Publisher's Corner

This blog has moved

noreply@blogger.com (Nordskog Publishing) — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:12:00 +0000

This blog is now located at http://publisherscorner.nordskogpublishing.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://publisherscorner.nordskogpublishing.com/feeds/posts/default.

On the 235th Anniversary of the Battle of Lexington

noreply@blogger.com (Nordskog Publishing) — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 21:48:00 +0000

by Christian L. Clingman

On this day, the morn of April 17, 1775, dating 235 years ago, a militia made up of independent Americans met a battalion of British soldiers. The American militia was made up of no more than 70 men, while the British battalion was made up of 1200 to 1500. The Americans were outnumbered 20 or 25 to 1.

General Gage had sent the British battalion to Concord, Massachusetts from Boston, the day before, resolving to destroy the military stores supporting American troops there. These troops were to land at a place called Lechmere’s Point. To carry this pivotal invasion, they had to leave under cover of night in boats. But their coming was not unknown.

Paul Revere had a friend sit in the North Church tower in the belfry with two lanterns. One signal was to stand as a sign that the British were coming by land, two meaning by the Sea. Stationed on the opposite shore, Paul Revere stood with his horse, staring at the belfry of North Church and awaiting the response. Concord was an important location. With British troops beginning to invade America, Revere suspected that the British would target Concord, for such a place provided accessible provisions for all American troops. Thus, after some time passed, Revere saw a lantern unveiled, then two, as a sign that the British were coming by sea. Revere sped down the twisted roads of Massachusetts and to every man and household that he passed he cried, “The British are coming! The British are coming!” Passing by one of the houses was one of his friends, Pastor Jonas Clark.

The word spread quickly and the Minute Men of the Revolution left their homes and gathered together at Lexington that sat along the way to Concord, at 4:30 that morning. At first, the militia had gathered at the City of Cambridge, for they heard that the British would be passing there. But it was suspected that it was a feigned move by the enemy and that their point of movement had been directed to another place. So instead, the Minute Men gathered not far from the meetinghouse of Lexington. There they saw the troops of the British march up. Their red coats flapped in the slight breeze and their bright muskets were primed and loaded. As later on that day, Jonas Clark would title them properly as “Blood Thirsty Oppressors.” The officers of the battalion saw the small independent militia standing in their way with loaded muskets in their hands. Enraged by this defiance, the British commander demanded that the Minute Men lay down their arms and disperse. The British soldiers shouted a huzzah and charged towards the American band. One of the British officers pointed his sword towards the company and cried, “Fire! By God, Fire!” Hundreds of muskets discharged and eight Americans fell dead and ten were wounded but the rest of the American militia remained unharmed. In a little while, the British sent more rounds of fire and the militia was defeated. The British praised and gloried in this victory and continued on their march to Concord. Another militia made up of about 200 men, saw the oncoming British troops and retreated to cover. The British then took possession of the old North Bridge, left a guard there and took hold of the military stores. A body of the militia approached the British and attacked them. The British fired upon them and killed many. As to the events hereafter, Richard Frothingham recalls in his book, The Rise of the Republic.

“No mausoleum ever commanded such honor as Americans attach to the graves of these early martyrs to American liberty. This precious blood roused righteous indignation in the breasts of the yeomanry, who had been flocking in and stood with their old firelocks in their hands on that village green. They resolved to avenge the death of their brethren. Two hours after the firing at the bridge, the King’s troops began their march for Boston, when the militia fell upon them in such fiery spirit, and with such deadly effect, that the march soon turned into a run. The proud veterans were saved from total destruction by a reinforcement which left Boston in the morning and joined them at Lexington; and they found security only in the shelter of ships of war at nightfall, when by the light of the flashing musketry they entered Charlestown and rested on Bunker Hill.”

Now here is the point I want to make. All the above is a summary of the events before and after the Battle of Lexington. Here I would like to point out the courage of these men—our forefathers and foundations of our country. They, who though only few and knowing deeply that to rebel against a tyrannical power larger in military force than them would mean certain death. Facing against all odds, they stood in the way of tyranny that sought to expand beyond its own borders and to covet, steal, possess, and oppress the people of New England. These were indeed brave men.

Surely, you may recall the history of the 300 Spartans standing in the gap against a force made up of thousands upon thousands of Persians who sought to drive back and control the Kingdom of Greece. These Spartans were in a much like similar situation to that of the Independent American Forefathers who came together as a militia and stared back at the face of death. But the providence within these two events was much different altogether.

Many Spartans trained as warriors from their childhood, taken from their homes and parents. The Kingdom of Sparta was rich and powerful. They had been in existence just as long as the Kingdom of Greece and were developing into a powerful nation as the years passed. They knew how to fashion their weapons of defense and offense, plan effective battle tactics, do hand-to-hand combat, and practice stages in war with spear and shield. They were skilled not only in these weapons on land, but also by the weapons of the sea. They worshiped their gods and faithfully offered sacrifices to them. They had hundreds of years to reform old ways and to establish new laws in War and Civilization. And when faced by the great Persian army coming from the West, they killed hundreds before they themselves were killed.

Now look at the independent republic of America that had hardly passed its centennial anniversary. Many looked after the care of their families, learned the skill and trade of farming and commercial industries, and built up a life of love and prosperity, though not always a life of physical health. Few personally trained in the skill and practice of battle and warfare. Many families kept at least one musket in their house, but rarely used it in battle. Rather they mostly used their muskets for hunting and for the odd few skirmishes with renegade Indians. The way of arms was clumsy for the most skilled man. A musket could only fire two shots in a minute, and that was if one still stayed alive. This American militia, consisting in at the most of 70 men, stared at the oncoming force of 1500 British men. They had time to run. They had never been in a situation like this before and had never trained nor prepared for such an encounter. They had had hardly two days to prepare for this invasion and with no time to make plans of strategy. Instead of backing down, these Minute Men of the Revolution stared into the face of Death and Tyranny. They declared by their stance that they would not back down and let oppression tear through their land of freedom. They would stand to do what was right and not back down when the might of wrong and evil came towards them. They had the heart of David, the spirit of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, and the mind of a William Wallace, when against all odds they showed that whether they lived or died, whether victorious or defeated, won or lost, they would never bow down to tyranny. They would rather lose and die for a righteous cause, than to live in shame and disgrace, and do nothing while Tyranny lay hold of their freedom. Against all odds, this ill-trained and ill-prepared independent American militia stood in the gap and faced head on against the British. They knew that those who were with them, though unseen, were more than that of their enemies.

Why did this nation win against the mighty odds of their enemies? Because they were on God’s side. If we are on God’s side, though we die and fall in the battle, He will, through us and using us, help us to win the War. Let us stand in the face of Death and Tyranny, against all oppression and Evil, against all odds and terrors, and declare each day that we will stand for Truth and Righteousness, and never, never will we submit to the World! We stand here today in the gap and though you kill us and though God chooses not to deliver us, we will never bow to the Golden Image of Wickedness!

Bibliography:
Jonas Clark, The Battle of Lexington: A Sermon and Eyewitness Narrative (Ventura, CA: Nordskog Publishing Inc., 2007).
Richard Frothingham, The Rise of the Republic of the United States (First Edition 1872 and republished many times).

Christian Clingman is the fourteen-year-old son of NPI sales and marketing coordinator, and NPI Advisory Council member Eugene Clingman. © 2010. Used with permission.

Tea Party Talk

noreply@blogger.com (Nordskog Publishing) — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:15:00 +0000

by Jerry Newcombe

What makes America so special? Why is it that would-be immigrants literally risk their lives to try and get here? Some will risk their lives to leave Cuba, going through shark-infested waters to get here. But don’t they know they have free health care there? But seriously, why do people vote with their feet to try to get to this country? What makes the US so special? The answer has to do with one simple fact: our rights come from God. Period. That’s what our national birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence, says. Even when America doesn’t live up to its creed that our Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable rights, it’s still a good creed. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said in his classic speech: “I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal.’"

Since our rights come from God, it’s not up to the state to determine if those rights are secure. What the state giveth, the state can taketh away. That is not true with God-given rights.

I believe that what is best about America gets back to our Judeo-Christian heritage. I don’t think there would be an America without the unique role the Bible played in the founding of our nation. Because America began as a Christian nation, people of all faiths or no faith are welcome here. Consider some of our founding fathers and their views on how God is the source of our liberty.

Here we are at a Tea Party meeting. The leader of the first tea party was Sam Adams---the lightning rod of the American Revolution. Without him, we might not have achieved independence, certainly not when we did. In a classic monograph, "The Rights of the Colonists," Adams wrote this: "The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, the rights of the Colonists as Christians may best be understood by reading and carefully studying the institutions of The Great Law Giver and the Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament."

Consider George Washington. In his farewell address, he noted: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness.” When the Founding Fathers spoke of "religion," he is speaking of Christianity, in a nation which at the time was 99.8% Christian.

Think about John Adams our second president, who said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Even the religiously liberal Thomas Jefferson appealed to Jesus Christ ("the holy author of our religion") and His example as to how it is we have freedom, religious or otherwise. In 1786, he wrote: “Almighty God hath created the mind free…all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments…are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet choose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to exalt it by its influence on reason alone…” So, in other words, the state is not to interfere with the conscience. God leaves that up to the individual.

Even Ben Franklin, also non-orthodox in his views on Christianity, made a passionate plea during the Constitutional Convention for prayer. The whole convention almost shut down because of all their bickering, but then on June 28, 1787, Franklin, the eldest statesman present, called for prayer and a variation of his request was granted. He said in that speech, “I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth---that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel.”

When many of the founding fathers, especially ones from New England, like Paul Revere, John Hancock, learned their ABCs, they learned them from The New England Primer, which taught basic Biblical principles.

A
In Adam’s Fall,
We sinned all.
B
Thy life to mend,
The Bible tend.
C
Christ crucify’d,
For sinners died.

Why was Christ crucified? God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to conquer evil and to be the sacrifice needed to free us from the corrupting power of sin. Christ freed us and as liberated people, we become citizens of His kingdom and then live under His dominion for time and eternity. That was the view of the majority of the founders of this country, and it was a view that gave us liberty untold in the history of the world.

In closing, I want to remind us what Ronald Reagan once said, “America needs God more than God needs America. If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a Nation gone under.” Thank you and may God bless America---with repentance and a Third Great Awakening.
______________________________

Jerry Newcombe is the author of The Book that Made America, available here.

Holy Week, 1935

noreply@blogger.com (Nordskog Publishing) — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:06:00 +0000

by H. Frederick Hoops, deceased former Pastor, Willow Avenue Baptist Church
(Hoboken, New Jersey) 1935 -- (Grandfather of the late Rev. Christopher Rory
Hoops, founding theology editor NPI)

Very properly, the week which is ushered in by Palm Sunday is so designated. A particular sanctity attaches to these days. They recall the events that constitute the climax not only of our Lord's earthly ministry, but also the Triune God's eternal plan of salvation.

The week opens with our Lord's royal entry into Jerusalem. It is a march of triumph. The days that follow are marked by a series of vehement verbal assaults made upon Jesus by His enemies. He parries every thrust. In graphic parables, He exposes their evil plans and the doom that their evil course will bring upon them.

On Thursday evening, He gathers with His disciples in the upper room. He institutes the Holy Communion. He speaks so tenderly to these men who wilt soon experience one shock after another. He crosses the Kidron and enters Gethsemane. His Passion begins.

He is arrested. He is dragged from one tribunal to another. The night is made ghastly by the physical, mental and spiritual tortures to which He is subjected The scene shifts with kaleidoscope rapidity. At last, the insistent demand is satisfied. The sentence of death is confirmed, Jesus is led away to be crucified.

On Calvary the last act of the Passion occurs. The Son of God dies after hours of agony on the cross. As Good Friday, the anniversary of that day is remembered. So the ransom was paid for humanity dead in sin and lost to God. So God and man were reconciled. We are verily bought with a price.

Before Good Friday's sun sets His body is laid to rest in Joseph's tomb. Saturday is one quiet day in this momentous week.

Then on Sunday morning the glad tidings are heard: "He is risen; He is not here." No power on earth or hell could hold that mighty Lord His prison ban; He bursts. The resurrection is the crowning miracle of His redemptive work.

Surely, this precious and blessed week deserves to be observed, Christians will gladly do that.

