"Tolerance"

Many cases are appearing all over the country where Christians are being put down, suspended, or otherwise [[gasp]] discriminated against. It all goes under the label of "tolerance" and "diversity." But I'm wondering who is really being tolerant.

In Georgia, a student is suing the university there because she was to speak out against homosexuality, and was forced to take a "diversity" class. In Roseville, CA students are being suspended because they refused to take off their shirts that had a Christian message. The government forbids pastors in Canada to preach against homosexuality. The list goes on.

The thing is, gays, abortionists, and others speak a whole lot about tolerance, when they themselves do not tolerate anyone else besides them speaking out for their beliefs. They hate you and accuse you of "hate"-crimes. Tolerance extends to everyone…except Christians. A few more ironic statements could apply.

What about my diversity? What ever happened to that? I am diverse from you: [theoretical situation, I'm not actually talking to you, the reader, personally] you are gay; I am Christian. You are trying to force your beliefs down my throat. I am applying my beliefs to you, and asking you to repent from what I see (and God) as sin. How about celebrating my diversity? Whatever happened to freedom of speech? (This especially applies to the Canadian case.)

Liberals are intolerant of anyone who is "intolerant" according to their standards. Tolerance to them means bearing all their ideas and not saying anything contrary. In other words, brainwashing and propaganda.

I’m not saying that we should go about people and despising them for what they believe. I believe tolerance is in order to a certain extent with people. But what most liberals today label as tolerance is nothing of the sort.

On the other hand, this is an old topic given new life. My father has a book from the 1700s on tolerance and to what extent it should be used. The book is actually analyzing the dealing of the Synod of the reformed church in the Netherlands with the issue in the 1600s.

Persecution -- that's the name for it. Tolerance might be the highest virtue in our popular culture, but it doesn't often extend to Christians these days. Christians are increasingly being driven from public life, denied their First Amendment rights, and even actively discriminated against for their beliefs.

Taken from David Limbaugh’s review of Persecution

Authenticity

You know, it’s interesting that there are tons of books written, studies published, and time wasted trying to disprove the authenticity of the Bible. All this work done, in spite of the fact that the Bible is one of the most proven documents in the world. Prophecies have been fulfilled, historical facts confirmed, authorship proven; but people still doubt. I guess this is why the Bible says, among other things on this subject, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the .” It is only by faith.

No one ever says that Plato or Socrates’ writings are probably faked. Nor do they say that some guy wrote the Iliad in the 1100s. Yet these documents have very little backup texts to support them.

It’s interesting to think about.

The "Unspeakable" Penalty

Okay, this just angers me. I just got finished watching the news. Ya, I've heard (actually read) Moussaoui’s talkbacks and arrogant replies; but I never thought I would see the day when Americans (let alone victims of the criminal) would say that a person who wanted to kill their relatives; and still openly admits to it, deserves to live and not die. It is a very sad example of the state of this country today.

For those of you who haven't heard Moussaoui’s comments and sneers, here are a few.

When asked by a lawyer whether he would be prepared to kill Americans, he said: "Anytime, anywhere."

"God curse you all"

When asked by a lieutenant whether he wakes up to destroy the U.S everyday, he replied, "to the best of my ability"

There are many more, including laughing and smiling when victims testified and calling them “weak.” I just cannot see how one can know all this and still say that the guy is good at heart. Keeping people like Moussaoui alive is not mercy, it is cruelty: cruelty to the victims, to the public, and to the society. The victims need retribution. The public is in danger when a criminal is not punished for several obvious reasons:

1. The criminal will most likely do the deed again.
2. The example of justice not being implemented will encourage others to follow in crime.

Executing a criminal is not “just ending another life,” but preventing the loss of other lives by the convict or others. Much of the crime in this country is the result of a lack of justice to those who do heinous crimes. The Bible says that God will judge a society when it does not administer justice. America and other Western countries are in trouble then.

