This addresses a number of posts I’ve made, most recently in The Chickens are Coming Home to Roost, and should, I think address Allen’s point in his comment on that post.

It boils down to this, when one removes the pillars or the glue that hold a particular society together, make sure that you replace it with something specific, otherwise a mess will ensue.

hat tip to: Roberto Rivera @ The Point

This dovetails nicely into a little cartoon I saw in the Jews For Jesus newsletter that I received today. It’s too bad I couldn’t find it, but I assume it was just a cute cartoon with the words of Moishe Rosen (the founder of Jews For Jesus) put into. It said:

I’m always amazed when one believer sets out to “sink” another believer’s “ship.” How is it that they fail to notice we’re all in the same boat?”

…so we, being many, are one body in Christ and individually members of one another.

Romans 12:5

These punks are a direct result of a bunch of people who didn’t respect history or authority teaching them. Why are they surprised? The generation that is entering and leaving colleges now is filled with higher percentage of “entitlement” mentality people than probably has ever existed before at one time. They have the mentality of the old aristocracy, and all too often lack of responsibility.

I wish I could say that I’m surprised that those like Dan Barry are surprised, but I’m not. Nor am I, obviously, surprised at the behavior of these punks. People such as myself, Bible-believing Christians, are often ridiculed, even by our friends, for our concerns about trying (although we often—even usually—fail) to align with a Biblically based life. If people were honest, how could a Biblically (read: New Testament, and not forced conversion) be worse than this?

With the “traditional” family as the framework, I understand the situation of unwed mothers who made mistakes. While the error was significant, people’s obsession with it is damaging. I also completely understand to maintain the social norms and such. However, Jesus forgave those who came to Him and asked for forgiveness (out of honest repentance). Can we do any less?

People make mistakes. Christians make mistakes. Even Perfect Christians (see Wesley’s
A Plain Account of Christian Perfection) make mistakes (of course, within the context of this blog post we are talking about a sin, not a simple mistake).

A woman recently died in England. A few months before she did, the 50-year old body of a baby was found in a suitcase. She compounded one sin with a worse one. God will judge her, but my heart aches for her. To have carried that burden so long.

We in the Church must be concerned with sin, for that is why Christ came. However, we must not let that destroy compassion. I was in my Sunday School class this past Sunday, and we talked about how Mary was a failure to the society around her, and probably her family, too. Yet she truly did nothing wrong. From our perspective, Jesus was certainly conceived out of wedlock, but remember He was without sin, thus his conception was sinless as well.

While I know the woman in this case is not Mary, and I suspect by what is not said that was not only an act (or time period) of fornication, but also adultery, it does not change the fact that the pressures put upon this woman created a heart-wound that ended the life of the child.

Pro-lifers, and I am one, need to always keep our hearts open to people such as her.

May she rest in peace.

May her family and those affected by her death and the revealing of long kept secrets find peace as well

It’s an interesting direction for a movie about the impact of scientific advancement. So what is it saying about science and God? That scientific advances foolishly allow man to play God? Or that science is comparable to that fast car capable of good or evil, depending on the driver?

I like movies that make me ask questions, but the true point of a good movie is to make you think (or at least a factor in what I call a good movie). I don’t like it when movies give you all the answers (except for the fact that if they leave something open, people believe that there should be a sequel). What I find odd is that Mr. Hertz seems to knock the movie for not answering the questions, but then he has questions of the reader at the end of his review, that are not “right or wrong” questions, but questions that encourage thought and discussion.

Marriage Could Save Your Life
hattip to:The Point

Marriage is also good for the environment

However, there are a few downsides.

Mercifully, God has granted me a wonderful marriage to a wonderful wife, so I’m not concerned about the downsides personally. With all the upheaval and lances aimed at (traditional) marriage, society had better start paying attention.
]]> http://starlyth.info/20071205/211/feed 0 http://starlyth.info/20071114/205 http://starlyth.info/20071114/205#comments Thu, 15 Nov 2007 01:59:48 +0000 Starlyth http://starlyth.info/20071114/205 I freely acknowledge that for a certain branch of the family, I am the red sheep (not the black sheep) of the family. I also suspect that my faith in Jesus Christ plays a greater roll in my life than the lives of others in my family (this is neither red nor blue). That being said, I don’t try to proselytize my family, either in politics or religion.

Politics have taken a very destructive turn in the United States. I was wondering if that means we are going to make a breakthrough of some sort towards some gilded age, or if everything is going to come crashing down around our ears (Oddly enough, there are probably even numbers on the blue and red sides saying the crash is coming. Oh, dear, they agree on something.)

