Evolutionists Outraged At County Fair Creation Science Displays

The July 2014 cover story of Earth: The Magazine Of The American Geosciences Institute warns “Creationism Comes To The County Fair'.

It is further cautioned “County fairs have proved good places for creationists to reach captive audiences”.

But aren't these venues less captive than those in which evolutionists purvey their own propaganda?

For example, no one is forced to attend the county fair.

However, unless a child's parents are able to scrimp together the tuition necessary to finance private education or are talented enough to educate their own children through homeschool, the vast majority of students will be bombarded by public school indoctrination where the science curriculum exudes doctrinaire Darwinism.

Secondly, if you attend the county fair and an offensive both grabs your attention, you are free to speed by.

However, if a child wants to successfully complete school, he must remain subjected to this teaching no matter how much it might ridicule the child's most deeply held beliefs.

Thirdly, organizations must pay for the use of county fair booths.

However, educators are paid from public funds to ply the naturalistic perspective. County fairs are held in part in celebration of rural culture and values.

As such, as areas characterized by deep religious faith, creation science ministries and organizations should be encouraged to highlight this particular aspect of the American philosophical landscape.

By Frederick Meekins

A Christian Approach To Technology

In Jurassic Park, the chaos theorist played by Jeff Goldblum quipped that scientists were in such a hurry to find out if they could that they never took the time to consider whether they should when it came to resurrecting extinct dinosaurs through genetic cloning technology. The comment was quite profound as it also has considerable bearing on the application of similar technologies to the human species as well.

Futurists have estimated that nearly 90% of the knowledge today has been discovered within the past decade. This is especially true of scientifically complex fields such as biology and medicine.

Ethics is the branch of philosophy concerned with determining what is right and wrong. Bioethics attempts to apply these principles to issues relating to matters of life, its quality, and preservation. As such, it is a relatively new field of inquiry coming to prominence since the 1980’s.

As a new discipline, overall bioethics is underdeveloped with Christian involvement scantier than it ought to be. With its frontier flavor however, bioethics is not confined solely to those with doctorates in esoteric subjects. Rather it is a field needing input from a wide variety of backgrounds and perspectives if mankind is to chart a balanced course into what was before now unexplored territory.

For example, many couples unable to have children on their own have turned to a number of fertilization techniques where egg and sperm are brought together outside the body for implantation inside the womb. While the practice has become quite commonplace, it is in fact fraught with a number of ethical dilemmas that need to be addressed by the church.

For starters, the reader will note that nowhere above is it spelled out that the sperm and the egg belong to the husband and the wife of the couple seeking to have a child. Sometimes these are donated --- often bought and sold like farm produce --- from total strangers, undermining the sanctity of the marriage covenant and no doubt unsettling the identity of the child should the offspring ever learn of his true parentage.

Yet of even greater concern in these procedures is when more eggs are fertilized than are needed. Since it can be concluded from Matthew 1:20 that fertilized eggs posses life, quite a dilemma develops over what to do with the leftover embryos.

If these individuals are disposed of, it becomes an act of murder. They can be placed into storage for up to seven years if the couple would like to have an additional baby in the future; but what happens if the couple divorces?

These conundrums and many others just like it are the result of the underlying worldview upon which much of contemporary culture rests. For since the days of the Renaissance, up through the Enlightenment and French Revolution and no doubt accelerated by Darwinism, no longer is God and His Word seen as the ultimate source of moral authority. Rather, the moral focus has switched to human autonomy in either the form of the individual or the state.

In the Book of Genesis, the student of Scripture learns that man is created in the image of God. As such, upholding this ideal preempts individual happiness when personal satisfaction comes into conflict with innocent human life.

Unfortunately, in this day the preservation of innocent human life often takes a backseat to “I want” and “me, me, me”. Such anxiety can drive the longing soul inward to concentrate on one’s own existential despair rather than outward towards those with even greater needs.

