Barack Obama's Premise on Gun Control

My sons' in Generation Joshua will be debating this issue of gun control. For this reason I will study the topic myself. I would welcome comments from anyone who has thought or would like to think through this issue.

Obama believes that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. Yet, he qualifies his acceptance of the Second Ammendment as follows: But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it. http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

I'm not an Obama fan, but the President-elect's quote seems like a reasonable premise on which to think through this issue. Is there something I'm missing?

Evolution's Key Argument: Attack Opponent

In late September I spoke with a Christian biologist who believes in macro evolution. This is a man who loves God and is a godly leader in his church. (Of this I have little doubt.) However, I was surprised at how quickly he dismissed the ideas of either creationism or intelligent design as bunk. He said to me that he knew of only one credible scientist who is a "creationist."

Without having much scientific training in the academic sense, I posed to him the questions posed by "intelligent design." The argument from "irreducible complexity" came quickly to mind. He assured me that the questions of irreducible complexity (such as the formation of the eye) are answerable by the method of macro evolution. Yet, surprisingly or not so surprisingly enough he could not explain "scientifically" how the eye could be form by "blind" (ha, ha) and random causes. But that evolution had explained it there was no doubt.

I found that discussion to be disappointing and less than satisfactory. I am still on a quest to find someone who can help me to make sense of how evolutionists justify--logically and scientifically--their position, if they can give any real justification at all.

Can the evolutionists give us more than condescension???

P.Z. Myers is a biologists and an atheists who teaches at the University of Minnesota. He expressed outrage that Ken Ham (founder of Answers In Genesis) led a prayer meeting at our nation's Pentagon this past year. He then went on to do a "little" name calling of the Answers In Genesis founder....

Millions of people, including some of the most knowledgeable biologists in the world, think just about every day that you are an airhead, an ###, a birdbrain, a blockhead, a bonehead, a boob, a bozo, a charlatan, a cheat, a chowderhead, a chump, a clod, a con artist, a crackpot, a crank, a crazy, a cretin, a dimwit, a dingbat, a dingleberry, a dipstick, a ditz, a dolt, a doofus, a dork, a dum-dum, a dumb-###, a dumbo, a dummy, a dunce, a dunderhead, a fake, a fathead, a fraud, a fruitcake, a gonif, a halfwit, an idiot, an ignoramus, an imbecile, a jack###, a jerk, a jughead, a knucklehead, a kook, a lamebrain, a loon, a loony, a lummox, a meatball, a meathead, a moron, a mountebank, a nincompoop, a ninny, a nitwit, a ##########, a numbskull, a nut, a nutcase, a peabrain, a pinhead, a racketeer, a sap, a scam artist, a screwball, a sham, a simpleton, a snake oil salesman, a thickhead, a turkey, a twerp, a twit, a wacko, a woodenhead, and much, much worse. You're a clueless schmuck who knows nothing about science and has arrogantly built a big fat fake museum to promote medieval bullshit...http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/in_which_i_have_hurt_ken_hams.php

These types of attacks by the evolutionists have been fairly typical. There is a general rule in law that if you cannot attack your opponent's ideas, then attack your opponent. Evolutionists, it seems to me, have been very adept in doing that.

Obama Goes to the Middle

Obama has been moving to the middle on economic and military issues. His military appointments (reappointment of Gates) and his economic appointments (pro-trade and pro-market economists) have certainly been surprisingly and positively out of step with his campaign promises. This is making his left wing supporters irrate. What is most shocking is that he is starting to look like George Bush.

Physical Healing and Jesus' Pattern of Ministry

When God does heal it is a foretaste of the complete healing we will receive in the future. This healing was purchased on the cross. --idea from Wayne Grudem (theologian)

The story of Lazarus confirms this idea. (John 11) One cannot look at the healings done by Jesus and then conclude that "physical healings" will be a regularity of ministry. Throughout my Christian journey I have heard several say (maily Pentecostal and Charasmatic, but not exclusively) that Jesus' miraculous ministry of healing should be the regular pattern of how ministry is done today in the church. Since Jesus made the blind to see and the lame to walk and the diseased healed, we should too. The reason that there isn't is because we don't have enough faith.

But is this really so? It would, then, appear that since Jesus made the dead to rise, we should too. However, I have not heard anyone advocate as part of a funeral ceremony to have a section for the "raising of the deceased." By using the logic that Jesus did and we should too, should then the models of Lazarus or Jarius' daughter be the pattern that we should aim to follow? Should we go to funerals and aim to see people whose lives were "tragically" taken at a young age (the child who died of lukemia, the young father who in an auto wreck leaves a grieving widow and fear struck children) raised from the casket? Or should we understand the story of Lazarus as a triumphant illustration where Jesus demonstrates:

“I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26 and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Jn 11:25-26

As Grudem says, when God physically heals or even raises from the dead, it is a foretaste of the healing and victory of life which God has secured for us through the cross and will be completely realized in the future.

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 1 Cor. 15:22-23

Do not follow your heart. Lead your heart. --Fireproof

Obama and the New Evangelicals:"DeJa Vu" All Over Again

There are a new breed of evangelicals which are embracing key platforms of the Democratic party and the cultural left. They are proudly distancing themselves from the "narrow minded and partisan voices" of the "religious right," like Dobson and Robertson. They are represented in part by groups like the Matthew 25 Network and some from the emerging church movement leaders, who are greatly enthused over the presidential victory of Barack Obama. "Climate change" is, now, one of the biggest issues they embrace.

These evangelicals want to move beyond the partisan issues which have "divided" our nation, like abortion and gay marriage. They want to be done with the culture wars. The way they do that is to capitulate to key issues on the Left. These evangelicals, for example, do not like abortion but they no longer believe that it is the job of government "to force mothers to give birth to their children."

