Weekend Adventure

Went on a 20 mile backpacking trip this past weekend. Left on Friday, got a late start on the trail, only got about 5-1/2 miles in before having to make camp, tent was almost ripped into by a large animal in the middle of the night, almost stepped on a poisonous snake Saturday, hiked 9 miles with blisters all over my feet and got back home about 12:30 Saturday night...MAN it was GREAT! Hope to figure out how to post pics of it when I get them back. Best time of all was singing hymns around the campfire with my buddy Trent. God's creation is awe-inspiring.

A thought on embryonic stem-cell research

Another excellent note on the STR blog.

There is a lot of deception going on in the way this debate is being covered in the media. It is made (in most outlets) to sound like conservatives are against stem-cell research. This is not true. There is much stem-cell research being conducted with adult stem-cells as well as stem-cells from the blood collected from the umbilical cords of newborns (cord-blood stem-cells). Both of these areas of research have shown promise, where embryonic stem-cell research has yielded little or no gain. Yet those in favor of embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR) insist on tearing apart these pre-born children in order to cannibalize their stem-cells. Another misconception being foisted by the media is that the President is against stem-cell research. Again false. He has made it perfectly clear that he only opposes embryonic stem-cell research and has pledged that no tax money will be spent in support of it. He has not banned the research...he has only stripped it of federal funding. If those in favor of ESCR want it to continue, they can donate their money...just don't expect my tax dollars to pay for this morally bankrupt work.

I also believe that there is one issue that is not being addressed in this debate (at least not by those who favor ESCR) and that is what happens when the main argument is taken to its logical conclusion. The argument I've seen presented most often is that "the embryos will be destroyed anyway." Under this logic, why not perform experimentation on terminal alzheimers patients? Why not fiddle with the genes of those in a "persistent vegitative state"? Truth be known, there are some on the radical side of the issue that would concur with these conclusions, but the mass of people making this argument refuse to see the connection between the unborn embryos and the terminally ill. They just cannot see that using the logic of "the embryo will be destroyed (will die) anyway" matches perfectly with "the invalid will die anyway."

It brings to mind the Scriptures where it is stated "professing to be wise, they became fools...." (Rom 1:22).

Pluralism unmasked

Found this on the Stand to Reason weblog. Wonder how many other pluralists would be willing to admit to their exclusivism?

New Testament Worship

I've been listening to John Piper on the radio and he is talking about the idea of Worship in the New Testament. He talked about the word used in the Old Testament and in Revelation carries the idea of falling down before someone/something. But this idea is strangely absent from the epistles. He explained from Scripture that Jesus changed the nature of worship when He came in the Incarnation. As pointed out in John 4 (the Samaritan woman at the well) Jesus says, "...a time is coming and has now come when true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks." (emphasis added)
Piper went on to explain that, with the advent of Christ, worship is no longer a matter of where or by what ritual. It is now a matter of the heart and mind being bowed before Him and His will.
While Piper was going through all this, my mind kept going to the passages in the epistles where Paul states in 1 Cor 3:16 that we as believers are the "temple of God", and in 1 Peter 2:5 where Peter writes that we, "as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood." What an amazing thought. The central focus of Jewish worship until 70AD was the temple in Jerusalem (prior to that, it was the tabernacle). Yet, with the coming of Christ, all of the outward manifestations of worship were done away with. Now, mankind is to worship God through their submissive spirit, following His word as truth, and offering themselves as a "living sacrifice" (Rom. 12:1) to the Almighty and Holy Lord.

Critique of Blaker, pt. 3

The One Who Rules the Wind and the Waves:
A Response to The Perils of Fundamentalism and the Imperilment of Democracy

In his contribution to the book, Edwin F. Kagin opens with a quote from Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue:

I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good…Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty; we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don’t’ want equal time. We don’t want pluralism.