One thing that especially makes me angry is that people cite the Bible as saying that criminals should not be executed. When was the last time they read their Bibles? A better translation of the 6^th commandment is “Thou shalt not .” If God meant no, then every time you step on an ant, you’re breaking God’s law. (Oh yeah, by the way, what about the Jews going into Canaan and conquering the people there?) Besides, there are many references to executing criminals in the Bible: “If anyone kills a person, the [killer] shall be [executed] at the evidence of witnesses…” (Num. 35:30) There are many, many more clear statements in the Bible, but I’ll end here.

If this were the 1830s, (actually, the 1910s too) Moussaoui would have been years ago. We need to change the legal system so that it doesn’t take 6 years min. for a criminal to be executed. It is clear that Zacharias Moussaoui deserves the "unspeakable" penalty.

The Da-Vinci Code, aka, the Big Lie

It's interesting; a lot of these programs and books leading up to the release of the movie version of The Da-Vinci Code are one-sided. Yeah, there are a lot of good rebuttals, but hey, I don't like talking about stuff that I already agree with. Anyway, we'll just act like the good rebuttals don't exist.

All these people on the liberal side seem to think that what's going on now is something new. They act like the Gnostic Gospels were just discovered. In reality, the Church has known about these things for many, many years; and condemned them. The Gnostics were very active in the early days of Christianity, trying to undermine its influence with a bunch of legends. Just because they wrote fiction back then too, doesn't mean that we need to accept those things as fact.

The real, true, canonical Gospels were written either by people who had extensive contact with apostles, or were apostles themselves. The remarkable unity in the story of these four (lacking in the Gnostic books) is tremendous evidence to their authenticity.

Another big lie perpetrated by liberals is that Paul and Peter were in disagreement with each other, and had “different versions of Christianity.” Yes, Paul had to rebuke Peter for being embarrassed to eat with Gentiles in front of Jews; but Peter obviously repented of that as evidenced by his later writings.

The books and “documentaries” now are just attempts by modern day Gnostics to undermine scripture and the Christian message. The Da-Vinci Code just goes under the cloak of being fiction.

Note: I saw a PBS show on early Christianity, and it was interesting that they didn't interview one evangelical or conservative. There were just people from Harvard, Yale, and Union Seminary: bedrocks of Christianity. (They don't even believe the Bible)

Rock Dating: The True Story II

In the previous post, I explained the flaws in carbon dating. Now, I am going to deal with some of the other methods for rock dating. This includes isotope ratio dating (radiometric) and isochron dating.

Isotope dating is based on one radioactive element (parent element) decaying into another more stable one (daughter product) at a certain rate. Scientists measure the concentrations of each, plug them into the ratio and determine the date of the sample. For example, potassium-40 decays into argon-40 at a certain rate.

But when the samples are dated, three major assumptions are made which cannot be proven:

1. The starting conditions are known. (e.g. if there was any argon-40 in the original rock)
2. The rate of decay has been constant.
3. The systems were closed so that no potassium-40 or argon-40 were added or subtracted.

These assumptions are based on a uniformitarian point of view, which most scientists are now moving away from. These assumptions lead to problems and manipulations within the dating technique.

For example, in dating the basalt around Australopithecus ramidus fossils, researchers got dates of about 23 million years. They decided this was too old, so they examined basalt columns further away from the fossils. They chose 17 out of 26 samples from this site to be “good” ones, and the others “bad” ones. Why? Because the dates did not fit the paradigm accepted by geologists worldwide, namely, old earth evolution. There are many, many more examples of twisting the dates to get what you want; but I’ll leave you with that one.

One interesting thing is that on the form for submitting rock samples to dating and testing labs, you have to specify how old you think the sample is. Presumably, this is because the labs know the discrepancies in the dating method, and want to choose the “correct date” from the many “bad dates.”

These problems with dating are evident in many samples that give dates that vary greatly from the know age of the sample, or from other dates extracted different ways from the same rock. For example, in testing lava flows off of New Zealand that are known to have taken place within the past century; researchers got dates of up to 3.5 million years (the smallest age given was 270,000 years old). Just a little bit off. Also, in testing the same rock from the Grand Canyon, four different methods of dating were used and got the following: 117 million, 1,390 million, 1,340 million, and 2.6 billion.

