jump to navigation

U.S. News’ Erbe Equates Conservative Christians with Radical Terrorists September 25, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in abortion, Christians, culture war, God, liberals, media bias, morality, news, politics, religion, secularism, terrorism.
add a comment

In her September 21 article, Colleen Raezler reported the following:

Bonnie Erbe, contributing editor to U.S. News and World report and host of PBS’ “To the Contrary” recently compared conservative Christians to terrorists.

A soon-to-be published study in the journal Reproductive Health that found states with a high level of residents who subscribe to conservative religious beliefs also have high teen birth rates sparked Erbe’s September 18 observation that Christianity and radical Islamic terrorism share distinct similarities.

Erbe did not find this conclusion “surprising,” and noted that “most of these ‘religious’ states are also so-called red states.” From there she bashed red states as uneducated and poor, and argued that those factors combined with “increased religiosity tend to intertwine and build on each other.” Erbe offered as proof the following example:

It’s been widely reported that Middle Eastern terrorists talk suicide bombers into committing murder by explaining to them that they will be heroes in heaven, their after-life reward will be that they are treated like kings and have all the advantages that elude them here on earth. These promises are believed by people with no money, no education, and nothing to hold onto but their religious beliefs.

So “red state” residents – poor, uneducated and with “nothing to hold onto but their religious beliefs” – are on a par with Islamist terrorists.

What’s not surprising is that Erbe, who has argued in the past that abortion is a “good decision” in a recession and that religiosity “clouds” common sense would look so poorly upon those who ultimately take responsibility for their actions.

I can understand Erbe’s financial need to make a living. Like many of her comrades in journalism, I can also understand why brain in liberally warped. What I cannot understand how she can make such baseless claims while assuming her liberal audience is uneducated and ignorant about terrorists and Christians. One would think a professional media communicator would at least do some research or be honest in her criticism of those groups.

The facts are most modern terrorist and many high-profile mass murderers have college degrees educated people. The father of international terrorism has a degree in engineering. This Egyptian-born murderer was none other than PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. So his protege, Atta, who led the 9-11 terrorist attacks again. America should not forget the teenage domestic terrorists who mass murdered many of their fellow student at Columbine High School were from home with educated parents of high middle class income. The the father of one was a government official.

Like terrorists waging war against the perceived evil empire that threatens their futures, Christians also fight against the corruption moral relativism promulgated by the secular institutions and those who dominate them.

Christians, however, do not have a religion mandate to do violence, Their weapons are truth, morality, and love. Christian hate the life devastating consequences of the commonplace deception in the service of corrupt special interest and life destroying evil.

Death is not a good thing. It is not good when innocent lives are destroyed by foreign terrorist in their fight against an evil government. It is not good when a nation sanctions the killing of unborn children often to save oneself from the inconvenience of having responsibility of raising a children. That is not to say some women have been confronted the decision to end the life of their unborn in order to live.

It is the secularists who are actually most like the terrorists who kill the innocent without just cause. Collectively, they have produced a culture of corruption and death. While they glory in death, so do Islamic terrorists. They are themselves willing to die for their cause. Secularist like Erbe are more willing for the innocent to die for their glorious cause.

When ignorant secular professionals like Erbe spew their venom against opponents of their standards of injustice, they only reveal how poor, blind, and hopeless they really are. They need to discover the liberty that only our nation’s God and Redeemer gives. Only the Creator could possibly repair such screwed up people. He is an expert in social, psychological, and genetic engineering.

Source: Culture Links

Advertisements

Emulating the European Model: Prescription for Failure September 24, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, Chrisitanity, culture war, liberals, multiculturalism, politics, religion, secularism, statism.
add a comment

To say the Obama administration is enamored of the European model would be an understatement—it positively adores it. That’s why the “Change You Can Believe In” crowd is in full gear trying to mimic their economic system, the most visible example of which is its health care program. If only the European model were worth emulating. Sadly, the record is not encouraging.

Every time there is a worldwide economic downturn, the Europeans lag the Americans in recovery. Quite simply, the more market-oriented the economy, the quicker the recovery; European-style socialism trails the U.S. is rebounding precisely because government is anything but nimble. So why the attraction?

