Musical Interlude

Things have been too crazy lately to post much to this site, so I'm taking a temporary break and will probably get going again in October, after our move. For now here are a couple of music videos for your viewing pleasure.

Casting Crowns - Does Anybody Hear Her? (We're seeing them live in a few weeks!)


Hillsong - Mighty to Save


Third Day - Cry Out to Jesus


There are more videos by these groups on You Tube, I encourage you to search and view them all. Blessings and peace.
Read full post here!

July 4, 1776

I'm not a well-versed student of American history, unfortunately. I suspect many of us should know more than we do. I have come across one piece of interesting history, though, as it regards the Declaration of Independence.

I've discovered the differences in Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the DOI, and that of the final copy approved by Congress on July 4.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=4

It's interesting to note two things:
1. They deleted the word "inherent" from the phrase "inherent and inalienable rights".
2. They deleted an entire portion that condemned slavery.

Not to put our Founding Fathers down on this our Birthday. Quite the contrary, I want to pay tribute to Thomas Jefferson and the original words he crafted in the cradle of our nation. However, I must admit some disappointment in discovering this piece of history, even as I marvel at the final draft and the impact it has had on the entire world.

Oh, if we had gotten off on a better foot than that. Can you imagine how different this country might have been if slavery had been abolished at the outset? No Civil War (probably), no decades of discrimination and hatred, no KKK, no burning crosses, no need for the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. Imagine the difference.

THIS IS MY THOUGHT FOR THE DAY - "Words are powerful"

Also, here's a portion from The Works of John Adams, vol II on why the 33 year old Thomas Jefferson was chosen as the author:

"You inquire why so young a man as Mr. Jefferson was placed at the head of the committee for preparing a Declaration of Independence? I answer: It was the Frankfort advice, to place Virginia at the head of everything. Mr. Richard Henry Lee might be gone to Virginia, to his sick family, for aught I know, but that was not the reason of Mr. Jefferson's appointment. There were three committees appointed at the same time, one for the Declaration of Independence, another for preparing articles of confederation, and another for preparing a treaty to be proposed to France. Mr. Lee was chosen for the Committee of Confederation, and it was not thought convenient that the same person should be upon both. Mr. Jefferson came into Congress in June, 1775, and brought with him a reputation for literature, science, and a happy talent of composition.

Writings of his were handed about, remarkable for the peculiar felicity of expression. Though a silent member in Congress, he was so prompt, frank, explicit, and decisive upon committees and in conversation - not even Samuel Adams was more so - that he soon seized upon my heart; and upon this occasion I gave him my vote, and did all in my power to procure the votes of others. I think he had one more vote than any other, and that placed him at the head of the committee. I had the next highest number, and that placed me the second. The committee met, discussed the subject, and then appointed Mr. Jefferson and me to make the draft, I suppose because we were the two first on the list.

The subcommittee met. Jefferson proposed to me to make the draft. I said, 'I will not,' 'You should do it.' 'Oh! no.' 'Why will you not? You ought to do it.' 'I will not.' 'Why?' 'Reasons enough.' 'What can be your reasons?' 'Reason first, you are a Virginian, and a Virginian ought to appear at the head of this business. Reason second, I am obnoxious, suspected, and unpopular. You are very much otherwise. Reason third, you can write ten times better than I can.' 'Well,' said Jefferson, 'if you are decided, I will do as well as I can.' 'Very well. When you have drawn it up, we will have a meeting.'

A meeting we accordingly had, and conned the paper over. I was delighted with its high tone and the flights of oratory with which it abounded, especially that concerning Negro slavery, which, though I knew his Southern brethren would never suffer to pass in Congress, I certainly never would oppose. There were other expressions which I would not have inserted if I had drawn it up, particularly that which called the King tyrant. I thought this too personal, for I never believed George to be a tyrant in disposition and in nature; I always believed him to be deceived by his courtiers on both sides of the Atlantic, and in his official capacity, only, cruel. I thought the expression too passionate, and too much like scolding, for so grave and solemn a document; but as Franklin and Sherman were to inspect it afterwards, I thought it would not become me to strike it out. I consented to report it, and do not now remember that I made or suggested a single alteration.


