helping us train harder . . . to push ourselves a little harder," he said.
The cyclists didn’t know why it helped, they just knew it was effective.
“I think intuitively a lot of people are taking caffeine before a workout and they don’t realize the actual benefit they’re experiencing. That is, they’re experiencing less pain during the workout,” Motl said.
It is becoming increasingly common for athletes to consume a variety of substances that include caffeine before competing, motivated by “the notion that it will help you metabolize fat more readily.”
“That research isn’t actually very compelling,” Motl said. “What’s going on in my mind is . . . people are doing it for that reason, but they actually take that substance that has caffeine and they can push themselves harder. It doesn’t hurt as much.”
The professor has been investigating the relationship between caffeine and physical activity since taking a slight detour during his doctoral-student days, when his work focused on exploring possible links between caffeine intake, spinal reflexes, and physical activity.
Seven years later, with several studies considering the relationship between physical activity and caffeine behind him, Motl has a much better understanding of why that cuppa joe he used to consume before distance training and competing enhanced his cycling ability.
Early in his research, he became aware that “caffeine works on the adenosine neuromodulatory system in the brain and spinal cord, and this system is heavily involved in nociception and pain processing.” Since Motl knew caffeine blocks adenosine from working, he speculated that it could reduce pain.
A number of his studies support that conclusion, including investigations considering such variables as exercise intensity, dose of caffeine, anxiety sensitivity and gender.
Motl’s latest published study on the effects of caffeine on pain during exercise appears in the April edition of the International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism.
“This study looks at the effects of caffeine on muscle pain during high-intensity exercise as a function of habitual caffeine use,” he said. “No one has examined that before. What we saw is something we didn’t expect: caffeine-naïve individuals and habitual users have the same amount of reduction in pain during exercise after caffeine (consumption).”
The research could prove encouraging for a range of people, including the average person who wants to become more physically active to realize the health benefits.
Blogger Template base thanks to Ourblogtemplates.com 2008; Design by: Kalistablogworks 2009
Back to TOP