It has gotten to a point that constructive dialog is almost impossible. We are no longer red, white, and blue, but red or blue, or at least people keep trying to shove everyone into the little cubbyholes. It is truly something to think that someone as polarizing as Newt Gingrich was as Speaker, can be the voice of moderation now. I just shake my head in disbelief.

This all brings me to a commentary by Nancy Morgan, My Mother is a Feminist ( archived copy ). This commentary is a snapshot of the discord and disconnect going on right now. While I can offer no advice to Nancy or her mother, I can ask of everyone, is this really what we want to be? Because this is where we are headed.

Thanksgiving Day in America – The Secret Riches of Thankfulness by Rev. Michael Bresciani ( archived copy )

Mr. Breton’s point that banks would have to have tangible (read gold or whatever standard) assets to exchange for paper currency, means that banks would be less likely to loan money to any one (including me). Of course, such a path, would send the tax and spend politicians (please note that this is regardless of party affiliation) into a tizzy. Also, companies such as MasterCard, Visa, Sears, BancAmerica, and so on would no longer be quite so willing to give credit cards to pets or dead people.

This is sounding better and better.

And I’m quite serious about it.

Nevermind…everyone should just see Gattaca.

If you peek through someone’s window at a couple that are making love, it’s against the law — you’d be thrown in jail as a pervert. And yet we peep through a screen of window called a movie screen, and then it becomes alright. It’s not alright!

I have to admit that I had never thought of it quite that way. Of course, where does one draw the line. Certain “classic” books have such “scenes” in them. The Bible is one, of course.

Not that I completely disagree with him, actually. He does cause me to think about what I put into my life. It really is too bad that far too much sex and violence is put into movies that actually doesn’t add to the plot. Hollywood, slowly, is starting to listen. Hollywood still doesn’t understand it. Hollywood does understand money, though.

The original article is at The Kansas City Star website ( archived copy ).
hattip to: The Becket Fund

While I agree with Ron Paul’s sentiments regarding limited government, I would strongly urge anyone to think very carefully about not legislating morality. That’s what legislation is: enforced (or coerced) morality. Who pays what taxes, for example, is morality, hence so many arguments about estate taxes and marriage penalties. I am not saying the government has not overstepped its intended boundaries, but such hyperbole without thought has consequences. Questions such as income redistribution are a morality issue, as is marriage.

When he first gets booed in his speech is when he talks about how gold and silver should be the currency of the land, and I’ve had this discussion before. Here is what I came up with then:

U.S. paper currency, along with the Federal Reserve Bank was created during the Civil War (or The War Between the States) to allow for a better interaction between locals on a financial level. Paper currency existed before that, too (including Colonial times). Each bank (which could the one down the block, a different one at the edge of town, or the State (not Federal Bank) issued it’s OWN money, which was actually a certificate for gold or silver stored at the bank. However, one bank would often (especially if across governmental lines, whether city, county, and definitely state) not recognize the legitimacy of the certificate from the other bank.

This created roadblocks to prosperity, especially if one had to buy stuff from a non-local source. The Federal Reserve system created a consistent methodology to allow currency to change hands with greater ease. The Central Bank only printed and issued money to a bank for a maximum of 60% of its gold, establishing a baseline of both gold value, and paper currency value. This system of reserves (gold, but later, silver) was in place until the 1960′s.

The founder’s did have concerns, very great concerns, that multiple currencies would inhibit commerce (and it did), but were unable to convince the states to go along with a common system.

Now as to the value of gold versus paper, it’s a straw man to me. I don’t value gold as a currency. I see its value, these days, as being a great electrical conductor. What has made it valuable in the human psyche is that we can decorate ourselves with it. And that is what made it valuable in the past, and still. It is what you can do with it. ALL currency is a simplified barter system. If I think that my product is worth 1oz of gold, but you think its worth .5oz, that is no different than my thinking that its worth $500, and you thinking it’s worth $250.

It is all based upon perceived value.

Many that believe themselves in the same camp as Ron Paul state that the federal government has no say right to make money, while Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says, in part:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Now all that being said, perhaps he meant returning to a gold/silver based backed system of paper and coins. Honestly, no matter what the currency is, no matter by what it is backed, it is all a matter of perceived value. The value of our currency is perception as well, hence his annoyance at the falling dollar. However, depending on the industry, that can be a good thing, except when you’ve outsourced everything, which is a another result of freedom.

Continuing past this, he makes valid (an in my opinion correct) point that there is a habit of looking to Washington,D.C. to fix the problem, and that habit has to be broken. However, the current batch of Republicans will not support that. How does he think they get elected?

