Powerful Ad

This kind of puts things in perspective if you ask me. Too bad NBC decided that they wouldn't run it. But what's the first amendment for anyway, right? Apparently free speech only applies to the people that agree with their godless view of the world. We can be exposed to perverse, voyeuristic ads like the Doritos ad and the Big Daddy ad, but apparently this was just a little too much for us poor Americans to see.

A reckoning is coming. Mark my words. It is on its way.

Recognizing Our True Condition

For a passionate desire to walk in God’s love and light to sweep across our nation, resulting in obedience to His commands

And this is love: that we walk in obedience to His commands. As you have heard from the beginning, His command is that you walk in love.
—II John 1:6

O Lord God, You are light and there is no darkness anywhere in You. You are love and there is no ... evil anywhere in You. I praise and thank You for the security and hope this brings me today. You are victorious over every form of darkness, and I praise You for this, in Jesus Christ!

Holy God, You know the great darkness that lurks in our country, and You see how innocents and wise ones alike are fooled into thinking that darkness is light and wrong is right. I ask for Your truth to be shown in our country today, that together we may desire to walk in Your love, spurning evil and dark ways. Do this, because of Your kindness and love I pray, O holy God, amen.

***The picture above is really striking. Does anyone know where this is? I think I'd like to visit there sometime.***

This is the latest in the series of prayers led by the Presidential Prayer Team for the new President and for our nation. If you are interested in receiving the email with each day's prayer assignment you can click here and sign up.

A Quote

A non-normative marriage, once allowed, undermines the normative kind just by inference. If the norm no longer is the lifelong union of a man and a woman, we may count on the imaginative faculties of those most concerned to come up with new understandings. I don't think the proponents of gay marriage have in mind the extension of the matter to polygamy, but when you think it over, why not? It's what some people want. Shouldn't they have what they want? To deny a 21st century American his wishes (unless he's some Christian rightist or other) would be cruel and hateful.

- Bill Murchison from his article "Calling Things By Their Right Names"

Interesting article worth a read. I find it ironic that he uses polygamy as the next logical progression should marriage be re-defined to include homosexual unions. There is far greater biblical support for polygamy than there is for "homosexual marriage." Indeed, I think polygamy is the least of our concerns should the homosexuals have their way.

God Is Patient

Each year I attempt to read through the Bible using the One Year Bible. I generally switch translation from year to year to get a different flavor and perhaps increase my understanding of the scripture by reading it from a different translator's perspective.

This year I have been using the New Living Translation, and while I have found it to be very readable, I have also noticed in a number of places that the translators took quite a bit of license with the text. This has soured me somewhat on the translation, but there are still moments where I find that the translation was quite well turned.

One example came up recently as I have been reading through Romans. I really like the way that they rendered verse 4 of chapter 2.

Don’t you see how wonderfully kind, tolerant, and patient God is with you? Does this mean nothing to you? Can’t you see that his kindness is intended to turn you from your sin?
Romans 2:4 NLT

As I read this familiar verse in this translation, I began to see why it is that the wicked often seem to go unpunished in this life. God is being kind, tolerant, and patient with them to give them the chance to repent.

Back shortly after I got out of college, I had a debate with a friend over a statement from another friend that I had repeated. I had quoted my friend to say "God is patient with our sin."

My other friend took exception to this and a great debate raged for several weeks over the statement. I wish that I could remember the finer points of his argument now - that has been more years ago than I care to admit - but I come back to my original position after reading this verse.

(As I continue to ponder our debate, as so often is the case in these arguments, our position was basically the same but the argument was over semantics.)

So, I declare that God is patient with our sin. But what does this really mean? Am I saying that it is OK for us to sin because God is patient? As the King James version would say, "God forbid!" That is not what I am saying at all. Am I saying that we shouldn't be concerned about our sin because God is patient? Once again, God forbid!

God is patient with our sin to give us the time to turn from it. His heart's desire is that we repent - make a 180° turn from our sin towards Him. When we do that we receive His forgiveness and the sin is wiped away.