In sharing this quote, Mr. Kagin, an attorney in northern Kentucky and a humanist, erects quite the massive straw-man. It is becoming quite evident that such straw-men are the primary source of fuel for the fire burning in this book.
Mr. Kagin begins by mentioning the growth of fundamentalist groups in various world religions around the globe. He cites polls and articles indicating that about half of the Christians in America claim to be fundamentalists. Yet what does that label mean? What is a fundamentalist? A fundamentalist is one who holds to the fundamentals of their belief system. Fundamentalists keep a tight hold on those things which make their belief system distinctive and without which their system would be something entirely different. For example, would a dog still be a dog if it had retractable claws, meowed and chased mice? Would Buddhism be the same if the adherents to that system denied that Buddha ever existed and that his writings are a sham? In the same way, Christians must hold to certain ideas in order to remain Christian. It’s a matter of definition. I believe that Mr. Kagin’s problem with fundamentalist Christians lies in how Christianity is defined. Personally, I believe Mr. Kagin should leave that definition up to the Christians. According to the Law of Excluded Middle, Christianity is either defined by A or Not A. Either the Fundamentalists are right or they are wrong, there’s no middle ground. Obviously they believe they are right. Again, with the Law of Identity, if Christianity is defined by A, then it is defined by A. If the Fundamentalists are right, then they are right. One cannot argue that the Fundamentalist definition is right for them and that some other definition of Christianity is alright for others. Logic and reason don’t work like that.
Mr. Kagin goes on to define Christian Fundamentalism as “an inflexible, absolutist worldview.” Actually, I have absolutely no problem with that statement. When truth is at stake, one cannot afford to be flexible or wishy-washy about it. If it is true that a child will die by playing on the freeway during rush hour, a parent must be “inflexible and absolutist” about keeping them away from that traffic. So it is with spiritual truth of the sort dealt with in Christianity. If it is true that a person will be punished in hellfire for eternity unless they turn from their godless ways and follow Christ, then it is the duty of the Christian to inform them of this and not to flex on this issue. Anything else would be callous and unloving.
I’m not quite sure why Mr. Kagin went off on his King James Version tangent but I will address it here briefly. The idea that King James was a homosexual had very little to do with the decreased use of the translation he commissioned. Many Christians use more modern translations for many reasons, among which are ease of reading (King James English can be difficult to wade through) and the fact that the more modern translations come from older, more reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that were yet to be discovered at the time of King James.
Also, the way in which Gary Bauer is attacked is of questionable character and smacks of courtroom tactics. The technique is called “poisoning the well.” The passage
in question reads as follows:

"Gary Bauer from northern Kentucky is former president of the Family Research Council (FRC) a Christian fundamentalist “pro family” organization, a former domestic policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan, and a Republican candidate for the 2002 Presidential campaign. It has been widely circulated that Bauer concluded that nothing touched by a homosexual could be good for good Christians:

I feel uncomfortable that good Christians all over America, and indeed the world, are using a document commissioned by a homosexual. Anything that has been commissioned by a homosexual has obviously been tainted in some way.

This originated as parody, but so accurately fits Bauer’s views, that it has been frequently cited by fundamentalists."