Isochrons were thought to overcome all the problems above by getting a composite ratio of all the different parent and daughter elements, but this method also gives unreliable dates and way-off results.

There are many anomalies in rocks that have been found including:

1. Daughter products of elements that have a slow decay rate that don’t have any parent elements with them.
2. Missing substances of various types that should be there according to uniformitarianism.
3. Radiohalos that contain only daughter products.

These discoveries (and others) lead to the conclusion that rates of decay were faster in the past, which would give older dates. All these things suggest that the assumptions made by scientists in dating rocks are wrong.

God says: “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” Job 38:4

Most of the material for this article was taken from The Revised and Expanded Answers Book, Masters Books.

Rock Dating: The True Story

Many people think that the dating methods evolutionists use are infallible. It is also commonly thought that all dating methods point to an old earth. In reality there are many flaws in these processes. This entry will deal with carbon dating.

Carbon dating is one of the most commonly cited methods for the dating of dinosaurs and other organisms. It works only in things that contain carbon. Here's how it works: Cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atoms high up, which travel downwards at high speeds and collide with nitrogen, forming ¹⁴C. This form of carbon is radioactive and decays over time. One thing this carbon can do is combine with oxygen to make a special form of carbon dioxide. This carbon dioxide is taken in by plants in photosynthesis. Animals eat the plants, and thus the ¹⁴C enters the food chain. ¹⁴C is constantly changing back into nitrogen, but in living animals it is replaced by more ¹⁴C. When an animal dies, it begins to lose the ¹⁴C in its body. Thus, the ratio of ¹⁴C to normal carbon diminishes over time; the ¹⁴C goes away, the normal carbon stays. This is what the scientists measure: the less ¹⁴C, in relation to normal carbon (¹²C), the older the rock.

Now, according to the ratio of decay, the ¹⁴C should no longer be measurable beyond 50,000 years. This is not the only thing; most plants take in less ¹⁴C than 12C thus reducing the ratio more. This causes the specimen to look older than it really is, and thus has to be counted in.

Another thing is that the ratio of ¹⁴C to ¹²C has not always been constant. (e.g. the Industrial Age, and the testing of nuclear in the atmosphere changed the levels). When I mentioned the decay of the magnetic field to Axinar, he said that it wasn’t accurate because of magnetic field reversals in the past. These polarity reversals weaken the magnetic field so that more radiation can get through, causing things to look older than they are. The Flood also lowered the ratio of ¹⁴C to ¹²C because plants were taking in more ¹⁴C and ¹²C after the Flood without the ¹²C being replaced by many animals or decaying plants. Volcanism during the Flood would further change the amount of ¹⁴C in the atmosphere.

Some of these things can be corrected for by taking tree samples etc. that have carbon and seeing the ratio at that time. But this can only be used within about 4,000 years.

Thus carbon dating is useful with things of a relatively young age, but guesswork with things older than that. Plus, as we saw, carbon dating cannot give dates larger than 50,000 years.

Most of the material for this article was taken from The Revised and Expanded Answers Book, Masters Books.

Easter

Since Easter is tommorow, I would like to remind all of you the true meaning of Easter.

Easter is not about a bunch of bunnies hopping around eating chocolate. It is commemorating the resurrection Jesus Christ. In this resurrection He conquered . Now, because of that, we can have life in Him if we believe in Him. The resurection also symbolizes the Father's recognition of Jesus' sacrifice.

One interesting (and funny) story is here, (under Bunny Ban) about how far this "seperation of church and state" thing is going. What it really is, is seperation of state from reality.

So, this Easter, remember the hope Christ gave to us, and the salvation He offers us.

A response to Axinar

There's this guy, axinar, and he has a blog. This a response to him since there wasn't enough room in his comment section.

You're talking about theistic evolutionists there. I'm not one of them. A few of the things I was talking about in my comment are here if you want to look it up. Mind you, not all of their stuff is completely watertight.

The Golden Mean

There is one, very interesting mathematical concept that is not very widely known, but is intriguing to those to know about it.