Make Your Life Count; Join in My Quest!

noreply@blogger.com (Nordskog Publishing) — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:44:00 +0000

by Eugene Clingman

Do right My sons, do right you see
For Jesus the Christ is not Lord to be
But now reigns from heaven down here upon earth
Blessing the righteous but the wicked are cursed

He sees your actions He knows your heart
And for His Kingdom you must do your part
You’ve only two choices whose servant you’ll be
That of the Victor or of the serpent who flees

So give Me My son your heart your delight
And do what is good and just in My sight
Walk in My truth and not in the dark
For My Spirit to you my son I impart

With Me take your stand ‘gainst enemy and foe
For there are so many who cast off and o'er throw
Jesus My Christ, His Law and His Word
Wishing the Gospel no more would be heard

Yet I in My purpose will not be denied
Blessing the nations I’ll bring to My side
And make them all Christian they’ll love My Son
My zeal is certain I’ll not leave it undone

And from the River to the Ends of the Earth
I will bring blessing and subdue the Curse
Go then My people carry My Word
Until every people has listened and heard

Make them disciples teach all I command
And shall great blessing come from My hand
The child shall die at one hundred you see
And lion and lamb close companions will be

Salvation for one salvation for all
To whomever will listen to my voice as I call
There’s only one name under heaven that saves
Come to the Cross, there is no other way

You my dear sons take note and be wise
Your days upon earth are short and besides
Surely the righteous alone will be blessed
So take up your sword and join in my quest

I Believe

noreply@blogger.com (Nordskog Publishing) — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:39:00 +0000

by Eugene Clingman

I believe the missionary task will be completed.
The command of the Lord Jesus will not fail,
The Church will disciple the nations.
What kind of people ought we then to be?¹

I believe the glory of the Lord will cover the earth

as the waters cover the seas.
God has spoken once, he has spoken twice, need more be said?
It cannot fail, it cannot falter.
What kind of people ought we then to be?²

I believe our God will be truly worshiped everywhere.
It is not so yet, but the prophet has said,
His name will be great among the nations.
What kind of people ought we then to be?³

I believe all of culture, all life’s activities,
Will one day be cherished holy.
Holy will be the mundane, holy the everyday, for the prophet said.
What kind of people ought we then to be?⁴

I believe Jesus died, rose again, is now exalted.
At God’s right hand he stays till all his enemies fall.
There he stays till all his enemies fall.
What kind of people ought we then to be?⁵

I believe Christ’s present Kingdom will prevail.
I believe justice will be seen in history.
I believe the meek will inherit the earth.
What kind of people ought we then to be?
What kind of people ought we then to be?⁶

Eugene Clingman

Matthew 28:18-20,
Habakkuk 2:13,14; Numbers 14:21,
Malachi 1:11,
Zechariah 14:20-21,
Acts 3:21; Hebrews 10:12-13,
Matthew 5:5; Proverbs 11:31

So Many Miracles

noreply@blogger.com (Nordskog Publishing) — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:33:00 +0000

by Eugene Elander

So many miracles, life does comprise,

As we would see, had weonly the eyes;

So many miracles, withsmiles or tears,

As we would hear, had weonly the ears;

So many miracles, whichtruly are real,

As we would touch, hadwe only the feel;

So many miracles, withfaith playing its part,

As we would know, had weonly the heart.

Used with permission.

A Thought for Resurrection Sunday

noreply@blogger.com (Nordskog Publishing) — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:29:00 +0000

by Ronald W. Kirk

I just glanced at Cornelius Van Til’s Why I Believe in God. In this little pamplet, Dr. Van Til—one of the great theologians of the 20th Century—says something extraordinary:

[I]f my unity [of worldview] is comprehensive enough to include the efforts of those who reject it, it is large enough even to include that which those who have been set upright by regeneration cannot see. My unity is that of a child who walks with its father through the woods. The child is not afraid because its father knows it all and is capable of handling every situation. So I readily grant that there are some "difficulties" with respect to belief in God and His revelation in nature and Scripture that I cannot solve. In fact, there is mystery in every relationship with respect to every fact that faces me, for the reason that all facts have their final explanation in God Whose thoughts are higher than my thoughts, and Whose ways are higher than my ways. And it is exactly that sort of God that I need. Without such a God, without the God of the Bible, the God of authority, the God who is self-contained and therefore incomprehensible to men, there would be no reason in anything. No human being can explain in the sense of seeing through all things, but only he who believes in God has the right to hold that there is an explanation at all.¹

I have disputed with an atheist, someone close and dear to me, who insists that my worldview is irrational and that I am brainwashed by my faith and by those who propagate it. The Bible is nothing but myth, he says. As we converse, I am intrigued with his rationality. He is a man of pure fact. This is very different from the world of Dr. Van Til, where mystery is everywhere. In response to his declarations, I attempted to recite back to my friend a summary of his beliefs, in essence thus:

You believe in a completely material universe with no inherent meaning. In this meaningless world, you say, through the dint of unimaginable numbers of accidents, the universe has formed itself into meaningful wholes—galaxies, stars, planets, and many, many phenomena which as yet defy complete explanation. Moreover, the world we inhabit is filled with meaningful individuals of any and every kind. We know the earth itself, a grand system operating under predictable rules, though often so complex and with so many variables that we cannot accurately predict. Take the weather, for example. It is a marvelously self-contained system with everything in perfect balance. Chaos—nothingness—with no explicable origin, produces exquisitely complex physical system capable of supporting an extremely fragile biological system in the midst of the ultimately severe environment of space.

People inhabit the world, though their presence is a cosmological accident (though the SETI project is sure to find other being of similar cosmic accidents out there in space somewhere). People have separate existence, though they derive from chaos. You believe in the autonomy of the individual. Autonomy implies meaning, of course. Liberty essentially means the exercise of his will. (I’m not sure about others. Once you admitted to being your own god.) You believe in making the world a civilized place through humanism. Humanism is a brand of universal goodness that accomplishes its good ends without God. Meaninglessness and chaos thus produce meaning, personal dignity, and liberty? Your humanism is my Christianity without God, and with many exceptions to avoid certain personal inconveniences. You have admitted that the only place where that kind of humanistic goodness has ever occurred has been in the context of a mature Christian heritage, where your ideals actually came to fruition under the tutelage and providence of God. People who love God and restrain their selfish passions upon the power of the Holy Spirit by faith produce a community of largely successful civility. You confess that only Christian societies have produced anything that approaches civil liberty and justice. Yet, you believe that somehow a powerful, humanistic civil government is inherently good and capable of wisdom. Such a government should force people also to be wise and good, who somehow are not otherwise capable of goodness.

On the other hand, God is only a myth. God doesn’t show himself to you. Therefore, He cannot be. Of course, God would unduly limit your favored choice of beliefs and practice. God would deny a woman the freedom of choice to kill the fruit of her own womb, and man’s dignity to engage in homosexual relationships. Moreover, it seems, God would deny the civil government the power to take care of everyone’s medical needs. (God’s Word indicates government is properly limited with its purpose to oversee civil justice—protecting the God-given rights of men; and re-distribution is stealing.) Medical needs are an entitled right! Though you are autonomous, you need an all-powerful government to provide security. It is wrong to kill, so murderers must not be executed. Self-defense is wrong, so it seems that while we might desire civility, we ought not actually to do anything about it when the bully and tyrant appears. We will regulate everyone to eliminate crime.

Well, this perfectly rational system must have some rational basis for its existence. I ask, what is the basis for order in a universe which in its origin is complete chaos? I note that if one begins with chaos, it cannot be mere complexity. In complexity, we have wholes and relationship between wholes. From the structures of the greatest galaxies down to the very subatomic particles, we have wholes formed of smaller wholes, each in exquisite relationship one to another. Unity in diversity, the equal ultimacy of the One and Many is a reflection of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity—One God. In true chaos, we cannot have wholes of any kind! We must begin with broken pieces of some kind of non-wholes. We cannot even imagine chaos. It is nothingness. It is the nirvana of the Hindus. For if we allow anything meaningful in the origin, any wholeness, we imply the Creator, which humanists cannot grant. Well, no, you confess no rational explanation for the irrational turning into the rational.

What about personal dignity and meaning? How does a chaotic universe produce something as meaningful as you are? Do you experience relationship and love? Yes. What is the rational source and origin for these things in a world of pure mechanistic determinism?

My friend has a highly developed sense of morality, of right and wrong, in the context of his humanistic ideal. What is the basis for that morality? Why is the protection of life important, but the life of the unborn is not? Shouldn’t a world of chaotic and meaningless material cosmic accident have no morality? No answer.

If you live in a materially deterministic universe of pure accident, how is it that you have personal liberty? No answer.

In socialism, everything belongs to everyone. Rousseau claimed that private property was the beginning of social evil. Everything belongs to all. When you take a bite of your sandwich, at what point does the sandwich stop belonging to mankind at large, and becomes yours alone? On what rational basis? Why is it yours instead of someone else’s?

Let me understand this. I am irrational because I believe in God. This is so in spite of the fact that the greatest civil morality with liberty, justice and generosity ever known grew out of a distinctly Christian culture. In fact, it was a very specific brand known as the Reformed Christian faith. I am brainwashed, though you recognize the success we have had in our completely Biblical form of education practiced in our home and the schools we administered. You acknowledge the sacrificial efforts of Christians to serve their fellow man—the Red political districts in America far outstrip the Blue political districts in philanthropy, for example—but Christians have no rational basis for our ways?

Well, yes, my friend admits, there are mysteries in his system and he will likely never know the rational origins of the things he believes. How is he then more rational, and I less so?

Returning to Dr. Van Til, notice he claims complete unity in his worldview. Even the most bizarre phenomena we must endure in this life occur in a system of reason and purpose. How do we navigate the apparent incongruities? We understand our heavenly Father is greater than all we know, think we know, or acknowledge that we cannot know. Within that wonderful world of provision and goodness we live—as we trust our Father, no matter the mysteries—those who receive Him know that God’s ways are good and we can trust Him. His ways are true and good. Everything works together for the good to those who trust Christ Jesus and are called according to His purpose. How do I know? The Bible tells me so. But also, history tells me so. Even my own experience tells me so.

This is the season Christians celebrate the Resurrection of the very Son of God. God Himself come to earth as man. Jesus lived and suffered as man. He suffered and died—for our sake. And in the greatest triumph of history, He rose again from the dead. Because He lives, I live. And so do all who trust Him and accept Him on His terms.

What a choice we have! We may convince ourselves we are rational and believe in something out of nothing, meaning out meaninglessness, and life and love out of pure accident. We can live in the depressing belief that we live as nothing—an illusion of meaning. And when we are gone, we are swallowed up in nothing. This is life!?!

Otherwise, we may believe in the unity of life that God provides as our good Father. We appropriate the very Resurrection of Jesus Christ to our own conversion and live a life of complete meaning and unity—even now while we do not yet see clearly—darkly as through a poorly rendered glass—even unto eternity when we shall know just as we are known (1 Corinthians 13:12).

Cornelius Van Til, Why I believe in God (Philadelphia: Great Commission Publications, no date), 15.

Death Penalty

noreply@blogger.com (Nordskog Publishing) — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 01:05:00 +0000

Nordskog Publishing is pleased to offer the following essay “Death Penalty,” first submitted as a paper for Matthew’s English 12 class in Ventura, California, December 14, 2009. In this essay, Matthew cites NPI publication Death Penalty on Trial.—ed.

Death Penalty
by Matthew Carobini

In Physics, there is a rule that “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” The same may be said for rules in the political arena where the death penalty continues to be highly controversial. I believe, however, that instituting the death penalty for those who commit premeditated murder, is an acceptable, legitimate consequence for the crime. The U.S. Supreme Court has wavered, but now agrees with that position, so the states may impose the death penalty.

In 1972, the case Furman v. Georgia resulted in the Supreme Court issuing a statement that the death penalty was “wantonly” and “freakishly” imposed and that it ultimately violated the Eighth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment states that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (Monk). The result was a moratorium on executions until three-fourths of the states had enacted a new law. Soon after, in 1976, the Court ruled in Gregg v. Georgia that the death punishment was not “unusual,” and the moratorium ended.

The Fifth Amendment states that 'no persons shall be held to answer for a capital...crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury...nor be deprived of life...without the due process of law.' Clearly, the founding fathers contemplated the punishment of death. This shows that even under the eighth amendment, killing murderers is not “cruel and unusual” (Casey).

Teacher John Calvin once said, “All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder” (Gleason). We must break down the difference between murder and killing. If a person breaks into your home and holds a gun on you and threatens to shoot, but you in an act of self-defense grab the gun and shoot him first, that is justifiable killing. Not murder. Murder must be premeditated. Under our laws, the death penalty is reserved for premeditated murder. The death penalty also is justifiable killing because, like an act of self-defense, it is imposed for the purpose of stopping further killing.

Execution of a convicted murderer is not an act of murder, it is an act of justice, a killing carried out in order that one person may not hurt anyone else again.

Around Christmas 1991, Collen Reed, was kidnapped, raped, tortured and ultimately murdered by Kenneth McDuff. Previously McDuff had been convicted for two other murders in 1966, and would have been executed if not for the ruling of the Supreme Court in 1972 setting aside death penalties. In 1989 he was given parole due to overcrowding in the Texas prison where he was held. After McDuff was released, he murdered Reed and eight other women. Thankfully, Governor George W. Bush approved the execution of McDuff in 1998. If the Supreme Court would not have set aside the death penalty in 1972, Reed may still be alive (Cassell).

John McAdams has said "If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call” (Hall). To be an effective deterrent for further murder, it should be carried out in a timely manner. Another example of this is the story of the Ryen family. Kevin Cooper was convicted for the 1983 murder of Doug and Peggy Ryen, their 10 year old daughter Jessica, and a neighbor, Christopher Hughes, age 11. My mom remembers this case because Christopher was the son of one of the professors at Cal Poly Pomona, where she attended college. The students and community were stunned and grief-stricken by the crimes (Hurley).

