Religion

Adrift Down the Tubes

Three news items for you to chew on.

Most Americans Say Divorce is Morally Acceptable

A record 70 percent of Americans believe divorce is morally acceptable, according to Gallup’s 2008 Values and Beliefs survey. That’s an 11-point increase from seven years ago.

[…]

Of the poll’s 16 ethical issues rated for moral acceptability, divorce topped the list, followed by gambling, embryonic stem-cell research, homosexuality and abortion. Extramarital affairs — often a cause of divorce — are at the bottom of the list, with just 7 percent of Americans finding them morally acceptable.

By what moral law and standard do my fellow Americans make this judgment? (At 70%, that includes a lot of real — as well as nominal — Christians. Wow!)

And why does that moral law and standard make extramarital affairs so unacceptable?

OK, here’s the second story:

Boston Doctor Offers Sex Change Treatment to Kids

Dr. Norman Spack, a pediatric specialist at the hospital, has launched a clinic for transgendered kids — boys who feel like girls, girls who want to be boys — and he’s opening his doors to patients as young as 7.

So Doc Spack is catching lots of flak. I wonder if it’s coming from any in the 70% mentioned above. And why.

Now from the Mail Online (UK), the third story:

Fathers aren’t needed say MPs: Commons decides IVF babies can do without a male role model

Fathers were last night effectively declared an irrelevance in modern Britain.

The requirement for fertility doctors to consider a child’s need for a male role model before giving women IVF treatment was scrapped by MPs.

In a free vote, they swept away the rule despite impassioned pleas that the Government plan would “drive another nail into the coffin of the traditional family”.

Labour rebels said it would send entirely the wrong signal to society as Britain faces a crisis in responsible parenting. The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, had warned it would remove the father from the heart of the family.

Will They Get the Children Back?

History Says Sect Moms Will Get Back Kids

At a series of hearings beginning today, Texas child protection workers are expected to tell a judge that members of a West Texas polygamous sect must renounce an alleged decades-long practice of marrying underage girls to older men if they want to regain custody of their children.

The hearings — individual status meetings for all 464 children in state custody — are the latest step in what is believed to be the largest child protection case in U.S. history, a sprawling process that already has cost millions of dollars and promises to continue into next year.

Texas officials will present a series of steps that Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints parents will have to follow in order for their children to be returned, including proving they can provide a home free from potential child abusers and demonstrating the ability to protect children from abuse.

“You can’t be in bigamist marriages, and the other thing you can’t do is marry off young teenagers to very old men,” said Scott McCown, a former Texas district court judge.

“If they are not willing to give that up, the state’s position is going to be that the children are never going to go home. That’s going to be state’s non-negotiable bottom line,” McCown said.

But this is not first time the sect’s practices have been challenged by state authorities, and it was unclear what the long-term impact will be on the polygamous group, which has been raided by authorities in several states four times over the last 75 years.

Though Arizona arrested dozens of men and took hundreds of children into custody in 1953, that raid appeared to have little effect on the group’s beliefs or practices, leading some to question whether the results will be any different in Texas.

“I think it will be a repeat of history,” said Martha Bradley, a University of Utah professor and author of “Kidnapped From That Land,” a study of the now-infamous 1953 raid on the town known then as Short Creek.

Within two years of the raid, all sect members were back in Short Creek.

Representing the USA

Interesting news story, for what it says about running scared:

U.S. soldier riddles Koran with bullets in Iraq

An American soldier has been disciplined and ordered from Iraq, the U.S. military said on Sunday, for using a copy of the Koran for target practice at a shooting range near Baghdad.

[…]

CNN said when Major-General Jeffery Hammond, the commander of U.S. troops in Baghdad, and other officers arrived to deliver the apology to local leaders in Radwaniya they were met by hundreds of protesting Sunni Arab tribesmen.

“I am a man of honor, I am a man of character. You have my word this will never happen again,” Hammond told the crowd.

“In the most humble manner, I look into your eyes today and I say, please forgive me and my soldiers,” CNN reported on its website.

It said Colonel Ted Martin, a brigade commander, held up a new copy of the Koran which he kissed and touched to his forehead as he handed it to the tribal elders.

“I hope that you’ll accept this humble gift,” Martin said.

And for what it says about representing one’s country.

Which of the above three men accurately represented the United States?

(Oh, Mr. Hammond — Do you realize your statement above could seem to suggest that you authorized the incident for which you are issuing a No-Repeat guarantee?)

But far more importantly to me, am I an accurate representation of the Kingdom of Heaven?

When I as a Christian take the name of Christ, am I portraying an accurate representation of my King?

I think this story is tragic for what it says about the US…and for the ill it portends for this country.

But I think that’s far less tragic than Mark Roth (and you?) being a poor representative of and ambassador for Jesus Christ.

What’s the Point?

Dead Heat (Political Thrillers Series #5)

Today I finished reading Joel C. Rosenberg’s latest “Christian” novel, Dead Heat.

It’s interesting.

Especially since the author seems well-connected and in-the-know. And at times he could seem remotely semi-prophetic (in a forth-telling sort of way).

But what’s the point and purpose of the novel?

And why would Christians kill or order the deaths of others?

And why did Mr. Rosenberg include an extremely brief — part of a sentence, as I recall — mention of passionate physical intimacy between two of the main characters?

Most importantly to me, perhaps, is something far more personal — Why did I read the book?

Oh my.

The At-60 Miracle

I just read this article over at RealClearPolitics:

Before sending Lewis and Clark west, Thomas Jefferson dispatched Meriwether Lewis to Philadelphia to see Dr. Benjamin Rush. The eminent doctor prepared a series of scientific questions for the expedition to answer. Among them, writes Stephen Ambrose: “What Affinity between their (the Indians’) religious Ceremonies & those of the Jews?” Jefferson and Lewis, like many of their day and ours, were fascinated by the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, and thought they might be out there on the Great Plains.

They weren’t. They aren’t anywhere. Their disappearance into the mists of history since their exile from Israel in 722 B.C. is no mystery. It is the norm, the rule for every ancient people defeated, destroyed, scattered and exiled.

With one exception, a miraculous story of redemption and return, after not a century or two, but 2,000 years. Remarkably, that miracle occurred in our time. This week marks its 60th anniversary: the return and restoration of the remaining two tribes of Israel — Judah and Benjamin, later known as the Jews — to their ancient homeland.

Read the whole thing!

It Doesn’t Take an Einstein

For what?

Oh, I don’t know. It just seemed like a good title to use for this news bit:

Belief in God “childish” — Jews not chosen people

“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.

“No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this,” he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper.

[…]

“For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions,” he said.

“And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people.”

And he added: “As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.”

Previously the great scientist’s comments on religion — such as “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” — have been the subject of much debate, used notably to back up arguments in favour of faith.

Oh, what does he know?!!

I expect he might know more now than he did then.

For sure he knows that he was wrong regarding God and His Word.

Above all, love God!