The Golden Mean, or Phi, is an irrational number that equals 1.618.... It is a ratio that appears everywhere in nature. The Fibbonaci series is very closely related to it, since the difference between the numbers of the Fibbonaci series above 8 is roughly phi. Spirals are closely related to it. The elements of the human face and body are equal to the golden section, which is basically: line A is to line B as line B is to line C. The difference between those sections is 1.618.... This occurrence and regularity of phi is seen in plant branching patterns, animal and plant proportions, population growth, and almost everything else throughout nature. It is found in galaxy spirals, planet orbits, and other astronomical things. It is also found in music, the Bible, and a few other things. Some say that economics and human attitude is related to it, but that's beyond my field.

Now all these things are truly the result of divine design. Some call this ratio God's signature, since it is the foundation of beauty. How can unconsciousness and chance produce such order and beauty throughout the world? I'm just touching the tip of the iceberg here, for more info and phi basics go to here

Quakers and Puritans: The Difference

A term has come into common use in the past century. The term: puritanical. It has come to mean something or someone who is completely bland, serious, and harsh in terms of morals. Not many things in this world are further from the truth.
Most people mistake the Puritans for the Quakers. The Quakers were the ones who always wore black, and were always serious. In fact, the Quakers often accused the Puritans of being too caught up in this world. The Puritans liked games and had fun like everyone else today. (Without, of course, modern devices)
The thing that people exaggerate though is that the Puritans believed in limits on fun, games, and entertainment. They believed in standards and morals which today's society scorns. They believed in fun after work was done. They believed in games on all days except Sunday. They believed in inside of marriage. The only thing that was strict about them was their strict following of the Bible.
So people, don't ridicule the Puritans for being what you think they were like; learn the facts and history of their lives. Many things can be learned from them.

Evolution and Racism

Yes, I’m using the “r” word.

Racism has been a plague to western culture from its very beginning: The Romans against the Goths, the Europeans against the Gypsies, the whites against the blacks, the Arians against the Jews, etc.

Now Christians certainly were, embarrassingly, involved in some of this. Christians held slaves. But if you look at the accounts, true Christians treated their servants with kindness. There were books written by godly people, which told about how to treat a slave in terms of family life. Selling slaves, and splitting up families was strictly despised in the Christian community in the South. There has come to be a common stereotype, which depicts the entire South as beating their slaves and them. This was true in some cases, with some non-Christians; but on the whole, it was atypical. George Washington Carver is a good example of this. He kept up correspondence with his master’s family long after his release. Slavery is of course very wrong, and the Christian slaveholders were wrong, but they still condemned the atrocities of brutality. Other Christians were heavily involved in getting slavery abolished in England, for instance.

But one thing that’s interesting, and that no one admits; is that Darwinian evolution was the precedent and excuse for much of the that followed the Civil War. Darwinian evolution teaches that a species develops by acquiring and keeping those characteristics that elevate it above the other species and enable it to survive. (aka survival of the fittest) In the human sector, this can be applied to races. One race is “superior” to another, and therefore must either subject or kill off the other races in order to purify, and thus advance the human race. Most people don’t know that the complete title of Darwin’s book is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, The Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

This led to all kinds of injustices. People took aborigines and Negroes and put them in cages beside monkeys and apes with signs in front of them that said, in effect, “Here is the missing link between the apes and us.” Aborigines in Australia, in particular were subject to heinous crimes. Hitler, when he implemented the Holocaust, was cleansing the human race of inferior beings. There are many more examples, but I’ll stop here.

By the way, how did races come about from an evolutionary perspective? Don’t say that they were different monkeys, please.

A Sharp Contrast

Before I start this post, I have to admit that the idea came from John Piper’s article in World Magazine on Feb 18, 2006. It was called Being Mocked. It was such a good article that I felt I had to post it in my own words.

One interesting thing about the recent Danish cartoons and the ensuing reaction to them is the difference between the ministries of Mohammed and Jesus, and thus between Christianity and Islam. The Muslims were protesting the blaspheming of Mohammed’s name by the Danish cartoonists. They say that they honor Jesus more than we do, because Allah would not allow his prophet to die the shameful of the cross.

