Friday, July 18, 2008

Good Stewardship of ANWR

Following on the heals of the much esteemed OneMom, I am linking to Kevin Tracy's post about Congressional Candidate, Luke Puckett's trip to ANWR. It dovetails nicely with my "Stewardship and Natural Resources" post.

I think that drilling in ANWR is good stewardship for these reasons.
1. It would help the whole country and local Alaskans.
2. It does not cripple God's systems.
3. It would make us less dependent on other countries who hate our guts and wish us dead.

So go check out Kevin's post. And while you're there, check out the lack of facts in the typical liberal rhetoric about drilling for oil in ANWR.

Megan and Mandy

I love stories like this. This story is about two young people stepping out in faith against the ACLU. It is a story about a graduating class quoting the Lord's Prayer together. It is a story of revival at a graduation ceremony. The Rebelution has the whole story. Here are my favorite parts.

Only a few hours later more than 3,000 people packed into the Russell County High gymnasium to watch 200 seniors graduate. As the principal finished his opening remarks the senior class suddenly stood as one body and began to recite The Lord’s Prayer! Before they could finish the audience erupted into thunderous applause. Some students were too overcome with emotion to finish. But the statement had been made. They would not bow down to the ACLU.

Again and again the speech was interrupted with applause and punctuated by several standing ovations.The Louisville Courier-Journal reporter covering the event described the evening as having a “revival-like atmosphere,” to the complete dismay of the ACLU! In trying to silence a prayer they had sparked a revival!

Now my question is, "Do elders, bishops, pastors, and preachers have the same faith?" Or will they be easily silenced through the likes of the ACLU or the IRS?

Is Infanticide Coming to America?

Wesley J. Smith at Secondhand Smoke has posted about a disturbing article in journal for pediatric nurses. He deplores the blandness with which the journal looks at the Netherlands' policy about killing certain babies. I think his warning is valid.

Beware! What we don't condemn, what we claim to be mere "dilemmas," we eventually are urged to allow. Infanticide is moving into the mainstream of bioethics and the medical intelligentsia.

He also makes a great point about how we start down slippery slopes.

This is precisely how the Culture of Death permeates our society. A bioethical practice once almost universally condemned is promoted at the fringes. The initial response is resistance. But soon, the non judgmentalism arrives, usually in professional journals and among "progressive" pundits, asserting that these issues are "complex," or "difficult," or "gray," or "complicated." Once this non judgmentalism softens the ground, the issue shifts to one of mere "choice" (as with dehydration of PVS patients), and finally the decision of bioethicists (as in Futile Care Theory).

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Child Abuse?

An Idaho mom (Melissa Farrell) is facing abuse charges for giving her child two swats. Though the chlid (21-month-old) was examined at a hospital and found to be uninjured, the prosecutor is following through anyway. If you would like to read the whole account according to OneNewsNow, click here.

The parents are now facing $5,000 in legal fees to fight the accusations. The father is already working three jobs to try to keep the family provided for.

Let us all keep the Farrell's in our prayers. It must be very difficult to be in their circumstance.

California Will Vote

Looks like CA will get to vote on their marriage amendment. I praise the Lord for this. I also pray that all those who can see the value of God's design for marriage will flood the polls. Read the story here.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Incompetent Voters

OK. Major eye-roll to American voters.

A new poll finds half of voters don't know that presidential candidate John McCain is pro-life on abortion or that Barack Obama is pro-abortion. The survey shows that, when pro-life voters know that information, they support McCain by a three-to-one margin.

Is it that abortion is unimportant to these voters? Are they to lazy or apathetic to research even the basics on their candidate?

Either way, major eye-roll.

Read the whole story at

New and Old and All Borrowed

I found some interesting posts/articles while zooming around the Internet this week. Some are old and some are new, but they were all new to me.

Over at Bold Christian Living, Jonathan Lindvall talks about 10 mistakes modern homeschoolers make. He and his family were one of the pioneering families back in the 80's.