What drives the Obama administration to mimic the European model is not its record of achievements; rather, it is the belief that private institutions are not to be trusted. From its opposition to school vouchers to its embrace of a public plan for its health care program, the administration prefers the public sector to the private sector, hands down. It does so in large part because it lusts to take command, whether it be in the form of social, sexual or economic engineering.

Father Knows Best has given way to Government Knows Best. And by creating economic public policies that make men and women more and more dependent on government, the engineers control their destiny, as well as their vote. It does so, unfortunately, at the expense of self-reliance and self-government. As Dennis Prager wisely observes, “the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.” Regrettably, government now dwarfs the individual, the result of which is a diminution in our ability to hold the state at bay.

Statist policies naturally incline toward expansion. Make no mistake about it, the encroachment of the state on civil society is real, the result of which is the creation of a precarious situation for all private institutions. That would include, certainly, religious entities. European observers of all political leanings are quick to point out how genuinely secular those societies have become. The pace of this deracination has quickened, the effect of which has been a movement away from religious indifference toward genuine hostility. Atheism hasn’t been so fashionable since the Enlightenment.

Every statist regime in history has been anti-religious. The church, of course, is rightly seen as a bulwark to the reach of the state. This explains the animus: secularists of this hyper-politicized sort cannot settle for neutrality—they are out to sunder religious traditions and institutions. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that these secular saboteurs are busy flexing their muscles in the U.S., as well as in Europe.

I wrote Secular Sabotage: How Liberals Are Destroying Religion and Culture in America as a wake-up call. The open assault on our Judeo-Christian ethos has been operative for decades, but never before have we approached a tipping point: we have now reached that stage. The stakes are high as our cultural future hangs in the balance.

From the politically correct programs that mark multiculturalism—a love fest for every civilization save our own—to the sexual libertines who see in Christian sexual ethics a roadblock to genital liberation, we are up against it. Scatological art exhibits are bad enough, but when paired with expressions of Christian bashing, they cross the line many times over. It’s been a long time, of course, since Hollywood found itself capable of portraying Christianity in a positive light, and the fury unleashed against Mel Gibson for making “The Passion of the Christ” underscores the politics involved.

Secular saboteurs show a particular fondness for using the law as a club to stamp out Christianity, torturing out of all recognition the original intent of the Framers; the First Amendment provisions regarding religious liberty have been hit the hardest. Secular elements within the Democratic Party have become bolder and bolder in their disdain for people of faith, driving Catholics out of the party in droves. Perhaps most distressing, the radical secular agenda has penetrated Catholicism, as well as the mainline Protestant denominations, disfiguring them in ways not previously thought imaginable.

In short, Christian bashing is in vogue. That this is happening in a nation which is approximately 80 percent Christian shows the power of a loosely organized, but totally determined, secular minority, and a collapse of will on the part of a sizeable segment of the Christian population. Only a coalition of religious conservatives, across faith lines, can reverse course. Fortunately, as evidenced by the coalition that rallied around Proposition 8 in California, there is reason for optimism.

By Bill Donahue, President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

Who’s telling the truth about abortion funding in Health Care Reform Bill? August 26, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in abortion, Barak Obama, health care, honesty, liberals, media, morality, news, politics, religion.
add a comment

Cardinal Rigali says the bill does fund abortion and that those who say otherwise are pushing an “illusion.”

President Obama says the bill does not fund abortion and that those who say otherwise are guilty of a “fabrication.”

Who is right and who is wrong?

In a August 20 report, CNCNews compares statements made by and President Obama to answer the question.

Cardinal Rigal Cardinal Rigali laid out his position in a carefully reasoned and detailed argument presented in a pastoral letter sent to the U.S. House of Representatives on August 11. Here is his explanation:

“Because some federal funds are authorized and appropriated by this legislation without passing through the Labor/HHS appropriations bill, they are not covered by the Hyde amendment and other federal provisions that have long prevented federal funding of abortion and of health benefits packages that include abortion. The committee rejected an amendment to extend this longstanding policy to the use of federal subsidies for health care premiums under this Act. Instead the committee created a legal fiction, a paper separation between federal funding and abortion: Federal funds will subsidize the public plan, as well as private health plans that include abortion on demand; but anyone who purchases these plans is required to pay a premium out of his or her own pocket (specified in the Act to be at least $1.00 a month) to cover all abortions beyond those eligible for federal funds under the current Hyde amendment. Thus some will claim that federal taxpayer funds do not support abortion under the Act.