Why would God be patient with our sin? Why would He tolerate it? I believe that one answer to that question is that God knows how dreadful His wrath and judgment are. Anyone who hasn't gotten a grip on what God's judgment would be like would do well to read Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God." As Hebrews 10:31 says, "It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

Consider the physical punishment that Jesus endured for our salvation, and then make it eternal. From what I have read and heard even that doesn't come close to the torment that those in hell suffer. God doesn't want anyone to be thrown into hell. That is why Jesus came, and that is why He suffered as greatly as He did. However, the scriptures clearly teach that while His offer of salvation is available to all, all will not receive salvation. Many will stubbornly continue in their rebellion against God and will receive hell as their reward.

If you read the writings of the prophets in the Bible, you will see God's patience displayed over and over again. God sent Jeremiah to the people of Judah repeatedly - right up to their destruction by Babylon - urging them to repent, knowing that they never would. The message that He gave them was that if they would repent He would forgive - even though their sins were as numerous as the grains of sand on the seashore. Such mercy is astounding to me.

(Please notice, however, that there came a time when that patience was exceeded, and judgment came.)

Many go on blithely sinning, saying, "God doesn't care" or "God doesn't see." They think that because He hasn't acted in His wrath and because He hasn't judged them as the scriptures say that He will that they are OK and that God doesn't have a problem with what they are doing. They couldn't be more wrong. The very next verse in Romans says that they are "storing up wrath for themselves."

Some, whose conscience hasn't been completely seared attempt to justify their sin through partial obedience. I am reminded of the kingdom of Israel after they rebelled against David's dynasty. King Jeroboam built two idols and declared that the people would worship before them instead of returning to Jerusalem to worship at the temple.

In spite of their idolatry the people retained many elements of the law. They still tithed, they still had the festivals, they still did sacrifice. In their minds they were still following the Law, but God saw it quite differently. Their partial obedience did not bring them any favor with God, it merely set into motion the day in which He would execute vengeance on the country.

I believe for many the issue of homosexual marriage is an attempt to do the same thing. They think that if they obey the law on one hand it makes it OK to break it on the other. This is a grievous error - one, I fear, that will bring great judgment.

For those who are Christians, I believe God's patience takes a little different flavor. God knows us so well. He knows exactly why we sin the way we do. He understands the woundings of our soul that cause us to act the way we do, and He will stop at nothing to heal us. God works to heal our wounds and deliver us from our bondage to sin.

What is the correct response to our sin during this time? I think Romans 7:24-25 gives us a pretty good idea. We are to recognize our wretched state and cry out in faith to God for deliverance and mercy.

Are we to make peace with our sin? Never! We are to loathe that which is not holy in us and we should wrestle against it with every ounce of our being until the Lord delivers us from it. Easier said than done, I know. But God never said that it would be easy.

So, in the meantime, I am grateful for God's patience as I struggle with my fears, anger, and perversions, longing for the day when I will finally be healed and set free. And I am grateful for His grace that gives me victory over my flesh. I hope that you will allow God's kindness to lead you to repentance.

Calling The Low Down Varmint Out...

A voice of reason has appeared from an unexpected place. Czech President Vaclav Klaus has challenged alleged global warming 'expert' Al Gore to a debate about global warming. Not surprisingly, Gore isn't willing to intelligently discuss the evidence for or against global climate change or its possible causes. (Perhaps he is unable to do so?)

Klaus said, "It could be even true that we are now at a stage where mere facts, reason and truths are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda." Ahh, Joseph Goebbels and Adolph Hitler would be so proud!

The Czech President has recently written a book that questions the true motive of the climate change propagandists titled, Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom? Klaus says that the thing most endangered is basic human freedoms and prosperity.

Klaus compares the tactics and aims of the environmental alarmists to the tactics used by the communists in his country during his lifetime.

"Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality," he said. "In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet," he added. Klaus said a free market should be used to address environmental concerns and said he opposed as unrealistic regulations or greenhouse gas capping systems designed to reduce the impact of climate change....

Klaus alleged that the global warming was being championed by scientists and other environmentalists whose careers and funding requires selling the public on global warming. "It is in the hands of climatologists and other related scientists who are highly motivated to look in one direction only," Klaus said.

Sound familiar? It is basically the same thing said by the founder of the Weather Channel months ago.

I have said many times (even in the midst of last summer's blistering heat) that I do not believe that any permanent global warming is taking place. I believe that any heating trends can be more easily explained by solar radiation patterns than by carbon emissions. This seems evident to me from a comparison of the amount of "greenhouse gas" emitted into the atmosphere by humans as compared to that given off by nature itself. A single volcanic eruption contains many times more "greenhouse gas" than all of mankind's pollution combined. Thus, you will have a hard time convincing me that any warming (or cooling) trends are being caused by man's usage of carbon.

