Oklahoma is OK

While extolling (not trolling, Tink ;)) the virtue of the Baptist Press to fellow blogger "Froggie", I came across an interesting article out of Oklahoma concerning the new anti-abortion bill there.

"The Oklahoma legislature finished April 27 overriding vetoes of two pro-life bills, only four days after Gov. Brad Henry had rejected them.

The Senate voted 36-12 on both measures. One of the bills requires an ultrasound before an abortion, and the other protects a doctor from a "wrongful birth" lawsuit for failing to persuade the mother to have an abortion. The latter is designed to protect unborn babies who are diagnosed with disabilities and might be considered by some pro-choicers to be better off dead.

The Senate actions enacting the bills came a day after the House of Representatives voted to override the vetoes. The House voted 81-14 for the ultrasound legislation and 84-12 for the "wrongful birth" measure."

Hurray for Oklahoma! Perhaps requiring those seeking an abortion might cut down on incidences like the following report out of Italy from 2 days ago...

"The 22-week infant was found breathing a day after the operation. He died one day later in intensive care at a hospital in the mother's home town of Rossano, in southern Italy.

The mother, pregnant for the first time, had opted for an abortion after prenatal scans revealed that the foetus had a cleft lip and palate, according to reports in the Italian media. The condition is treatable with surgery.

The baby - weighing just 11oz - survived the procedure, carried out on Saturday in the Rossano Calabro hospital, but was left by doctors to die.

He was discovered alive the following day – some 20 hours after the operation – by Father Antonio Martello, the hospital chaplain, who had gone to pray beside his body.

He found that the baby, wrapped in a sheet with his umbilical cord still attached, was moving and breathing.

The priest raised the alarm and doctors immediately arranged for the infant to be taken to a specialist neo-natal unit at the neighbouring Cosenza hospital, where he died on Monday morning.

The story has caused outrage in Italy, where many have called for the country's abortion laws to be changed.

On Thursday, Archbishop Santo Marciano of Rossano-Cariati, criticised the "arbitrary superficiality" of hospital staff and said the Catholic country should reflect on its attitudes both to the unborn and to the disabled."

Am I alone here in seeing how outrageous Western society has become in treating it's most vulnerable members? The baby in Italy was delivered after 22 weeks. The above illustration shows a baby after 12 weeks. Can we try to arrive at some sort of middle ground that many of us can agree on concerning abortion procedures?

St Paul on Slavery

Photogr had an interesting comment yesterday on the Mining history for only certain sins thread. He stated... "Human slavery is wrong no matter if it was in biblical times or in present times such as sex slavery trade or whatever a human is used for gain by a select few at the expense of one's freedom. No man or woman should have domain over another for their own personal gain."



I think we can all agree that slavery as it exists in the world today is a horrible practice. Various organizations are working toward freeing as many individuals as they can. Likewise, slavery in the antebellum South, as exemplified in the famous mini-series Roots, was a horrific institution of despair and suffering. But what type of institution was the apostle Paul referring to in his epistles? Author Wayne Grudem (PhD), who is pictured above, weighs in with his thoughts on the matter...

"Paul says to slaves, "If you can gain your freedom, avail yourselves of the opportunity" (1 Corinthians 7:21). And he tells Philemon that that he should welcome his slave Onesimus back "no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, as a beloved brother" (Philemon 16) and that he should "receive him as you would receive me" (v.17). Paul tells Philemon that if Onesimus owes him anything, Paul would pay it himself (v.18-19). Finally he says, "Confident of your obedience, I write to you knowing that you will do even more than I say" (v.21) This is a strong and not so subtle hint that Philemon should grant freedom to Onesimus. Paul's condemnation of "enslavers" in 1 Timothy 1:10 also showed the moral wrong of forcibly putting anyone into slavery.

When we hear the word "slavery" today it is usually what we have read in books and seen on tv, concerning horrible abuses that occurred in the 19th century and earlier. But if that is what comes to mind when we read the word "slave" in Bible, then that is a distorted picture.

The person referred to as a "slave" or "bondsman" in the New Testament (Greek, doulos) was legally bound to a certain master, almost always for a limited period of time, until he could obtain his freedom. A detailed article in The International Bible Encyclopedia explains,

"Persons in slavery under Roman Law in the 1st century AD could generally count on being set free by the age of 30. Pertinent inscriptions, however, indicate that large numbers, approaching 50 percent, were set free before their 30th birthdays."

