War

The Increasing Boldness of Atheism in the Academic World

Atheism has become increasingly bold in her declarations and actions over the years. The atheist star, Madylin O’ Hair, who thrived with her vicious condemnation of Biblical Christianity in the 70’s and 80’s has birthed a new generation of God-hating disciples. College professors in public universities have learned that the classroom is the best place for a non-religious experience. 

An example of this comes from Florida Atlantic University who contrived the following exercise:

‘The assignment called for students to write the name “Jesus” on a piece of paper, put the paper on the ground, and stomp on it.”

A halfhearted apology was issued and now classes can continue with their daily scheduled de-christianization hour. The professor does not claim to be an atheist, but with friend like these. Former Governor Mike Huckabee “questioned if any program at FAU would have allowed “Muhammad” to be written on the paper and stomped instead.” When they reach that fearless pinnacle, I will write another piece.

My point here is not just that education cannot be neutral– that is too obvious– but that public education no longer masquerades her neutrality. There was a time when government curriculum attempted to deny their anti-theistic direction, but that time is past. This is the time when atheists can declare their loss of fear publicly and unashamedly.

Much like the homosexual community is becoming more and more comfortable coming out of the philosophical and theological closet, atheists today put on a robe and march to their pulpits with their well-scripted homilies. These pastors of the dead are not only situated in the comfortable chairs of the academic halls of well-funded state universities, they also sneak into the high-school curricula with a fancy diversity library card. For an example of this, here is the latest fearless atheistic move:

The California Department of Education has revised the statewide recommended reading list for its 6.3 million K-12 students, adding roughly 40 titles focused on homosexuality or gender confusion.

One example will suffice:

The Bermudez Triangle, by Maureen Johnson. “Since childhood, the Bermudez Triangle consisted of Nina, Avery, and Melanie. But when Nina leaves for a summer-school program, all three experience changes in the way they view each other. The three teenage girls explore the meaning of friendship and love while trying to keep long-distance relationships intact. Avery and Melanie begin to understand their homosexuality, and Nina feels left out. This novel illustrates the stresses, jealousy, and anxiety of teenage girls trying to understand themselves as they mature.”

If this is not sufficient to detail the loss of fear in the anti-Christian establishment, media, and the country’s education system, then nothing will convince the reader. “These are just isolated examples,” some may argue. If so, their PR team is performing a stupendous job.

I understand that Richard Dawkin’s atheist camp is not drawing the masses, but can we assert at the very least that atheism is losing its fear? As their platforms increase their hunger for converts becomes insatiable. They want our children and they want them now.

As pietistic Christians become more and more fearful of the world around them, non-Christians continually gain intellectual ground. As the Easter Season approaches, we need to be reminded once again that the tomb is empty and the world is filled with the glory of the risen Christ. Let us not fear. Our faith is not in vain.

Pastoral Meditation on God’s Justice for the Season of Lent

We treasure by our very nature as new creation beings (II Cor. 5) the justice of God upon injustice. We are imprecational beings. The Psalms are given for and to us for a particular reason. They are our prayers. They belong to righteous sons and daughters of the King. They are our means to communicate our hunger for justice in this world.

The blessedness of these prayers is that they begin to shape us in a new way. Mixed with the blessings of the covenant are the many curses the covenant brings to those who despise Yahweh. Of course, God’s judgments are pure and perfect and they are acted upon in His time and way. Since this is the case, they usually befuddle our expectations. And naturally, this can be frustrating. While we live in this justice-paradox, we also live knowing that God does not forget His justice. Though time passes painfully for us, God is not emotionally moved by His passion to see His Name and children vindicated.

So as we seek the kingdom of God above all else, let us also seek His justice in that kingdom. And while we do, let us continue to pray faithfully and continue to wait patiently for the God of war to act. His kingdom will prevail and His justice will not fail.

John Piper and Women in Combat

Piper takes a swing at this issue and knocks it out of the park. According to Pastor Piper, “A man who endorses women in combat is not pro-woman; he’s a wimp. He should be ashamed.”  He goes to make the point that even avowed secularists agree that it is a dangerous idea:

For example, Kingsley Browne, law professor at Wayne State University in Michigan, has written a new book called Co-Ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn’t Fight the Nation’s Wars. In an interview with Newsweek, he said, “The evidence comes from the field of evolutionary psychology. . . . Men don’t say, ‘This is a person I would follow through the gates of hell.’ Men aren’t hard-wired to follow women into danger.”