“But this is an illusion. Funds paid into these plans are fungible, and federal taxpayer funds will subsidize the operating budget and provider networks that expand access to abortions.”

President Obama not only disagrees with Cardinal Rigali’s conclusion that the bill funds abortion because it funds abortion providers, but in his short speech to a religious audience on BlogTalkRadio yesterday he said that those who say the bill funds abortion are not telling the truth.

Here is what President Obama said:

“I know there’s been a lot of misinformation in this debate. And there’s some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness.”

“You’ve heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion. Not true. This is all–these are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation. And that is that we look out for one another. That I am my brother’s keeper and my sister’s keeper. And in the wealthiest nation on earth right now, we are neglecting to live up to that call.”

The committee referred to by Cardinal Rigali is the Energy and Commerce Committee. The Health Subcommittee amendment specifically states under 122 (4)(B): ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED.

“The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted …”

Prior to the above, the amendment says that the public health insurance option “shall provide coverage for services described in paragraph (4)(B). Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A). Sub-paragraph (4)(A) says what is not permitted in exactly the same words as in (4)(B).

So what is prohibited? Nothing. Under this amendment, the government can and will provide publicly funded abortion service coverage to all eligible citizens.

The CNSNews report further demonstrates how the New York Times spun the amendment in order to deceive the public. The NYT stated that the Health Care Reform Bill would subsidized health insurance premiums of low-income people, but would not cover abortion services.
Yet, as we saw in the above amendment, it would be covered.

According to CNSNews, low income Americans are not the only ones whose would receive federally subsidized health insurance.

“Under the terms of both the House and Senate bills, it is not only “low income people” who will qualify for federal subsidies to buy insurance, but also people making up to 400% of the poverty level ($88,000 for a family of four). The bill will guarantee all such federally subsidized insurance purchasers the ability to buy an insurance to plan that covers abortions. Therefore, federal money will pay for abortion coverage.”

“To put it more bluntly, this health care bill will take money away from hard-working, decent, pro-life taxpayers and hand it over to insurance providers that pay doctors to kill unborn babies.”

Who then is telling the truth about abortion funding under the Health Care Reform bill? Cardinal Rigali and those like him are telling America the truth. Obama and his religious supporters are not.

Wisdom from America’s Founding Fathers August 24, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in American history, civilization, government, moral relativism, morality, multiculturalism, politics, religion.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

In a previous article on Washington’s Farewell Address, I pointed out that its primary theme was national unity.

Accordingly, the wise founder-statesman will not design a system of government that multiplies political parties, a phenomenon that cannot but undermine the development of national character. He will not design a government that fosters frequent changes of government, which inevitably leads to frequent changes in laws and thereby undermine stability and the rule of law. Without stability and the rule of law nothing great and lasting can be accomplished.

In the final analysis, however, national unity ultimately depends on religion and morality. Here is what Washington says in the Farewell Address:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the destinies of Men and citizens. . . . Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of in­vestigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Religion (the root meaning of which is to tie, fasten, or bind) and morality (which means to act out of a motive larger than self-interest) obviously blend well with the theme of national unity. Religion and morality—and Washington had primarily in mind the Judeo-Christian principles—emphasize the brotherhood of man under one God. The Judeo-Christian ethos restrains the divisive passions of men: it teaches moderation and concern for the well-being of others. It conduces to self-government on the one hand, and respect for authority on the other. By so doing it con­duces to the growth of a more perfect union.

By teaching the people some of the fundamental principles of American government, Washington facilitates the exercise of presidential leadership. Only if the people understand those principles can they be a people at once free and united. Accordingly, Washington urges statesmen to “Promote … as an object of primary importance, Institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened”.

In his last State of the Union Message, Washington urged the establishment of a national university. His rationale is worth recalling:

Among the motives to such an Institution, the assimilation of principles, opinions and manners of our Countrymen, by the com­mon education of a portion of our Youth from every quarter, well deserves attention. The more homogeneous our Citizens can be made in particulars, the greater will be our prospect of permanent Union; and a primary object of such a National Institution should be the education of our Youth in the science of Government. . . . [W]hat duty [is] more pressing on its Legislature, than to patronize a plan for communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of their country?