Slaves in this sense had a higher social status and better economic situation than free day laborers who had to search for employment each day (see Matthew 20:1-7, where the master of the house goes into the marketplace to hire day laborers at different times during the day). By contrast, those who were bondservants (or "slaves") had greater economic security with a continuing job and steady income.

Such slaves (in the first century sense of "bondservants") worked in a variety of occupations: In Greco-Roman households, slaves served not only as cooks, cleaners and personal attendants, but also as tutors to persons of all ages, physicians, nurses, close companions and managers of the household. In the business world, slaves were not only janitors and delivery boys; they were managers of estates, shops and ships as well as salesmen and contracting agents. In the civil service, slaves were not only used for street paving and sewer cleaning gangs but also as administrators of funds and personnel and as executives with decision making powers.

How then did people become slaves? While many were born into slavery and while in earlier years up until the time of Caesar Augustus (63 BC- 14 AD) Romans had obtained slaves through conquest in war by the time of the New Testamant.

Large numbers of people sold themselves into slavery for various reasons, above all to enter a life that was easier and more secure than an existance as a poor freeborn person, to obtain special jobs and to climb socially......

Many non-Romans sold themselves to Roman citizens with the justified expectation, carefully regulated by Roman law, of becoming Roman citizens themselves when manumitted.

Certainly, capable slaves had an advantage over their free counterparts in that their owners would often supply them with an excellent education at the owner's expense. Famous philosophers (Epictetus), teachers, grammarians, administrators (M.A. Felix, the procurator who was Paul's judge in Acts 23:24-24:27) artists, physicians and writers were all a part of this practice. These slaves and former slaves formed a broad band of intellectuals in the 1st century. Such slaves did not have to wait until manumission before they were capable of establishing friendships with their owners and other free persons as human beings.

For many, self-sale into slavery with anticipaton of manumission provided the most direct means to be integrated into Greek and Roman society. As such, in stark contrast to New World Slavery in the 17-19th centuries, Greo-Roman slavery functioned as a process rather than a permanent condition. "

So as we can see, this sytem was quite a bit different than that which helped spark the American Civil War. Was it a perfect system? No. But how else could someone from a more primitive culture expect to integrate themselves into Roman society?

The only parallel I can think of off-hand in today's age would be enlistment into the armed services. One enters (in most Western countries) voluntarily and for a specified period of time. While the branch of the armed services that you enlist in dictates what you do and do not do and you, in effect, are theirs, there are certain rules they have to abide by while in their service and they in turn are responsible for you. Nobody is going around calling servicemen and women "slaves" and if they were, they'd be laughed at, and with good reason.

Source cited: Grudem, Wayne: Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, Chapter 9, www.efbt100.com

Mining history for only certain sins

Economist Thomas Sowell, who's archive I link to on the right, has written another timely piece that explores why we are becoming a society of victims and the slanted view of history currently being taught at many schools...

"Slavery is a classic example. The history of slavery across the centuries and in many countries around the world is a painful history to read– not only in terms of how slaves have been treated, but because of what that says about the whole human species– because slaves and enslavers alike have been of every race, religion and nationality.

If the history of slavery ought to teach us anything, it is that human beings cannot be trusted with unbridled power over other human beings– no matter what color or creed any of them are. The history of ancient despotism and modern totalitarianism practically shouts that same message from the blood-stained pages of history.

But that is not the message that is being taught in our schools and colleges, or dramatized on television and in the movies. The message that is pounded home again and again is that white people enslaved black people.

It is true.... But it is also false in its implications for the same reason. Just as Europeans enslaved Africans, North Africans enslaved Europeans – more Europeans than there were Africans enslaved in the United States and in the 13 colonies from which it was formed.

The treatment of white galley slaves was even worse than the treatment of black slaves picking cotton. But there are no movies or television dramas about it comparable to "Roots," and our schools and colleges don't pound it into the heads of students."

I agree with Sowell that it's quite apparent that other instances of slavery are not discussed and only whites of European ancestry are typically mentioned as enslavers and other groups are largely ignored. Also conviently ignored is the fact that it was English Christians that helped end the trans-Atlantic slave trade because after all, we can't cast Christianity in any sort of a positive light these days so we might as well demonize it instead.