He then attacks, rightly, the U.N., and for liberals (whether R’s or D’s) who look to the U.N. to justify (the U.S. gives too much money to actually look for real help from the U.N.) their more “progressive” desires. I also believe that there is validity to his implied point that we obey laws (or someone tries) that the U.N. has passed, without having any granted (by its members nations) power to it to do so.

However, we agreed to the WTO independently of the U.N., as a treaty I believe, obligating ourselves to it as a matter of trade. Now, Ron Paul could say let’s withdrawal from it, but the President (other than signing the bill) has no authority to do so. I am also not sure that the WTO has been effective, whether against or for the U.S., so this could just be another windmill to tilt at (please correct me if I’m wrong). I could probably be persuaded to get out of it purely on reducing government bureaucracy.

If he would stick to freedom (yes, I understand that he views the U.N. and the WTO as anathemas to freedom), where he shines, he would do much better. He is absolutely correct that far too many people rely more on the government than themselves. It will take at least 3 faithful and stalwart generations to break one generation’s failure (see Amit Shlaes abridged speech at Hillsdale)

He then goes on to the “Just War” theory, about which no one should speak, unless they speak of which “Just War” theory. The “Just War” theory has evolved from righteous war to no war at all. Depending on which version of the “Just War” theory you are using, and what you use as a rationale, any war could be just. It always boils down to which is a worse evil, the status quo, or a war (and its aftermath, which is the trust test anyways, not the war itself). As to WMDs (which he referred to as nonexistent), I believe we have a long way to go before we realize the (in)validity of multiple “intelligence” agencies (UK, French, German, Russian, and US all thought Iraq had them). However, I do think we rushed into that one. Maybe. Saddam was a very smart nut case (bad combo), and thus very unpredictable. Kim Il Sung, on the other hand, just throws a temper tantrum, gets his quiet money (or whatever vice he wants to fulfill), and goes and hides for a while, although perhaps the same “intelligence” that guided the Israeli Air Force to attack a site in Syria, and which guided the thoughts of WMDs in Iraq, made the same mistake again (although bureaucrats rarely take risks of repeating the same mistake, they prefer doing nothing) in regards to North Korean nuclear material in Syria.

Now his “declaring war” is kind of weird. Congress declared war by passing the resolution authorizing it. So his reasoning that we either wouldn’t be at war (so no troops lost), or we wouldn’t be arguing about it is off. Regardless of what our history books now say, we have declared war many times, and have still had plenty of protest anyways, especially in regards to continuing it. That is part of the process.

The last booing was at this point, and booing does not add to the discussion, nor do Ron Paul’s comments, frankly. The question before us is which is more evil, abandoning those in Iraq (the justification, or lack thereof, of the war is no longer relevant), or finishing the job (which, granted, still needs to be completely defined, which is part of the problem as well).

Now all THAT being said, I hope he stays in the race, in hopes that the Republican party will repent of their Democrat tendencies.

Sorry about going on so long. I think I’m done now.

Money is not so important. It’s more important to bring Jesus to someone. If the fundraising’s not coming from the bottom of your heart, if Jesus is not there, it’s empty. It’s just vanity.

You Americans enjoy life… All this wealth. This is not going to change the world. Jesus will change the world.

Today, the world is so divided. Many families are broken…There is poor and rich…We can’t bring them together as far as Christians, unless we’re willing to bring Jesus to them.

You can read the IRD article here. (archive copy )

When people are powerless, they are easily manipulated.
-Rashid Rehman, human rights lawyer
from the article “Pakistan”, National Geographic, September 2007

I hear about the powerlessness of certain people, and every time, it irritates me. I know that sounds strange, but the truth is, we are only as powerless as we allow ourselves to be. This too may sound strange from someone, like myself, who believes in an omnipotent God (a true discussion of that should occur, but it’s close enough to say, for the moment, that I am of the Arminian mindset).

If you perceive yourself as powerless, then you are. There has been a lot of outcry from the G.W. Bush hating segment of society (I am hesitant to call them “the left” as that, frankly, tars the left with a brush most don’t deserve) about how powerless they are to change things. However, if they would embrace the 2^nd amendment, and the freedom (and responsibility) it represents, then they might begin to understand that they are not powerless.

The strong majority of 2^nd amendment supporters (as in 99.99%), have no desire to overthrow the government. Frankly, they just want to be left alone. The people who say they want government out of people’s lives, do nothing to keep the government out, but increasingly pass and support laws that increase governmental intrusion (and, these people are on both sides of the political isle).