For example, a couple unable to have children on their own biologically wanting to have one --- often pressured into it by members of the congregation and clergy thinking they know more about the will of God for other people than the people themselves --- often turn to artificial fertilization these days rather than other ways to satisfy an otherwise humanitarian impulse such as adoption or other charitable pursuits.

Likewise, at the other end of the continuum of selfishness are those that, rather than coveting life so much that they would dishonor it by an illegitimate attempt to grasp at and possess it on their own terms rather than through God’s providence, that view life needing care beyond the ordinary in order to be maintained such as that at the beginning or end of temporal existence as an inconvenience to be done away with as soon as possible.

Those holding to the Biblical position of respecting the image of God within each individual irrespective of the physical frame’s condition would do what was within their power to defend the young under their responsibility and lend comfort to those passing out of this life on God’s timetable rather than according to some arbitrary definition of quality.

Furthermore, if those in their declining years were treated as human beings created in the image of God rather than as beasts of burden that have outlived their usefulness, senior saints might enjoy a better quality of life irrespective of their bodily circumstances.

By Frederick Meekins

Will Obama Airlift Immigrant Insurgents Into U.S. Heartland?

In an O’Reilly Factor interview, Univison propagandist Jorge Ramos remarked that the waters of the Rio Grande were contaminated and beset with dangerous currents.

Sarcastically I joked that eventually Coast Guard or Naval transports would probably ferry the border violators across.

It now seems that the Obama Administration may go above and beyond that level of accommodative outrageousness.

According to the New York Times, a proposal is being considered to transport young Hondurans 21 years of age and younger directly into the United States.

This is so they can avoid the journey through Mexico.

Instead, their energies can be reserved for carousing, looting, and other generalized forms of criminality once they reach not only the shores of the United States but apparently now the innermost destinations of the country as well.

Given that most Americans graduate around 18 years of age and can enlist in the military or qualify for most forms of employment at that age as well, it seems a sizable percentage of these trespassers aren’t the tiny helpless children the American people have been duped to believe.

By Frederick Meekins

Nothing Unpatriotic About Taking Advantage Of Tax Code Loopholes

The cover story of the July 2014 issue of Fortune Magazine is titled “Positively Un-American: Bigtime Companies Moving Their Headquarters Overseas To Dodge Billions In Taxes”.
Technically, if this is taking advantage of a loophole or provision of of the legal code, is it really un-American?

To many of this perspective, the issue is not so much about exhibiting a love of country as it is about statists wanting to bleed victims dry financially like a vampire with a tapeworm.

For example, golfer Phil Mickelson was about condemned for treason for hinting that he was considering a move from California to Florida in part for tax reasons.

And mind you, that geographic change would have been within the boundaries of the United States.

In a constitutional republic, it is not the business of the centralized authorities as to why an individual decides to move within the system to localities more in accord with that individual's philosophical vision.

Would these same leftwing centralizers have been outraged if Mickelson announced if he was moving from a jurisdiction opposed to gay marriage to one more accepting of that particular lifestyle arrangement?

Multiculturalists and tolerancemongers enjoy nothing more than to look down their noses and snap how out of sync what the United States is doing from that of the rest of the world.

Interesting how one seldom hears of the benefits that might result should America decide to lower tax rates on both individuals and corporations alike.

By Frederick Meekins

Is The Slow Church Movement The Next Religious Threat?

According to the 7/23/14 Christian Century review of the book “Slow Church: Cultivating Community In The Patient Way Of Jesus”, these authors contend that the individual should stay in only one church.

This is because, “Every time we move from one church to another, we lose a little bit of our patience for all things religious.”

But what if the church is so small that the less desirable regions of the Afterlife will cover over with glaciers before the average person will be able to participate through means of other emptying pockets into the collection plate?

But more importantly, this perspective could easily lead to the fostering of an atmosphere where the victims (oh, I mean members and attenders of the congregation) will put up with increasingly shocking forms of abuse and levels of generalized mistreatment for fear of endangering their immortal souls.

Even if that is not what the authors originally intended, that is most likely what will result in a world characterized by Jonestown, Waco, and the epidemic of sex scandals blackening the eyes of both the Roman Catholic and Protestant branches of Christendom.