Another point conveniently overlooked is the fact that "there are more slaves today than at any time in human history". It's far easier to concentrate on the evils of centuries ago and give the appearance of empathy than speak out against inhumane conditions as they now exist in the world today.

Certain internet skeptics will decry the instances of slavery that are mentioned in Biblical times without ever criticaly examining the subject with anything that resembles an open mind. Assuming that regulating a behavior equals approval for it and failing to note that slavery as mentioned in the Bible was an overwhelmingly voluntary in nature clearly demonstrates a prejudice against a religion that might conflict with the skeptic's worldview. Link.

I pray that we might learn a lesson from this and move forward and help lessen the effects of slavery as it now exists in our world. The next time an internet skeptic is critical of the Bible's stance on slavery, simply mention such organization's as the Church Mission Society and
Free For Life Ministries and politely welcome them aboard in the Bible's admonition, which is also found on the Liberty Bell, to "proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof". (Leviticus 25:10)

Is Benedict XVI the New GWB for the Left?

David Quinn of the Irish newspaper, the Independent raises some interesting parallels between former president George W. Bush and Pope Benedict the XVI. However, before getting started, please allow me to genuflect three times before the Altar of Political Correctness by wholeheartedly stating that ...

• I detest the abuse of children in all it's forms and call for the prosecution of anyone who does it.
  



• I detest the abuse of children in all it's forms and call for the prosecution of anyone who does it.
  



• I detest the abuse of children in all it's forms and call for the prosecution of anyone who does it.
  

Now that I have stated my thoughts on that particular matter, I would like to add something else. I'm not an adherent of Roman Catholicism. I'm a (PCA) Presbyterian and thusly, I really don't have any type of dog in this particular fight. However, I generally pride myself as being someone who can at least distinguish between a good argument and a very crappy one, and it seems that a very crappy argument has been foisted upon much of the Western world recently and widely accepted by numerous people of most every religious stripe.

There have been two different news stories that have been very much publicized recently in the mainstream media concerning Pope Benedict the XVI. An abuse case in Milwaukee, WI in which the Milwaukee Police Department was unable to make an arrest and county prosecutors never indicted anyone.

Also, in another example, this time from the Diocese of Oakland CA, media bias and presuppositions played a roll of the condemnation of Benedict-Ratzinger. Even though, in the error-filled AP report, the Diocese of Oakland was never interviewed to present their side of the story as to what actually happened. People generally accepted the news report as the gospel truth. Link

Lost in all of this recent "reporting" is the fact that the recent articles were Reaching Back Across The Decades to report that which had occured. I thought that to be a bit late in reporting this information myself and the aforementioned Mr Quinn offered his thoughts on the subject...

"Attacks on Benedict, and on the Catholic Church generally, come from many directions. The church is attacked over its supposed attitude towards Protestants, Jews, Muslims and the other religions generally.

Benedict and the church are attacked over their attitude towards homosexuality and human sexuality generally. They are attacked over their defence of the right to life of the unborn, the elderly and the sick. They are attacked over their defence of marriage.

But in a way, all these attacks are an attack on the same thing, namely Benedict and the church's defence of objective truth and morality, its belief that certain things are right or wrong in themselves regardless of opinion or circumstance.

In an age of moral relativism, nothing is more offensive than the person who says, however calmly, that not all 'truths' are equal, that morality is not simply a matter of opinion, that religions are not all equally true or equally false, and that not all lifestyle choices are equal.

With regard to sex, for example, the church says that sex has an objective meaning and purpose and that one such purpose is procreation, which is intrinsically linked to heterosexuality.

This is connected to the defence of marriage. One reason the church says men and women should marry before they have sex is because it believes children have a right to be raised by their two married parents.

But many people, not least cohabiting couples, single parents and homosexuals find this offensive and it leads them into a denial that children have any need for, or right to, a married mother and father. The church cannot go down that road.

Nor can the church say all religions are equal because then it would have to deny that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. But this doesn't mean the church can't treat other religions with respect.

Why is this so difficult to grasp? Presumably we're all able to treat most of the people with whom we disagree with respect. Well, the church does the same, contrary to popular prejudice.

The paradox of relativism is that it claims to treat all points of view equally but in fact it damns and condemns those who deny relativism. In other words, relativists defend their point of view as trenchantly and aggressively as the worst fundamentalists and will brook no opposition.