But lets suppose, just for the sake of argument, that these Chicken Littles were right. Let's consider how life would be if the environazis got their way and took us back to the Stone Age. Even then it would seem that there isn't any feasible way for humans to avoid carbon-based environmental impact. Humans need heat to survive. Anything below 98° F and we start needing some supplemental heat. And there are precious few places on planet earth that are 98° F night and day year round. (Thank God!)

Clothing can allow us to take that number down much lower, but manufacturing clothing in a modern society requires machinery, machinery requires electricity, and the most common source of electricity is combustion. Of course we could go back to using animal skins for clothing, but the environmentalists won't like that either.

There is also the problem of cooking food. Even vegetarians typically cook their food. And if we were to use animal skins for clothing, wouldn't it be wasteful to kill an animal just for its skin? (Seems like I have heard that argument somewhere before....) Thus, if you are going to eat yon mastodon, you'd best have a way cook it. Once again, combustion is going to be required.

Then there's the problem of shelter. Last time I checked there weren't that many habitable caves in the North Carolina Piedmont. That means we are going to have to figure out some place to stay. Well, we can go back to animal skins. (I can hear the animal rights folk howling even now....) There is also lots of nice red mud around here, but to make mud into brick requires baking it - more carbon. We could cut down trees to make cabins, but that reduces the number of trees which help to remove the carbon from the air. It would seem in our environmental Utopia that shelter may be a problem.

There is another problem that we have learned about too: animal flatulence. All those cows are farting the place up and pushing us towards global catastrophe. I guess it is good that all those cowboys nearly wiped out the bison herds back at the turn of the century. Millions of gassy buffalo would have probably pushed us over the edge.

I suppose that many who have read my rants against global warming might assume that I don't care about the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. I care very much about it. My problem with most environmental issues is that they tend to tilt at windmills.

The issue of global warming is a hoax. It isn't an issue, but is something that is being greedily exploited to further other ends. Al Gore is exploiting "global warming" to put himself in the limelight and assuage his wounded ego after being rejected by the American people. He also, by the way, is exploiting it to make himself filthy, stinking rich through his investments in these "green" companies.

Politicians are exploiting it to line their pockets with bribes from companies that will benefit from new regulations and from those that would be hurt by new regulations. They are also using "global warming" to line their pockets with revenue from bogus carbon offset programs. And of course, let us not forget that it gives them a leverage point to obtain power over the people, exploiting this lie to induce people to give up their freedoms and prosperity.

Finally, environmentalists are exploiting "global warming" to make some marginal gains toward their agendas, and "scientists" are exploiting it to bilk grant money from various governments. These reasons are why I so vigorously oppose "global warming."

There are plenty of legitimate environmental concerns with real-world practical solutions. Pollution is a huge problem. It is clear that air quality has suffered as our cities have grown. Some progress has been made at reducing automobile emissions, but why don't we push on and see if we can't break away from petroleum and find a cleaner alternative? It will take some time, but if we can put a hunk of metal on Mars we should be able to collectively figure out a way to tell the gas companies bye-bye.

Why do we allow companies to dump their waste into our rivers? We should use the same policy with manufacturers worldwide that Momma did: "If you make the mess clean it up." Companies should have to have waste mitigation plans before they are allowed to manufacture the first widget. Would it be more expensive? Yes, it would. But I'd be willing to bet that manufacturers would find a better way to do it if they were forced to. Once they had discovered that way I'd be willing to bet that the prices could come down. (Whether they would or not is a different rant for a different post!) But what about the countries that wouldn't adhere to that standard?!! Don't trade with them. DUH!

Or perhaps on a more personal level, why do we allow people to litter? (This includes throwing cigarette butts out of cars, by the way.)

Why do we allow companies to use packaging materials that are not environmentally friendly? Why are we so addicted to plastics when glass, paper, and metal are much more easily recycled?

There are also water quality issues that are being raised by the irresponsible development taking place throughout the country. In North Carolina these practices threaten to destroy the state's only native trout. (Indeed, Brook Trout are threatened throughout their native range along the entire Appalachian Range from Georgia to Maine.)