Mr. Kagin has now done a masterful job of making his readers believe that the quote given has actually come from the mouth of Gary Bauer. Even though he comes back right afterward and states that the comment “originated as parody” the damage has already been done to Mr. Bauer’s character. It is the same tactic used in the courtroom when an attorney wants the jury to hear his point of view, he states it (or words a question in such a way that his implied view is clear). Although the attorney knows he will get an objection from his opponent, the jury has already heard the statement and the seed the attorney wanted to plant has been sown.
In addressing the interplay between the fundamentalist mindset and the law, it is interesting to note that a man who has studied law for his livelihood has failed to recognize the importance of Christian ideals in the creation of the laws of this land. If Mr. Kagin were to actually study the Bible, he would find the ideas of justice, mercy, fair trial and other sacred areas of our legal system described quite clearly. Fundamentalist Christians do believe that the laws of our land should conform to the Law of God because that is the only way to insure that they are moral and just. If there is not a consistent standard of measure used throughout the construction of an edifice, then the structure will eventually collapse. So it is with the legal system. While he is right in identifying the Christian belief that the Bible is the final authority, Mr. Kagin is incorrect in his assertion that Fundamentalists determine what the word of God is and that sinners are only those who disagree with the Fundamentalists. All mankind, not just Christians, have been given the word of God in the Bible so that they will know the truth for themselves; and sinners are those who have rejected God and His Son Jesus and have decided to live their lives as they see fit.
The Bible is not “invented histories framed in legend and allegory.” It is historical fact framed in the redemptive story of a God who loves His people. Archaeology has confirmed biblical claims time and again. Not once has the Bible been proven wrong in its accounting of history. Mr. Kagin claims that there is no essential difference between Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism. If we go back to the definition of fundamentalism given above, then Mr. Kagin is correct. Christianity holds that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God, that Jesus Christ was God and man in one body that was born of a virgin. That this same Jesus was crucified as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind and that he was raised from the dead and will return again. Islam, on the other hand, believes that there is one god, Allah, and his chief prophet was Mohammed and that by abiding by the teachings of the Q’uran and the five pillars of Islam one may someday dwell in Paradise. So, yes, fundamentalist Christianity holds to the foundational doctrines of Christianity in the same way that fundamentalist Muslims hold to the foundational doctrines of Islam. The difference, and it is a major difference, lies in what the foundational doctrines of these two systems teach. In Christianity, followers are exhorted to love one another, care for the needy and to spread the Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ to all the earth. In Islam, followers are commanded to follow the teachings of Mohammed, including the killing of infidels.
Nowhere in the New Testament do you see a command for Christians to kill non-Christians. Yet in the Q’uran you see commands to kill the infidels (those who do not submit to Islam).
From here, Mr. Kagin launches into an historical progression of fundamentalism in religion from antiquity to the present, focusing on Christianity. Before he begins on the American leg of this historical journey, there is the odd statement that Fundamentalist approaches to social problems sometimes exacerbate them because the Fundamentalists approach the issue in a “backwards, unlawful” or “ineffective” way, such as with teen pregnancy and child abuse. I’m curious what study this came from? Or is it just opinion being thrown out in such a way that the reader is supposed to assume that it’s true? Until he cites a study showing a direct correlation between teen pregnancy rates or child abuse with fundamentalist ideas I’m going to have to doubt Mr. Kagin’s claim here.
The flow of thought picks back up with the history of the Puritans in the colonial days of America. Mr. Kagin tells the story of how the Puritans and Pilgrims came from England to escape religious persecution and to establish a Christian community in the New World. He passes on the saying that “a Puritan is one who is haunted by a lurking suspicion that somehow, someone, somewhere might still be happy.” While this may fit the stereotype of the Puritans, their belief was that the greatest pleasure was found in leading a pure life dedicated to finding pleasure in God and His Law rather than trying to find fulfillment in the fleeting pleasures of this present world. As Mr. Kagin goes on to credit the Puritans for the way in which they helped to shape the character of America in the early days, he states that “ideas are not responsible for the people who support them.” While I do agree with him in principle on this point, I would have to qualify the statement with the complimentary idea that a person’s heart and character can be known by the ideas they