He Didn't Say It – But I Will

Now that he's topping the polls as the current frontrunner in the Republican primaries, Rick Santorum has become the new target of the liberal media. Over the last couple of days, much hay has been made over Santorum's comment that Obama's agenda was driven by “some phoney ideal – some phoney theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible – a different theology but no less a theology.” The alternative media (MSNBC, NBC, CBS, etc) has seized upon that as an attack on Obama's religious views and are crying foul.

You can watch the full context of the remarks here. It's easy for people with limited command of the vocabulary to pounce upon the word “theology” and see it as a discussion about Christian religion but from the full context, it's rather obvious to rational people that the “theology” he intended is that of radical environmentalism. Santorum even spelled that out for those media reporters who confronted him about it. He further clarified that he does not question Obama's Christian faith but, even now, the bias-driven reporters on the left continue to misrepresent him.

The ironic thing in all this is that there really is a big question about Obama's faith. Let's face it, here's a man who has been the President of the United States for more than three years. He's in the public's eye daily. There is a camera on him nearly every moment of the day that he steps foot out of the door. Everywhere he goes, everything he says, everything he does is reported in excruciating detail. Yet after all this time, he's still not able to convincingly persuade people that he's not a Muslim! Isn't that odd?

Now, certainly I'm not trying to brag but I will use myself as an example. Anyone who has known me for any length of time beyond a casual meeting knows that I'm a Christian. It's simple things that give it away. He will hear me talking about my faith, he will see me reading the Bible, he will see me going to church, maybe he will even read my blog! It would be impossible for anyone, after 3 years, to suspect me of being a Muslim. That's they way it should be. Acts 1:8 says, “ye shall be witnesses unto me.”

What do we know about our President's faith? I know that he never bothered to join a church after moving to Washington. I know that over the prior decade or more that he claimed to have attended “Reverend” Wright's church, he says he never once heard any of the “reverend's” incendiary remarks making it unlikely he truly attended. I know that he's radically pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-many other things that seem contrary to Christian values. I know that on at least two occasions, he misquoted the Declaration of Independence by saying, “We are endowed.... with certain unalienable rights” - omitting the words “by our Creator” even though they are in Declaration and were on his teleprompter! I know that in his last thanksgiving proclamation, he gave thanks to Alaskan Natives, American Indians, and US veterans before mentioning giving thanks to God. Oh, and I know that he's a bald-faced liar.

Jesus said that we can judge people by their fruits (Matthew 7:16,20). There's nothing about the President's life that convinces me he's a Christian. His blatant lack of fruit belies any occasional reference to God or the Bible. So let me be clear: I do not believe the President Obama is a Christian. Senator Santorum may not say that – but I will.

Advantage After the Fact

I was browsing online and came across an interesting article about the supposed “evolutionary advantage to tears.” Actually it was only mild interesting but it does give me an opportunity to demonstrate a key flaw in many such evolutionary scenarios.

The article states that humans are the only creatures that cry (I suppose they should say “only creatures known to cry”). The article begins by asking, rhetorically, “Why do we cry?” From there, it goes on to speculate that crying “evolved” as a mechanism that elicits sympathy from other people. To quote the article, “Fundamentally, crying is a way to get what you want — that’s why babies do it. (Sorry, mothers.) Or, that clever turn of phrase adults use: 'The squeaky wheel gets the oil.'”

I found this photo online. It's the same photo, side by side, except that the one on the right has had the tears digitally removed. I must say, I was a little surprised at the dramatically different impression given by the presence of tears. Perhaps there is something to the idea that crying provokes sympathy. So I will amend my earlier comment and at least admit the subject matter of the article is somewhat interesting.

Let me digress for a moment. I believe we have emotions because God has emotions and we are made in His image (Genesis 1:27). We are not like the animals (Genesis 2:20) and so I don't expect us to display (or not display) emotions the way animals do. This isn't really the point of my post, though, so let me return to the subject at hand.