All of these issues would be much easier to fix than "global warming." (Especially if it turns out that this purported climate change is being caused by the sun!)

North Carolina's Wildlife Commission has done a stellar job in reclaiming severely damaged river ecosystems. With the work that they have done they have begun to see very encouraging results in the resurgence of threatened flora and fauna. Their re-introduction of deer and turkeys have been wildly successful, and I have hope for the successful reintroduction of the red wolf and elk. It would be wonderful to see these animals thriving in our land again. (Although they will create their own problems too as we have seen with the invasion of coyotes.) I have also seen surprisingly quick results from the size and creel limits imposed on many saltwater fish species. There seem to be far more fish available in just a few short years following the introduction of these limits.

My point is that the real environmental problems facing our world can be dealt with successfully when they are approached with intelligence and TRUE scientific inquiry instead of the junk being passed off as science by so many. There are plenty of resources in our world to allow us to take advantage of them if we will be wise about it and not succumb to greed. It is high time that we start using our own brains and questioning why so many "scientists" are afraid of debate on issues like climate change and evolution. It is time that we stop giving these people money to perpetuate their lies. We cannot keep accepting that what "they" say is true. Too often it isn't. The money that will be wasted on "preventing" global warming would be much better used addressing real problems.

An Interesting Discussion

I was at jazz band practice tonight. When we got done, somehow we started talking about evolution. The general consensus was that it takes far more faith to believe that all of the things that we see came from one great pot of primordial stew.

I recently engaged a debate about evolution on a friend's blog. Unfortunately, I didn't get to finish my thoughts in the conflict. I had pondered my responses, but was distracted from posting them due to all of the drama surrounding the holidays. Others had joined the fray before I got back to my opponent's comments, and I have never gotten back to have my final say.

One thing did come of having others say many of the things that I could have said. My suspicions were confirmed. It is sadly predictable the responses that you get in such a discussion. And it is clear that my opponent wasn't interested in changing his mind. The odd thing to me is that he had invested so much energy into reading articles that refuted his position. Why bother reading the opposition's notes if you aren't interested in changing your mind?

Evolutionists always have to try to set the table to their benefit. They want peer reviewed articles to back up intelligent design claims when the scientific community has made such an animal nearly impossible to acquire. Scientific method cannot prove or disprove the existence of God - a non-corporal being. The hypothesis, "God created everything that we see," cannot be tested. There are no videos of the event and no one knows the way to God's house - if it exists. (It does, by the way.)

They also want to mock at the scientific problems, or, as my opponent called them "Intelligent design talking points," associated with evolution, such as the problem posed by Newton's 4th law of thermodynamics. Mockery does not resolve the problem or show how the "talking point" is flawed. If the law of entropy states that a system moves towards greater disorder instead of greater order, then how can evolution - which asserts that from a big disordered puddle of cosmic goo organized life spontaneously emerged - be true? Do we then opt to believe a scientific theory over a scientific law? Certainly not! Evolutionists are the ones who want science on their side - put up or shut up! Evolutionists also cannot answer some of the problems with the fossil record. They cannot, for example explain how some fossils have been found spanning several strata of the record.

I am sure that a discussion of the statistical improbability of the simultaneous, spontaneous eruption of the complexity of life and matter that we have just on planet earth would win no concession either. Yet to me the very complexity of even the simplest virus is astounding. Everything in all of creation is infinitely detailed and complex. We continually discover more and more complexities on both a micro and a macro scale. New technologies are revealing deeper and deeper layers that have never been discovered before.

Statistically speaking, for such complexity to have spontaneously developed in even one species would have been so infinitesimally probable as to be deemed impossible. How much more so for the diversity of species that we find on planet Earth? Shouldn't there be a gradual filling of the fossil record for each kingdom? Yet how is it that the record shows an instantaneous diversity of plants and animals? And for it to have occurred so many times on one planet would seem to indicate that it should have happened on the other planets in our solar system. Certainly at least one life form would have evolved on each of these planets if it happened so readily here!

I also know that it would be of absolutely no benefit to point to the Bible as proof of Intelligent Design. For someone who doesn't believe in a Creator, the Creator's Book will carry no authority - at least not for now. The Bible makes some claims about how life came about on this planet. It also makes claims about how all of the other things that we observe around us came into being. The Bible tells us that God created all of it for His pleasure and that it was good.