We reported it to the committee of five. It was read, and I do not remember that Franklin or Sherman criticized anything. We were all in haste. Congress was impatient, and the instrument was reported, as I believe, in Jefferson's handwriting, as he first drew it. Congress cut off about a quarter of it, as I expected they would; but they obliterated some of the best of it, and left all that was exceptionable, if anything in it was. I have long wondered that the original draft had not been published. I suppose the reason is the vehement philippic against Negro slavery.

As you justly observe, there is not an idea in it but what had been hackneyed in Congress for two years before. The substance of it is contained in the declaration of rights and the violation of those rights in the Journals of Congress in 1774. Indeed, the essence of it is contained in a pamphlet, voted and printed by the town of Boston, before the first Congress met, composed by James Otis, as I suppose, in one of his lucid intervals, and pruned and polished by Samuel Adams."

Read full post here!

"It's not WHAT you say, it's HOW you say it"

I don't know why I keep coming back to abortion related posts. I've never considered myself an activist about the topic! For some reason, I just keep reading things that I want to share. This blog post is from the Stand To Reason ministry, and it explores the difference between stating our opinions in a void and considering the impact of the words on those around us. I never want to hurt people when I share my theological, philosophical or comi-cal views on a subject, but it certainly can happen easily.

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2007/06/why-i-chose.html

"I think part of this second article reveals why it's so hard to change people's minds about abortion after they've experienced one. Consider her reaction to a pro-life statement: When President Bush talked about "defending the life of the innocent," she could only hear him "calling [her] a baby killer.""

"She reacts strongly and fights against it, for she hears every word spoken for the unborn as an accusation against her, personally."

Wow. What a reminder to me to lead my life with a full measure of grace.

Read full post here!

The religion of Global Warming

Global Warming has become, like evolution, a theory that many have taken as cold hard fact, and even adopted it as their own religion. They want to end debate, and move on. However, there are reasons to question those who hysterically claim that we as humans are the cause for warming of the earth. Here is one noted Earth scientist who believes we're actually coming up on a period of significant COOLING.

The middle section of this article is full of data that supports his underlying claims, but I recommend reading the beginning and end of the article at least.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

A few pull quotes:

"We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that "the science is settled." At the recent G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel even attempted to convince world leaders to play God by restricting carbon-dioxide emissions to a level that would magically limit the rise in world temperatures to 2C."

"The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change.""

"Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now."

"Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the field has had more research than in all previous years combined and the discoveries are completely shattering the myths. For example, I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate."

"Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change."

"In some fields the science is indeed "settled." For example, plate tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all."

"Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada."


Of course, none of this means that we shouldn't be about the task of taking care of our world, conserving energy in a reasonable manner and controlling pollution and emissions. This just makes good sense. The worldview perspective in my mind, is that we shouldn't spend enormous resources into trying to lower OR raise the earth's climate by 2C. Who knows what damage we could do by trying to play God and shift the climate up 1 or 2 degrees to where WE think it ought to be. God has the thermostat, let's just try to be good stewards and leave it at that.
Read full post here!

Abortion causing MORE illegitimacy?

Here is an interesting article from the WSJ editorials...

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010227



Here's the full article text (my comments embedded in italics):

BY JOHN R. LOTT JR. Tuesday, June 19, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

The abortion debate usually centers on the morality of the act itself. But liberalizing abortion rules from 1969 to 1973 ignited vast social changes in America. With the perennial political debate over abortion again consuming the presidential campaign and the Supreme Court, it might be time to evaluate what Roe v. Wade has meant in practical terms.

(I think it's a huge thesis, not to be overlooked, that abortion laws have "ignited vast social changes in America". Think about the implication of that position for a minute..."vast". Telling, really.)

One often misunderstood fact: Legal abortions just didn't start with Roe, or even with the five states that liberalized abortion laws in 1969 and 1970. Prior to Roe, women could have abortions when their lives or health were endangered. Doctors in some states, such as Kansas, had very liberal interpretations of what constituted danger to health. Nevertheless, Roe did substantially increase abortions, more than doubling the rate per live birth in the five years from 1972 to 1977. But many other changes occurred at the same time:

• A sharp increase in pre-marital sex.
• A sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births.
• A drop in the number of children placed for adoption.
• A decline in marriages that occur after the woman is pregnant.