The whole 2^nd amendment thing is really a side issue, but a symbol of the situation. People feel powerless, and thus act like it. Wilberforce (as was Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and many others), was a great example of showing the power of a single voice. What was seemed useless against entrenched power and influence of slavers, eventually won. Wilberforce refused to see himself as powerless. There is so much more to this, but my major thought in regards to this is:

Powerlessness is perception.

As John Sayles’ role in the movie Matewan suggests, big businesses have used clergy as cheerleaders before, but this news item from The Economist hints at something worse.

The article: Praying for Gain: A fad for piety infiltrates the realm of Mammon

I am completely at a loss for what this, “something worse”, that Mr. Volck refers to is. Is he worried that there are two companies that provide chaplain services? Is that his issue? If it is, then perhaps he is unaware of the restrictions that these to companies put upon those whose services they tender. These chaplains are to stay away from denominational arguments (whether for or against), and to provide purely for the spiritual needs of the employees. Is he worried that a company dares to make a profit on provide such services? Where is that particular line drawn?

Is he worried about the reason companies are doing this? Such as, increased worker productivity? Does that mean my company can no longer provide donuts every other Friday? Or company parties? There is nothing wrong with that.

The one thing that may concern him is the equating of the corporate chaplain to the village priest, which, frankly, was probably an ignorant and definitely stupid thing for the writer at the Economist to write. I would hazard a guess that the writer was trying to relate it to earlier times in history, but who has no real experience with a village priest.

The author does state (although I’m not sure the statement is an accurate reflection of reality) that these chaplains are providing spiritual support for people who are feeling cut off from their roots (if they had any). However, the “boom” according to the article has been since 9/11. That should give all people pause. 9/11 caused a lot of people to reflect on their lives. Most denominations saw a huge influx of attenders immediately after 9/11, but those numbers quickly fell. However, even in those churches who are otherwise experiencing negative growth, the post-9/11 increase in attendees has been noticeable.

Another thing that Mr. Volck could be concerned with is the possibility that people will equate their faith with the company, therefore become religiously zealous about their company. While, I suppose, that could be an issue, I suspect that it is not, especially when the chaplain is not a true employee of the company.

Perhaps the scary part for Mr. Volck is that is is corporations that recognize the value of religion and supporting it, while society and government as a whole (think the bureaucrats, not the politicians) has become somewhat hostile to religion.

I don’t know Mr. Volck, and I’m throwing all this out there because he didn’t make his concerns known. I hope that he will note his concerns at some point, but I can’t help but feel that his concern is the seeming melding of faith with “evil” corporations. However, if the chaplain is a true Christian, and serves the employees in true Christian love, I suspect that the Enrons and other horrible shenanigans will be greatly reduced, and the companies will cease being emotionless, profit-only, organizations, as a whole.

Perhaps I’m being optimistic, but I’m allowed to be every once in a while, just to get out of the rut.

I don’t, nor should you, condemn him. He deserves love and prayer, not condemnation. I didn’t read any of the comments that other readers wrote, but I would guess that if falls into two camps, (1) You (faithless), jerk, how dare you attack (which I don’t find that it is) our faith (or our church), or (2) religion is evil (yada, yada, yada). Basically, scorn towards a person who is hurting, or scorn from people who scorn those with faith. Probably little love.

He latched onto the wrong thing, he should have latched onto what the nameless Roman Catholic friend said, “Keep your eyes on the person nailed to the cross, not the priests behind the altar,” but that’s hard to do. This physical, fallen, world is easier to get attached to, and be betrayed by.

It is distressing for me to realize that Christ died for the terrorists, too. As violent and anti-Christian as they are, Jesus died for even them. So how do we balance that awareness with the job of killing them? I don’t have a well-developed answer for that one. I never got to the point that I’d aim at a German and hope to hit him while praying for his soul at the same time. But I was able to avoid hating the Nazis while I fought, and I thought that this was important for me as I tried to balance my faith with my combat duties.

See the rest of the article here: An Old Soldier’s Advice

I, as a Christian, believe I stand as a voice that tries to get this lost world to hear God, and to follow God’s ways. The question really is, how to get people to listen when they don’t want to. How do you get people to listen when what is said is the opposite of their desired behavior?

I don’t have an answer. Watching the news, political hacks, various “cause” websites, and everything that is spewed forth, I’m not sure that love can be heard, except in private personal conversation, and depending on the individuals involved, maybe not then either. We have a situation in this country with anger. I’m not talking about gangs, gun violence, moronic parents who take their children’s sports too seriously. Politics, and much that is important involves politics, is anger. If one person is more angry, than they get more coverage. In response, even people who would otherwise not be angry, have an automatic escalation in tension. Sadly, that tension gets connected to the issue, and then discussion of the issue no longer becomes a way to discuss (and hopefully solve) an issue, but a rant.