Although this crime occurred in 1983, the convicted murderer is still alive today, and living on death row. This is a good example of how the death penalty is legal, but is not being enforced because opponents are challenging it, and have been successful. In this case, Cooper has repeatedly petitioned the courts to throw out his conviction. However, no evidence has exonerated Cooper. Even though Cooper’s conviction has been upheld, now 26 years later, he has still not suffered an acceptable consequence for his crime.

The death penalty is a hard concept to grasp. Do we kill for justice? Is it morally permissible? The answer is that we are not killing innocent victims under the death penalty punishment; we are providing justice for the American people. “Before any person is executed in this country, twelve members of a carefully selected jury have to decide -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- that a defendant is guilty. The possibility of an innocent person being executed is extremely small, and continues to decrease with the improvement of forensic science. It is true that death row prisoners have been released, but it is not always true that they were innocent” (Casey).

Many oppose this punishment in all circumstances. My apologies to those who disagree with the use of the death penalty, but terrorists clearly should not be exempt from the death penalty. Those who attack our nation should be aware that they must suffer the ultimate penalty for doing so.

Let’s look at September 11, 2001. On that morning, men carried out a plan against our great nation. These men were enemies bent on killing citizens of the United States and so filled with hatred for our country that they purposely commandeered planes carrying civilians, and set out to kill those passengers and thousands more on the ground when they crashed them into buildings (or tried to do so).

The passengers in the plane that crashed into the field in Sommerset County, Pennsylvania rebelled against the terrorists hijacking their plane. They did so in self-defense and presumably saved the lives of men and women at the White House or the Capitol Building, which are believed to be the intended target.

The United States, through efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, have now captured several of the leaders of that terrorist group who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks. They will be subjected to a trial in our criminal court system in the near future. When convicted, their punishment should be equal to the price their victims paid. These men murdered our family and friends on 9/11 and it would not be appropriate to give them a same kind of trial that one would give to someone who stole money. This is a disgrace to allow this kind of trial in this great county, it is like spitting on those who died on 9/11 and their families. It is rude and should not be happening.

However death penalty opponents would not even concede that the masterminds of the 9/11 attacks, one of the most horrific crimes ever committed in our country, should be subjected to the death penalty. “Abolitionists claim that the death penalty is a means of revenge. It is not. One way for the victim's family to get revenge would be to go out and murder a member of the murderer's family in order to get him to experience the same type of suffering he put them through. If the purpose of the state in executing murderers was retribution or revenge, then criminals would be executed in the same way that they murdered their victims. The point of the death penalty, however, is not to see how much pain can be unleashed on the murderer but to bring him to justice” (Casey).

So, is it morally acceptable to kill murderers for the point of justice and the safety of others? The definition of morality is “the principles of right and wrong” and as humans we strive to do good deeds, and are punished for our bad deeds. It is all about the “redeeming value” (Casey) in the punishment. Basically, the death penalty allows for the punishment to be the same as the deed, theoretically. Let’s take rape. I believe that it is not morally permissible to rape rapists for punishment. This would not necessarily stop the rapist from raping again. However, when we execute murders we prevent them from committing that crime over and over again. This ultimately protects the citizens for they will not be in danger of becoming victims of murder.

Works Cited
Carmical, Casey. "The Death Penalty: Morally Defensible?" Casey's Critical Thinking. Web. 9 Dec. 2009.
Cassell, Paul G. "We're Not Executing the Innocent." Casey's Critical Thinking. Web. 9 Dec. 2009
Gleason, Ron. The Death Penalty On Trial. Ventura: Nordskog, 2008. Print.
Hall, Charlene. Pro-death penalty.com. Web. 9 Dec. 2009.
Hurley, Lawrence. "Killer Nears End of Legal Options." Daily Journal. 25 Nov. 2009. Web. 9 Dec. 2009.
Monk, Linda R. Words We Live By. New York: Hyperion, 2004. Print.
Used with permission © 2010

Kill the Diagnosis, Not the Patient

noreply@blogger.com (Nordskog Publishing) — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:21:00 +0000

By Bobby Schindler

With all of the current debate in the United States over the federal government sanctioning the healthcare delivery system, people seem to have firmly chosen sides – based on their political leanings and not necessarily the actual content of the bill, HR 3200.

In a nation that espouses a profound reverence for the lives and wellness of its citizenry, it is of no argument that our system of healthcare delivery fails many patients and that insurance companies and health maintenance organizations have long dodged the bullet of responsibility when they’ve rationed care or denied coverage for certain types of treatments and therapies. It is apparently rampant when such treatments and therapies are requirements of living for our more vulnerable citizens. And, now, the government wants in.

Though our current system is in serious need of repair, many fear that a federally-sanctioned system could open the doors for government bureaucrats to make decisions in life and death for patients whose diagnoses are less than promising. This becomes most alarming when certain diagnoses can equal a death sentence for someone who is helpless to save themselves.

On September 20, 2009, Scientific American published a report titled “Conditional Consciousness: Patients in Vegetative States Can Learn, Predicting Recovery.” Citing a study published by Nature Neuroscience, the report states that patients who were previously diagnosed as being in a vegetative state were able to relearn behaviors – suggesting cognition in people who had failed more traditional tests for cognitive function and awareness.

Perhaps the most important piece of Scientific American’s article is the following, attributed to the study’s senior author and the director of the Integrative Neurosciences Laboratory at the University of Buenos Aires, Mariano Sigman:

“[…] current designation of either vegetative or minimally conscious did not determine how well patients learned. Some of those who were minimally conscious didn't learn as well as some who were classified as vegetative and vice versa. ‘I think there's some consensus that there is a [need for] revision in the way these patients are classified,’ Sigman says.”

Since the high-profile cases of Karen Ann Quinlan, Nancy Cruzan and my own sister, Terri Schiavo, the public has been encouraged to accept the definition of persistent vegetative state (PVS) as an accurate and reliable one. However, evidence is growing that the diagnosis fails in many cases.

PVS is an often-used term describe a patient who has lost all awareness of surroundings and self, displays no purposeful behaviors or intentional movements and has no capacity in higher brain functions such as decision making or problem solving.

Because the diagnosis itself has been used as justification for the removal of ordinary care from incapacitated patients (thereby causing death of dehydration and starvation in otherwise healthy patients), it merits absolute scrutiny by the public and the medical community.

Instead, we’ve been conditioned to believe the accuracy of this diagnosis, out of hand, and have been told that removing the basic provision of medically-assisted food and fluids (causing the patient’s death) is kinder that continuing to care for and love the disabled person.

A study published in BioMed Central Neurology indicates that doctors haven’t the tools to diagnose the condition with certainty. A new tool, the JFK Coma Recovery Scale, is a barrage of more than 20 clinical tests that is designed to give doctors better insight into the cognitive abilities of their patients. Yet, over 40% of patients diagnosed PVS are not, according to the Royal Hospital for Neurodisability in London.

Most patients, however, do not receive the full battery of this type of testing and are, instead, subjected to a bedside diagnosis – with the opinion of the doctor bearing the ultimate weight.

Why, then, is a diagnosis so subjective and precarious used as the catalyst for denying human beings the basic provisions of food and fluids until they die? Prejudice may be a determining factor.

Indeed, the term itself (persistent vegetative state) is utterly dehumanizing and seems to suggest that Homo Sapiens magically change into plant life the moment their lives are touched by neurological insult or cognitive disability. Wouldn’t a better, more accurate term simply be cognitively disabled?

Yet, the term PVS has been part of the language for nearly 40 years and is accepted by laypersons as being an apt description. It is, in every sense and on every level, intellectually dishonest to label a human being as a vegetable. It’s also dangerous.

CNN’s crime bureau recently reported that people with disabilities are 50% more likely to be the victims of violent crime than able-bodied individuals. People with disabilities (be their challenges physical or neurological) appear to be easier targets for discrimination, injustice and a wide range of indignities.

Our culture has grown to accept such things and we are quick to look the other way when the offense is against someone who is unable to fend for themselves. I cannot explain the dynamic except to say that we may find it difficult to envision ourselves in similar predicaments.

To be clear: there is no indignity more final and brutal than forcing a living person to die the death of dehydration and starvation.

Try to imagine the torture my sister endured in the last two weeks of her life. Being unable to defend herself, very likely aware of precisely what was happening and having absolutely no ability to escape it.

For nearly two weeks, Terri was denied food and fluids. Not so much as an ice chip was given to her. It was pitiful, it was barbaric and it was clear that she was made to suffer. When my sister expired, she was a shell of her former self.

It is because of the suffering my sister and others endured that I believe the PVS diagnosis must be either reevaluated or completely abolished. With so many medical and neurological professionals admitting that there are inaccuracies and with the diagnosis being a death sentence, it is time to rethink disability and the way we regard it and our fellow human beings.

Over 40 medical professionals submitted affidavits to the circuit court, stating that the evidence they reviewed strongly suggested that Terri may have been misdiagnosed. It was not enough to sway Judge Greer that my sister was a person worthy of living.

No innocent person should ever be denied the basic necessities of living. Irrespective of your station in life, your physical abilities, your cognitive abilities or your personal situation, I believe you have a right to live your life and a reasonable expectation to be treated like a human being.

After witnessing my sister’s suffering, I know in my heart that we’ve taken the wrong path and that we’ve done so based on oftentimes flawed intelligence. Your opinion may be very different, but certainly the report that patients previously diagnosed as PVS are actually capable of learning should give you pause.

Likewise, it should be a call to table court-ordered removal of ordinary care from cognitively disabled patients.

In the United States alone, more than 50,000 people live with profound neurological or cognitive disabilities. They live, quite literally, at the pleasure and by the mercy of others. There is the very real possibility that a large number of those individuals have been misdiagnosed yet, they are living in the crosshairs.

Wouldn’t reasonableness and a simple sense of humanity dictate that we stop forcing people to die miserable deaths, based on a diagnosis with such a tremendous margin of error?

It becomes a matter of what we really understand about the human brain, its resilience and the proper societal response to people with needs. We can choose to ignore the human condition, ignore the science and sentence innocent people to death. Likewise, we can choose to view medicine as an art – oftentimes brilliant and sometimes inconclusive.

No diagnosis should ever be used as a catalyst for forcing death on an innocent person. We can do better than that. We need to.

Bobby Schindler is brother of Terri Schindler Schiavo, and now works for Terri’s Foundation in St. Petersburg, Fla., an organization dedicated to ensuring the rights of disabled, elderly and vulnerable citizens against care ration, euthanasia and medical killing. www.terrisfight.org

Used by permission © 2010

Leaving the Tab for the Kids

noreply@blogger.com (Nordskog Publishing) — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:13:00 +0000

By Terry Paulson

It took nearly 150 years for Congress to pass a resolution apologizing for slavery. We should apologize now to future generations for what we’ve done and are doing to America. Though our generation’s motivation was compassionate, we’re leaving America worse.

They called the World War II generation "The Greatest Generation." They survived the Great Depression by becoming resourceful and forging strong bonds of family and community. Thousands died fighting tyranny and securing liberty for others. Workers had no 401Ks and no paid health insurance. Citizens took pride in personal achievement, treasured their faith, families and freedom. They were good parents, balancing a healthy dose of discipline with loving support. They didn’t brag about what they did; they just got busy taking responsibility for their own lives. They wanted a government that would leave them alone, not take care of their every need.
Their offspring wanted their children to want for nothing. Supported by Dr. Spock, many parents stopped the lectures and disciplined less, shielded their children from failures and poured on affirmations to boost their "fragile" self-esteem. They allowed religion to be taken out of schools. By failing to teach strong values, too many parents left their children’s values development to television and Hollywood. They wanted only peace, not war. But it didn’t stop there.

We continue to vote for indulgent politicians. Prior to World War II, the cost of government never exceeded a few hundred per American citizen in today’s dollars. Now, government costs over $13,000 per citizen. Instead of promoting personal responsibility, freedom and free-enterprise opportunity, our "nanny-state" fosters dependence, promotes victim thinking and entitlement programs, and micro-manages every facet of our lives. Politicians, Democrats and some Republicans alike, have given us what we demanded—more spending to meet our every need!

Unfortunately, since we keep adding more entitlements and refuse to pay as we go, we leave no inheritance of opportunity, just a horrendous, out-of-control debt. Our current deficit is over $12 trillion, but that’s just what politicians will admit. Former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker estimates the total "unfunded liabilities" at $56.4 trillion. That’s the bill to pay off the publicly held portion of the national debt and all the benefits already promised through Social Security, Medicare and other welfare programs minus what will be collected for these programs under existing tax laws.

Because there is no reserve fund for these liabilities, any shortfall is taken out of general tax receipts unless politically difficult changes are made. In 1946, 42 workers were available to support the cost of each Social Security recipient. Without changes, by 2030, there will be only two workers to support each retiree.

