David and Goliath Like You Haven't Seen It

I was turned on to the band, Apologetix, when Cowboy Bob posted one of their videos on his blog, Stormbringer's Thunder. I've since watched several of their videos on YouTube. Their schtick is to parody popular songs with Biblical lyrics. Here are some examples of their clever songs:

A parody of an Eagle's song that talks about Mary and Joseph being turned away at the inn: “The Hotel Can't Afford Ya.”

A parody of a Boston song that talks about the redeeming power of Jesus' sacrifice: “More than a Healing.”

A parody of a Simon and Garfunkle song that talks about the missionary works of Paul in the book of Acts: “The Sound of Silas.”

One video has been especially popular On YouTube. Many people have posted dramatizations of their parody of Queen's song, “The Bohemian Rhapsody” that talks about the shepherd boy, David, fighting the giant, Goliath. David, of course, was from Bethlehem and the song is “The Bethlehemian Rhapsody.”

All of the videos are a little campy but here's one that I found entertaining.

Enjoy!!

Marco Polo Describes a Dinosaur

The standard evolutionary argument is that dinosaurs are spearated from modern humans by a span of about 60 million years. If that were true, we could predict that no modern human has ever seen a dinosaur. Opponents of Christianity have even used this as a criticism of the Bible; you may have heard critics say something like, “If people and dinosaurs lived together, why doesn't the Bible mention dinosaurs?” The fact of the matter is the Bible does describe animals that resemble dinosaurs – though it doesn't use the word “dinosaur,” which is a term coined relatively recently. The Bible, for example, frequently uses the term, “dragons,” which some have proposed is a reference to dinosaurs.

Besides the Bible, other books of antiquity have made references to dragons. Pliny the Elder was a naturalist who wrote about many animals, most of which are rather mundane. However, in several places, he refers to “dragons” and describes them as enormous creatures who can actually fight (and usually kill) elephants! From Pliny's description of dragons though, I suspect he is actually describing very large snakes – perhaps as long as 120' in length (which is still very impressive).

There are many other historical references which I've read over the years. However, I came across still another account that was very interesting. It is from The Travels of Marco Polo the Venetian:

Leaving the city of Yacho, and travelling ten days in a westerly direction, you reach the province of Karazan, which is also the name of its chief city.... Here are seen huge serpents, ten paces in length, and ten spans in the girt of its body. At the fore part, near the head, they have two short legs, having three claws like those of a tiger, with eyes larger than a fourpenny loaf (pane da quattro denari) and very glaring. The jaws are wide enough to swallow a man, the teeth are large and sharp, and their whole appearance is so formidable, that neither man, nor any kind of animal, can approach them without terror.

I was struck by the great care with which the author describes this creature: It is “10 paces in length” (30 feet) and “10 spans in the girt of the body” (about 7 feet thick, assuming a “span” is 8 inches). Though it doesn't say specifically that the creature has four legs, it does describe the forelimbs as being “short” and having “three claws.” When you throw in jaws “wide enough to swallow a man,” it sure sounds to me like a good description of a large, bipedal dinosaur.

Of course, others will reject my opinion. I would direct your attention to the editor's footnotes where he says, “This distorted account of an alligator or crocodile is less creditable to our author's fidelity than any other of his natural history descriptions.” In other words, “Polo is usually pretty good at describing animals but he really blew it when describing this alligator.” Maybe the account isn't distorted at all. Maybe it's a good description of a dinosaur. Given the fact that the animal is further described as lurking in caverns during the day, hunting terrestrial animals, and then having to go to the river to drink, it's certainly not a crocodile. It's also rather silly to suppose that Marco Polo, an ocean voyager and naturalist extraordinaire, wasn't familiar enough with crocodiles to describe them accurately.

Another interesting item gleaned from this account is how Polo describes the way these terrifying beasts were hunted.