The Pope calls this ultra-aggressiveness the 'dictatorship of relativism'. The main reason these liberal fundamentalists spend so much of their time and energy attacking the Pope and the church is because they are the foremost defenders of objective truth and morality in the world today.

Destroy Benedict, damage or co-opt the church he leads, and you go a long way towards destroying opposition to liberal fundamentalism. This is a cataclysmic battle between those who believe in objective morality and those who think morality is relative. Joseph Ratzinger is smack bang in the middle of the hottest part of this battle."

As I have previously pointed out in a previous thread, I find it interesting that another columnist has pointed out that ...

"As the Catholic League’s Bill Donahue relates, 80 percent of the victims of priestly abuse have been males and “most of the molesters gays.”

And as the Times’ Richard Berke blurted to the Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association 10 years ago, often, “three-quarters of the people deciding what’s on the front page are not-so-closeted homosexuals.”

Is there perhaps a conflict of interest at The New York Times, when covering a traditionalist Catholic pope?

I hope that's not the case, but would anyone else like to advance another, more plausible explanation at this time? The distinct lack of a truly valid, competing claim as to why there is a sudden interest of the events of over 30 years ago to criticize Benedict and the church he leads may itself lend even more credibility to Mr Quinn's above arguments.

Our Muslim Allies

In all fairness, there are alot of Muslims around the world who are helping coalition forces in the fight against Islamic extremism. "As was the case in the 20th Century, more Muslims in the 21st Century are being killed by Islamic extremists than by non-Muslims" and many rational Muslims realize this. Aydemir Erman, who was Turkey’s special coordinator for Afghanistan from 1991 to 2003 and an advisor for several years afterward comments on the over 800 Turkish troops now stationed in Afghanistan and writes...

"Turks have aided the Afghan government and its people since the days of Amir Abdur Rahman Khan, the “Iron Amir” who unified the country during his reign from 1880 to 1901 and embarked on a path of modernization. Afghanistan was the second country to recognize modern Turkey in 1921 after the USSR. Modern Turkey was instrumental in establishing the military academy, medical school, Kabul University and its faculty of political sciences, the music conservatory, and the public health service of Afghanistan...

In my contacts with the Taliban during those years as Turkey’s special coordinator for Afghanistan, we pulled no punches. I explicitly told the Taliban leaders that we would not extend recognition to their regime. Turkey recognized the rump government of President Barhanuddin Rabbani that remained in only a small part of Afghanistan, mainly Badakshan Province and the Panshir Valley, until he was replaced by Hamid Karzai after the Taliban were driven from power by the US after 9/11.

We openly criticized the Taliban’s lack of governing capacity, their profiteering from the opium trade, their support for terror organizations like Al Qaeda, and their treatment of their own people.Despite all this criticism, the Taliban nonetheless gave my colleagues and me free access to travel the country. I was always respected, and we were able to perform humanitarian work all over the Taliban-controlled parts of Afghanistan. I was told on several occasions by the Taliban leaders that as much as they may scorn my remarks, as a Turk I was welcomed...

In the critical province of Wardak, Turkey today is also operating the only civilian-led Provincial Reconstruction Team. Generally, PRTs are operated by NATO soldiers. Since 2006, the Turkish government has spent $20 million in the province funding a police training academy, building schools, restoring a mosque, and setting up a medical clinic.Halim Fedai, the governor of Wardak Province, has said: “The Turkish programs are very well received and readily accepted by Afghans because they work within Afghan culture. They are sensitive to Afghan values. We have very good, strong, historical relationships with Turkey.”

If NATO sticks to a clear mandate within a defined time frame for withdrawal and the international community allocates sufficient resources, Afghanistan can be brought back into the fold of the international community. Turkey helped them join the world when Afghanistan was a young nation. It can do so again today."

I just wanted to provide a little balance after yesterday's installment. The mainstream media is good for whining that "Islam is a religion of Peace" ad nauseum, but then they don't point to many positive examples to support this idea and instead they focus on isolated incidents of intolerance and try to portray it as the norm. According to the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affair Council, there are approximately 20,000 Muslims serving in the military. We thank these sometimes overlooked patriots for their service and look forward with them to the day when Islamic extremism is no more and we can then bring the boys home.

The Iranians at our Backdoor

Pat Buchanan gets us started by informing us of an important, yet somehow overlooked piece by the mainstream media, that China and Venezuela are becoming closer...