Two missionaries (one American and one Norwegian) were found guilty of teaching the Gospel in public in Norway after the police told them to stop. "If this decision is upheld it will, in effect, mean that Articles 9, freedom of religion, and Article 10, freedom of expression, of the European Convention on Human Rights are only valid if the police in Norway approve of your speech," Thornton continued. "Otherwise they can arrest you at any time and stop your speech." You can read the whole LifeSiteNews story here.

Massachusetts furthers the cause of the homosexual agenda. They have made it legal for same sex couples from other states to get married in MA. Read the OneNewsNow story here.

I found a new (to me) blog that I really like called Laugh at the Days. Check out the frugality posts.

Rasmussen claims 67% of Americans favor off-shore drilling. This gives me some hope because very few politicians are brave enough to withstand the masses.

Brian Thomas at the Institute for Creation Research, writes about the extreme complexity of the so called "simple" bacteria. This article is about the "clutch" on a bacteria's flagellum.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

McCain the Gun Grabber

In light of my new interest in gun ownership (see previous post here), I looked into McCain's 2nd Amendment record. Here is a Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party Pres. candidate) quote about him from GOA.

Let me say it straight out: a John McCain Presidency would be far worse than a Barack Obama Presidency. With a Democrat in the White House, conservatives and Christians suddenly find their principles and are able to offer resistance. Put a Republican in the Oval Office, however, and those same people become blind, deaf, and dumb to most any principle they profess.

Nowhere is McCain's chicanery and duplicity more jeopardous than in the area of the right to keep and bear arms. On issues relating to the Second Amendment, John McCain is a disaster! For example, the highly respected Gun Owners of America (GOA) rates McCain with a grade of F-. McCain's failing grade is well deserved.

Now one might be able to say that he is biased as he is running against McCain. Fair enough. Let's let the evidence speak for itself. You can see a sample of his voting record here.

Can McCain Even Say Consistency?

Kevin Tracy has posted a clip of John McCain and his double talk. This kind of thing (on gay marriage among other topics) is one of the main reasons I will not vote for McCain. (I am certainly not voting for Obama either. Chuck Baldwin is the guy for me.) So take a listen for yourself. He reminds me of Bill Clinton; say whatever you need to say for whatever crowd you are in front of.

Monday, July 14, 2008

Stewardship and Natural Resources

I have been thinking a lot lately about biblical stewardship and natural resources. I thought I would share them and see what you all think.

First concept-
Everything is God’s. Psalm 50:12b “. . . for the world is mine, and all that is in it.”

Second concept-
God gives individuals the right to steward resources under their control. In the Old Testament, individuals/families were given charge of the land. There were certain regulations they were to follow. For example, they were to leave the land fallow every 7th year. (Leviticus 25:4) So the people weren’t to treat the land willie-nillie, but they were given authority over it.

Third concept-
Handing things over to the government that God placed in the hands of individuals is a dangerous things to do. (See other posts on marriage and “Choices”.)

Fourth concept-
Being a good steward means using what God has entrusted to you. See the “Parable of the Talents” in Matthew 25:15 and following. Hoarding (accumulating for preservation) is not using. Wasting (consuming or employing without adequate return) is not using. Using indicates an immediate purpose.

Fifth concept-
Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Matthew 7:12) If you don’t want to drink polluted water, don’t pollute the water. I want to note here that the “others” in the passage above refers to people (as opposed to animals or plants). Not that I am against plants and animals. Some people just forget that there is a significant distinction.

Sixth concept-
God has designed natural systems all over the place. Messing with them is a bad idea. Demolish the wetlands that soak up surge around New Orleans and you get more devastation during Hurricane Katrina. I am not saying that was the only cause, but it was a factor. There are many other examples of people messing with God’s systems around the world.

So what are some ways that we can use the resources in our control in ways that please God?
1. To provide (food or money for food) for ourselves. (See Gen. 3)
2. To enjoy life. (I Timothy 6:17)
3. To allow the poor a source of work/income. In the Old Testament, those that owned land were to leave the corners for the poor. In America today, I am not sure how that would work.
4. To store up treasure in Heaven. (Matthew 6:19-20) One excellent way to do this (if you happen to be a farmer or rancher) is through STEER, inc. They provide the cow, you provide the work and feed, and a mission point gets the money.
5. To observe God’s glory. Psalm 19:1

Of course these days, most people do not own significant amounts of land (along with indigenous plants/animals). And if you want to turn your lawn into a meadow, you’ll likely have to get a special permit from the city. In many western states the federal government (including reservations) owns most of the land. Check out the map here. That doesn’t take into account state owned lands.