By their motion in this way along the shore, and their vast weight, they make a deep depression, as if a heavy beam had been drawn along the sands. Those whose employment is to hunt them observe the track by which they are most frequently accustomed to go, and fix into the ground several pieces of wood armed with sharp iron spikes, which they cover with the sand in such a manner as not to be perceptible. When therefore the animals make their way towards the places they usually haunt, they are wounded by these instruments, and speedily killed.

Another criticism often used against creation is that if men and dinos lived together, then dinosaurs would eat the people. That's a laugh. Humans are the top predators on the planet and I have said before that, when humans and dinos interact, it's the dinos who get killed. Here we seen another example of human cunning. A 30 foot long animal with sharp teeth and jaws big enough to swallow a man is still no match for human intelligence.

Now, in all fairness, if modern humans saw a dinosaur, it's not “proof” against evolution. Even if a living dinosaur were found today, it wouldn't necessarily disprove evolution. But it doesn't help it either. The world is what it is and theories are attempts to describe it. The Bible says land animals (which would include dinosaurs) and man are contemporaries. The theory of evolution says dinosaurs became extinct millions of years before humans appeared. When we have accounts that seem to describe dinosaurs and people living together, it comports much better with the Bible.

Rights Belong to Individuals

In my last post, I talked about how Obama-care has mandated employers to provide things like contraceptives and other services which might conflict with the employers' religious beliefs. In an effort to defend this dangerous idea, liberals have raised many weak arguments. One example of a weak argument is the idea that, since pregnancies and babies are expensive, paying for contraceptives actually reduces the overall cost of health care.

The wisdom of this argument (if any) rests on the premise that it's better to sacrifice individual liberties for the betterment of society as a whole. In this case, by forcing employers to pay for contraceptives, everyone enjoys lower health care costs. This same argument has been used for years regarding seat belt laws: since seat belts saves lives and reduce injuries, forcing individuals to wear seat belts reduces health care costs to society.

First, let me ask: Is this really the precedent liberals want to set? Do they really want the benefit to society to be greater than the rights of the individual? In this case, they probably do which is why they raise the argument. However, this opens the door to tyranny. According to this logic, what would stop congress from passing a law mandating that everyone use contraceptives? Some might say, “Well, congress wouldn't do that” but the question still remains if congress has the power to do it. If we buy into the argument that congress can decide what's best for society – even at the cost of individual liberty – then yes, we've given them the power to do it!


In case there are liberals who still don't see the danger, let me ask this: what happens if next year, congress decides there aren't enough babies being born?  For the good of society, congress decides that no women may use contraceptives.  If the benefit to society is the objective, then what argument will liberals use then?

Second, there's a glaring flaw in the liberals' arguments: You see, the very notion that society incurs a cost for individuals' health care decisions stems from the liberal idea that society should pay the costs individuals' health care. Here's a suggestion: if someone makes a poor decision, let him suffer the consequences of it. When people don't have any consequences for bad decisions, it's a license to sin.

Since we've been talking about contraceptives, let's talk about a related issue – out of wedlock births. Today, more than half of all births to women under 30 are out of wedlock. In almost every area examined, children born to unwed mothers suffer for it. They are more likely to live in poverty, to drop out of school, and to commit crimes. What is the liberal solution to the problem? It's to give money to women who have children out of wedlock! Unmarried mothers often get food stamps, free health care (Medicaid), rent subsidies, daycare subsidies, etc. What if they have still another child? Why, they get more money, of course! Here's the weirdest part – if the women consider marrying the fathers of their children, they understand they will likely loose their government benefits. So women have babies and get benefits – they marry and loose benefits. By the way, with contraceptives so readily available, why is the illegitimacy rate so high anyway? Given the fact that illegitimacy rates are so high, do you think that at least some women might have an incentive to make bad decisions?

Consider the alternative. What if women who have children don't receive more government benefits but are simply burdened with another mouth to feed? What if they knew they would be saddled with higher and higher daycare costs for every child they have (while they have to work two or three jobs to pay for it)? If a woman knew how much of a burden a child would be, might she make better decisions about birth control or premarital sex?

