Ken Connor

4/30/2010 – Ken Connor -
“Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.” Alexis de Tocqueville

In his treatise, The Christian Manifesto, published in 1981, Francis Schaeffer suggests that the gradual shift away from a Judeo-Christian (or at least a Creationist) worldview towards a materialistic view of reality has broad sociological and governmental implications for western society. His is an interesting thesis to ponder in light of a recent article in USA Today discussing religion and the Millennial Generation.

The article cites a recent survey conducted by Lifeway Christian Resources, which reveals that Millennials (defined as Americans born approximately between 1980 and 1995) are distancing themselves from traditional religious forms in favor of a personally-defined, nebulous kind of “spirituality.” These individuals are less likely to pray, they don’t read the Bible, and they don’t go to church. Among the 65% who identify themselves as Christian, “many are either mushy Christians or Christians in name only. . . . Most are just indifferent.” Theological indifference may seem like no big deal in an age where moral relativism and the cult of the individual reign, but it’s worth considering Schaeffer’s argument that – whether we realize it or not – our understanding of religion and its role in society has a direct impact on our politics.

As the Founding Fathers laid the foundations for the unprecedented political experiment known as the United States of America, this relationship was foremost in their minds. The Judeo-Christian understanding of man as a fallen and sinful creature is reflected in James Madison’s famous observation that “if men were angels, government wouldn’t be necessary.” The recognition of our innate dignity as creatures created in God’s own image is reflected in the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights. America’s political tradition rests squarely upon this conception of human nature: We are fallen, yet still bear the mark of our divine inheritance. Our Constitution, consequently, addresses the human need for a robust rule of law while respecting the liberty and dignity of the individual. As Schaeffer rightly observed, a society’s predominant worldview shapes its form/freedom balance: It shapes the form of government the citizens adopt and the freedoms they enjoy.

The problem is, fewer and fewer Americans recognize this fact, either because we are unwilling or unable to conceive of a reality in which we are not in ultimate control. If anything, we regard the move from religion to “spirituality” as one more step up the ladder of progress – a natural evolution from the silly superstitions of our ancestors to a more enlightened understanding of reality in which everyone is his own god. Ideas, however, have consequences, and the consequences of denying God may well prove detrimental to the future of the American experiment.

When we decide as a society that God doesn’t exist, all we are left with to account for what we are and why we exist is the idea that we are nothing more than an accident of nature. This denial of purpose and design in Creation goes hand in hand with a denial of absolute Truth and, subsequently, the embrace of moral relativism. Such a view of man and of the nature of truth is completely at odds with the Founders’ views.

A view of man that denies our divine origins gives us little reason to respect our fellow men or to strive for virtue and justice in society. Furthermore, it threatens our human dignity and undercuts our claim to those “unalienable rights” we so cherish as Americans. As each of us withdraws deeper and deeper into our own individually-crafted bubbles of “spirituality,” we are finding ourselves less and less able to reach even a basic societal consensus on questions of justice and morality. The result? We end up with a legal system that defends the due process rights of convicted felons and would-be terrorists while denying those same rights to the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly.

The one entity that does not object to a God-less society, however, is government – which may explain why the promotion of atheism has been central to some of the world’s most brutal totalitarian regimes. A government seeking absolute authority over its citizens, after all, is not well served by competition with God. When we refuse to embrace both the blessings and the responsibilities of our divine inheritance, the power-hungry politicians and entrenched bureaucrats that manage the modern welfare state are more than happy to step in and do it for us – for a price that often comes in the form of higher taxes, less liberty, and less protection for the weak and vulnerable.

As our own government senses its power and authority growing stronger in direct proportion to our increasing religious apathy, social irresponsibility, and historical ignorance, we can be sure that it will do what it can to prevent the American people from reversing the tide. The Obama Administration’s response to the Tea Party movement is a perfect example.

Americans must decide the future they want for their country. If we wish to preserve the unique tradition begun by our Founders, we must rediscover the importance of religion and put God back in the foreground of our social and political consciousness.

Posted by express permission of the author.

Ken Connor founded the Center for a Just Society in 2005 with Colin Stewart and Genevieve Wood. He serves as the organization’s Chairman and one of its principal spokesmen.

Gianna Jessen

by Gianna Jessen and alleyesonCHRIST | 4/25/2010

Gianna Jessen is a devout Christian. Her life was given to her by the grace of God. She shouldn’t be walking, but more miraculous still; she should not even be alive. Gianna’s biological mother was 17 when she had a saline abortion in her third trimester. Many Americans don’t realize it is legal to have an abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. After being burned alive for approximately 18 hours in the womb from the saline solution, Gianna was delivered alive in a Los Angeles County abortion clinic. Her medical records state, “born during saline abortion”…this is what caused her Cerebral Palsy.