Unfortunately, instead of facing these growing costs, our Washington politicians are busy creating greater dependence and more debt. Whether it’s cash-for-clunkers, bailouts of companies "too big to fail," or funds to keep states afloat, they’re printing money faster than they can find investors willing to purchase Treasury notes.
The cost for the proposed healthcare plan appears manageable, because the plan requires Americans to pay taxes for ten years and get coverage for only six! But using the CBO assumptions on growth of the cost of the healthcare program beyond the initial decade, the annual cost for the healthcare plan after the second decade will be more than the entire federal budget the year President Obama was elected.

It’s no wonder that on his recent trip to China, President Obama warned, "It is important though to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession." Whether it’s another recession or an anemic recovery, America is not returning to economic health any time soon unless we change course. We need smaller government, not more entitlements. We need to return to the policies and incentives that have helped America bounce back and create jobs in past recessions.

Instead of making an apology, we can still change the future, but politicians won’t cut costs or eliminate expensive entitlement programs unless more citizens demand it. Now is the time for all generations to tell our Senators and Representatives to stop this madness. Stay informed by visiting www.townhall.com and exercise your citizenship by making a difference on healthcare using the resources and links at the National Center for Policy Analysis (www.ncpa.org).

Like Boy Scouts who work to leave the wilderness better than they found it, every generation should leave America better for having lived. Leaving future generations the bill for our excesses doesn’t leave a legacy we can be proud of!

Published Townhall.Com, December 7, 2009. Used with permission.
Terry Paulson, PhD is a professional speaker, an author of soon to be released The Optimism Advantage, and a columnist for the Ventura County Star and Townhall.com. Contact him at terry@terrypaulson.com. Website: http://www.terrypaulson.com.

Why Politics is Necessary

noreply@blogger.com (Nordskog Publishing) — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:40:00 +0000

by Gary DeMar

America is a mess, and we can include the world as well, because Christians, who say they have undergone a redemptive change, are keeping their personal transformation under wraps. There is fear by some Christian leaders that if Christians get involved in politics, the gospel message will be diluted. There are Christians who don’t get involved in politics and have moral lapses. Jimmy Swaggart comes to mind. It doesn’t seem to register with these same critics that our non-involvement does not enhance the spread of the gospel. It is not inevitable that Christians, once successful in the political realm, will get “blinded by might.”

Christians are still sinners and there are always pitfalls and dangers in any endeavor, even those distant from so-called worldly pursuits. The church is not a haven from corruption. Have you noticed how often Paul deals with problems within the church (e.g., 1 Cor. 5:1–2; 6:1–11)? Paul knows the temptation that some have in lording “it over the faith” (2 Cor. 1:24). Corrupt leaders (1 Sam. 2:12–25) and “savage wolves” (Acts 20:29) are not exclusive to politics. The Church is no more immune to “power politics” than the State. Have you ever been in a congregational meeting to vote on what color the drapes in the library are going to be?

No one I know is claiming that government can save anyone or that politics is a substitute for the cross of Christ.¹ The assumption of so many opposed to almost any kind of social activism by Christians is the belief that social activism must always be preceded by gospel proclamation. Must we wait until pro-abortionists become Christians before we can pass laws outlawing abortion? I just heard recently from one critic who said that all we need to do is love people. I’m all for that. But while I’m loving my enemy, I still have my guard up. Jesus was the epitome of love. He healed people, fed thousands, and forgave sins. Still, He was crucified.

Ultimately, Christians who are faithful to the demands of the gospel, without the need of coercion or special laws, will make society better for everyone. As Michael Novak, holder of the Jewett Chair in Religion and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute, observes, “When there are 250 million consciences on guard, it is surprising how few police are needed on the streets.”² But right now we do not have 250 million consciences on guard, and until we do, certain precautions need to be taken because of the sinful nature of man. Our founding fathers understood this. John Adams wrote:

The moral government of God, and his viceregent, Conscience, ought to be sufficient to restrain men to obedience, to justice, and benevolence at all times and in all places; we must therefore descend from the dignity of our nature when we think of civil government at all. But the nature of mankind is one thing, and the reason of mankind another; and the first has the same relation to the last as the whole to a part. The passions and appetites are parts of human nature as well as reason and the moral sense. In the institution of government it must be remembered that, although reason ought always to govern individuals, it certainly never did since the Fall, and never will till the Millennium; and human nature must be taken as it is, as it has been, and will be.³

At this point in time, Christians are out of necessity playing defense, and this means politics is a necessary endeavor. We are like Peter of Haarlem, the lockkeeper’s son who stuck his finger in a dike when he saw that his town was threatened by flood waters. Peter could have gone about preaching the gospel, but at the moment, the town needed to be saved from an impending disaster. We are in a similar situation. We are about to be overwhelmed by a flood of governmental oppression.

The Christian faith and Christians are under attack. The day may come, because of our self-imposed silence, that we will be forced to be silent as a matter of law. Then what will we do?
Footnotes:

Edwin W. Lutzer, Why the Cross Can Do What Politics Can't (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1999).
Michael Novak, "The Causes of Virtue" (a speech given in Washington, D.C., January 31, 1994). Quoted in Charles Colson, Justice that Restores: Why Our Justice System Doesn't Work and the Only Method of True Reform (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale Publishers, 2001), 105.
John Adams. Cited by Michael Novak, On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding (San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books, 2002), 49.

Originally published on visiontoamerica.org.

Foreword to Apostle of Liberty: The World-Changing Leadership of George Washington

noreply@blogger.com (Nordskog Publishing) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:40:00 +0000

by David J. Vaughan
During a recent trip to Mount Vernon, my wife and I visited the nearby gift shop. As I browsed through the many books on Washington and colonial life, I was struck by the lack of attention given to Washington's religious faith. Only a few books seemed to suggest that religion was an important part of Washington’s life. Most suggested that he was either a deist or a lukewarm Anglican whose religion was primarily for public consumption.

For instance, historian Gordon Wood stated: “It is true that many of the distinguished political leaders of the Revolution were not very emotionally religious. At best, they only passively believed in organized Christianity and at worst they scorned or ridiculed it. Most were deists or lukewarm churchgoers and scornful of religious emotion and enthusiasm. Washington, for example, was a frequent churchgoer, but he scarcely referred to God as anything but ‘the Great Disposer of events’ and in all his voluminous papers he never mentioned Jesus Christ." Such is the accepted wisdom' of the academy.

What is shocking about this statement however is that everything asserted here is either false or only partly true. First Washington and the other Founders were predominantly religious men. Of the fifty-two delegates to the Constitutional Convention, twenty-eight were Episcopalians, eight were Presbyterians, and there were two each of Congregationalists, Lutherans, Dutch Reformed, Methodists, and Roman Catholics. Oh yes, there were three deists—at best. Washington, of course, was an Episcopalian his entire Life, regularly attended church, served as a vestryman (church trustee) and regularly donated generous sums to support a number of churches. While in the military, he often conducted worship services when a chaplain was not available. This is hardly a “passive” belief in organized Christianity.

Not only did Washington never scorn or ridicule Christianity, but while serving in the military he would not permit any under his command to show the least disrespect for God or Christianity. As he said in a September 14, 1775 letter to Col. Benedict Arnold: “I also give it in Charge to you to avoid all Disrespect to or Contempt of The Religion of the Country [Canada] and its Ceremonies. Prudence, Policy and a true Christian Spirit, will lead us to look with compassion upon their Errors [in doctrine] without insulting them. While we are contending for our own Liberty we should be very cautious of violating the Rights of Conscience in others, ever considering that God alone is the Judge of the Hearts of Men and to him only in this Case, they are answerable.”

While Washington observed his religious duties, he encouraged his troops do likewise. Consider his general order for May 15 1776: “The general commands all officers, and soldiers, to pay strict obedience to the Orders of the Continental Congress and by their unfeigned, and pious observance of their religious duties, incline the Lord, and Giver of Victory, to prosper our arms."

Notice Washington's use of “Lord” and “Giver of Victory.” Throughout his writings and speeches, Washington used a variety of names for God (not simply Wood’s claim of “Great Disposer of Events”) including “Almighty,” “Almighty God,” “Father of All Mercies,” “Creator,” “Gracious God,” “Jehovah,” “Lord” (Sic.) and “Wonder-working Deity.” And, oh, yes, he called God “Jesus Christ.” In a May 22, 1779, speech to the Delaware chiefs Washington said: “You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life and above all the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.”

As for Washington's lack of religious emotion (that is the claim that he was “lukewarm”), one does not have to be a fanatic to be sincere. In fact, not only was his denomination High Church, but Washington was also temperamentally reserved. In addition, he was a polished gentleman who believed excessive displays of emotion (about anything not just religion) were an inappropriate breach of decorum. Washington actually tried to live by the rules of civility that he penned as a young man. Religious emotion (a better word is conviction) need not be extreme to be deep and sincere. As Chief Justice John Marshall who knew Washington, said: “Without making ostentatious professions of religion, he was a sincere believer in the Christian faith and a truly devout man.”

That a secular historian, who has no personal experience of religious faith should presume to judge the depth of a man’s religious devotion is a very telling example of humanistic hubris. Yet it only goes to show that in history, as in love, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, we often see that which is most agreeable to our own inclinations. So I suppose given the secular bent of the modern (or should I say postmodern) intellectual class we should not be surprised that Washington’s religious faith is often downplayed or ignored.

Thankfully, however we have Stephen McDowell’s work in hand to set Washington’s religious faith in the context of his multifaceted life. You will discover that from his earlier days as a surveyor, to his military career, to his attainment of the highest office in the land Washington was guided by a profoundly religious view of life. He not only attended church, but Washington faithfully performed private devotions where he meditated on the Scriptures and prayed while on his knees (not very lukewarm to me). He sought God’s guidance and protection, and from all the accounts of his military battles, he received it. He sought God’s glory, and from his example as a gentleman, a statesman, and a Christian, he rendered it.

Contrary to the false picture of Washington that now prevails in the academy, through reading McDowell, you will come to know and honor the Washington that our forefathers knew and loved. And knowing him, you will have before you one of the finest examples of leadership the world has ever known—an example worthy of both your admiration and emulation. As Abigail Adams said of him: “No man ever lived more deservedly beloved and respected...If we look through the whole tenor of his Life, History will not produce to us a Parallel.”

Copyright © 2007. Used by permission.

Proclamation for GEORGIA MARRIAGE WEEK

noreply@blogger.com (Nordskog Publishing) — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 06:03:00 +0000

February 7-February 14, 2010

WHEREAS:	God ordained the sanctity of marriage as a holy and sacred union between two people who promise to love, honor and respect each other and to give themselves faithfully to each other for as long as they both shall live; and
WHEREAS:	Marriage is one of the most vital institutions in our society and can be the bedrock for stable and loving families, so essential to American life. Based on mutual commitment, marriage partners strive daily to strengthen and maintain their unity; and
WHEREAS:	The relationship between a husband and a wife is like no other, creating a united entity out of what was once two separate lives, with dedication to each other fostering a bond strong enough to survive even the most critical moments; and
WHEREAS:	Marriage promotes the core values of work, responsibility, commitment, sobriety and relationships based upon mutual respect that Americans hold dear. The stability such a bond provides benefits spouses, as well as children, by leading them to live longer, healthier, and more satisfying lives; now
THEREFORE:	I, SONNY PERDUE, Governor of the state of Georgia, do hereby proclaim February 7-14, 2010 as MARRIAGE WEEK with February 14, 2010, as WORLD MARRIAGE DAY in Georgia. In witness thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the Executive Department to be affixed this 20th of January in the year of our Lord two thousand ten.

New Initiative for National Marriage Week USA

noreply@blogger.com (Nordskog Publishing) — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:25:00 +0000

Announcing a New Initiative for National Marriage Week USA—February 7 to 14, 2010 To encourage marriage, reduce divorce rates, curtail poverty, and benefit children.

NEW YORK, NY. National Marriage Week USA (www.nationalmarriageweekUSA.org) announces a new initiative for the week leading up to Valentine’s Day 2010, and is putting forth a call to mobilize hundreds of diverse organizations to plan and prepare for awareness and activities for February 7 to 14, 2010. The goal is to elevate national attention on the need to strengthen marriage and ways to do it, and initiate new efforts to reduce the divorce rate and build a stronger marriage culture which in turn helps curtail poverty and benefits children.

National Marriage Week has long been an organized celebration in the UK, Germany, Ireland, Australia, the Czech Republic, and elsewhere internationally (www.marriage-weekinternational.com) with large rallies, resolutions and celebrations in Parliaments, concerted efforts for marriage education, and more. Marriage Week was brought to the U.S. by Smart Marriages in 2002. For 2010 a new initiative is being launched by National Marriage Week USA (NMWUSA) in an effort to focus solely on February 7 to 14 with an interactive website and coordination of national efforts at www.NationalMarriageWeekUSA.org
Chuck Stetson, chairman of National Marriage Week USA says “The alarming drop in marriage rates in America combined with high divorce rates are costly to the nation—financially costly to taxpayers and individuals, and emotionally costly to children. The nation needs to pay attention.”

“Marriage works,” says NMWUSA executive director Sheila Weber. “Research shows that marriage makes people happier, live longer, and build more economic security. Children with married parents perform better in school. There are proven ways to repair and restore marriages—but most folks don’t know where to go to get the help they need.”