But this suffering and was essential to our salvation. Christ took the punishment for our sin on Himself. He was scorned, mocked, and reviled so as to fulfill prophecy and to endure what we deserved. Then, He died. But after three days He rose from the grave so as to show that He conquered sin and , and to show that the Father had accepted His sacrifice. This is much more glorious than the Islamic notion of him living out his days in peace. Jesus also said during His earthly ministry that He would be mocked. He said that if He would be persecuted, so would those who followed Him.

Christianity and Christ have been mocked many times and in many ways over the centuries, but the message of Jesus’ sacrifice still rings true. You didn’t see Christians rioting and people when Andres Serrano did his against Jesus, or when The Da Vinci Code came out. Sure we are grieved and angered, but we follow the Bible, which says, [God speaking] “Vengeance is mine, I will repay” (Romans 12:19)

The contrast is stark between a religion that will threaten upon those scoffing its leader, and believes that their works will earn their salvation; and one that adores the Incarnate God who suffered scoffing in our place, and took away our sins so that we may have life.

“He is despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.” Isaiah 53:3a, NKJV.

A Glaring Unconstitutional Program

In my last blog post, I established that humanism is a religion. Now, I am going to take this concept to one of its logical conclusions.

There have been many discussions, court cases, and legal fights about the religious part of the first amendment, where it applies, and seperation of church and state. Here it is, “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.” Now people have used this clause to justify the taking out of all mention of Christianity from public places. This is completely wrong for several reasons.

First, the clause says, “Congress shall make no law…” Thus, there is no application beyond the federal level. Most of the legal fights are in state and township jurisdiction, but the Constitution has no authority over those disputes. In fact, at the time of the Constitution and afterwards, some of the states still had established churches. No one had a problem with this, and eventually they also passed legislation, which disestablished religion in their respective areas.

Second, the clause says, “…establishment of religion…” In other words, there can be no state endorsed religion on the federal level. The founding fathers put this in as contrary to England, where the Anglican Church was the established religion; you had to attend church there or you would be arrested. You also had to pay your “church tax.” This forceful attendance was the reason for the Pilgrims (Separatists) and the Puritans becoming persecuted. They got sick of it, and came to America. The founders knew this, and put this clause in to prevent anything like that happening here. Establishment does not mean that you make no mention or acknowledgement of any religion anywhere on public property; it only means that government cannot force people to attend or tithe to a certain religion. Thus, most of the cases today are absolute falsehood, and act like this country doesn’t have any Christian tradition.

However, one thing most people don’t notice or bring up is this little logical induction:

Humanism is a religion

Public schools receive federal funds and teach humanism

The Constitution forbids federal funding for the teaching of a religion

Public schools are unconstitutional.

Now, I know that trying to touch public education in this country is like poking your finger through a hornet’s nest that has just gone through political turmoil, and is itching for something to focus its destructive energies on. Nevertheless, it still stands that public schools are unconstitutional according to the 1^st amendment.

Some women in California in the 60’s realized this, and petitioned the current Attorney General to change it. Now “the current Attorney General” is a very important phrase because that person is important in this story. His name is: Robert Kennedy. This guy waited and waited, until after a few more repeated letters, he had to respond and told the women’s group that they were right, that the public schools were teaching humanism, that humanism is a religion, and that it was unconstitutional for the public schools to do that. But, he also said that he wasn’t going to do anything about it. The women’s group looked into it and found out that it would take more than a million dollars to push the issue in court. Thus, the idea died. But it still remains one of the most glaring unconstitutional programs out there.

The Religion of America

The Webster's dictionary definition of religion is “noun, any system of belief, worship, conduct etc., often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy.” Then, logically, you could say what no one else seems to want to admit: humanism is a religion.