So since we have handed so much of the land over to the government, what would an ideal government do with it.
1. Allow people to use it to provide more food/jobs for people. Some of the government land in the west is leased to ranchers. I think that drilling for oil and other ventures that help many people are also appropriate.
2. National parks are a great way to enjoy nature. They could also be great places to observe the glory of God, but don’t expect any help on that from the government.
3. Use the land in ways that don’t destroy the natural systems God has put in place.

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Pretentious Pompous Punks

At our small group last night, I heard a story that led to this one. One of our group works at an adoption agency. She was saying that one of the teenagers she is working with was being induced on Monday. I asked why thinking that something must have gone wrong. (Why else would you pull a risky maneuver such as artificially starting labor?) Her response was, "Oh the doctor was going on vacation or something." This kind of thing makes me want to label all OB/GYNSs as pretentious, pompous punks. This poor girl is already going through the stress of giving up her baby for adoption with unsupportive parents. And now because of your vacation she should endure the risk and added pain of an induced labor?! So, since I am all fired up, I am posting about birth inspired by this post from the Family Journey.

God has designed an amazing system to deliver babies from the womb that is healthy for mothers. In a skilled midwife environment where health is emphasized, as few as 2-3% require a surgical delivery. The World Health Organization recommends countries aim for 5-10% c-sections (as opposed to 20-35% in many industrialized countries). Yet, in the US the 2007 numbers show that almost 1 in 3 end up with a c-section in this country. Why?

God has designed an amazing system to deliver babies from the womb that is healthy for babies. From the article mentioned above. . .

The physiological birth process is automatic: hormones fire, the cervix gradually opens, the uterus contracts, the baby descends, muscles engage. An optimal birth, one in which mother and child emerge as healthy as can be, is one that begins spontaneously, progresses on its own and concludes with the least amount of intervention necessary.

But hospital maternity care in the U.S. is typically not supportive of this process. More than half of women are induced into labor, or it is sped up with artificial hormones; the vast majority of women labor and push in the desultory flat-on-the-back or leaning-back position; and (perhaps not surprisingly) nearly one-third of women end up giving birth through major surgery, the caesarean section.

This has led to an epidemic of pre-term births in the United States. A 2006 survey showed that the majority of babies are now born before the spontaneous onset of labor, which leaves them more prone to breathing and feeding difficulties. Caesareans are also contributing to a rising maternal death rate, announced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last year.

And now back to the pretentious, pompous punks. (I added the bold.)

Organized medicine can’t believe this. Dismissing the research evidence, the AMA resolution states that “the safest setting for labor, delivery and the immediate postpartum period is in the hospital” or an accredited birth center. In its own statement earlier this year, the American College of Ob/Gyns went even further, implying that women who choose home birth are selfish and irresponsible: “choosing to deliver a baby at home … is to place the process of giving birth over the goal of having a healthy baby.”

Compare that to this information in Britain’s NHS-issued handout my friend was given at her first prenatal appointment: “There is no evidence to support the common assertion that home birth is a less safe option for women experiencing uncomplicated pregnancies.” In a joint statement last year, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Royal College of Midwives said, “There is no reason why home birth should not be offered to women at low risk of complications, and it may confer considerable benefits for them and their families.”

The AMA’s statement calls for legislation that could be used against women who choose home birth, possibly resulting in criminal child-abuse or neglect charges. The group says this is about safety, but with no credible research to back up its claim, this argument falls flat. Women are simply caught in a turf war over the maternity market, and it would appear that the physicians’ groups are perfectly willing to trample the modern medical ethic of patient autonomy — grounded in our legal rights to self-determination, to liberty and to privacy — in their grab for control.

The truth is drowning in a sea of lies all over this country. I think that it is our duty as Christians to stand for the truth be it the truth about childbirth, the truth about a candidate, or the truth about evolution. After all, Satan is the father of lies.