The whole article is remarkably contrived and goes to great pains to explain to why crying supposedly evolved but misses a key point – namely, how crying evolved. You see, there's a lot more involved in crying than the production of tears. After all, tears are also produced to help clean the eye. Many animals produce tears for this purpose. Yet with crying comes an association with strong emotions, facial expressions, sobs, etc. Each of these had to evolve in order for the production of tears to be identified with a display of emotions. Furthermore, in order to garner sympathy, the observer must himself have already evolved the ability to recognize crying as a display of emotion.

Here's the problem: In hindsight, it's easy to speculate what survival advantages some particular trait might offer its hosts. However, evolution is not a directed process. It doesn't matter what advantage the end result might be; no trait will evolve unless there is some advantage for the host every step of the way. When some alleged ancestor first began over-producing tears, for example, it obviously did not garner sympathy from anyone or anything. “Evolution” did not know it would eventually be seen as a display of emotions and so that trait could not be said to have evolved to elicit sympathy.

The speculation about crying demonstrates the typical habit of evolutionists to proffer “why” some given trait has evolved. Birds evolved colorful feathers in order to attract a mate. Lions evolved thick manes to shield their heads and necks when fighting other lions. Some animals have evolved stripes as a means of camouflage. The list is goes on and on.

There's a sort of circular argument going on here. Animals that can run fast will catch more prey. Therefore, animals that can run fast evolved that ability in order to catch more prey. Do you see how that sounds a little silly?

The ability to identify the survival advantage of a particular trait does not begin to explain “why” the trait evolved. Even assuming evolution were true, I can say with certainty that crying did NOT evolve in order to elicit sympathy. To suggest any reason “why” a certain trait evolved ascribes a purpose to the process.

In this case, I know crying is the product of design. God made us emotional creatures. Perhaps we do empathize with people when they cry. However, whatever selective advantage might be realized from crying is not any kind of argument for evolution. It's merely an attempt to describe the advantage after the fact of it already existing.

It's Not Funny Anymore!

Liberals are crazy. I mean that literally. Liberalism is a mental disorder and I'm just waiting for the AMA to recognize it as such. Normally it's not acceptable to laugh at people who are mentally challenged but I have made an exception for liberals. At certain times in the past, I've just found their twisted way of thinking to be funny. One example I've used before is how liberals want to ban salt and legalize marijuana. It's hilarious. Lately though, it's getting out of hand.

You might have already heard about the recent incident in Hoke County, NC, where a 4 year old kindergartener was told her homemade lunch wasn't acceptable. According to the Carolina Journal, “The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the person who was inspecting all lunch boxes in the More at Four classroom that day.” The little girl was served a cafeteria lunch instead and her parent received a note explaining that, “students who did not bring a "healthy lunch" would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.”

It's tempting to make another joke about the hypocrisy of liberals. I could say something like, “liberals don't want to test welfare recipients for drugs but want to inspect kids lunches” but the situation is too alarming to make jokes. This is like a Seinfeld episode come to life. It's the soup Nazi snapping, “No turkey for you!”

The event has captured nationwide attention and the school's actions have been harshly criticized. In a follow up to the story, WRAL.com tried to explain that this was all a misunderstanding. Assistant Superintended in Hoke County, Bob Barnes explained, “The assessment requires the school to review children's lunches for nutrition.... If a homemade lunch is determined to be missing one of the food groups required by United States Department of Agriculture regulations, the school is supposed to offer it to the student for free.”

Does he really think that helps his case? The problem is not necessarily how this situation was handled. The problem lies in the very premise that school officials believe its their job to inspect kids' lunchboxes in the first place. This is a symptom of liberal elitism. They think they know what's best for us and so have deployed federal agents to make sure we're taking care of ourselves correctly.

Watch this short video where Debbie Squires tries to defend the elitist position before a Michigan House Committee Meeting (I apologize for the poor video quality):

Do you see what I mean? Elitists think we might want to take care of ourselves and our kids but we just don't know how. They see it as their job to step in and protect us from our own ignorance. Where do these regulations stop? Will there be federal agents in restrooms to make sure everyone washes their hands before exiting? Maybe we should take our cars to the BMV every month to make sure our tires are properly inflated and our fluids topped off. When we renew our driver's licenses, maybe we should provide proof of gym membership to demonstrate we're also getting enough exercise.

Actually, I'd better stop before I give liberals ideas for new regulations.