support. Judging by the ideas that Mr. Kagin credits the Puritans for supporting (i.e. honesty, integrity, duty, education and family) I would say that even he characterizes them as quite honorable people. As far as the idea of establishing a theocracy in the colonies goes, it has been said that if Christians decided to set up a society based entirely on God’s Law and the principles of Christianity, that would be the most wonderful utopia in the history of the world. Neighbors would love and care for one another, no one would be in need and God would be honored in all that the people undertook to do. Therefore, a government (or at least a system of law) that is based upon the Law of God would be the best option of all the manmade forms of government that have ever existed. As a side note, the Mayflower Compact was only signed by 41 of the 102 passengers because that was the number of men that survived the trans-Atlantic voyage to America. Women and children would not have been given the option of signing the document.
In making the claim that modern fundamentalists are desiring to create a theocracy in America in seeking to make laws that reflect what is commanded by God, Mr. Kagin makes a fundamental error regarding the nature of law (surprising considering he is an attorney.) At its core, any set of laws is a reflection of the morality of those making the laws. For instance, if it is considered immoral to steal another person’s private property then laws are passed making it illegal. Nowadays it is considered immoral by many for tobacco to be smoked in enclosed public places, so ordinances have been passed to make such activity illegal. Once it was generally considered immoral for two men to have sexual relations with each other, so anti-sodomy laws were enacted. Now the morality (or lack thereof) within the American judiciary has been enforced upon those parts of the country having such laws, striking them down as unconstitutional (since when has there been a constitutional right to sodomy?) Therefore we come to the issue of “theocracy.” The only way that Mr. Kagin and his colleagues seem to be defining theocracy is a government that makes laws based on the morality of a given religious system, when in reality a theocracy would be direct rule by God Himself. So the question is no longer “theocracy or not-theocracy”, it now becomes “what moral system best fits the direction we, as a nation, desire to go.” I personally believe that our country would best be served by laws reflecting the moral code within the Judeo-Christian.
At this point Mr. Kagin goes on to show how Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution prohibits a religious “litmus test” for candidates for public office. I would certainly agree that this should not be the case, but I am not aware of any attempt being made to require that one be a Christian to run for office. That being said, there is not such constitutional restriction placed upon voters keeping them from denying non-Christians their vote. Would Mr. Kagin have a nation wherein there are new elections held anytime someone feels they were not elected simply because of their religious beliefs? I hardly think so…but I may be mistaken. He then mentions the infamous “wall of separation” that does not exist in the Constitution. The ideas in the First Amendment Non-Establishment Clause are covered in the response to Kimberly Blaker’s opening article and I will not belabor the point any more here. Suffice it to say, it shows total ignorance of the Constitution and its framers to insist on a “wall of separation” in the way Mr. Kagin and his ilk do.
Once he reaches the point where he addresses the progress of fundamentalism in America, I believe Mr. Kagin has his history together, yet he cannot quite seem to get a grasp on the true motivation behind those he names. While he is quite right in naming such greats as George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards as those who helped to spread a “fundamentalist” view of Christianity in the Colonies, he misrepresents their intended purpose. He cites Edwards’ “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” and labels it as “a bitter, abusive denunciation of those who do not share the preacher’s views and what God’s wrath will do to them….” I can assure Mr. Kagin, and anyone else, that the last thing Jonathan Edwards was trying to accomplish through this sermon was to persuade people to his viewpoint. What Mr. Edwards (and any worthwhile preacher) was trying to do was to let people see God’s viewpoint as shown in Scripture. And while much of the sermon is dark and ominous in nature (yet so very true), at the end Mr. Edwards holds out the hope of escape from the judgment of God through trusting in the sacrifice of Christ. This type of preaching is far from abusive, it is necessary. An excellent parallel can be found in the world of medicine. Imagine a person with a terminal illness. What doctor would be derided as abusive for telling the patient their diagnosis and prognosis? In fact, the doctor would be sued for malpractice if he did not tell the patient what was wrong with him! And so it is with the preacher of the Gospel. He is compelled to tell the world of their sin and the judgment to come to them because of it. But, just as the doctor can hold out the hope of treatment if the patient will submit to it, so the preacher holds out the hope of the gospel of Jesus Christ for those who place their trust in Him.