According to the authors of a manifesto on the Slow Church Movement, one is to remain in the same church more or less no matter what.

The authors clearly look like Emergent Church beatniks.

One of them is even a Quaker.

That means he does not view doctrine formulated upon the foundation of His unchanging word as the primary way that God conveys His intentions to mankind.

Rather, we are to fumble about being leading by what is assumed to be the Holy Spirit.

But with that given a higher status than the Bible, we don’t really have any proof that the message we are receiving is from the indwelling presence of the Triune Godhead or rather from demonic entities kicked out of the gates of Heaven.

In the end, this Slow Church mindset will no doubt be used to denigrate the character of those that get up and walk out once the gay weddings or the wife swappings commence and be used to applaud as spiritually awakened those willing to go along with such abhorrent practices.

by Frederick Meekins

Environmental Propagandists Full Of It Over Dog Poo Run Off

Each year, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources publishes an educational brochure directed towards children titled “The Maryland Bay Game”.

 Often, the pamphlet contains interesting information regarding the state's geography and natural resources.

 Some of the content, however, is outright environmental propaganda.

 For example, there is one activity consisting of a maze titled “Scoop The Poop”.

 The text admonishes that, by scooping the poop of the 1.3 million dogs estimated to reside in the state, residents of the New Order are playing their role in removing harmful nutrients and bacteria from entering local waterways.

 While picking up after Fido might make things more healthy and pleasant for human beings, such an activity can't possibly do as much to restore the Chesapeake as this dinky tractate leads one to believe..

 A proverbial aphorism questions “Does a bear take a you-know-what in the woods?”

 The title of a book boldly proclaims “Everybody Poops”.

 Are these activists going to insist that the digestive effluent of these particular creatures is appreciably different than what is grunted out of the backside of the average household canine?

 Unlike most dogs, fish living in the bay just let it rip right there in the bay.

 Some of these animals, not unlike many a Redneck, probably consider roadkill fine dining.

 One of the goals of bay restoration is to increase the number of animal species depleted by man (especially Whites aspiring to live a lifestyle above that of prancing through the woods 3/4's naked in a loin cloth procuring whatever nuts and berries one can happen to scrounge).

 But if increasing the number of animals that live in, around, and above the Bay also increases the amount of #1 and #2 flowing into these sacred waters, then why doesn't it become our obligation to exterminate these creatures as quickly and as thoroughly as possible?

 By Frederick Meekins

Hobby Lobby Wins

By David Lawrence

The Supreme Court has backed Hobby Lobby’s plan not to pay for contraceptives as mandated by dogmatic, communistic, self-imploding Obamacare.

 

There can be no religious freedom when the government mandates contraception and abortions.  It is one thing to permit abortions. It is another to insist that Hobby Lobby or we pay for them.

 

Mindless Mayor de Blasio who sounds like talking points for Progressivism, tweeted, “The #HobbyLobby decision is a loss that undermines the progress we’ve made for women and their access to reproductive care.”

 

What does he know about women?  He is married to a sometimes lesbian and speaks about women like they are a foreign country that he visits but doesn’t understand. He is a mouthpiece for women but doesn’t have a clue as to what they are all about. If I were a woman and he spoke up for me I would disregard him. The same way if I were a marine and Obama praised me.

 

And why does everyone suddenly assume that healthcare must pay for contraception?  When I was young I had self-control and didn’t knock women up.  I didn’t feel that the government had to pay for my prophylactics.  I didn’t feel that they had to pay for my food.  I didn’t feel that they had to give me a phone or a car.  I didn’t feel that they had to pay for my rent.

 

Has the government become me?  Is it living my life for me?  Have we become hand- me-downs from a country that is a giant pool of unearned income?

 

Atheists believe in abortion.  So why do they believe in a God in the sky who will support them when they don’t work?

 

If you can’t hold it in and can’t spend a couple of dollars on a bag, do manual sex.  Why so spoiled?  Whatever happened to self-control?