James Madison also formally proposed the establishment of a national un­iversity when he became President. Like Washington, he recommended that the university be located in the nation’s capital, the better to promote not only the science of government, but “those national feelings, those liberal sentiments, and those congenial manners which contribute cement to our Union and strength to the great political fabric of which that is the foundation.”

Again and again we behold the theme of national unity. Today, American national unity is being undermined by atheism and moral relativism. Indeed, multiculturalism is a prominent theme of a myriad of universities. Anti-patriotic internationalism has become a pastime of countless academics. The abandonment of America’s founding principles, enunciated in Washington’s Farewell Address, could hardly be more striking.

Washington emphasized that the success of the American’s people’s experiment in republican government “will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.” But that success depended on national unity, whose achievement necessitated the civilizing influence of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

A New Victim of Gay Sexual Politics, Evangelical Lutheran Church August 22, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in Bible, church, culture war, faith, gay politics, immorality, Jesus Christ, moral law, news, politics, religion, secularism, sex, tolerance.
add a comment

The Washington Times recently reported that a majority of leaders in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America recently voted to change church law to permit non-celibate gays into the sacred office of the clergy. At the same time, a majority of church leaders changed denominational law to recognize same-sex common law marriage (but by other terminology).

According to the report, “The resolution on clergy, easily the most controversial, passed by 559 ‘yes’ votes (55.3 percent) to 451 ‘no’ votes (44.6 percent). It committed the ELCA to open its clergy ranks to people in “publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships.”

The vote allowing congregations to ‘”recognize, support and hold publicly accountable life-long, monogamous, same-gender relationships,” passed by 619 ‘yes’ (60.6 percent) to 402 ‘no’ votes (39.3 percent) was less controversial than allowing non-celibate gays to represent the church and Christ.

The report noted two responses these developments: Those who believe it will result in many people leaving the church and those who believe it will result in significant church growth. One member of the Metropolitan New York Synod said her gays were the reason her congregation was growing. Leaders of representing most American and foreign synods voiced strong disapproval of these decisions because of their opposition to the teaching of the church.

As with other mainline denominations, the democratic politics and secularly defined social relevance appears to be the most important factors in these decisions.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in American cannot be charge with religious fundamentalism. They have tossed the fundamentals out. The most important fundamental is abiding under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. As recorded in the book of Revelation, the risen Christ told the churches in Asia Minor that he hated the sexually immoral politics and practices that were being spread by the Nicolaitans and Jezebel, who was likely one of their leaders in Thyatira. Like the Laodiceans, they can only be charged with being faithful secular fundamentalists.

The still popular song lyric sung by Jackie DeShannon expresses the religious sentiment of modern sexual politics, “all we need now is love … sweet [tolerant] love” not holiness and truth.

The problem with all of this is not whether the church will grow, or split, or gain social relevance. After this testing of faithfulness, the problem will be when and how the Lord will come and fight against the immoral and their supporters. As Christ promised the Pergamum church, he will come and fight against them with the sword of His mouth. If that means anything like his warning to the unrepenting Jezebel, they and their loving supporters will receive the same judgment that the members of the tolerantly immoral cities of Sodom and Gomorrah received.

Those who do not like a God who actually judges and punishes moral crime (sin, immortality) hate the rule of law and especially moral law.

Source:

They Really Do Believe We Are Idiots August 14, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in children, culture war, Democrats, economy, health care, Left, life, media, Medicare/Medicaid, news, politics, religion, right to life, senior citizens, welfare.
add a comment

Liberal religious groups announced on Monday they are teaming up with President Barack Obama in a national campaign to counter the surprisingly vehement conservative opposition to his plan for overhaul of the U.S. healthcare industry this year. Organized by liberal-leaning evangelicals, some mainline Protestant clergy, and some Catholic groups, it will include Obama participating in a call-in program with religious leaders streamed on the Internet on August 19, prayer meetings and nationwide television ads.”

From “U.S. religious left wades into healthcare fight,” which appeared yesterday in Reuters.