Some of the best discussions about certain issues are happening out of the limelight. Some serious solutions are coming out of those discussions, but they do not see the light of day because those who are truly trying to solve the issues aren’t angry about them.

How did I get here from the beginning of this post? Simple, the way things are going currently, I cannot discuss where I see something being wrong, without someone reacting as if attacked. The sad part is, I feel a need to help them. I am moved by love to help them. I certainly don’t hate those I seek to help, what would be the point. Are they my enemies? Not from my point of view, however, from their point of view, I am their enemy, as is my faith.

How do you share in love, when the only currency that is understood is anger?

The true goal is to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If a person has a living vital relationship with Jesus Christ, it is that relationship that will change them. It won’t be fancy arguments. It won’t be facts. It won’t be tirades. It won’t be the shallow love of a human being. It will be the gracious, faithful, living, and deep love of God, lived through Jesus Christ, felt and experienced through the Holy Spirit.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

The first piece is an interview with James Shikwati, a Kenyan economics expert.

The second piece is a more in depth review, which is, frankly, quite depressing.

So where does this leave us? As much as we want to, and we should want to, help others, this should give us pause in how we help others. I am not advocating abolishing compassionate assistance, but this is no different than welfare here in the States. I will have to say that much of the same criticism that has been leveled at welfare, should also be leveled here.

It is not whether we should help them, because that is not in question at all, but how they who are being helped may be best enabled to no longer need assistance. For by freeing them from that need, the chains will fall from their feet and arms, and they will be able to go forth with heads held high with hope

That’s too bad. The smelter is owned by the Don Roe Company, which proudly states on their main web page:

Our commitment to producing these materials in a safe and environmentally responsible manner is demonstrated through pioneering techniques that make our international operations more innovative, efficient and environmentally sound.

The Don Roe Company purchased the smelter, thereby inheriting a pre-existing mess, from the Peru government run company. The Don Roe Company is based in the United States. The United States based ministry should have started locally. It is much easier to get leverage against a public traded company, as bad news (especially bad PR, such as this) lowers stock prices, but one can still put pressure on privately owned companies, such as the Don Roe Company, as well.

A public relations campaign pointing out the contradiction between their “commitment” and the reality in Peru could work wonders. As the press loves printing bad news, it wouldn’t take much to get a few flames started. Also, as La Oroya produces copper and zinc (which is, honestly, one of the nastiest things to produce. It always comes with lead), one can talk to their customers, whom I am sure all have “environmentally-friendly” statements, and point out that their supplier(s) are operating in a method contrary to their statements. By including their customers in a public relations campaign, one can create even further pressure.

I am an amateur in all of this. My primary purpose in writing this, granted no one will probably ever read it, is to show that being blinded by local versus global is a bad thing, as it can limit your impact.

I would also like to point out that the article only seems to hint at the improvements that the Don Roe company is making. The focus of the article was the impact the ministries can have (even crossing continental and national boundaries) when they work together. And while I will not spend the time check the veracity of this, please read the Don Roe Company’s statement about what they are doing to improve both the La Oroya operation, and the surrounding community.

I am a professor of human biology at Baruch College, City University of New York. I sometimes get involved in discussions with ‘gay’ students on issues of biology and homosexuality, but such discussions have always been respectful and educational. For example, a young ‘gay’ man told me he was opposed to all the hatred directed against ‘gay marriage’; why couldn’t the government recognize the equality of ‘gay’ unions? I asked him about the lifespan of nations, compared to the lifespan of individuals. He acknowledged that nations span many generations. I added that, in fact, one of the few real responsibilities of the national government is to ensure that there will be future generations of citizens. Therefore, I said, is it not really the responsibility of the federal government to provide special protection to the very institution that guarantees future generations of citizens, i.e., marriage between a man and a woman? His reply: ‘That sounds fair.’ And he walked out of class satisfied. We all know that youth tend to be possessed of idealism, which is these days so often confused with, and perverted into utopianism. But youthful idealism is really the love of truth, and nothing makes it shine like truth!

A letter to the editor of the Patriot Post (The Brief, Patriot Post Vol. 07 No. 16 | 16 April 2007)

Father Jonathan, who blogs at FoxNews.com, has an excellent post discussing the darkest lining (I am talking neither race nor Imus) of this debacle.  This whole situation just goes to bolster my post discussing Pope Benedict’s admonition of the media.

