God is GREAT!

He is the creator of everything — seen and unseen.  He holds time and the countless galaxies in the palm of his hand.

He is the author of salvation and the sustainer of our faith.

He has no beginning and no end. 

He made you and me. 

His ways are not our ways, yet He walked amongst us and suffered and died for our sins.

He is permanent.

He hears our prayers.

He invented grace.

He is love.

He is holy.

He is great.

biz, legal, and professionalism humor video

Thinking about law school?

On a more serious note, see Justice Scalia’s thoughts re law school here

If still interested, look for schools and organizations with mentors who understand the intersection of Christianity and the law, both in practice and in jurisprudence.  See for example here, here and here.

culture entertainment

Tempest in the taxpayer funded NPR teapot

On a subsequent O’Reilly show, liberal NPR analyst Juan Williams was explaining the importance of not stereotyping everyone within a religion because of the violent acts of some members of the religion.  In the course of his argument, he said that when he’s on a public flight, he worries when he sees people on the flight whose dress makes it clear that they are devote Muslims.

I’ve been on many flights since 9/11, and on numerous occasions since then have experienced the same concerns.  If I watched Mr. O’Reilly’s show and heard the statement, it would’ve registered as a yawner … a statement of the obvious.  As Mr. Krauthammer points out, this admission by Mr. Williams wasn’t too terribly different from Mr. Jackson’s admission years ago that when he hears footsteps approaching him from behind at night, he’s relieved when he sees it’s not a young black man.  In the case of Mr. Williams, there was one big difference with this admission — the consequence.  NPR promptly fired him.

Never a shrinking violet, Mr. Williams explains here why he’s none to happy with NPR’s punishment.  That liberals are intolerant of dissent is nothing new.  That federally funded NPR is a bastion of liberals and Washington DC group-think should only be a surprise to someone who doesn’t listen to NPR.  What is, however, somewhat surprising, is how, accordingly to Mr. Williams, the leadership at NPR militantly opposes anything that even gives the appearance of cooperating with conservatives.  I could care less about any of this if NPR was a private entity, supported by the fruits of its own labors.  However the fact that my tax dollars support these left-wing wind bags makes it chaffing.  In 1994, I hoped that one of the “Republican Revolution” results would be the defunding of NPR.  Mr. William’s timing is perfect.  Hopefully a 2011 Republican Congress will take note and act accordingly.  O’Reilly is making the same point here.


What really is an “Extremist”?

On a recent episode of “The View”, apparently Bill O’Reilly offended a couple of the host ladies for stating that the 9/11 terrorist acts were done by Muslims. The ladies argued that it wasn’t Muslims, it was “Extremists” that killed the Americans and then stormed off stage.

So what is an Extremist? Webster’s dictionary defines an Extremist as “advocacy of extreme measures or views,” and extreme as “going to great or exaggerated lengths.”

How does one become an extremist in their faith? Is it that they live and obey the teachings, practices and principals of the founders of the religion? If so, then what is the argument presented by these ladies?

The founder of Islam is Mohammed. The founder of Christianity is Jesus Christ. It is my understanding that Mohammed killed or at least gave instructions to kill. Jesus did neither. I have read by some Muslims that Mohammed killed in self defense. Jesus ordered Peter to put away his sword in self defense on the night of His arrest.

Because I believe in the Bible, believe in Jesus as my Savior, believe in Creation and the Creator, believe in Hell, believe in separation from God through sin, believe in the 10 commandments, believe in His resurrection…does this mean I am an extremist? I often wonder for those who have never studied Christianity, if they interpret a Christian Fundamentalist as someone who is living and obeying the laws of the Old Testament only. Wouldn’t that then make me a Sadducee or Pharisee instead?

For an interesting article of the differences between Mohammed and Jesus, see here.

homeschooling video World etc.
homeschooling World etc.

The nanny state marches on … Dominic Johannson

It’s been 16 months since Swedish “authorities” state-napped Dominic Johannson as he and his family were preparing to leave Sweden.  Swedish authorities forcibly removed Dominic from his family and placed the child in state-controlled foster care because his parents had been homeschooling the 7-year-old.  Authorities denied visitation rights but have relented to allow brief, supervised visits every five weeks or so. The parents raised an international protest, and Swedish social services have dug in and refuse to reunite the child with the family. 

Apparently, the legal authority Sweden cites to justify its exercising state parental rights over the authority of the actual parents is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.  This convention is a very bad piece of public policy that should not be implemented in the US.  The state should not be given the authority to ensure that children are raised and educated as “the state” deems appropriate. 

See latest report from WND as well as links to prior reports here.  Kudoas to ADF and HSLDA for continuing the legal fight for Dominic and his family.

World etc.