I have known Christians who are avowed evolutionists, and I have known Christians on the other end of the spectrum who take the Bible at face value regarding the Creation account and literally believe its claims about the creation. I am pretty firmly established with the latter view. (I know you are all shocked.) Most of the Christians I know fit somewhere along that spectrum. But I have never known any Christians who would claim that evolution occurred without any Divine involvement.

It seems to me that most of the folks who buy into evolution lock, stock, and barrel are the folks who really hope there isn't a God. They don't want to believe in God, so they have to erect an anti-theology to support that hope. I find it interesting to note that many of the same people who promote evolution and its partner, secular humanism, are distressed when the sinful actions endorsed by these philosophies lead to negative consequences. I am even more perplexed by their stubborn insistence that they will not believe in God or endorse any exercise that purports the existence of God - even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

The Bible tells us in Romans 1:

But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.

The Bible says that the evidence of the Creator is hardwired into the creation. How sad that some refuse to see it. Isn't it telling that "Global Warming" and the famines, drought, pestilence, severe weather, and earthquakes supposedly brought on by it are being blamed on man's use of carbon-based fuels and incandescent light bulbs (which our Congress has scheduled to be outlawed in 7 years) instead of man's sin? Funny how "primitive" people seem to know when God is mad and how "sophisticated" people don't.

As I have been reading in Genesis lately I have noticed something that I never did before: when Adam and Eve sinned they weren't afraid because they had broken their covenant with God. They were afraid because they were naked. They totally didn't get the point. It is pretty clear that we're no different today - we're blaming ourselves for "Global Warming" when what we're really guilty of is worshiping something other than the one, true God. In the religion of secular humanism, that god is man.

Another thing that I have learned in my recent reading is that sin has a predictable life cycle in a society. From the time that sin takes root in the society to the point that it bears its full fruit of death can take hundreds of years, but, just as surely as a dropped object will fall earthward, sin will bear that fruit if repentance does not come. I frankly believe that all of this talk about "Global Warming" is hogwash designed to line the pockets of a few well-placed liars and extortionists. However, if any of their data proves true, I believe that we are merely witnessing the ripening of the fruit of our sin - not the result of driving to work.

It is likely that in the debate between evolution and creation that someone is wrong. If he is wrong, the person who believes in creation suffers little loss other than the loss of a little pride. However, if when God shows up one day to prove the creationist right, the evolutionist may pay dearly for his miscalculation.

Yet One More Reason I Don't Want To Live In Massachusetts

"Lawmakers To Consider Spanking Ban - Boston News Story - WCVB Boston"

Click HERE for the story.

According to the article a Massachusetts nurse has decided that the practice of spanking should be outlawed. I sure hope this misguided piece of legislation doesn't pass. I am sure that the intent was good. This nurse is most likely trying to prevent child abuse and save someone's life. But the problem is that banning spanking isn't the answer. (Besides the fact that such a law would be a gross violation of parental rights.) The physical discipline of a child is a very useful tool in the behavioral development of that child.

I have seen this play out in both my niece and my nephew. When my niece was little she was just plain mean, but as spanking was applied not only did she become more obedient, she also became sweeter. My nephew learned to obey through the discipline he received.

Following are several Scriptures about spanking:

He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently. Proverbs 13:24


Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of discipline will remove it far from him. Proverbs 22:15

Don’t fail to discipline your children. They won’t die if you spank them. Physical discipline may well save them from death. Proverbs 23:13-14

The rod and reproof give wisdom, But a child who gets his own way brings shame to his mother. Proverbs 29:15

You KNOW that last one is true. I can't tell you how many times I have seen a child acting out somewhere and the mother is the one who gets the blame for that child's misbehavior. There was one child at one of my Thanksgiving celebrations that needed a spanking some kind of bad.

Spanking works. Spanking helps a child to realize that there are consequences for his actions. Spanking helps to establish who is in authority when a child inevitably challenges that authority - and through that establishment of authority the child is made more secure because he knows that there are boundaries that are defended by his parents, the ones that he is counting on to protect him. When spanking is used, the effectiveness of less stringent forms of discipline increase many fold.

Many people are afraid of the potential for abuse with spanking. Well, the potential for abuse is even greater from people who yell at their children and belittle them. That abuse is FAR worse than the momentary pain a child will feel when being spanked. Many people who would never DREAM of spanking a child will crush that same child's self image with their words.