Granted, despite, my post’s title, I know that Imus will not go away, but as Father Jonathan pointed out the worst that will happen is that Imus will get a vacation, and everything will be as it was prior to this.

To the Rutgers team, Ladies, congrats on your title.  You earned it.  Imus cannot take away the success, the trophy, or anything else, unless you let him.

As for the fourth beast, there shall be a fourth kingdom on earth that shall be different from all the other kingdoms; it shall devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it into pieces.

I was reading Daniel 7:19-27, and it struck me that the United States of America may very well be the fourth beast. The first response of some will be that the USA is not a beast, of course their opposites on the political spectrum will say that it is. The Book of Daniel is very much a prophetical and vision based. It is not literal.

“…shall be different from all the other kingdoms…”. The United States of America is different from any other country.

“It will devour the whole earth…” From a political standpoint, and sadly much in a cultural viewpoint, this is reality as well.

As much as I love my country, the current divide between the lovers and loathers (American Citizens all), tells me that the USA is on its way out. It won’t go down easily, or soon. What ten kingdoms, then will it devolve to?

We call the USA a “Christian” nation. It was. It is no longer, and hasn’t been for a great many decades (which decade in the 20^th century is up for debate). As sad as this makes me feel, the kingdom to which is owed my greatest loyalty is not of this earth, and that kingdom shall not pass away.

millionsoulsaware.org is a not for profit project started in march 2007 that has the mission to raise awareness by featuring an article on an important topic that needs attention. Millionsoulsaware.org doesn’t ask for donations, but asks you to spread the word. The millionsoulsaware.org goal is to get one million souls aware on the current subject. This goal is measured by the project counter on the mainpage. Our goal will be reached by asking people on the internet to spread the awareness by promoting millionsoulsaware.org. We believe the internet is the perfect way to reach a wide audience worldwide. Awareness is the starting point for a better world!

The current issue is refugee camps, and while there will probably be some disagreements on the cause, effect, and resolution of the issue that MillionSoulsAware.org will bring up. At this point, I’m not going to argue that at least their first issue is definitely worth learning about.

Also, please note that I have added a text box at the top of the left-most column, as I want more people to learn about these issues.

I appeal again to the leaders of the media industry to advise producers to safeguard the common good, to uphold the truth, to protect individual human dignity and promote respect for the needs of the family.

What I find interesting is to whom he is speaking. The leaders of the Mainstream Media go after Halliburton, Enron, Exxon, etcetera, however, they are just as guilty (perhaps more so as they are so quick to, and viciously, attack others) of pure corporate greed, as they don’t care what is sent out, by whom it is consumed, and the effect upon society.

Almost, that makes me think that we need the government and the FCC. Almost.

Yep, sadly, that pretty much sums it up.

There’s a stereotypical assumption among Christians in the nonprofit world that capitalism means greed or selfishness, and “therefore has got to be bad,” says Nash, founder and managing partner of Piper Cove Asset Management LLC. Using goals to measure progress—standard practice in the business world—is seen as “cold-blooded and materialistic.”

I can’t say I’m particularly shocked. It does seem to many people outside of business that this is the case. Especially with high profile failures in morals, ethics, and leadership, of a number of “leaders” (leaders used generously) in the business community. The sensationalist treatment by the media certainly doesn’t help.

It’s too bad, really. Business, in the form of truly free capitalism, provides a good grounding for a successful and free society. The company I work for is a great example. They care for their employees, understanding that they are the reason the company is successful, and even in business. Of course we have metrics, and honestly, it is a good thing. As long as the leadership of an organization isn’t the browbeating time, learning where one falls short and where one excels helps the employee and the company.

The funny part is that Christians are lumped together with “evil” capitalistic Republicans, and yet, if this description of Christians in non-profits is true, many Christians actually belong in the “left” because of their view of business.

Without a doubt, a business exists to make money. That is its purpose. The purpose of a Christian non-profit is to fulfill its mission. By swapping money for mission, a business becomes a non-profit. And yes, it is as simple as that.

Chuck Colson, in one of his daily Breakpoint Commentaries, talked about a woman who decided against aborting the child of an unplanned pregnancy.

Through sharing her own story of coming to terms with unexpected pregnancy, Fields gives hope to women who often feel their only choice is abortion. She shows how God can redeem even the most difficult of circumstances and give a mother love for the surprise child who seems, at first, more like a curse than a blessing.

Please read the transcript of this commentary, for I believe that women such Leslie Fields need the support of family, friends, and churches to make the choice of loving God’s greatest surprises, children.