Let’s go through the adjectives in the definition to see if they match humanism. Belief: Yes, humanism is a belief. Worship: Yup, they worship man, in particular, their own selves. Conduct: Check, they conduct themselves with little or no morals. The only law (it is frequently violated) is that you cannot violate someone else’s sphere or damage their person, conscience, or feelings. A code of ethics: Definitely, the code is you do what you think is best or what appears right to you. Philosophy: Absolutely, it’s Darwinist, and following the teachings of one or more of the following: Nietsche, John Dewey, John H. Dietrich, R. Lester Mondale, Kant, Sagan etc. Humanism even has its sacred documents: the Humanist Manifestos. Their priests and ministers are evolutionary scientists and authors. They have many organizations across the country, and are very influential on government.

This religion is the dominant religion of America, and it is dangerous.

Anathema to the Foundation of our Culture? II

A few posts ago, I discussed and refuted an argument put forth by an evolutionist who said that the belief in God was "anathema to the foundation of our culture." In case I didn't hammer home my point hard enough, I will include a few more of the many, many facts for those who still doubt Christianity's influence.

In "A Common Misconception," I pointed out the part of the scientific influence of Christianity.
Many of the scientific concepts we take for granted came from people who believed in creation. On the positive side, creation and a belief in the true God and Bible provide the impetus for the further exploration of the wonderful universe. God commanded us to fill the earth, (Gen. 1:18) and part of peopling the earth is exploring it. On the other hand, if everything is a random event, came about by chance, and has no order, why should we try to figure it out? One interesting thing (I don't know if its true) is that science was once called a form of worshipping God.

Specifically, Christianity is the impetus for science, because all other religions either say that this world is a delusion, or they just say that you should keep to yourself inside the confines of ancient traditions and machinery. This was a big part of the struggle of the missionaries to Christianize and civilize other peoples. (Although I don't think they should have tried to make all other peoples English)

I thought it interesting when I first read that phrase that the author used the term "anathema," which came into wide use in the Roman Catholic Church, for the pope's curse on someone, something, or an entire community. I'm not saying that the Romanists are actually Christians but all the same, it is interesting.

Christianity is the basis of morals and charity, if there is no God, then you're not accountable to him for your actions. Yes, you might say that the law is that you don't violate anyone else's person or hurt their feelings; but this still leaves leeway for other sins, and doesn't provide for charity. Nietsche said that charity and compassion are weaknesses. In a Christian based society, like ours, a conscience is cultivated and kept relatively intact by the dictates of a society that still has the trappings of Christian values. Europe is fast losing these. But in a completely secular or barbaric society, the conscience is quickly weakened and eventually almost disappears. This evidenced in the extreme by the kids who torched the churches down South recently. After being caught and asked why they did it, they answered, "For the fun of it." You see, they were being taught that there are no morals or standards by their college professors etc. This breeds a kind of nihilism that in turn breeds crime, and depression. By the way, how did the conscience evolve?

I could go on, but I'll stop here right now. I hope you see the importance of Christianity to our culture.

Education in the 1920s

The deterioration of public education in this country is well known. Students are getting low scores and suffer from a lack of motivation, enrollment is shifting from public to private and home schools, and grade inflation is on a runaway train, etc. Most people say that we need to pour more money into the system. But what the students are learning, who they’re learning it from, and why they’re learning it is far more important than whether or not they have a brand new laptop to study on.

Here’s an example of what students learned in 1924 without the massive government programs we have today. This is part of a preparatory booklet to prepare an 8th grader for the test he would have to take to get into high school.

Arithmetic: A wall 77 ft. long, 6½ ft. high, and 14 inches thick is built of bricks costing $9.00 per M. What was the entire cost of the bricks if 22 bricks were sufficient to make a cubic foot of wall?

Geography: What waters would a ship pass through in going from Duluth to Buffalo? With what would the boat be apt to be loaded? What, probably, would it be loaded with on a return trip?

Grammar. Define five of the following terms: antecedent, tense, object, conjugation, auxiliary verb, expletive, and reflexive pronoun.

Physiology: (a) Beginning with food in the mouth, trace the course of digestion, naming the juices with which the food is mixed and the results. (b) What is the reason that spitting on the street is dangerous to the health of a community?