Plan B: sharia and global caliphate

Islamist Watch reports details about the criminal prosecution of Christians who proselytize Muslims.  What makes this newsworthy is that the prosecution trend reported is in the United States.  See here.   Ruth R. Wisse writes at the Wall Street Journal (full access via Google) of uber-educated Harvard students responding violently to criticism (by Mr. Martin Peretz) of Muslims:

After the event adjourned, the afternoon turned ugly as police had to protect Mr. Peretz while he walked across campus surrounded by a mob of screaming students.  On Sept. 4, blogging at the New Republic’s web site, he lamented that Muslims don’t respond more vigorously to acts of terrorism against their own people:”Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims. And among those Muslims led by the Imam Rauf [of the proposed Cordoba House mosque] there is hardly one who has raised a fuss about the routine and random bloodshed that defines their brotherhood. So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.”

Apparently, there were no student protests or violent reactions over the serial use by Muslims of suicide bombers against Muslim civilians in Iraq and in Afghanistan.  No report today of protests at Harvard in response to the Muslim bombing of civilians at the Shirkat mosque in the Takhar province of Afghanistan.  So long as no one criticizes Muslims for such conduct, no protests at Harvard are expected.  Not to be outdone, a class of nearby Yale students interviewed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to better understand him and his goals, shortly after Ahmadinejad explained to the UN the possibility that the US staged 9/11.  Fifty years ago, our intellectual elites cozied up to Communist dictators and murderers.  (Of course, many Academics as well as most Hollywood still fawn over the same in Cuba.) The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The legitimacy of the Ivy League sympathies and of the criminal prosecution of those who seek to convert Muslims in this country depends at least in part on whether Islam poses a threat.  Were the agents of 9/11 and the numerous attacks against the US the acts of fringe radicals or are they representative of a large percentage of Muslims?  A recent and well-considered analysis by the Center for Security Policy concludes that Shariah, a fundamental component of Islam, poses a serious threat to the security and well-being of the United States.

Today, the United States faces what is, if anything, an even more insidious ideological threat: the totalitarian socio-political doctrine that Islam calls shariah. Translated as “the path,” shariah is a comprehensive legal and political framework. Though it certainly has spiritual elements, it would be a mistake to think of shariah as a “religious” code in the Western sense because it seeks to regulate all manner of behavior in the secular sphere – economic, social, military, legal and political.

 Shariah is the crucial fault line of Islam’s internecine struggle. On one side of the divide are Muslim reformers and authentic moderates – figures like Abdurrahman Wahid, the late president of Indonesia and leader of the world’s largest libertarian Muslim organization, Nahdlatul Ulama – whose members embrace the Enlightenment’s veneration of reason and, in particular, its separation of the spiritual and secular realms. On this side of the divide, shariah is a reference point for a Muslim’s personal conduct, not a corpus to be imposed on the life of a pluralistic society.

 By contrast, the other side of the divide is dominated by Muslim supremacists, often called Islamists. Like erstwhile proponents of Communism and Nazism, these supremacists – some terrorists, others employing stealthier means – seek to impose a totalitarian regime: a global totalitarian system cloaked as an Islamic state and called a caliphate. On that side of the divide, which is the focus of the present study, shariah is an immutable, compulsory system that Muslims are obliged to install and the world required to adopt, the failure to do so being deemed a damnable offence against Allah. For these ideologues, shariah is not a private matter. Adherents see the West as an obstacle to be overcome, not a culture and civilization to be embraced, or at least tolerated. It is impossible, they maintain, for alternative legal systems and forms of governments peacefully to coexist with the end-state they seek.

Full report here.


When juries rule against a student studying his Bible at recess….

It’s one thing for school administrators and legal elites to serially discriminate against Christianity in the public sphere.  It reaches an entirely new and much more dangerous level when our peers, as reflected in our courtroom juries, follow the lead in discriminating against the free exercise of Christianity. 

In Knoxville, Kentucky, a jury recently held that a public school could prohibit its 5th grade students from studying and discussing their Bibles during recess. The federal judge overseeing the case upheld the jury’s decision.  A ten-year-old student and some of his friends had been studying and discussing their Bibles during recess.  A student complained and the principle prohibited any further Bible studies at recess. 

Prejudice against Christianity from a federal judge in the form of allowing such content based discrimination isn’t surprising.  A jury from the American heartland upholding such blatant discrimination is a cause for concern.  Full story here.


How America views God

In today’s USA Today, there is a large article on a survey done by Baylor University. The premise of the survey was to get an understanding of how Americans view God to be.

9 out of 10 Americans believe that there is a god. But of those, how do they view god? The survey categorized 4 categories describing god based on the views of how people view god:
– Authoritative (28%)
– Benevolent (22%)
– Critical (21%)
– Distant (24%)
* The remaining 5% they categorized as Atheist / Agnostic

Personally, I would have liked to have seen additional questions in the survey to identify if their god is the Biblical God. Perhaps questions like:
– Do you actively read the Bible?
– Can you site scriptures for each response provided?

I would imagine that the majority of those 9 of 10 people replied to the survey questions about who / what is god with statements that began with “I think that god…” or “I believe that god is…”. It’s one thing to say that there is a god. But it’s a completely different question if they can identify that god with the God of the Bible. In other words, how many people base their views of what the Bible says about God versus those who have made up their own image of a god.