I don’t feel that it is fair that so much pressure is put onto the “first” person of a particular gender, skin color, or ethnicity. Oddly enough, I believe more pressure is put upon such people with our “multicultural” empasized society, than would have been a generation ago. Maybe I’m wrong. I’ll be honest, it wasn’t until college that I truly became aware of the whole situation. This is where I met truly angry people, who were angry at the opposite gender (usually female angry at male), or at another race (usually black angry at white). They, who did not know me, took out their anger and frustration upon me.

I experienced institutionalized attitudes. “Institutionalized attitudes”, you ask. “It is the inherent white male good ol’ boys club that is institutions we fight,” they say. Except the only problem is, especially in the world of educatioin, that is a burned-to-ash straw man. The educational establishment has bent over backwards, sideways, anyways, to not be that white man’s world. It’s done a pretty good job. Too good, in fact. It is in the process of alienating and destroying the very educational environment it was seeking to create.

I wish that people would get over the race issue, myself included, but we now expend more effort upon it, therefore emphasizing it more. The only way to get over it is through the power of Jesus Christ:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 3:28

Disconcerting as it is, I am almost in agreement with Gaddafi.  The stock and futures markets are based on rumors and fear.

As much as everyone wanted to blame the oil companies for the high price of gas, it was the fears of the futures traders that was truly, and remains, the real reason behind the oil prices remaining at their high level.  Oil production remains at high levels, but oil prices continue to rise (and fall).

I’m not sure that I agree with him in the entirety that the entire global financial “market” is based on fear.  However, the World Bank and the IMF certainly have plenty of critics on their basis for loaning money.

While Gaddafi is correct that fear in many ways rules finances, it also rules most other things in life.  Most people operate on some basis of fear.

I’ve gone back and tagged/categorized older articles, in addition to newer articles as they come up.

In a way, this is a zeitgeist, that seeks to gather together the peculiar afflictions of technology, from my point of view.

I do have to point out that this article in the New York Times continues to reinforce the false view that those of us who oppose embryonic stem cell research oppose all stem cell research. That is shoddy journalism.

Please note that after extracting the single cell, a lot of the embryos were still killed. NOT acceptable. This report also brought up another train of thought, is in vitro fertilization (IVF) a good thing? I could never minimize the pain and anguish of not being able to have children. Knowing how much joy and love (and frustration, but we’ll skip that for now) my children bring into my life, I could not imagine what it would be like without them, nor what it would be like to not be able to have them. Embryonic stem cell research would not be possible without IVF. An excellent argument by proponents of embryonic stem cell research, is that there are millions of embryos from IVF that are in freezers just “sitting” there. Most of them will never be implanted. To me that is almost as bad as killing them to extract stem cells, but at least there is still a chance of them becoming the people they are already are.

On top of that, an article in Christianity Today discusses a survey, “Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks over Two Decades”, from the American Sociological Review which describes the increasing loneliness of Americans.

Today, a friend sent a link to an article from Psychology Today which discusses depression, anxiety, self-esteem, and parenting.

Last of all, a link to Der Spiegel (in English), reporting on European towns removing traffic signs, and its effects on people’s behavior.

What on earth do these all have to do with each other? It’s very simple, yet not. All of the articles revolve around balance. At an increasing pace, we are removing ourselves from the very interactions that make us human.

However, I will add my $.02 to the stem cell debate itself.

First and foremost, the troubling part about many of those that are using stem cell research as a political flaming arrow (whether for political office, or for some proposition), is that they always say that so-and-so opposes stem cell research, but the truth is that so-and-so (usually) opposes the “destruction” (euphemism for KILLING) of embryos for the harvesting of embryonic stem cells. The person (or people in the case of propositions) don’t oppose stem cell research per se, but the source of the stem cells.

What is particularly appalling, is the “pie-in-the-sky” cures that are being placed at the alter of stem cell research, especially embryonic stem cell research. John Edwards during his and John Kerry’s presidential campaign, fell deeply into that trap, saying that Christopher Reeve would walk again, and other, well frankly, absurd claims. I am not saying that stem cell research will not allow paralyzed people to walk, or cure Alzheimer’s, or cure Parkinson’s, but in certainly won’t happen soon, REGARDLESS of the source of stem cells.

Also, those that are using stem cell research as part of their political arsenal, either refuse to acknowledge or are deliberately not speaking of (because it interferes with their TRUE political aims, whatever they might be) adult stem cell research. There have been a number of publicized stem cell treatment studies, which only when read in their entirety, mention that ADULT stem cells are what are being used.