Spelling and Orthography: Select the proper prefix and place before each word in the following list (up, under, out, fore, over): Spread, balance, hold, sight, ground, shine, current, brush, roar, burst.

Writing: Give five movements to develop accuracy in pen­manship. Tell what you seek to do in using each movement.

History: (a) What colonies were founded in America because of religious reasons? By whom was each founded? (b) Give the cause, time, and result of each of the wars in which the United States has been involved.

Civil Government: Name three township, three county, and three state officers and state what office each person holds. Why do so many men dislike holding township offices?

Music: Draw a staff. Place on it the scale in half notes in the keys of G, D, and F. Write the scale that has a sharp on the fifth line and another sharp on the third space.

Reading: Who was Hamlet? Lochinvar? Naomi? Socrates? Gathergold? What are the three most important topics now being discussed in the newspapers? State two reasons for reading a newspaper. Give five uses of the dictionary. Do you use the dictionary while studying?

Stephenson’s Iowa State Eighth Grade Examination Question Book, published in World Magazine, Feb. 4, 2006.

How many did you answer correctly or at least think you did? That’s an example of what quality education that is applied in the right way can do. In my opinion (which could be completely unfounded and false) most high schoolers today, let alone 8th graders, would have trouble with that quiz. For Joel Belz’s complete article, go to the link for World Magazine on the upper left.

The All-Volunteer Army

One thing the anti-war protesters can't say about the current war is that it isn't a drafted army fighting over there like there was in Vietnam. They can't say anymore that the boys went against their will. In reality the military was designed to work as an all-volunteer service by the founding fathers.

This is what the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8 says about the drafted army and what it may be called up for: "[Congress may] provide for calling forth the to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions." In other words there are three cases in which the (drafted army) may be called up for service. (1) To execute the laws of the Union (put down rioting, and severe resistance to laws). (2) To suppress insurrections (fight rebellions and the like). (3) To repel foreign invasions. The founding fathers designed it this way so that the United States wouldn't become a bully state, policing other nations around with its huge military.

This principle was understood all through the history of the U.S., from 1788 to 1917 in World War I. Up until that time, all military engagements were with an all-volunteer service; the Civil War excepted. That was obviously a justified draft because there was an organized insurrection. But in 1917, President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, wanted to get into the war somehow, but he knew that the American people weren't really for the war. He also knew what the Constitution said about the draft, but that was the easier of the two rules to break. So, he declared war, and called up the draft. Those who knew the Constitution immediately protested and sued in the courts. But the courts were loaded at this time with liberal judges who put off the cases until after the war. At that time, nobody cared because the war was over, and the cases were dismissed.

WWII was (in my opinion) an invasion, but the wars in Korea and Vietnam were completely unjustified. In hindsight, an all-volunteer army is a very good and practical concept. It keeps the morale of the soldiers up, and provides quality in combat because there is more time to train and make preparations. It is good for the country because the people will usually be behind an all-volunteer war, and will support the nation.

So I say, "Let's keep on going the way we're going."

A Fragile Border

One of the hot news stories today is illegal immigrants and the porous U.S.-Mexican border. Some say we should allow all immigrants to just come in, do their business, and go out again. Others say we should reject all of the Mexican "immigrants" and shun them back across the border.

If we accept the former, we will have thousands of Hispanics pouring into the country, some being beneficial members of society and productive contributors to the economy; others dealing and getting involved in organized crime. This, obviously, is not a very good solution. However, if we accept the latter, we lose potential leaders. (e.g. current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales) This is not a satisfactory solution. Right now, we have both of these scenarios happening. Criminals, troublemakers, and dealers are infiltrating the country, and we are losing law-abiding citizens to the nation. We must change something, somehow.

The all-powerful government is doing nothing. Some people in Texas who are sick and tired of increased crime have had to watch the frontier to keep illegal aliens out. What we need is to make the process of applying for citizenship easier by limiting the number of bureaucratic loops people have to go through. We also need to tighten border security so that keep the bad people out. If you are a law-abiding citizen, come in through the front door. If you try to break in, that's a proof that you're up to something that's not completely kosher. Now that's a solution I can live with.