Compelling all people to share the burden of those few who make bad decisions is another road to tyranny. When individuals have no consequence for making bad decisions, they have no incentive to make better decisions. This leads to higher and higher costs for the rest of us. It's the exact opposite of what liberals are trying to argue now. There is no savings. If something seems “free,” then more people will abuse it which leads to higher costs. If women believe they can have children with no consequence, then the overall cost to society is greater: higher poverty, higher taxes, higher crime, higher dropout rates, and higher everything.

Rights belong to individuals. So do responsibilities. When the government tries to protect the rights of society at the expense of the rights of the individual, it's not liberty. It's despotism.

Who Has the Biggest Right?

It's not unusual for liberals to lie but the lies... I mean “political spin”... surrounding the contraception controversy are getting a little more whopping than usual. On the DHHS website, Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said, “This proposal [the Blunt Amendment] isn't limited to contraception nor is it limited to any preventive service. Any employer could restrict access to any service they say they object to. This is dangerous and wrong” (bold added for emphasis). Nancy Pelosi has said the Blunt Amendment is, “part of the Republican agenda of disrespecting women’s health issues [by] allowing employers to cut … basic health services for women, like contraception, mammograms, prenatal and cervical-cancer screenings and preventive health reform benefiting 20 million women” (bold added for emphasis).

Lie, lie, lie. The impression given by these statements is that Republicans want to take away women's access to birth control or any other “health care” service they might want to deny on a whim. It's a bold misrepresentation. No one is denying or even discussing denying women access to any health service. The only question being raised is, “who has to pay for it?”

The controversy was raised when Catholics began to publicly and strongly object to the DHHS guidelines that mandated Catholic employers like churches, hospitals, charities, and colleges, to provide contraception to their female employees as part of their employer-provided health insurance plans. The Catholic church objects to the use of contraceptives and said forcing them to pay for contraception for its female employees violates their freedom of religion.

What part of the First Amendment is ambiguous? Let me remind everyone what the Bill of Rights says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Catholic Church has long objected to the use of contraceptives. To suddenly mandate the Church to pay for contraceptives for its female employees clearly places a prohibition on their free exercise of this long standing belief.

But liberals see it differently. They believe other rights exists – like a right to “health care.” Now, I've read the Constitution but I can't quote it from memory so I've done a word search on the Constitution. Curiously, the words, “right to health care” aren't found anywhere. By the way, neither could I find a “right to privacy.” If these rights exist, they aren't enumerated the way our freedom to religion is. At best, they are implied.

Let's assume, for a moment, that there is a right to health care. Who has the bigger right? Does the implied right to healthcare somehow trump my enumerated right to exercise my religion? Why must it?

Of course, that's not good enough for liberals. If someone has a right to health care, they believe that means they're guaranteed health care. OK, let's apply that same logic to the right to bear arms. Consider this analogy: The right to own a gun is enumerated in the Constitution. Have you ever bought a gun? A nice gun isn't cheap. A 9mm handgun could set you back about $400.00. Are only rich people allowed to exercise the right to own a gun? How can poor people like me afford $400 to buy a gun? Since I have the right to own a gun, what I need is for my employer to buy me one.

Here's a twist: what if I worked for Rosie O'Donnell? From what I've heard, Rosie O'Donnell doesn't believe people should have the right to carry guns (except for her bodyguards). That doesn't matter, though. I have the right to own a gun and, according to liberal logic, Rosie must buy me one no matter what her own conscientious objection might be.

Somehow I don't think liberals would go for the idea of compelling employers to buy guns for their employees. But they can't see the similarity in that and forcing employers to provide contraceptives for their employees.

“Rights” are not entitlements nor guarantees. The idea that the government can compel one person to act against his conscience in order to guarantee the right of another is anathema to liberty. The dangers that surround this issue are many and I intend to spend a couple of more posts talking about them. For now though, let me just say that a woman's “right” to birth control is no more sacred than my right to exercise my faith. Here's an idea: I will practice my religion and you buy your own contraceptives!