From what I understand, at this point, embryonic stem cells are only producing tumors. If that is the case, why is it being pushed? Because of its “potential”? If that is the reason, then these same folk should be trumpeting adult stem cell research (especially in light of its currently greater successes), pushing for the same federal and state funding they are trying to direct towards embryonic stem cell research.

They say pharmaceutical and bio-engineering companies don’t have the money to fund embryonic stem cell research. Yet these same companies have the money to fund adult stem cell research, and are close, supposedly, to a couple of successful treatments. It is disingenuous to say that companies are afraid of the political backlash on supposedly moral and ethical grounds, while, on the other hand, accusing the SAME companies of gouging the American public for medicinal treatments (i.e., unethical and immoral behavior).

The other part of this that I have an issue with is, is the hypocrisy. People who are out agitating for the killing of embryos (or destruction of same, if you wish), and genetic therapies on humans, oppose animal research, including genetic research, and also oppose genetically engineered tomatoes (for longer staying power in the stores) or fish (can’t remember the rationale for this one) or grain (to increase yield, especially for countries with FAMINE and STARVING children). Why is it okay to mess with the incredibly complex and still quite unknown (we’ve mapped the human genome, but do we REALLY know what it means) of human beings, but we can’t mess with fish, tomatoes, or grain?

Just so it is understood, I am against artificial genetic engineering (farmers have been naturally genetic engineering since the beginning of agriculture), whether it be fish, tomato (granted, tomatoes are yucky anyways), or human. Part of lure of genetic engineering is the thought that, for example, my child will be “perfect”, which completely fails to take into account the entirety of the human condition, of which genetics is only a part. The world in the movie Gattaca is a world where genetic perfection is normal (this was also touched upon in the book Red Genesis by S.C. Sykes), but Gattaca also demonstrates the true power of the human spirit, and how it, if the individual is willing, is the true individual, not their genetics.

Back to the topic at hand. What is the motivator for all the emphasis on embryonic stem cell research? I read a report (Stem Cell Research and Applications) sponsored by the AAAS (despite their attempt to appear unbiased, their sponsored papers and seminars show otherwise), and it is quite clear that there is NO evidence that embryonic stem cell research will produce good “fruit”, and they say as such. Yet the paper says that we must continue it. Why? Especially, as it appears, that there are successful treatments using another stem cell source. What is going on?

I have heard is postulated that those that are advocating embryonic stem cell research are advocating that particular branch of research, because abortion can be “dovetailed” into it as a source of such stem cells. I hope that that postulate is wrong. VERY wrong. However, I fear it is true. As far as I can tell, those who advocate embryonic stem cell research (and also disregarding adult stem cell research), and are agitating for it politically, are also pro-”choice”, thus seeming to bolster the “need” to continue to have “choice”. I find it hard to believe that ANYONE could be so detached from their own humanity to think that way. So again, I hope that that postulate is wrong.

The true conflict is between worldviews, and not incomprehension of science as many claim. The questions that seem to apply purely to this topic, and have differing worldviews, are as follows:

• Where does life begin?
• When is it okay to alter genetics?
• What is the value of a human life?

The first question is the hardest, mostly, and is the source of the conflict. For me, it is at conception, which of course causes a conflict with hormonal birth control, and I recognize the inconsistency, and struggle to conform them. Before I go further, I heard someone say yesterday that no one has funerals for miscarriages, while that is not universally true, on the other hand, when my wife miscarried we both mourned. That lost life was valued by us. Those that support embryonic stem cell research usually seem to be pro-choice, which seems to have the view that life begins whenever the pregnant woman says it does. If she calls it a fetus, it is abortable. If she calls is a baby, everything must be done to preserve the child. This is regardless of the child’s (which is what I call it) gestational age. THAT is inconsistent.

The genetics question was discussed above, but the abbreviated answers are: for me, never artificially; for supporters of embryonic stem cell research, the answer seems to be, on humans, when ever we want to, for animals or plants, never. Which segues into the next question.

This, now that I think about it, might actually be harder than I thought. For people such as Peter Singer (a professor of “ethics” at Princeton), the value of human life is whenever that life is valuable to him, or of value to whomever the question is asked. For him, by way of clarification, those that are a burden (such those with Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Autism, you name it) should be “removed” so that they do not use up valuable resources. For me, human life is always valuable, however, sometimes (not for convenience’s sake) human life must be taken, but I believe that an unborn child deserves a whole lot more protection than they are getting now.

Those that support or oppose embryonic stem cell research both deserve to be listened to, but by painting embryonic stem cell research as all but the entirety of stem cell research, cannot even lead to possible discussion, but its premise is based on falsehood.