Alarming new facts are in. A new Marriage Index, released jointly by the National Center on African American Marriages and Parenting (NCAAMP) and the Institute for American Values in October 2009, reveals a huge decline in national marriage indicators. One indicator shows 78 percent of adults were married in 1970, while only 57 percent of adults were married in 2008. Another indicator shows 40 percent of all children in America are now born out of wedlock in 2008; and 72 percent of African American children are now born without married parents.

“I am excited about the efforts of National Marriage Week USA to pull together business, government, and religious organizations to draw attention to solutions to the current problems created by divorce,” said marriage expert Gary Chapman, best-selling author of “Five Love Languages.” “If we can help couples learn how to create loving, supportive marriages, it will not only bring marital satisfaction, but will enrich the lives of children, and create a more productive society. Every couple can contribute to the solution. It begins by reading books, attending classes, and having productive communication with your own spouse. National Marriage Week USA offers multiple resources to help you,” said Chapman.

The “Let’s Strengthen Marriage” Campaign in early 2010 held a global webinar for pastors and leaders (www.marriagewebinar.org) which is archived for continued viewing. Participants are growing daily. Posting of Events all around the country is now growing at http://www.nationalmarriageweekusa.org/events/ and you can “Read What Others Are Doing” at http://www.nationalmarriageweekusa.org/testimony/.
Ways to get involved with National Marriage Week USA include:

Churches are encouraged to launch new marriage classes, sermon series, or host a major weekend marriage conference,
Clergy can form Community Marriage Policies with all the clergy in their town (cities with CMPs have lowered divorce rates),
Mayoral or Statewide Proclamations are available for National Marriage Week USA,
Businesses can create and distribute pocket-sized pamphlets on topics such as “What is a Healthy Marriage?”
Screenings of special marriage education DVDs or marriage related movies,
Use of the National Marriage Week USA logo for local ads and activities,
Schools can sponsor assemblies on healthy relationship skills.
Most importantly, folks are encouraged to work on their own marriage—with lots of ideas and resources for where to go for help at www.nationalmarriageweekUSA.org.

Used by Permission

Proposed Early Draft of Affirmations & Denials for: God’s Law for All Societies; Document #23

noreply@blogger.com (Nordskog Publishing) — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:19:00 +0000

by the Theological Committee of the International Church Council Project

WE AFFIRM that the Moral Law of God is a reflection of God’s holy, righteous and good nature and that these laws were written upon the hearts of mankind from the Garden and therefore apply to all of Adam’s descendants. These laws were later codified in the Ten Commandments and the case laws which are applications and extensions of the Ten Commandments.

WE DENY that the Moral Law was not in effect prior to the giving of the Ten Commandments through Moses. We further deny that the Ten Commandments apply to only a portion of the human race.
WE AFFIRM that God gave His Laws for all mankind in the Bible by means of inerrant, verbal inspiration and that those written Laws are absolute and universal and therefore are to be obeyed by all mankind. They apply to Christians, to unbelievers and to all social orders in all places at all times. Man is required always and everywhere to reverence God and obey His Law Word.

WE DENY that God intends His Laws in the Bible to apply only to Jews or Christians or to those who chose to obey those biblical laws. We further deny that there is any “neutral ground” in this universe where mankind may stand without being always and absolutely accountable to his Creator and under obligation to humble himself before God in the obedience of faith and worship.
WE AFFIRM that God’s Law applies to Christians, not as a basis for justification, but as the standard within which the justified-by-faith Christian lives when he lives in love, for “love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom. 13:10). We further affirm that the Law of God applies to the unbeliever as the continuing and eternal standard for all morality and justice because God’s Law reflects God’s own, unchanging moral character, and all of Adam’s descendents have that Law of God written upon their hearts (Rom. 2:14).

WE DENY that God’s Law is not God’s required standard for the societies of all cultures of every nation because that Law is the moral requirement for every individual everywhere at all times and there cannot be a different moral requirement for the social order in which all those individuals live.
WE AFFIRM that the points of morality, justice and social order, which any society institutes into its civil codes of law, flow directly out of the religion and worldview of the leaders who are in power, and out of their designated influencers of that society.

WE DENY that civil laws do or can flow out of neutral, objective, non-religious sources or are uninfluenced by the worldview of the leaders of said society.
WE AFFIRM that the basic foundations of God’s Law in the Bible are set forth in His Ten Commandments (Exodus 20), and those Ten Commandments are explained, expanded and applied in what is called the biblical “case laws” and in passages such as Chapters 21, 22 and 23 in Exodus.¹ We further affirm that Western Civilization with its attending social, financial, scientific, and juridical benefits owes its formation and development to the Christian’s Bible and to Christian society’s commitment over the centuries to basing their societies laws upon the Ten Commandments which was the case in the development of the English “Common Law.”

WE DENY that an individual or society can remain strong, just, prosperous, creative or rational when that society ignores or hates the God of the Bible or disobeys His biblical commandments. History testifies profusely to the truth of this statement.
WE AFFIRM that there is a distinctive and identifiable Christian worldview. This Christian worldview includes a distinctive and identifiable Christian view of law, and that at the heart of these Christian views stands the Almighty Sovereign God of the Universe, who reveals Himself most clearly and completely in the Bible.

WE DENY that there is no distinctive, identifiable Christian worldview or view of law, and that any views are authentically Christian if they center on anything other than the Almighty Sovereign God of the Universe revealed in the Bible.²
WE AFFIRM that a society inevitably must choose between conflicting legal foundations and views of law and should choose Christian views and a Christian foundation because the Christian system is vastly superior to all alternatives: it is empirically defensible, internally logical, [and] comprehensive in scope.

WE DENY that a society may avoid choosing between conflicting legal foundations and views of law, and that any non-Christian system is superior or equal to the Christian system.³
WE AFFIRM that it is the vital and unavoidable responsibility of the true Christian community in every society to seek, in every Biblically consistent way, to hold its society’s views of law true to Biblical principles, and that when societies choose non-Christian views of law they can expect little long-term blessing from God and many severely adverse consequences.

WE DENY that the Christian community properly fulfills its calling to make disciples of every nation and to be salt and light to the world when it fails to do all in its power to hold society’s views of law true to Biblical principles.⁴
WE AFFIRM that the rejection or reduction of God’s Laws in the Bible is probably the most debilitating defect in the Body of Christ today and is the primary issue that has tragically reduced a majority of the Church to her present condition of being materialistic, self-serving, theologically confused, irrelevant, culturally impotent and antinomian.

WE DENY that any individual Christian, mission organization or church is pleasing to God or is biblically fulfilling Christ’s Great Commission if they are not insisting in their gospel presentation that God requires Christians to live in obedience to the commands in the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments (including but not limited to the Ten Commandments), and insisting that one’s true love for Christ, His Church and the advancement of His Kingdom on earth is measured by that Christian’s daily walk of obedience to the Bible more than mere “Christian talk” or the attainment of great theological learning.
WE AFFIRM that antinomianism (the disregard or dismissal of God’s Law as being applicable to people today) is a modern day curse and sickness within many professed, Bible-believing churches. Antinomianism must be corrected before such churches can accomplish their God-appointed destinies in fulfilling the Great Commission, and thus bringing forth God’s Kingdom on earth in all areas of society to whatever degree this may be accomplish before Christ’s return.

WE DENY that the following antinomian statements are biblical or are beneficial to the Church or to any society but rather that these false beliefs are demonic, destructive and damnable:
1. Old Testament laws and principles do not carry over into the New Testament period.
2. Some of the Old Testament moral laws and principles stand in opposition to the moral laws and principles of the New Testament or participate in some kind of “inferior” type of spirituality and morality.
3. The 'Law of Christ' is substantially different than the Old Testament moral law.
4. It is not God’s intention that either the Old Testament’s or the New Testament’s moral laws and principles should be institutionalized into civil law for any and all societies on earth today.
5. My personal understanding and sense of right and wrong (enlightened by my understanding of how the Holy Spirit is guiding my life) is a superior guide regarding morality and law (what is right and wrong) than any written text in the Bible.
WE AFFIRM that all commands in the Old Testament are to be “Maintained unless Modified” by the New Testament (such as the sacrificial and dietary laws which have been so changed).
WE DENY that laws in the Old Testament are “Rescinded unless Repeated” in the New Testament.
WE AFFIRM that the sovereign God providentially directs the course of human history, including civil law, which is a vital part of that history and requires that civil law conform to His standards; that with the consummation of history, including legal history, will come the final, eternal triumph of God’s Law, when eternal, universal, and perfect justice will prevail; and that this assurance gives Christians today ultimate hope even in the midst of the rampant violations of God’s Law in today’s world and imparts real meaning and eternal significance to man’s response to God’s Law in this present life.

WE DENY that history, including legal history, is a merely purposeless sequence of events; that the pattern and purposes of history deviate from what the Sovereign God has ordained; that there will be no final, eternal triumph of God’s Law; and that eternal, universal, and perfect justice will never prevail.⁵

Copyright © 2010. Used with permission of the International Church Council Project.
1. An example of the Ten Commandments being further defined is Deut. 19:4-13 wherein the case law there defines “You shall not murder” as being neither an accidental killing nor capital punishment.
2. Christian Worldview of Law, Coalition on Revival, 1989. Article 2 Affirmation & Denial word for word.
3. Christian Worldview of Law, Coalition on Revival, 1989. Article 3 Affirmation & Denial word for word.
4. Christian Worldview of Law, Coalition on Revival, 1989. Article 5 Affirmation & Denial word for word.
5. Christian Worldview of Law, Coalition on Revival, 1989. Article 6 Affirmation & Denial word for word.

GOD’S LAW FOR ALL SOCIETIES: “This is love, that we walk according to His commandments.”*

noreply@blogger.com (Nordskog Publishing) — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:38:00 +0000

by Eugene Clingman

“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan” (Proverbs 29:2*). And, “When the righteous rejoice, there is great glory; But when the wicked arise, men hide themselves” (Proverbs 28:12). It is clear from these two verses that God speaks to societal issues. Two things are evident in our society today – The righteous are not in authority, and wicked men have arisen. What is the answer? The answer is for the Church to return to God’s Law and to lead the nation to return to God’s Law. I am not talking about becoming justified or made righteous through the Law; it cannot be done; righteousness is obtained through faith in Christ and His atoning work. What I am talking about is the fact that the Law, written upon the heart of New Covenant people (Christians according to Jeremiah 31:31) is the standard of righteousness God requires for individual and nation. The Christian standard of the Law is love, and love is the fulfillment of the Law (Romans 13:10), but love is never less than the requirements of the Law. In other words we cannot say, “I am walking in love, therefore the Law does not apply to me.” But we may say, “I am walking in love which causes me to fulfill the Law and more besides. And if I fail to fulfill the righteous requirements of the Law, it is evidence that I am not walking in love – I have failed to attain in my actions, speech or thoughts that standard God has written upon my New Covenant heart. Clearly, the standard of the Law is never discarded or abrogated, and even when one is walking in love it is fulfilled, never set aside.

The Law cannot be discarded because it is a reflection of the righteous character of God. And God’s righteous character does not fluctuate and is never altered. Because His Law is a reflection of His righteous character, His Law is the standard required of all human beings. The Church has often failed to comprehend these things. The Law is often set aside in Evangelical circles and considered of no account for the Christian, and because it is of no account for the Christian, it is also, in their minds, of no account for the general culture. This is wrong thinking!

Because the Law of God was written upon the heart of man from the beginning of creation (Romans 2:14-15), upon Adam and his descendents, it pertains to every human being, and because to every human being individually, to every collection of human beings, and because to every collection of human beings, to every nation. There is one standard and only one.

In the Great Commission Christ told His Church to make disciples of all the nations – “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” Jesus gave a New Commandment – Love one another. We know that “Love is the fulfillment of the Law” (Romans 13:10). As we live life and as we disciple the nations let us remember the primary directive given us – teaching them to obey all things I have commanded you. Let us remember that this includes Love one another which in turn includes obedience to the Law of God, for love is not the setting aside of the Law, but the fulfillment of it. Every individual, every human institution, and every nation must be taught to love, which means also that they must be taught to obey the law of God, for if they do not obey the Law of God, it is irrefutable evidence that they do not yet love and are not yet Christ's disciples.

2 John 1:6 – “This is love, that we walk according to His commandments.”
Eugene Clingman is Executive Director of the International Church Council Project, an outreach ministry of the Coalition on Revival. Eugene is a frequent contributor to the Publisher’s Corner, and contributes to Nordskog Publishing in our marketing department.

* All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2010. Used with permission.

Fort Hood & Separation of Mosque and State

noreply@blogger.com (Nordskog Publishing) — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:22:00 +0000

by William J. Federer

Everyone has heard of "Separation of Church & State," but what about "Separation of Mosque & State"?

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan yelled "Allahu Akhbar," Arabic for "Allah is great," before killing 13 and wounding 31 at Fort Hood, Texas.

He had praised Muslim suicide bombers on the Internet; refused, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; listed his nationality as "Palestinian"; dressed as a fundamentalist Muslim when not in uniform and attended the same Mosque as the 911 terrorists.