The NC example is another reason why homeschooling has become so popular. Unfortunately, it's gone far beyond the schools. Rush Limbaugh has warned before that liberals might be funny when they're out of power but when they're in power, they're dangerous. I see what he means. The police state has already gotten out of hand. We don't need help from the government to live our lives. This isn't funny anymore!

Killing Weeds, Killing People – Same Thing?!

A Few weeks ago, BioEdge published an incredible article discussing the ethics of organ harvesting. In the article, two bioethicists made the astonishing claim that “killing by itself is not morally wrong.” They tried to justify their position with the following reasoning:

[I]f killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong.

Do I really need to comment? Their flawed reasoning is plain for all to see. Well, maybe it's not so plain. Rather than soundly condemning the claims of these so called, “bioethicists,” the author of this article, Michael Cook, actually seems to defend them. He writes:

This radical conclusion may shock some readers, but the authors are not murderers. They want to bring greater precision to what we mean by killing. Rendering someone totally and permanently incapacitated is just as bad as taking a life, or so they contend. Killing totally disabled patients does them no harm.

That last line is a hoot! “Killing totally disabled patients does them no harm”? In what universe does killing a person do them no harm? I suggest that there is no interest in bringing a greater precision to the term “killing” but rather this is an attempt to blur the meaning.

What would prevent Mr. Cook from immediately denouncing these absurd ideas? I'll tell you. If scientists practice a secular brand of science, one where there is no absolute standard of right and wrong, then moral decisions are driven by what is expedient. He can see the point the bioethicists are trying to make: namely, we have people who are vegetables and we have people who need organ transplants. To him, this is a worthwhile discussion.

This highlights the dangers of moral relativism.

In the Christian worldview, we know that all people are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). There is value in human life. We are not like the animals and we are certainly not like the plants. We are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14) and even the most pathetic human is infinitely more valuable than a weed. Questions about the “quality of life” are relative and subjective and certainly do not supersede the fundamental “right to life” which has been endowed upon us by our Creator and protected by our Constitution. Truth is absolute and the Bible specifically condemns the taking of innocent human life.

These bioethicists have made several flawed assumption in reaching their conclusion. Foremost is the overt assumption that there is no qualitative difference between human and plant life (I suppose they also treat animal life with equal regard). They make no attempt to defend this idea but seem to rely on a fundamental understanding that a clinical definition of “life” applies equally to all “living” things. “Life is life,” if you will. If we start with that assumption, then the bioethicists are correct. If all things are equally alive, then there really is no difference between a human and a plant.

Once we cross that bridge and equate humans and plants, then we can rationalize the taking of certain lives for the sake of others. It's the same reason we pluck weeds so other plants can grow. If a person is only alive in a persistent, vegetative state, then why not harvest his organs to help someone who can recover and contribute to society? It's a sort of evolution – a societal “survival of the fittest.” The lion eats the zebra in order to survive. Is that “wrong”? It's nature's way for the strong to exploit the weak and if we can “weed out” the unfit members of our society to benefit the more fit, on what grounds can anyone say it's wrong?

Of course, why stop with the persistent vegetative? What about the permanently disabled? People who are victims of something like downs syndrome will always be dependent on others and thus will always be a drain on the resources of those who help them. Why not harvest their organs for the benefit of people who can become productive if they could only receive transplants? You can see this is a slippery slope where might makes right. Even so, the problem remains – on what grounds can we say it's “wrong”? If it's only wrong because the majority says it's wrong, then eugenics could prevail if its proponents can only persuade enough people to their view. Then suddenly what we believe is “wrong” now will become “right.”

As I've said many times before, atheists are not rational people. More specifically, anyone who rejects the absolute truth of the Bible is irrational. Even though they have no objective standard by which they can judge right and wrong, they still act like such a standard exists. These same people who claim that plant life is the same as human life will devote themselves to taking care of their families and also cut their grass. They will tell their children it's “wrong” to lie even though their own worldview is silent on the subject. They call Christians “evil” and say creationists are lying yet there is no scientific standard which identifies anything as “evil” or makes lying “wrong.” In instance after instance, these people conduct their lives in direct contradiction to their own worldview.

Fortunately, Christians are not confused and can see the difference between humans and weeds.