Some of this might seem contradictory. Why would both the number of abortions and of out-of-wedlock births go up? If there were more illegitimate births, why were fewer children available for adoption?

As to the first puzzle, part of the answer lies in attitudes to premarital sex. With abortion seen as a backup, women as well as men became less careful in using contraceptives as well as more likely to have premarital sex (emphasis added). There were more unplanned pregnancies. But legal abortion did not mean every unplanned pregnancy led to abortion. After all, just because abortion is legal, does not mean that the decision is an easy one.

(This would be a good place to cite just how difficult the decision is to deal with AFTER the fact. The women who endure the tragedy of this procedure often regret it or deal with psychological ramifications to some degree. It's not something to be taken lightly.)

Many academic studies have shown that legalized abortion, by encouraging premarital sex (again, this fact is granted here), increased the number of unplanned births, even outweighing the reduction in unplanned births due to abortion. In the United States from the early 1970s, when abortion was liberalized, through the late 1980s, there was a tremendous increase in the rate of out-of-wedlock births, rising from an average of 5% of all births in 1965-69 to more than 16% two decades later (1985-1989). For blacks, the numbers soared from 35% to 62%. While not all of this rise can be attributed to liberalized abortion rules, it was nevertheless a key contributing factor.

With legalization and women not forced to go through with an unplanned pregnancy, a man might well expect his partner to have an abortion if a sexual encounter results in an unplanned pregnancy. But what happens if the woman refuses? Maybe she is morally opposed to abortion; or perhaps she thought she could have an abortion, but upon becoming pregnant, she decides that she can't go through with it. What happens then?

Many men, feeling tricked into unwanted fatherhood, will likely wash their hands of the affair altogether, thinking, "I never wanted a baby. It's her choice, so let her raise the baby herself." What is expected of men in this position has changed dramatically in the last four decades. The evidence shows that the greater availability of abortion largely ended "shotgun" marriages, where men felt obligated to marrying the woman.

(This is a shameful sub-plot to the abortion debate, that men have abdicated any responsibility to fathering, and more so that our society has allowed this. The breakdown of the nuclear family as seen in the absence of positive male role models, especially real "Dads", is in my view one of the key elements of degradation to our culture.)

What has happened to these babies of reluctant fathers? The mothers often end up raising the child on their own. Even as abortion has led to more out-of-wedlock births, it has also dramatically reduced adoptions of children born in America by two-parent families. Before Roe, when abortion was much more difficult, women who would have chosen an abortion but were unable to get one turned to adoption as their backup. After Roe, women who turned down an abortion were also the type who wanted to keep the child.

(I'm sure someone takes this to make the argument "well at least if a child is born, it's one that is wanted by the parents, thus reducing the number of orphans in America". I personally, find this irrelevant to the decision to terminate the unwanted child. The decision should come before the life is conceived.)

But all these changes--rising out-of-wedlock births, plummeting adoption rates, and the end of shotgun marriages--meant one thing: more single parent families. With work and other demands on their time, single parents, no matter how "wanted" their child may be, tend to devote less attention to their children than do married couples; after all, it's difficult for one person to spend as much time with a child as two people can.

From the beginning of the abortion debate, those favoring abortion have pointed to the social costs of "unwanted" children who simply won't get the attention of "wanted" ones. But there is a trade-off that has long been neglected. Abortion may eliminate "unwanted" children, but it increases out-of-wedlock births and single parenthood. Unfortunately, the social consequences of illegitimacy dominated.

Children born after liberalized abortion rules have suffered a series of problems from problems at school to more crime. The saddest fact is that it is the most vulnerable in society, poor blacks, who have suffered the most from these changes.

Liberalized abortion might have made life easier for many, but like sex itself sometimes, it has had many unintended consequences.

(Although this is widespread, the impacts can definitely be seen clearly in the black community: single-parent dominance, absent fathers, unsupervised children who turn to crime, etc. The same is true of all demographics. Is this only the fault of abortion? No, but the mindset of our culture changed when abortion became widely accepted after Roe. That mindset is one that offers sex without consequence or responsibility - and it has damaged our society greatly.)



Read full post here!