Some question if Hasan's killing of U.S. soldiers was motivated by his belief in Islam.

But before we condemn as "hateful" those who dare ask such a question, it should be determined what is meant by the term "Islam."

Is Islam:

a religious system,
a political system, or
a military system?

The answer is all three, as Mohammed was:

a religious leader,
a political leader, and
a military leader.

One may ask, what relevance does Mohammed's life 1400 years ago have to us today?
Well, since Mohammad was the best Muslim, those striving to be better Muslims are trying to imitate him, just as Christians try to imitate Jesus, as in 'WWJD: What Would Jesus Do'.
Mohammed's life is called "the Sunna," which means "the way," or "the example."
By examining Mohammed's life, one gains insight into the motivations of his followers.

Mohammed was a religious leader in Mecca for 12 years, beginning in 610AD, making around 100 converts. When he became confrontational and threatening, the Meccans chased him out in 622AD.
Claiming to be a victim of harassment, Mohammed fled 200 miles north to the predominantly Jewish city of Medina. The Jews rejected Mohammed, so he went into the minority pagan neighborhoods where he made converts, gained a political following, and in a sense, acted as a community organizer.

With his new following, he went back to the Jews as a candidate of change, promising to be objective and fair as he was a newcomer to the city's heated partisan politics.

The Jews made a treaty and Mohammed became a political leader in Medina.
When Mohammed's followers back in Mecca began to threaten the city's political stability, they were chased out and their houses were confiscated. Fleeing as victims to Medina, Mohammed permitted them to rob the caravans headed to Mecca in retaliation for their harassment.

The Meccans then sent 1000 soldiers to protect their caravans, and Mohammed, with just 300, defeated them at the Battle of Badr in 624AD. This amazing victory, being outnumbered 3 to 1, convinced Mohammed he was to be a military leader. He won 66 battles and raids in the next 8 years before he died.

Mohammed even sent his warrior, Abdullah, in 625AD, to lie in order to infiltrate the military base of his enemy, chief Sofyan ibn Khalid. Abdullah convinced Sofyan of his loyalty, so Sofyan let down his guard. When the moment was right, Abdullah committed a terrorist attack, beheading Sofyan.

Since Mohammed was the best Muslim, those wanting to be better Muslims gravitate to following his example, religiously, politically...and militarily.

Most Americans do not care what religion someone has, or in which direction someone prays, or if someone believes in a paradise with 72 virgins.

But what Americans do care about is if their political freedom of speech is taken away; if their wives and daughters are threatened if not veiled; if nations, such as Israel, face extinction; or if terrorists attack their military bases.

It is political/military Islam that concerns Americans, not the religion of Islam.

When a political/military Muslim bows toward Mecca, he is effectively pledging allegiance to something other than the United States.

For the sake of discussion, let us not be concerned with religious Islam, and, for the moment, just examine political/military Islam.

Political/military Islam has two features:

A global conquest aspect, and
Wherever it takes over, non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims.

THE QUESTION IS:

What other political/military systems has America had to face in the last 60 years that had:

A global conquest aspect, and
Wherever they took over, non-adherents were not equal to adherents?

Beginning in the 1930's, Americans had to say: "We love Germans, but we have to identify and resist the political/military system of Nazism."

Why? Because it had a global conquest aspect and wherever it took over, non-Nazis, like Jews, were not equal.

During World War II, Americans had to say - "We love Japanese, but we have to identify and resist the political/military system of Hirohito's Imperialism," and "We love Italians, but we have to identify and resist the political/military system of Mussolini's Fascism."

During the Cold War, Americans had to say: "We love Russians, but we have to identify and resist the political/military system of Stalin and Khrushchev's Soviet Communism."

Americans had to say: "We love North Koreans, Vietnamese, Cambodians and Chinese, but we have to identify and resist the Communist political/military systems of Kim Il-sung, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong.

Why? Because Communism has a global conquest aspect and wherever it takes over, non-Communists are not equal.

Today, Americans love Arabs, Indonesians, Turks and Egyptians, but Americans have to identify and resist the political/military system of Islam.

Why?

It has a global conquest aspect, and
Wherever Islam takes over, non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims.

Political/military Islam, though, has been harder to identify and resist, as it can advance under the cloak of religion.

Could it be that some Muslims with a political/military agenda are taking advantage of the freedom extended to Muslims who are simply practicing the religion of Islam?

In order to prevent more tragic episodes as the killings at Fort Hood, maybe a little more attention should be given to the separation of Mosque and State.

© 2009, used with permission.

That "Miracle Message"

noreply@blogger.com (Nordskog Publishing) — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:05:00 +0000

by Annette Adams

Yes, it's time for that "Miracle Message" again:
"God really came down to this earth!"
'Didn't come like a king, rather did everything
To humble Himself in His birth.

God's love con-descended, estrangement was ended,
We all could become reconciled.
Though we were sin-blighted, His death re-united
Us to this great God-in-Christ-Child.

From manger to man covered such a short span,
But His presence we never shall lack.
For His promise: "I won't ever leave you"
Remains till the time He comes back.

His Spirit left with us, will lovingly give us
His peace when those troubles surround us.
His Word will renew us and keep Him close to us,
So "life will abound"—not confound us.

Yes, it's time for that "Miracle Message" again;
Those sweet Christmas bells can still toll;
And we can yet sing to our Savior and King,
For He's still—if you will—in control!

(1 Corinthians 5: 19 "... God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. .. '')
12/25/09

© 2009. Used with permission.

A CHRISTMAS STORY

noreply@blogger.com (Nordskog Publishing) — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:56:00 +0000

by Paul Myrant

I want to tell you a Christmas Story – a short, yet long kind of story; a story from long ago.
Now it’s not the story you’re thinking of, that happened so long ago.
No, this story took place a long, long, longgg time ago!

The twentieth century was full of great things:
We walked on the moon and watched from afar, we flew here and there and drove in a car.
We spoke through a wire and floated in space; but this story happened in a much different place.

There are great events in the ages of time; we were enlightened and reformed.
We painted and wrote of Crusades and Dark Ages and of the Romans’ great fall.
But the greatest event surpassed them all, a birth in a hidden cold manger.

Long before Daniel slept with the lions and Nebuchadnezzar ate grass.
Before David was king and Samuel conceived, and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were small
Before men built a tower and Noah a great zoo, before Cain took from Able the life he was due.
Before Eve gave to Adam the fruit of the tree – This story began in the heart of these three

Before the creation of Adam and Eve, the great dinosaurs and fish in the sea
Before there was life growing up, growing green, the flowers and trees, and plants with their seeds.
Before the foundation of the earth had been laid, before the sun and the moon and the stars had been made
Before light had appeared and the darkness erased, and the backdrop of space had been stretched into place.

This happened before the first Cherub sang and believed in his heart he was more than the king.
Before the heavenly hosts sang their songs without strife, before all of these things there was light, joy and life.
Immeasurable wisdom and abiding deep love, there was perfect contentment and peace up above.
Here lived a being so great and glorious, His power and might and story before us
Majestic beauty that had never been seen, love and great wisdom a glorious scene

This one knew nothing of being alone; no emptiness haunted this blissful throne.
Two others stood with Him alike in their ways, one in their nature, sharing their days.
They lived together clothed in pure light, perfect in splendor, Oh what a sight

Ageless and formless, no beginning, no end, from eternity past and beyond,
They know all things and have such great power, yet, still they lacked one thing in this tower.
There was no one to praise them, no one to know, no one forgiveness and love to show.
Who could understand the strength and the might, of the one who made the stars for the night?
Who made the sun to light the day and mortal men just out of the clay?

So they devised a plan to let someone know, about the glory they could show.
It really (WAS) is a perfect plan, complete in every way.
To be truly known, and loved and praised, someone would need to see,
Not from compulsion fear or dread, the beauty of the things They’d said.
So was given the right to choose; but with this came evil and life to lose.

In the choices that followed, there was grief and despair, many have said, this isn’t fair.
These choices led to the loss, of the best of all They’d done,
But still They loved the ones They called, Adam and his sons.

It would not be easy to redeem, the fallen sons of God.
For many would choose to turn away, thinking they had won.
Yet, for the sake of those They chose, They decided to send the Son.

It was long before that fatal day they knew They had to hang,
Upon a tree, without dignity, the one They called “the Son”.
So He set aside His robes of glory, His light and perfect joy.
He chose instead a manger stall, to be birthed into this story.

They chose a maiden pure and true, and she became the one,
That gave him birth, the glorious one, and showed him to the earth.
On that night so long ago, the angels sang for joy.
They told the shepherds of the birth, of this one who came from glory.

You would think that those He came to see, would welcome Him with glee;
Instead we laid His body on, two pieces of a tree
As we nailed His hands, and His feet, into pieces of His tree
He looked into the faces of the ones, He had brought to be.

Still we left Him there to bleed and die, just hanging in the sky.
and He took upon His broken form, the sins of all mankind.
He gave His life and paid the price in the fullness of His time.

© Paul Myrant 1986. Used with permission.

The Liberal’s Compromise: I win, You Lose...Then You Lose Some More....

noreply@blogger.com (Nordskog Publishing) — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:02:00 +0000

Chapter 3, from the book Confrontational Politics: How to Practice the Politics of Principle
by H.L. Richardson

What occurs when these contradictory ideologies come into contact with one another, when those believing in traditional American concepts of limited government are assaulted by some new socialist program advanced by the Liberals? Traditionalists, attempting to preserve the status quo, invariably react negatively, predictably. Humanists act - offering programs of socialized revision, expect disruptive change, in fact, look forward to reaction.

It's important to know how each side views the confrontation – as a positive or a negative? Who gains, who loses? Traditional Americans dislike conflict and withdraw from it as a matter of habit and training. On the other hand, the humanist looks upon confrontation as a necessity, a positive ingredient in advancing humanistic programs. They expect confrontation, plan for it and anticipate the predictable, negative reaction from their opposition, often using the reaction to further promote their cause. Conflict, therefore, is expected, welcomed, analyzed and then used to advance their goals.

Momentum is obviously on the side of the aggressors since they have the tactical advantage of initiating the attack. Before their intended opposition even knows a clash will occur, they've had the opportunity to plan strategy, organize support, select the field of battle, choose the appropriate time to launch the new program and frame the issue in such a manner as to put their program in the best light. (More on framing the issue in the next chapter.) They know opposition will be forthcoming, since their plans are usually expensive, assaultive to the constitution and enlarge the bureaucracy, all three an anathema to the traditionalist.

Controlling the initiative, the humanist knows that, how a program is presented, often predetermines the outcome. Propaganda-wise, they wrap the socialist "idea" in a semantic blanket of sophistry, warm cuddly humanitarianism, designed to put the opposition on the defensive. Without question, the aggressor has the immediate advantage.

Once the conflict is engaged, the Leftists anticipate the opposition's response and judge their effectiveness accordingly. The issue is pursued until the Conservative resistance becomes formidable and an overall negative result could occur. At that time, a dialectic, backward step is in order. A strategic retreat, giving up some ground.

The Liberal then offers a compromise, a partial solution is presented. Half, instead of the whole loaf, is offered. The Left suddenly creates the aura of appearing reasonable, moderating their request. Leftist dialectics is nothing more than planned retreat, a tactic used to confuse and throw the opposition off-guard. Lenin called it an important tool in accomplishing overall goals.

He used the analogy of a man driving a nail with a hammer, the backward stroke being just as important as the forward thrust of hitting of the nail. Ask for much more than expected and then, when the opposition builds, give in a little, play the good guy willing to concede. Switch from bad guy to good guy, be conciliatory, be sweetness and light, offer "compromise." Initiate the conflict then strategically back off.

Consider the bandit who sticks a gun in your ribs and demands your wallet then, with a kindly smile, says, "Shucks, I don't really need these." As he hands you your credit cards, he adds, "Aw, heck, I don't need these either." With that, he returns the children's snapshots and the wallet itself - minus the cash, of course. Later, you couldn't help telling the police he wasn't such a bad guy after all.

Most Americans will accept compromise in order to avoid a continuation of the confrontation. When the Left backs off, a sigh of relief is usually heard from the traditionalist. In fact, the weakest and least informed on left-wing tactics often dictate the terms of how much is lost, since the timid are the ones usually intimidated and most willing to see the hostilities end. In hopes of maintaining some of the status quo, this weakest link usually decides the amount abdicated and justifies acceptance with a begrudging, "We can live with that."

So, can the lamb live with the lion? He can - until the lion becomes hungry again and there are no more lambs left.

The humanists accept the "compromise," having gained some ground, not all that they ultimately wanted, but more than they had before the confrontation began. Once the "compromise" takes place, the status quo side happily retires from the fight, slightly disgruntled over the loss of territory but relieved that the conflict is over.

The camel's nose is under the tent.

The Left, with more recruits in their ranks and a foothold gained, patiently await the opportune time to start anew with more demands for more territory. This has been referred to as the "salami" technique, one slice at a time until the whole loaf is consumed. This is the way socialism has been infused within the body politic of America, one slice at a time, forward then backward motion. Lenin stated it best, "We advance through retreat."