This is supposedly a new and fresh approach to help Christians think and act on social issues. But is it really new or fresh? Can anyone remember in 1976 when a "born again" evangelical Southern Baptist Sunday School teacher came to the White House? Anybody up for another round of Jimmy Carter?

Change In the Wrong Direction

With Obama picking such a large number of cabinet and department leaders from the former Clinton administration it is very hard to justify that we are going to see a revolution in government that has been promised. Obama ran not simply on a change from the last eight years, but on a change with the very way government itself runs. It does look like we are seeing "change," it is just change in the wrong direction.

Above Obama's Paygrade

Barack Obama has picked Tom Daschle to be the secretary of the health and human services, the department that deals most closely with abortion and human life issues. Tom Daschle is radically pro-abortion.

After three decades of intense public debate on the issue of abortion, Obama declared that any declaration of moral judgment of when life begins to be "above my paygrade."

So much for "healing" the moral divisions in our culture.

Secular Bigots

The atheist Richard Dawkins has sold over one million copies of his book, The God Delusion. In his writing he belittles Anthony Flew (professor at Oxford and Harvard) who has been one of the most prominent philosophical atheists of the last century, who converted in 2004 to the position that the universe has a divine creator. Flew, amazingly, converted! Flew has contended that Dawkins is a "secular bigot" because when he critiques theism (the belief in God), he attacks not the strongest arguments, but ones that are more easily challenged and dismissed. Flew writes...

The fault of Dawkins as an academic was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine that he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form.

Business and "Lifestyle Choices"

Business cannot manufacture hardworking and morally virtuous people. Yet, these qualities in the workforce are essential to a strong business and work environments. So, how are they produced? They are produced through strong families. Families are the primary moral educators of children. It is at the root of where our moral values and character training are first instilled and reinforced. For this reason it is vital to our nation's economic policy that strong families are preserved and the institution of marriage is not reduced to a "lifestyle choice," which is simply equal to other "lifestyle choices" available. To do so is to undercut the foundation of the family. The results will be increasingly catastrophic.

Obama the Moderate??? (Part 2)

In August, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) weighed in with a proposed regulation to extend and solidify existing legal conscience protections for healthcare providers who are opposed to abortion. On the surface, the HHS efforts would seem innocent enough, as it largely clarifies how existing conscience-protection laws will be implemented. But the abortion industry was very threatened by this proposed regulation. Their fear is that a clear statement on conscience would enable the majority of practitioners to divorce themselves entirely from the abortion culture. For this reason, abortion’s defenders came out swinging. In September, twenty-seven Democratic U.S. senators and one independent sent a letter to HHS secretary Mike Leavitt that claimed the regulation would damage “the healthcare needs of women.” (Incidentally, senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden were among the signatories.)

Obama the Moderate???

Though Obama promises to run the national administration from the middle, he has promised to pass the Freedom of Choice Act which would over turn all of the state's modest restrictions on abortion. It would also provide federal funds for abortion, and penalize hospitals that do not commit abotions.

A New Day for Pro Lifers

One week after settling into the realization of the now unstoppable fact of an Obama presidency, it is clear that the pro-life movement will face much greater obstacles to the legislation of sanctity of life issues.

It is more apparent now than perhaps ever that the pro life community will have to work on changing hearts--changing the culture.

John Jay Hughes makes the following observation...

In a notable pre-election speech in St. Louis, former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee spoke about three legal innovations which he had witnessed in his adult lifetime: limitations on smoking, requirement of access to public places for the handicapped, and requirement of seat belts for drivers and passengers of automobiles. In each case, Huckabee pointed out, people were first persuaded that the proposed change was beneficial. Then, laws were enacted to mandate the change. Pro-lifers need to heed this lesson. For too long we have been demanding the passage of laws which, though happily supported by a growing number of our fellow citizens, still fall short of the acceptance needed to make them effective.

No Argument Against Death

Last Tuesday Washington voters legalized assisted suicide with a 58-42 majority. Why have they done this at such a time that when medicine has made such great advances to deal with the pain and discomfort that comes from terminal or debilitating illness.

Perhpas it reflects a growing nihilism in our culture. Perhaps we have no argument against death.

Executive Orders???

As Barack Obama has become our new president, the news tells us that he will immediately, upon innaugaration, use "executive orders" to enact his policy priorities. (e.g., more funding for embryonic stem cell research) My question is...where does the president receive the authority to write executuve orders??? I thought he was limited by the powers of the legislative branch.

These, of course, have come from the evolution of American history, stemming in the tradition of Lincoln's Emmancipation Proclamation and Roosovelt's New Deal policies. The president has been granted through changes in the government far more "imperial" powers that the Constitution grants.

Sally Thomas says that young adults from ages 18-24 are not buying what is offered from our "cultural cany shop" which offers access through iphones classic films to ancient texts. But few are turning on to it.

Literary reader rates, Thomas informs us, have declined by 17 percentage points since 1982. This does not represent a temporary cultual shift, but an avalanche of social change. This would be easy to dismiss, except...

...were not already so evident...interviewees, from the “Jaywalking” segment of The Tonight Show, who don’t know where the pope lives (“England?”) or the tenure of a Supreme Court justice (“I’m guessing four years?”), or the title of any classic work of literature.

For Capitalism

R.R. Reno argues that there is still important that we put forward the moral argument for capitalism. This is especially true now that we have elected a president who will emphasize the failures and limitations of capitalism.



Reno goes back to John Locke who argued from British common law that property ownership is a sacred and ancient right. Property creates a "zone of freedom" for the individual. The political will of the state finds its limits outside the boundaries of the property owner. Property gives us the arena for status and power seperate from political encroachment and control.

Well said...