When a reporter and/or media outlet is behind you, your vocal support for something or another is “passionate,” “caring,” even “prophetic.” When they don’t, that same intensity is “vehement,” “fueled by anger,” even (to quote Democratic congressional leaders) “unAmerican.”
Some of the same religious leadership that helped Obama navigate the political shoals last year are putting the band back together again, this time in an attempt to blunt massive grassroots resistance to health care “reform.” Let me talk about a few of the particulars.

If you believe a lot of the “mainstream” press, resistance is either synthetic, bought and paid for by those “opposed to health care reform,” ill-informed, and/or stoked in part (as Reuters put it yesterday) by “Christian and conservative radio,” and/or leaders of the “religious right.”

As you undoubtedly know from watching television or reading accounts, President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress are fighting back.

The two-fold strategy appears to be (yet AGAIN) to marginalized anyone who wants an explanation of how they are going to square various circles, and to (yet AGAIN) stop talking about specifics (which always gets them into loads of trouble) and return to the kind of sparkling generalities that Obama specializes in.

That’s where the Religious Left comes in the form of something called “People of Faith for Health Reform and its “40 Days for Health Reform.” One of the usual suspects is Jim Wallis, who told Reuters that “his group’s mission is to keep universal health-care coverage alive as a ‘moral issue.'”

According to NPR, the division of labor goes like this. The Obama Administration has rolled out a website to contest “wild rumors” about its health care initiative and to “call out misinformation.” (Gulp!) So what is the role of this “coalition of progressive religious leaders”?
“Argue morality,” or, according to Liz Halloran, “more specifically, what members characterize as the moral and religious imperative of providing ‘inclusive, accessible’ health care coverage and the need for a civil discourse about the issue, says Jim Wallis of the progressive Christian group Sojourners, one of the coalition sponsors.” (Keep that “civil discourse” comment in mind.)

So, let’s look at the ad. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaBq0QeM3-8) True, there is one statement that is unobjectionable. A pastor looks in the camera and says, “God’s given us a spirit not of fear but of love and action.” But the rest of the ad is the usual us v. the “special interests” drivel that is the hallmark of those who insist you either accept the thrust of the Democrats health care “reform” sight unseen, or you want nothing.

The first statement in the 30-second ad tells you all you need to know: “Special interests in Washington are spending millions to block health insurance reform,” followed by “Killing reform will boost their profits.” In case anyone misses the point a moment later a woman opines, “The special interests are strong.”

However, thanks to NPR, there can be little doubt of the campaign’s real motivation. “According to Gordon Whitman of the PICO National Network, a faith-based community organizing group that is also one of the coalition’s sponsors, the group’s effort will focus on moderate, swing districts where ‘religion is significant to public life.'”

They really do believe we are idiots, don’t they?

Switching gears but to a related subject, there’s been an enormous amount written about “Section 1233 of the health-care bill drafted in the Democratic-led House, which would pay doctors to give Medicare patients end-of-life counseling every five years,” as the Washington Post described it. How much should we be worrying about this?

Let me offer the concluding paragraphs of “Facing the Challenge of Health Care Rationing,” a page one story in the July/August issue of NRL News, written by NRLC’s Burke Balch, JD. Mr. Balch, director of NRLC’s Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics wrote the following.

The House legislation, as reported from the Energy and Commerce Committee, contains provisions to promote advance directives like “living wills,” including:

1) Medicare reimbursement for consultations about “advance care planning” between health care providers and their patients when they enter Medicare, every five years thereafter, and if they become seriously ill;

2) requiring private and public health care plans to give potential enrollees the option to establish advance directives; and

3) a public education campaign, toll-free telephone hotline, and clearinghouse to promote advance directives and other advance care planning.

Advocates of such measures frequently cite the cost savings if, as they expect, this promotion results in more directives rejecting lifesaving treatment. “We refer to the end-of-life discussion as the multimillion-dollar conversation because it is associated with shifting costs away from expensive … care like being on a ventilator in an ICU, to less costly comfort care …,” said Holly Prigerson of Boston’s Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. National Right to Life strongly encourages the execution of a pro-life advance directive, the Will to Live (see http://www.nrlc.org/MedEthics/WilltoLiveProject.html). However, the pro-life fear is that efforts to push patients and prospective patients to prepare advance directives may in practice become a means of persuading or pressuring them to agree to less treatment as a means of saving money. Moreover, governmental promotion of advance care planning must not include the “option” of assisted suicide. Especially in the Senate, NRLC is working to address these concerns through negotiations and, if necessary, by preparing amendments to be offered in the Senate Finance Committee and on the Senate floor.