It's unfortunate that there is only one definition for the word "compromise," there should be another: One for defining the many physical compromises we all make as a matter of daily living and, compromising of principle. Let me give you an example of the differences between the two. My wife and I decide to rent a video movie. She wanted a love-‘em-up and I want a shoot-‘em-up. Instead, to make us both happy, we rent a comedy. We both "compromised" our first desire and settled on a video we both could enjoy. No principle was involved, just a physical giving-in, each watering down a personal choice in order to maintain family harmony. All of us do this daily – especially if we want to stay married.

Compare this with a compromise of principle. I support the Second Amendment, believing all law-abiding Americans have a right to own firearms. The Left believes in the confiscation of all firearms, especially handguns. What compromise can there be between us? Any infringement on this right is a loss to Americans. As you can see, there is no "physical" ground where either of us can repair. By definition, compromise is a settlement of differences with mutual concessions being made by both parties; this is how the dictionary defines the word. Both sides give up something.

This is not how the Leftists "compromise." They will ask for 100 percent, then give in a little on their outlandish demands when opposition becomes formidable. They may call it compromise but what are they giving up? Absolutely nothing! In order to implement their humanist agenda, are they sacrificing anything? Are they relinquishing control or perhaps abandoning some other established bureaucracy in order to negotiate in good faith? Never. They relinquish nothing while insisting we compromise away a piece of our freedom.

When we object, they have the unmitigated gall to say we're not reasonable. When we strenuously resist, they call us names – extreme, right wing, ultra-conservative and worse. Unfortunately, we react angrily instead of calmly insisting they put something on the table. When the socialists promote more socialized medicine, does anyone stand up and ask, "In exchange for more control of medicine, what are you Liberals willing to give up – the Environmental Protection Agency? OSHA? Welfare? What are they willing to concede?

Such a question is rarely, if ever, posed by the Conservative. No one seems to think of it. When we give in to them, even an inch, we're not compromising; we're abdicating our rights and our honor. When our legislators do likewise, they are abdicating our rights at our expense.

We must stop using the term compromise when confronting the Left. It should not be a part of our vocabulary when dealing with the Left unless we humorously ask the question, "What are you putting on the table in exchange – HUD? – BATFE? – NEA?

We must put the picture in proper perspective. We're not out to rewrite our United States Constitution, abandon our freedoms or force our ideas on anyone…but they are. We Americans like the way our forefathers put this nation together. We are, by definition, protectors of the status quo. And why not? It's well worth maintaining. When you think about it, all we ask is to have the same rights and privileges that our fathers and grandfathers had and to have the same constitutional protections they enjoyed.
The problem is that this position is a defensive one, while the advantage favors those advocating change. The Left takes the time to draft the issue in the best terms, estimate the level of opposition and pick an advantageous time to launch their plan of action. They certainly have nothing to lose. For should they fail, they are no worse off than when they started. When they obtain only a small portion of what was originally wanted, they are still ahead of the game.

Just think of all the socialist program they have implemented – one step at a time. They advocate, we defend, and confrontation ensues. Then, the traditionalist is asked to "compromise." In order to see the hostilities end, we concede a little. Later, we concede a little more until all is gone.

There can be no compromises with the Left. We are ideologically at opposite ends of the spectrum with no arbitration possible. Either they win or we do. They will run the government or we will. That's the only choice open to either of us. They know it – shouldn't we?

The time has come for us to start asking for the abolishment of certain governmental agencies. Then, if we must, "compromise" and see only half of them disappear …this year. Before this can be accomplished, we need effective control of the legislative process.

The average American tends to see the participants in all these leftist "causes" as well-meaning folks trying to do some good. They see each cause as disjointed efforts with no central theme or network linking them together. Only when viewed as an overall movement to centralize and expand government does it make sense and the puzzle fits together. The various causes may appear to have nothing in common. Why would macho labor unions back candidates who are pro-gay? What can be the tie between the pro-abortionists and the anti-gun movement – what causes seem to be further apart?
Again, their agendas for people-control are identical. Both advocate more government and support similar candidates for office. The preponderance of their leadership are, for all intents and purposes, ideological soul mates, social reformers, hard-leftists of the first order – invariably imbued with situational ethics and humanist ideals. They are out to change America by demanding more and settling for less – one piece at a time.

Excerpted from the book Confrontational Politics: How to Practice the Politics of Principle, by Senator H.L. (Bill) Richardson (Ottawa, IL: Jameson Books, 2009).

© 2009. Used by permission.

Senator Richardson served in the California State Senate between 1966 and 1984. In 1975, he founded Gun Owners of America, and now serves as its chairman.

Author’s Biographical Brief
Bill Richardson is one of the good guys, a Christian family man, standing his entire career for the free Christian American republic. He served in the California State Senate, and is founder and present chairman of Gun Owners of America. He is the author of other books including Slightly to the Right and What Makes you Think We Read the Bills, which has been used as a California political textbook (Amazon.com Editorial Review).

“During his 22 years in the CA Senate, Richardson showed that a determined application of confrontational politics could produce victories – even when he was in the minority. Richardson organized multiple PAC’s that raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for political donations. He led the charge to defeat 3 members of the CA Supreme Court, including the infamous Rose Bird. He then enacted a capital punishment law over the veto of Governor Jerry Brown. Richardson’s political machine launched State Senator George Deukmejian’s successful gubernatorial bid on the heels of the capital punishment movement. At the same time, the philosophical center of the legislature was shifted to the right. Richardson authored a state preemption of firearms law which just last year resulted in overturning the recently enacted San Francisco handgun ban. He also passed a law that declares that one’s home is one’s castle and can be defended with deadly force. Conservatives today are not in power nationally, but that does not mean that they cannot win battles. If they are going to be effective, Richardson’s lessons need to be studied and applied.”—Paul Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation (From the author’s blog; see also http://senhlr.blogspot.com/)

Thanksgiving Produces Thanks-Living

noreply@blogger.com (Nordskog Publishing) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:56:00 +0000

by James and Barbara Rose
Christian Self Government produces Local Self Governing Christian Homes, Churches, Communities. Self Government is explained in I John 3:24: "He that keepeth his commandments DWELLETH IN HIM, and HE IN HIM. And hereby we know that HE ABIDETH IN US, by the Spirit which He hath given us." The internal gives rise to the external.
George Washington's and America's FIRST THANKSGIVING PROCLAMATION requested Americans to pray God… 1) "to pardon our national sins; 2) "to render our national government a blessing to all the people (HOW?) by being a government of wise (laws), just and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, and 3) "to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion (which was Biblical Christianity at that time) and virtue (or the righteousness of Christ)…".
"The Pilgrim wanted LIBERTY for himself and his wife and little ones, and for his brethren, to WALK WITH GOD in a Christian life as the rules and motives of such a life were revealed to him from God's Word. For that he went into exile; for that he crossed the ocean; for that he made his home in a wilderness." (Leonard Bacon, 1874)
FOUR PRIMARY REASONS THE PILGRIMS CAME TO AMERICA

To protect their children from degeneracy and corruption. "Whoso keepeth the law is a wise son: but he that is a companion of riotous men shameth his father." Prov. 28:7 "…their dearest children…of best dispositions and gracious inclinations, were…oppressed with their heavy labors, … became decrepit in their early youth, and by the great licentiousness of youth in (Holland) and the manifold temptations of the place, were drawn away by evil examples into extravagant and dangerous courses, getting the reigns off their necks, departing from their parents, … tending to dissoluteness and the danger of their souls, to the great grief of the parents and dishonor of God." (William Bradford)

To propagate and advance the Gospel of the Kingdom of Christ "Go ye therefore and teach all nations,…" Matt. 28:19 "Lastly, and which was not least, a great hope and inward zeal they had of laying some good foundation, or at least to make some way thereunto, for the propagating and advancing the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in to those remote parts of the world." (William Bradford)

"In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten…having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our king and country, a voyage…do by these present solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation…" (Mayflower Document)

To obtain and preserve Religious Liberty. "Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." Gal. 5:1 "And some of the chief of that company (of Pilgrims) doubted not to obtain their suit of the king FOR LIBERTY IN RELIGION, and to have it confirmed under the kings broad seal, according to their desires." (William Bradford)

To be as "stepping-stones" unto others for the performing of so great a work.

"..yea, though they should be but even as stepping-stones unto others for the performing of so great a work." (William Bradford) "I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase." I Cor. 3:6

THE THREE MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE PILGRIMS TO AMERICAN CHRISTIANS

They believed in "Reformation without tarrying for any" – as demonstrated by an individual and personal responsibility to obey God's Word. To the Pilgrim it meant "voluntary conformity to the rules and principles given in the New Testament, without waiting for others to obey, without waiting for the Church to change, and especially not waiting for the King to reform the church. Reformation presupposes repentance, and the Pastor of the Pilgrim, Rev. John Robinson, exhorted the Pilgrim church to "daily renew our repentance with our God, especially for our sins known, and generally for our unknown trespasses…"
The Pilgrims were separatists and believed in the local, self governing, independent congregational form of church government. That is the form of church government to which we adhere. The Pilgrims "All had gained the intelligence that comes from the diligent study of the Bible and … were honest and earnest believers in the Christ of the New Testament. Such were the men and the women who were thus driven out of their native England, yet hunted and intercepted in their flight, as if they were criminals escaping from justice. Why did they suffer the spoiling of their goods, arrest, imprisonment, exile? They had caught from the Bible the idea of a church independent alike of the pope and the queen, independent of Parliament as well as of prelates (politicians), and dependent only on Christ. It was their mission to work out and organize that idea." (Leonard Bacon, Genesis of the New England Churches, 1874) Individual self government and independent self governing churches produced a free, independent local civil government under the Mayflower Compact.

THEY CAST ASIDE COMMUNISM IN LABOR AND SUPPLY FOR INDIVIDUAL ENTERPRISE. Did you know that the Pilgrims signed a contract with some London businessmen to obtain "their meat, drink and apparel and ALL PROVISIONS OUT OF THE COMMON STOCK AND GOODS of the said colony?" Agreeing to the condition that all property be publicly owned and that every person will get an equal share of their common labor and supplies – a form of communism / socialism in labor and supply --- was the only way they could obtain the funds to acquire the religious liberty they wanted. The Pilgrims strove for two years to keep this part of the contract but the result was such dissention, discord and want that their Governor cast off communism and established INDIVUDUAL ENTERPRISE. He assigned all the unmarried folks and orphans to live with more complete families, assigned each family their own plot of ground as their private property, and left every household to "shift for itself or suffer want."

Governor Bradford lists nine reasons why communism in labor and supply did not work:

taking away private property and sharing everything in common did not make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God.

communism in labor and supply breeds much confusion and discontent;

it retards employment;

the younger, able and stronger men complained that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without recompense or reward;

the most able men thought it unjust not to receive more food or clothing than he that was weak and less productive;

the older and "graver" or serious and solemn men did not like to be ranked as equal to the younger men in labor, food or clothing and saw such equality as an "indignity and disrespect";

neither husbands or wives wanted to be commanded to serve other men by fixing their food, washing their clothes – they saw this as a form of slavery;

the idea of all persons sharing alike, doing alike, being alike did not agree with "those relations that God hath set among men";

communal property and communism in labor and supply diminished the mutual respect that should be practiced between people;

The Governor wisely displaced communism/socialism for individual enterprise and industry and productively increased enormously, but God intended the Pilgrims learn to trust Him not their own wisdom by permitting a DROUGHT and heat wave to descend on the land for nearly two months during spring time. The corn withered away and the ground was parched so the Pilgrims "set apart a day of humiliation" and sought the Lord by humble and fervent prayer in their great distress—and the rains came.

Thank God together this Thursday in remembrance of how the Pilgrims taught, illustrated and demonstrated SELF GOVERNMENT – THE CORNERSTONE OF OUR NATION, AND THEIR THANKS LIVING GIFT TO US AS AMERICAN CHRISTIANS.
HOW THE PILGRIMS FREED THEMSELVES FROM COMMUNISM
"All this whille no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expecte any. So they begane to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they could, and obtaine a beter crope then they had done, that they might not still thus languish in miserie. At length, after much debate of things, the Govr (with ye advise of ye cheefest amongest them) gave way that they should set corne every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to them selves; in all other things to goe on in ye generall way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcell of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end, only for present use (but made no devission for inheritance), and ranged all boys & youth under some familie. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted then other waise would have bene by any means ye Govr or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave farr better contente. The women now wente willingly into ye feild, and tooke their litle-ons with them to set corne, which before would aledg weaknes, and inabilitie; whom to have compelled would have bene thought great tiranie and oppression.