Class on 1 Peter

Actually got into the text of 1 Peter in my class yesterday. Man, I love teaching this stuff! I was supposed to go through verses 1 through 12 but I got hung up in verse 2 and never made it past there. There's so much good stuff there..."elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by His blood." How can you not spend an hour in that??

Lies, lies, lies

The deception continues. I've started on the 2nd chapter of Blaker's book. It's an article written by Edwin Kagin. I'm not sure which is worse; lying by attributing a quote to someone when they didn't say it or taking an actual quote out of context in order to make it sound like the person quoted meant something other than what they did mean. The following excerpt from his article The Gathering Storm is in the context of the claim that fundamentalist Christians no longer favor the King James version of the Bible because some say that King James, who commissioned the translation, was a homosexual. I'm going to be careful to put Mr. Kagin in context here and then analyze what he's done:

Gary Bauer from northern Kentucky is former president of the Family Research Council (FRC) a Christian fundamentalist "pro family" organization, a Republican candidate for the 2002 Presidential campaign. It has been widely circulated that Bauer concluded that nothing touched by a homosexual could be good for good Christians:

"I feel uncomfortable that good Christians all over America, and indeed the world, are using a document commissioned by a homosexual. Anthing that has been commissioned by a homosexual has obviously been tainted in some way."

This originated as parody, but so accurately fits Bauer's views, that it has been frequently cited by fundamentalists.

Now, what Mr. Kagin has done is what is what is called "poisoning the well." He has taken a quote that did not come from the lips of Gary Bauer, puts it in a context where it is implied that he did say it, then recants after the fact by stating that it "originated as parody." Although he did finally state that the fictitious quote was parody, it has already been placed in the reader's mind that Mr. Bauer actually did make that statement. By doing this, Mr. Kagin has conditioned his audience to believe that Mr. Bauer did actually make the statement in question. And they are accusing the Christians of distortion, manipulation and subterfuge?

And so it goes, and so it goes.

critique of Blaker (pt 2)

True biblical Christianity, to put it in the words of James, is: “to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.” The goal of every true Christian is to become more like Jesus Christ as described in the New Testament. What objection does Ms. Blaker have to this? Does she object to caring for the sick? Does she object to showing compassion to the hurting? No, what she likely finds most offensive is Jesus’ statement that He is “the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except by [Him].” If this statement is true (and I believe that it is), then would it not be extremely unloving of the Christian believer to not inform others of this single way of salvation? Ms. Blaker would likely jump in at this point with the argument that some “Christians” attempt to do this through violence, but I challenge her to show one place in the New Testament where violence is condoned in the conversion of the lost. Again, just because someone calling themselves Christian behaves a certain way in the name of Christ does not mean that it is something condoned by Christ or in the Scriptures. That would include the ideas of concubinage (i.e. the Branch Davidians), racism (i.e. the Christian Identity Movement) and murder (i.e. Army of God). Again, by focusing attention on the small, radical elements claiming identification with Christ, Ms. Blaker attempts to paint all who hold to a conservative Christian view in the same light. This is unfair, irresponsible and, as she describes Dr. Dobson, manipulative.
Ms. Blaker continues with her unfounded alarmism as she goes on to say that children in “fundamentalist” homes are “at high risk for physical abuse and incest.” I personally find this statement extremely offensive and am appalled at the author’s total lack of facts to back it up. But that is not part of her agenda. She only seeks to throw the idea out there to create suspicion of Christian parents knowing that those who quote her will be relying only on her authority as the writer of such an article rather than checking her facts. After all, if it’s in print it must be true, right? Again, Christian parents, if they are truly following biblical principles, are the best, most loving and nurturing parents in the world today.
The author’s ignorance of biblical Christianity is only matched by her ignorance of the United States Constitution. She refers to the “Separation Clause” in the first amendment. There is no such clause. The anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
There is nothing in this clause, or anywhere else in the Constitution, about a “wall of separation.” This is an assurance that the government will not pass a law making an official State Church, not that religion has no place in informing the views of government officials or the laws they devise. If there were laws against such in intrusion of religious ideas in the government, then that would be a denial of the right of the individuals in government to exercise their faith, thus violating the same clause. Studies have shown that of the to 100 sources of quotes found in the writings of the founding fathers of our nation the Bible is far and away the most-quoted source (four times higher than the 2nd most-quoted source). With this in mind, where does Ms. Blaker believe the founders got their ideas for the governance of this nation? Even the French statesman Alexis DeToquville recognized the United States as a nation founded upon Christian ideas as shown in this passage from his work Democracy in America:

“The greatest part of British America was peopled by men who… brought with them into the New World a form of Christianity which I cannot better describe than by styling it a democratic and republican religion. This contributed powerfully to the establishment of a republic and a democracy in public affairs; and from the beginning, politics and religion contracted an alliance which has never been dissolved. … It may be asserted, then, that in the United States no religious doctrine displays the slightest hostility to democratic and republican institutions.”

The very principles found in the Bible are what our great nation was founded upon, not the godless ideas of secular humanism. Far from placing democracy in peril, as the title of this article implies, Christianity is actually the very source of democracy.

Worldviews in Conflict

Felt the need to post this excerpt from Dr. Albert Mohler's blog:

"As Christians, we are unavoidably engaged in a great battle of worldviews--a conflict over the most basic issues of truth and meaning. A worldview that starts with the existence and sovereign authority of the self-revealing God of the Bible will be diametrically opposed to worldviews that deny God or engage in what we might call 'defining divinity down.'"

That pretty much sums it up. And it accurately reflects the words of Christ in John 14:6 -- "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me." Sounds pretty exclusivistic to me.

Critique of Blaker

Here are the introductory paragraphs of my attempt to refute the ideas in Kimberly Blaker's book The Fundamentals of Extremism: The Christian Right in America (New Boston Books, 2003):

The Bible is replete with reminders to Christians that they will face various trials and tribulations as they seek to imitate Christ in their lives and expand the Kingdom of God. It is no less true today than it was in the first century when the words of the New Testament were first being penned by the apostles. Yet it is saddening that the cause of Christ is under such vehement attack by those who despise God and wish nothing more than to see a godless world community brought to pass. And this in a country whose founders expressed such deep devotion and indebtedness to the sovereign God they saw as their guide and their helper. I believe that one of the best ways to discredit a group is to take the unorthodox and fringe elements that claim to be part of that group and paint the picture that these extremists are the legitimate representatives of the group. That is what is attempted in this work.

In The Fundamentals of Extremism, Ms. Blaker seeks to inform her readers of the dangers of a broad group that she identifies with the term “Christian Right.” The book is actually a compilation of articles written by Ms. Blaker and others of secular-humanist/atheistic beliefs. The best way to characterize the work is with the word “misrepresentation.” I’m not sure if Ms. Blaker failed to do any research at all in writing and compiling these articles or if she merely focused her research to those sources that agree with her anti-Christian views. Either way, she and her co-contributors are completely out of touch with the teachings and motives of genuine biblical Christianity. In this paper I will take each article in turn and refute the false claims and straw-man arguments presented by the various authors and, hopefully, present a solid defense of Christianity as it is shown in Scripture.

In the opening article, Kimberly Blaker comes out with both guns blazing…but they’re loaded with blanks. She makes a lot of alarming noise, but there is no substance in the call-to-arms. There are so many issues in this article that it’s hard to know where to begin, so I will begin…at the beginning.

Ms. Blaker opens the article with a quote by Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family ministries:
Those who control what young people are taught, and what they experience – what they see, hear, think and believe – will determine the future course for the nation.