He then concludes:

As usual, the truth that comes in the alien form of “evolutionary psychology” gets distorted. It is true that “men aren’t hard-wired to follow women into danger.” But that’s misleading. The issue is not that women are leading men into danger. The issue is that they are leading men. Men aren’t hard-wired to follow women, period. They are hard-wired to get in front of their women—between them and the bullets.

Babies and Robots

George Friedman observes that the “entire global system has been built since 1750 on the expectation of continually expanding population. More workers, more consumers, more soldiers–this was always the expectation.” However, he argues that in the 21st century, the entire system of production will shift. There will be a greater dependence on technology–particularly “robots that will substitute for human labor (9).”

This is a rather frightening prospect. God made man to work the earth and to prosper it. Technology should always be subservient to man, and not man to technology. The replacing of robots for babies would imply the un-doing of the Creation mandate, which would be abhorrent. The danger, of course, is that with little need for human work, there would be an increase of labor shortage. I do not believe this will ever happen, since humanity has always found new ways of laboring independent of current technology.

The consequences of this future is significant to the military industry as an example, which depends heavily on able bodies to accomplish its goal throughout the world. Drones and precise weaponry have caused a myriad of innocent deaths in various U.S. attacks. In this sense, militarized technological advances can usurp Just War Theory which is dependent on certain considerations prior to strike.

Overall, the book seems challenging and its predictions seem rather possible to consider.

The Next 100 Years

no previewGeorge Friedman’s book The Next 100 Years offers a profound analysis of our past history in order to make proper predictions of the future. Friedman’s prognostication assumes that the world will pivot around the United States. The responsibility placed on the United States in this century will be great, which underscores the necessity of wise decisions. However, as Friedman observes, currently the U.S. “appears to be making a mess of things around the world (4).”

Friedman realizes that his task is doomed to some failure, but that by observing the long-term shifts taking place in full view of the world can afford some accurate predictions in the decades ahead.

Foreign Policy Links

A few helpful foreign policy links:

United States non-interventionism

Non-Interventionism is right again by Patrick Buchanan

America’s tradition of non-interventionism

What is a non-interventionist foreign policy?

I love Ron Paul, except his foreign policy

Michael Sheuer’s Non-Intervention website

Juan Cole’s website

It’s the occupation, stupid by Robert Pape ( a deep look into the rationale of suicide bombers) & Pape’s Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism

An interview with Chalmer’s Johnson on the overreach of American militarism & interview with Scott Horton on same topic

Some of my posts and notes on the topic:

Why Blowback?

Armageddon Foreign Policy is Over

The New Bush

Christians Being Targeted in Iraq

The Just War Theory and the War in Iraq, written in 2004

The Old World Returning…

This is how my friend Mark Horne describes the return of child sacrifice in Uganda.

Samson: God’s Wave of Wrath

In Judges, the wave of Samson’s wrath is being poured out on the Philistines. You remember that when the Israelites left Egypt to the Promised Land, the Egyptian army persecuting God’s people were immersed in God’s wrath as the waves crashed upon them. Now, Samson is God’s wave crashing upon the Philistines.

David Broder and War with Iran

David Broder’s macabre suggestion that President Obama would win the 2012 elections if he went to war with Iran has caused quite a reaction from Patrick Buchanan. Broder suggests that the economy would improve if Obama was at war with Iran. Buchanan responds logically:

…how exactly are “preparations for war” on Iran going to improve our economy when two actual wars costing $1 trillion have left us in the deepest recession since the 1930s?

Were those wars just not big enough?

If war is good for the economy, why is this nation, at war for a decade, growing at 2 percent, while China, which invests in rogue regimes rather than bomb them, is booming?

Why Blowback?

Johnson notes that the US has maintained troops all over the world, especially those countries that are most offended by US presence. “Devoutly Muslim citizens of that kingdom (Saudi Arabia) see their presence as a humiliation to the country and an affront to their religion (92).” Johnson concludes that an “excessive reliance on a militarized foreign policy…have actually made the country less secure in ways that will become only more apparent in the years to come (94).” So, what is the solution, according to Professor Chalmers Johnson?

The United States should bring most of its overseas land-based forces home and reorient its foreign policy to stress leadership through example and diplomacy (94).