The experience that was had in this comone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Platos & other ancients, applauded by some of later times;—that ye taking away of propertie, and bringing in comunitie into a comone wealth, would make them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser then God. For this comunitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much imploymet that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For ye yong-men that were most able and fitte for labour & service did repine that they should spend their time & streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, with out any recompence. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in devission of fictails & cloaths, then he that was weake and not able to doe a quarter ye other could; this was thought injuestice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and [97] equalised in labours, and victails, cloaths, &c., with ye meaner & yonger sorte, thought it some indignite & disrespect unto them. And for mens wives to be commanded to doe service for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, &c., they deemd it a kind of slaverie, neither could many husbands well brooke it. Upon ye poynte all being to have alike, and all to doe alike, they thought them selves in ye like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut of those relations that God hath set amongest men, yet it did at least much diminish and take of ye mutuall respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have bene worse if they had been man of another condition. Let none objecte this is men's corruption, and nothing to ye course it selfe. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in his wisdome saw another course fiter for them."

Hall, Verna M.: The Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America, Vol. I. Christian Self-Government. Founders Edition. San Francisco : Foundation for American Christian Education, 2006, S. 212; William Bradford, History of Plimouth Plantation.

America’s Thanksgiving: From Socialism to Prosperity

noreply@blogger.com (Nordskog Publishing) — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:16:00 +0000

by Marshall Foster

As our thoughts turn to Thanksgiving this year, it is a perfect time to recapture the true spirit of America’s Pilgrim ancestors. We are in a time of great trial, in many ways reminiscent of these faithful believers. It would be wonderful to share with our families and friends this Thanksgiving this brief story of the amazing sacrifice of these brave forerunners of our freedom. As we shall see, it cost them everything to lay the foundation of the most prosperous and free nation in history. Will the strength of our character be tested like theirs was?

The story begins in the small village of Scrooby as the Separatists (later called Pilgrims) began an underground church in the basement of a livery stable. These unlikely world changers desired to live a quiet life, raise their families and worship God according to the teachings of the Bible. But their biblical faith brought them face to face with the big government tyranny of their day.

King James I, the divine right tyrant of England, claimed absolute control over every person in his realm. He tortured, killed or exiled all who disagreed with him. He broke with the laws of England, to make all laws at his whim. (This is called “king’s law” and has been the tool of tyrants to keep almost all people in the world cowering in fear before them for 5,000 years.) The king was enraged that the Separatists dared to obey God rather than the king with regard to their worship and sacredly held beliefs. King James said “I will harry them out of the land - or else do worse.”

In 1607, the small Scrooby congregation sold all their possessions and tried to escape to Holland where there was a degree of religious freedom. They hired a Dutch sea captain. But once they were aboard his ship, he stole all that they had and turned them over to the king’s soldiers in the town of Boston, England. They were searched to their “innermost garments” and paraded through the streets. Then the men were dragged off to prison for nine months (which was often a death sentence). The women and children were left penniless and homeless on the streets.

A year later, these weary families were reunited. They attempted another escape by ship. As the men were on board the ship preparing to leave, they were forced by the Dutch captain at gunpoint to set sail and leave their families behind. The king’s troops came and captured the women and children on shore. Their wives and children pleaded for mercy from the king’s men, but instead were thrown in prison for a year. They were finally released and joined their husbands and fathers in exile.

Finally, the Pilgrim church was reunited in Holland and settled in Leyden. There for eleven years they enjoyed a degree of religious freedom. Their Cambridge trained pastor, John Robinson, was one of history’s foremost cultural reformers and Bible scholars. They learned from him what no other group of believers had ever put into practice. They discovered the secrets of civil, economic and religious liberty built upon the Bible and on 700 years of English Common Law.

But the heavy hand of poverty laid hard upon these exiles. The Dutch labor unions denied the English exiles any good jobs. Many of their children were forced into heavy sweatshop labor. They were heartbroken as their children began to be influenced by the immoral culture around them.

Finally, facing possible annihilation by a Spanish invasion, and having a deep concern for their children’s future, these faithful, tough pioneers decided to immigrate to the wilderness of America. They were facing almost certain death. But they chose to stand for the truth without compromise and for the hope that they and their posterity could experience liberty under God.

As the Pilgrims set sail for America, one of their two ships began to sink. They had to return to England and only a select group of volunteers boarded the Mayflower and continued the voyage in August of 1620. Sixty six days later, facing almost constant gales, the ship arrived off the coast of Cape Cod. The November storms and the Cape kept the captain from steering south to New York, their intended destination (the place of the king’s charter).

Now without a charter, they formed their own government. On November 11, 1620, forty six men gathered in the captain’s cabin and signed the Mayflower Compact. This was a government of the people – unique in all of history. It begins “In the name of God, Amen” and placed in the hands of the people the right to create laws and constitutions under God’s direction. This document became a basis for more than eighty colonial charters and covenants that laid the foundation for America’s Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Then, by God’s divine providence, after eighteen days scouring the Cape for water, they found a little harbor and a spring fed stream. It had been cleared of the overwhelming forests because it was the former village of the Pawtuxet Indians. Sadly, they had all died in a great plague several years before the Pilgrim’s arrival.

After coming ashore in the middle of a harsh winter, over half of the Pilgrims died by March of 1621. Most of the women died while protecting their children from the elements. They buried forty six settlers in common graves to disguise their weakness. The communal farming that had been forced on them by the merchants who had funded their voyage led to two years of near starvation. In the summer of 1623, they abandoned group socialism. Governor William Bradford gave each man a plot of ground to plant crops. In this biblical enterprise system, each man worked his own land which resulted in an explosion of productivity.

But no rain fell in July and August to water the crops and they faced certain death. They then repented for having forgotten to give God the glory. They declared a day of fasting and prayer for God’s deliverance. A gentle rain came that day and lasted for three days, restoring their crops and saving their lives. Governor Bradford declared a day of thanksgiving to God for His rain and provision. This story is the heart of our national holiday, Thanksgiving.

This year, we face our own form of drought. Many Americans have forgotten that it was God who made America free and prosperous. Let’s share America’s story with everyone we can, including our representatives at all levels of authority. Let’s encourage a return to the God of our ancestors. Is it not time to remember what our Pilgrim ancestors knew and did and to begin to rebuild our nation under God – one individual, one family, one community at a time?

Used by permission.
© From the Mayflower Institute Journal, November 2009
Order your Mayflower Institute Journal from:
Mayflower Institute
P.O. Box 4673,
Thousand Oaks, Ca 91359
805-523-0072
www.mayflowerinstitute.com
www.worldhistoryinstitute.com

Islam's world peace: Now or later?

noreply@blogger.com (Nordskog Publishing) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:07:00 +0000

by William J. Federer

Islam is a religion of peace, but in the world of paradoxical definitions, perhaps some explanation is needed.

The word "Islam" means submission to the will of Allah.

A "Muslim" is one who has submitted.

Whereas most think world peace will be when people just learn how to get along, faithful Muslims think world peace will be when the whole world submits to the will of Allah.

In other words, world peace means world Islam.

To a fundamental Muslim, submission to Allah means submitting to Islamic law, called Shariah.

A jaw-dropping expose on the six-month undercover operation that revealed the true terror-supporting nature of CAIR: Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America. It's also available in electronic form at reduced price through Scribd.

Islamic Shariah law governs every aspect of human life, including:

What to eat
How to dress
when to pray
In what direction to pray
What position to be in when you pray
How many wives to have
The correct way to beat a wife
Who must accompany a woman in public
Who cannot be your friends
How to treat a non-Muslim infidel
Whether to drink alcohol
When to lie
When to kill an apostate
How to run a government
How to cut off the hand of a thief
How many times to whip a woman who has been raped
Whether one can listen to music
Whether one can play a musical instrument
What pets are permitted
How to wash parts of your body
The correct way to clean you teeth with a twig
And even what direction to face when using the restroom!

Islamic Shariah law is the complete submission of one's life, marriage, family, community and country to the will of Allah as revealed to Muhammad.

In its fullest sense, the word "Islam" actually means the opposite of the words "freedom" and "liberty."

But what about the majority of moderate Muslims?

Moderate Muslims believe the world will submit to Allah later, maybe at the end of the world, or maybe just figuratively.

Since it is so far off in the distant future, moderate Muslims have a more relaxed, patient attitude that allows them to get along in a friendly way with non-Muslim infidels.

Moderate Muslims can live comfortably in a free, democratic society.

Fundamental Muslims, on the other hand, think the world is in the process of submitting to Allah now. They are very excited and want to establish Shariah law, even justifying threats of violence and terrorism.

What are moderate Muslims, who believe the world will submit to Allah later, supposed to think when they see unprecedented acts of acceptance of Islam right now?

Such as:

U.S. Postal Service issuing Islamic postage stamps (September 2001; October 2002)
President Bush removing his shoes and visiting a mosque (Dec. 5, 2002)
President Bush putting a Quran in the Presidential Library (October 2005)
President Bush celebrating Ramadan for the first time in the White House (Oct. 18, 2005)
U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, a Muslim, taking his oath of office upon a Quran (2007)
Presidential candidate Obama reciting Muslim prayers in Arabic, saying it is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset" (New York Times, Feb. 27, 2007)
U.S. Speaker Nancy Pelosi putting on Muslim hijab veil during a trip to Syria (April 2007)
President Bush appointing a Muslim, Zalmay Khalilzad, to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (April 17, 2007)
President Bush removing his shoes and visiting a Mosque a second time (July 27, 2007)
U.S. First Lady Laura Bush putting on Muslim hijab veil during trip to Persian Gulf (Oct. 29, 2007, Jerusalem Post)
A second Muslim, Andre Carson, is elected to the U.S. Congress (2008)
Presidential candidate Obama mistakenly says in a George Stephanopoulos interview, "My Muslim faith" (Sep. 7, 2008)
President Barack Hussein Obama elected, whose middle name is that of Muhammad's grandson (November 2008)
President Obama bows to Saudi King Abdullah (April 1, 2009)
President Obama says America is not a Christian nation (April 6, 2009)
President appoints devout Muslim Arif Alikhan to key position in the Department of Homeland Security (May 6, 2009)
President Obama does NOT publicly recognize America's traditional National Day of Prayer (May 6, 2009)
President Obama says America is one of the largest Muslim countries (June 3, 2009)
President appoints Syrian-born devout Muslim Kareem Shora to key position in the Department of Homeland Security (June 5, 2009)
President Obama broadcasts a Ramadan message to Muslims of the world (Aug. 22, 2009)
President Obama publicly recognizes the Muslim Ramadan with a dinner at the White House (Sept. 1, 2009)
Hundreds of Muslims gather at the U.S. Capitol to bow toward Mecca (Sept. 25, 2009)
White House's first full-veiled Muslim woman adviser, Egyptian-born Dalia Mogahed, praised Shariah law as "gender justice" (Oct. 4, 2009, on London-based TV discussion program "Muslimah Dilemma," hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party)
Again, the question is, what is a moderate Muslim, who believes the world will submit to Allah later, supposed to think when they see these unprecedented acts of acceptance of Islam right now, especially in a nation where 77 percent still identify themselves as Christian, 2 percent Jewish, etc., ... and only 0.6 percent Muslim? (Pew Religious Landscape Survey, 2008)

Understandably, the bipartisan actions of America's leaders showing tolerance and acceptance of Islam are exciting for Muslims, resulting in an increased enthusiasm for their faith.

As a result, many moderate Muslims are being persuaded that the world is submitting to Allah now rather than later.

Thus, the dilemma for the West is that the more it bends over backwards in unprecedented ways to show acceptance of Islam, the more moderate Muslims become enthused and gravitate to become fundamental Muslims.

They move from the moderate "LATER" peaceful camp into the fundamental "NOW" camp, which advocates Shariah law and justifies threats of violence and terrorism.

So in the world of paradoxical definitions, world peace means world Islam, and the more the West accepts Islam, the more it can expect threats of violence.

Now or later – are you ready for Islam's world peace?

___
Get the new DVD Radical Islam on the March, which features interviews with Nonie Darwish, Paul Diamond, Steven Emerson, William Federer, Frank Gaffney, David Lidington, Faisal Malick, Steven Masood, Douglas Murray, Robert Spencer, Dr. Jenny Taylor, Dr. James White, and Geert Wilders

William J. Federer is the author of the best-selling book, "What Every American Needs to Know About the Qur'an: A History of Islam & the United States," as well as "America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations" and "Treasury of Presidential Quotations."

The Star-Spangled Banner: Its message of Valor and Faith

noreply@blogger.com (Nordskog Publishing) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:44:00 +0000

President James Madison commissioned Francis Scott Key, a lawyer from Maryland, to gain the release of Dr. William Beans, held captive by the invading British in the War of 1812. Key was impressed by a large American flag that had survived the overnight British bombardment of Fort McHenry. This sight thus inspired Key to write what has come to be known as the “Star-Spangled Banner.” Congress adopted this hymn as our National Anthem in 1931.

Though a perennial sports arena fixture, “The Star-Spangled Banner” is rarely appreciated in its entirety. Please take a moment to consider once more the moving lyrics of this ode to America and its defenders—the stout American military and the God of heaven Who is ultimately our only Protection. Let us, this Veteran’s Day, remember those who fought for American independence and liberty, and the God who has protected them and us. In this light, note especially the last verse.—ed.:

Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore dimly seen thro' the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner: O, long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash'd out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand,
Between their lov'd homes and the war's desolation;
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust"
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!