It is critically important that pro-life citizens make their voices heard while senators and representatives are at home during August, and after they return to Washington in September. The contemplated restructuring of America’s health care system will affect the life–and death–of every American.

So here’s the scoop: The above critique of the Democrats’ health care agenda is that they want to save us all a lot of money by reducing our health care coverage, eliminating as many worthless people on Medicaid so that they can reduce the amount of money made by private health care insurers to increase the pay of cooperating physicians in their scheme.

I almost forgot an implied one: they will kill two or more birds with one stone–they will save us all money by making us wait for health care by putting us on long waiting lists to reduce our health care. The add bonus is costs will be further reduced because while some of us while waiting for health care will die. And, the double bonus will be that those of us who don’t die will develop the moral virtues of patience and endurance or long suffering.

By accomplishing all of that, they will be able to further justify giving themselves more raises in the future and maybe even helping pay for the billions in give-a-way money for keeping poorly managed financial companies and auto companies as well as foreign investors making more profits at all of our expense.

Yes, the logic of the Left is if you abort all of the worthless babies, worthless welfare poor, and worthless elderly folk–of course, according to their own preplanned consent–everyone can have a better, more profitable, and a good secular life. In the process, they may be able to save some of their prized socialist programs like social security and medicaid from going bankrupt.

What a wonderful utopia we will all live in now that the Left rules our world. We are commanded to now go and spend to support the cause for tomorrow we will surely die; they are planning on it. Oh, what joy it is to live in a planned society.

Source: National Right to Life, August 11, 2009 except for the scoopish commentary.

The Future of Christianity July 15, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in Chrisitanity, Christian nation, democracy, God, politics, polls, religion, research, secularism.
add a comment

Is Christianity in the U.S. Doomed? This is the question headlining the front cover the World Magazine. The inveterate optimist and editor-in-chief, Marvin Olasky, answers this question in the article titled “The Sixth Wind?” The content of his positive response to recent gloom and doom of hopeful secularists, atheists, and Muslims comes from interviews with several different authors.

One of his sources were the co-authors of the best seller God is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith is Changing the World, John Micklethwait and Adrain Woolridge of The Economist. As their title suggests, they fail to see Christianity as a dying religion. On the contrary, it is becoming more relevant as is other faiths.

Jon A. Shileds, who wrote The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right, also see a different picture of the politically involved religious right than the fearsome fascist described by the Left. Here again, his book title suggests what he discovered while hanging around the Right. He witnessed their leaders seeking to train there rank-and-file activist to practice respectful deliberation. He failed to infiltrate their terrorist plots against the left’s political agenda.

Olasky apparently drew on the works of other authors like Terry Eagleton’s Reason, Faith, and Revolution. His book answers the question why people are suddenly talking about God: Because “nothing else–not science, not reason, not liberalism, not economics–works.” Atheism has nothing to offer humans, only God offers hope. Even A.N. Wilson is said to have dropped his atheism.

Olasky finally directly addresses the question whether the trends represent a sixth wind of Christian revival in America. He says, “I don’t know. He says that past experience informs him that there is no reason to be depressed about our current problems. “Truth trumps everything, including liberal cleverclogs.

Olasky’s began his article with poll data that reported a 10 percent drop of Americans who identified themselves as Christian. Previously, 86 percent of Americans claimed to be Christians. Does this mean 24 percent are now atheists or agnostics? No. it just meant 8 percent more (16%) disassociated with any religion or denomination. Most still believe in God and regard religion as important to their lives.

Christianity is alive and mostly well in America.

The problem is the disassociation of the original Christian values from institutional and political affairs. The values of secular fundamentalism–atheistic humanism–pervade our key public institutions like education, big business, and government. If you do the research, you will find Darwinian evolution is underlying dogma justifying both secular fundamentalism and values of atheistic humanism. Our social problems are directly linked to the prevalence of those values in our public institutions. In education, this is called the hidden curriculum that is taught to every child and adult most of the lives most of the time. We all believe what we value and act according ly.

Source: World, June 20, 2009