The problem that most parents run into with any form of discipline is that they are not consistent with the administration of that discipline. Since the child is going to try to find and test the boundary for his own security (and to satisfy his own fallen nature,) inconsistent parents find that they are pushed beyond the point of their ability to render a calm and impartial judgment and become angry or even enraged at the behavior of their child.

I once heard a pastor describe this as the difference between godly discipline and worldly spanking.

Godly discipline helps a child to recognize that disobedience and misbehavior leads to negative consequences. This is a good lesson that our culture seems to have rejected. Disobedience = punishment without any 2nd or 22nd chances that end up leading to the parent's loss of temper. This allows the parent to spank the child without any anger or malice built up by the child's rebellion. They can truly punish and instantly restore the relationship.

On the other hand worldly spanking allows disobedience to continue to the point that the parent's temper is lost and the child is spanked in anger. The anger causes a separation between the parent and the child, and the child is left with the fear of witnessing the parent's loss of control exacerbated by the distance felt between the two. Reconciliation is difficult.

While I do not have children of my own, as I have helped to raise my niece and nephew I have witnessed first hand how spanking helps a child to modify his behavior for the better, and if applied correctly, it doesn't instill an unhealthy fear for the disciplinarian in the child. I have found it to be quite the contrary. A child who knows that a parent loves them enough to punish them when they need it is far more affectionate, trusting and respectful of the parent than the child that is allowed to have his own way.

Hard to See Through All This Smoke...

"What is truth?" Pontius Pilate's words seem to echo loud this evening. Truth is a commodity that is very scarce in the public forum anymore. I look at the mainstream media, and it is full of Os blatantly trying to influence America to turn away from support of President Bush and away from the mores that have defined America for over 200 years.

According to them, President Bush's days in the White House are numbered because against all reason John Kerry's support is surging. (Never mind that article yesterday about the VERY unscientific nature of some of these polls that are being reported as "fact" by various media outlets around the country.) What is even scarier is that it is difficult to get a clear picture of what is going on in America's psyche even from conservative news outlets like Newsmax or the Drudge Report. I find myself questioning just how divided America is, despairing that we have fallen too far.

It's in moments like this that I miss President Reagan's optimism and gift of communication. I know that President Bush believes that the future is bright, but I miss the way that President Reagan communicated that to us. I hope that the President will learn from his example and bring that message of hope to the forefront of his message in the closing months of this election.

Anyway, that is neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion. I am curious whether there still exists a corporate American identity. It is so hard to tell for all of the smoke out there. For me (I was born a patriot) it is fairly easy to identify what America is supposed to be all about. America represents freedom; not license. (There is a huge difference. Freedom knows where the boundaries of one individual’s freedom end and another’s begin. License cares about nothing but its own satisfaction.) It is about mercy in strength and honor in victory.

It was built upon the very outspoken faith of dozens of men and women throughout our history. These individuals knew that the only sure foundation for our country’s success was the Word of God. Here's the amazing paradox, though. That faith was not threatened by other faiths (or even lack thereof.) We actually granted American citizens the right to worship any way that they saw fit (within reason.)

America is brave and willing to fight for her freedoms and for the freedoms of others. We are about free enterprise and allowing an individual the right to reap the benefits of hard work. Americans are creative and hard working. We believe in justice and fairness even for the guilty. These traits have drawn people from the ends of the earth and have made us the greatest nation on the earth.

Reading the daily headlines, it is very difficult for even an optimistic idealist like me to believe that we haven’t departed from this identity. Life is very different today than it was when I was a kid back in the 70s – VERY DIFFERENT. Regardless, there is a hope inside of me that throughout this country there is a (currently) silent mass of people that are eventually going to stand up and say, “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!”

I think that the coming election will show us more clearly where we are on the whole continuum. If President Bush wins in a landslide, my faith will be somewhat restored. I certainly hope that I will get that clear an indication of where we are as a people. I just hope that it isn’t a massive tilt in the other direction. What do you do then? I don’t think that I can survive another Clintonesque era. The very thought of it makes a Mexican prison sound pleasant.

It seems evident to me that America is headed for a showdown as surely as we were in the 50 years leading up to the Civil War. There are two distinct elements in our society, and they are quickly coming to a head. My hope is that we will not abandon our heritage and the God that has defended us for the past 228 years.