"Thank you, Hu Jintao, and thank you, China," said Hugo Chavez, as he announced a $20 billion loan from Beijing, to be repaid in Venezuelan oil.The Chinese just threw Chavez a life-preserver. For Venezuela is reeling from 25 percent inflation, government-induced blackouts to cope with energy shortages and an economy that shrank by 3.3 percent in 2009.

Where did China get that $20 billion? From us. From consumers at Wal-Mart. That $20 billion is 1 percent of the $2 trillion in trade surpluses Beijing has run up with the United States over two decades.Beijing is using its trillions of dollars in reserves, piled up from exports to America, to cut deals to lock up strategic resources for the coming struggle with the United States for hegemony in Asia and the world."

All of this comes fresh on the heels of an announcement earlier this week that Iran is apparently increasing the number of Quds troops in Venezuela. None of this comes as a suprise to me personally as I saw newly constructed mosques there during my last visit in '07.

" Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps has stepped up its presence in Latin America, especially in Venezuela, according to a Pentagon report to Congress. The Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force "maintains operational capabilities around the world," said the report on Iran's military power, released Tuesday by the Defense Department.

The force "is well established in the Middle East and North Africa, and recent years have witnessed an increased presence in Latin America, particularly Venezuela," the report said.

"If US involvement in conflicts in these regions deepens, contact with the IRGC-QF (Quds Force), directly or through extremist groups it supports, will be more frequent and consequential," it said. The report said Iran's top priority is to ensure "the survival of the regime" and that Tehran has ambitions to position itself as a regional power, while expanding its presence on the world stage.

The elite Quds force, which serve under the authority of the supreme leader Ali Khamenei, has been accused in connection with a 1994 attack on a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires."

Isnt it wonderful to know that the sheer idiocy of White Liberal Guilt put the most foolhardy appeaser on the world stage since Nevil Chamberlain into the Oval Office to protect the United States as well as the free world? Teddy Roosevelt is probably spinning in his grave at the thought of allowing such threats to fester in our sphere of influence. 2012 is right around the corner people. Hopefully we won't make the same mistake twice. I'm leaning toward Romney, but I'm going to keep my eyes open in the meantime.

DeMint Nails It

U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), (who incidentally has a 99% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, a full nine percentage points higher than his fellow senator from the Palmetto State, Lindsey Graham) absolutely nailed it recently in this interview by CBN. I make no apologies about being a small government conservative in my political leanings. I believe that it offers the best hope for a society outside of libertarianism. When asked about the Tea Party movement within the United states, a faction of voters from both parties along with independents who are fed up with Big Government, Senator DeMint had this to say...

"David Brody: “Are you concerned at all that some of the social conservative issues, abortion and same sex marriage, some of these other issues because they are taking somewhat of a back seat right now at least to the fiscal issues that there are some inherent problems for social conservatives in something like that?”

Senator Jim DeMint: “No actually just the opposite because I really think a lot of the motivation behind these Tea Party crowds is a spiritual component. I think it’s very akin to the Great Awakening before the American Revolution. A lot of our founders believed the American Revolution was won before we ever got into a fight with the British. It was a spiritual renewal.”

Senator Jim DeMint: “I’m ‘praying for you” comes up more than anything else in these crowds so I know there’s a spiritual component out there.”

Senator Jim DeMint: “I think as this thing (the Tea Party movement) continues to roll you’re going to see a parallel spiritual revival that goes along with it.”

David Brody: “Just so I understand, when you say spiritual revival how are you terming that? What do you mean specifically as in “spiritual revival?”

Senator Jim DeMint: "Well, I think people are seeing this massive government growing and they’re realizing that it’s the government that’s hurting us and I think they’re turning back to God in effect is our salvation and government is not our salvation and in fact more and more people see government as the problem and so I think some have been drawn in over the years to a dependency relationship with government and as the Bible says you can’t have two masters and I think as people pull back from that they look more to God. It’s no coincidence that socialist Europe is post-Christian because the bigger the government gets the smaller God gets and vice-versa. The bigger God gets the smaller people want their government because they’re yearning for freedom."

Yes senator, the bigger a government becomes, the less freedom the people who live under it can count on having. I can cite the 58 million people across Eastern Europe and Central Asia who have been released from the curse of grinding poverty since the collapse of the Soviet Union as a primary example. Link