While she does not dispute the veracity of the statement, she merely uses it as a springboard to launch into a rant about how Dr. Dobson uses his great influence to “wield power over the Republican Party” and to “manipulate unsuspecting Americans who otherwise might not agree with his views.” Needless to say, influence does not equal subversion, it’s part of the democratic process. What does Ms. Blaker think that groups like People for the American Way and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State are trying to do? While Dr. Dobson does have a certain amount of influence in what happens in Washington, he by no means controls the actions of Congress. There have been many times that the U.S. legislature has passed bills that were contrary to Dr. Dobson’s wishes as well as defeating bills that he would have liked to have seen passed. It is only after this character-bashing and ad-hominem attack that Ms. Blaker gets to the heart of things. She makes the claim that Dr. Dobson’s quote reveals the desire on the part of the “Christian Right” to exercise mind-control over the children of America in the same way that radical Islamic fundamentalists do. Here is where the gloves (thin as they are) come off.

In the very next paragraph, Ms. Blaker comes with a full-on assault on conservative Christianity. She attempts to draw a parallel between the radical Islamic madrasahs, or religious schools, with the homeschooling movement. In her mind, Christians are attempting to brainwash their children through isolating them from the world in order that they may one day take over the world and impose Christianity on all mankind. It is here that Ms. Blaker first demonstrates her total ignorance of not only the concept of raising children, but also of biblical Christianity and the homeschooling movement. I will address the ideas of the education of children and then make a defense of biblical Christianity opposing Ms. Blaker’s attempt to equate it with fundamentalist Islam.

It doesn’t matter what a person believes, when they have children they almost always try to pass those beliefs on to their children. It is for this reason that these core beliefs are often referred to as values…because it is this base of knowledge that the parent holds as valuable in order to live a fulfilled life. I would assume that Ms. Blaker values independent thought and the discarding of anything that can’t be proven empirically, and judging by her statements in this article I would assume that if she has children, she is passing these values on to her child(ren). In her words, she is brainwashing her children to believe the way she does (or ships them off to the secularized public school system to let the educators indoctrinate the child in this belief system). So just as she claims that homeschooling or conservative Christian private schools indoctrinate children to a fundamentalist Christian worldview, so the public school system is guilty of the same concept of indoctrinating children into a fundamentalist secular-humanist worldview.

Ms. Blaker states, “Christian fundamentalist schooling is known for indoctrinating children through recitation and memorization of Bible verses and prayers, reinforced with hellfire and brimstone lectures.” Yet the very same statement could be made this way: “Secular fundamentalist schooling is known for indoctrinating children through recitation of unproven theories and memorization of assumed information and catch-phrases such as ‘safe-sex’ reinforced by lectures laced with implications that if what is taught is questioned, the student is merely ignorant and unenlightened.” She goes on to state “these children are taught from textbooks that distort scientific and historic facts.” There have been entire volumes written on the errors found in the textbooks of secular schools. Evolution is taught as fact when it is still an unproven theory. Not one transitional form has been found in the fossil record as of yet.

That is the point of Dr. Dobson’s quote. That is also the reason why there is such a struggle in America today. Christians and Secularists are in a high-pitched battle for the minds of the children of our nation. Both sides believe that their way is best and both sides are struggling to pass on their views to the next generation in order to hopefully win this battle.

Ms. Blaker’s ignorance of true, biblical Christianity is profound but not uncommon. There are many in this world who claim to be Christian but carry on in such shameful ways that it drags the name of Christ through the mud. I think of the very groups Ms. Blaker mentions in her article: the white-supremacist Christian Identity Movement, the Branch Davidians and the Army of God. But if I steal your coat, put it on and then rob a bank, you would not expect to be found guilty of a crime that was committed by one dressed in your clothes. Yet many people condemn Christianity based on crimes committed by those who wear the name of Christ.
____________________________________
I will post more on this as I continue to get my thoughts put into my laptop.

It takes a village....

Check this article.
While I don't agree with the JW take on blood transfusions, who's to say that the next step won't be court-ordered abortions where the parents won't be allowed to intervene based on religious grounds? Here's what the idea of "it takes a village to raise a child" goes: the children no longer belong to the parents, they belong to the state.