Gianna was born in an abortion clinic and raised as an orphan in a foster home, yet Gianna Jessen isn’t going to complain. … For all of us who sometimes think life can be overwhelming, Jessen is a swift dose of reality. For everyone who believes a woman’s right to choose overshadows a child’s right to live Jessen is God’s answer.

Gianna’s doctor doubted whether she would ever hold her head up. When she began to walk she needed the aid of braces. And now, well now she runs marathons. If the story ended there, it would be remarkable and awe inspiring. It doesn’t. You see Jessen is a devout Christian that now travels the world sharing her testimony and speaking to young people about the horrors of abortions. She has a pretty good perspective from which to speak.

I can find a myriad of excuses not to talk about the Lord. Ms. Jessen has the perfect excuse and instead uses it to her strength to reach people for Christ. Jessen is an inspiration, but I doubt she would see it that way. I think she would be quick to say that Jesus is the true inspiration. As a Christian Jessen lives life to the fullest in a way pleasing to God without excuses. Oh that the same could be said of each and every one of us.

HT: alleyesonCHRIST and Gianna Jessen

With bus ads in Chicago and in San Francisco and Seattle, CatholicVote.org is encouraging Americans to rethink how they celebrate Earth Day, and how to go about building a culture that respects the environment. This April 22nd will mark the 40th anniversary of Earth Day.

“Our goal is to use Earth Day to get Americans to think more deeply about what it means to truly respect the Earth and creation,” said Brian Burch, President of CatholicVote.org Education Fund.

“Prevailing environmental attitudes too often view humans as the enemy of nature. We believe the human person is God’s greatest creation, and the Earth’s greatest resource. Building up a culture of life is the single most important way to build a culture that respects the environment.”

“Respect for the God’s creation has a long history in Catholic teaching, long before it became popular with our secular culture,” said Burch.

HT: LifeSiteNews.com

Chuck Colson

Christian Post | by Chuck Colson | 4/22/2010

… Christians are rightly concerned that extremists have turned Earth Day into “Worship-Earth Day.”

Just listen to a few of these suggestions for Earth Day 2010 that some of the more radical groups are proposing: taking down “global eco-criminals” like Exxon-Mobil; having school kids meditate about the Spirit of Life (that’s “Spirit of Life” with capital letters); seeking international cooperation on reducing the human population; or working for, and I quote, the “ultimate, inevitable, and necessary dismantling of industrial civilization.”

We Christians certainly do not want to be yoked with new agers, neo-pagans, or folks who just downright hate humanity. But there’s no reason for us to surrender creation care to them, either.

Our faith, our Christians worldview, tells us that the earth is good precisely because God created it and declared it good. It is worthy of our care, and indeed, we were commanded to tend it. Wasteful and immoderate use of natural resources is not a Christian virtue.

We must also realize that creation care begins with the care of the crown of creation: man, alone among living things, created in the image of God. In creating a clean sustainable environment, we do so primarily for humanity’s benefit.

That’s why we reject out of hand environmental proposals that endanger human well-being-proposals that could doom millions, especially in developing countries, to poverty, disease, and hunger.

You see, how you approach environmentalism-or, as I would say, environmental stewardship-all depends on your worldview. If the universe really did come about by chance and purely natural causes, then man is worth no more and no less than any other living thing. In fact, the creation would be man’s creator. So care for creation would be much more important than care for man.

But that is not the Christian worldview.

One of the best books I’ve ever read on the environment and this issue is produced by the Acton Institute and the Cornwall Alliance. It’s called Environmental Stewardship in the Judeo-Christian Tradition. We have a few copies available, and if you would like a free copy, please call us at 1-877-3-CALL-BP.

So again, happy Earth Day. Celebrate that God has created such a beautiful planet, populated by humans created in His own image, and that He has called us to tend His creation as His stewards.

HT: Christian Post

by Bob Lonsberry | 4/22/2010

Earth Day is a crock.

It is the high holy day of the environmentalism cult and I choose not to engage in that particular brand of idol worship.

I choose not to worship the earth as if it were a god and I were a savage. I am its steward, not its slave. I wasn’t created for it, it was created for me.

Man exists not as an accidental product of earth’s evolution, the earth exists as a home for man. It did not produce us, it was produced for us.

God made the heavens and the earth, and he made them for a purpose – and humankind is that purpose.

The problem with Earth Day is that it gets everything bass ackwards. It views the planet as the priority, when in actuality humankind is the priority and purpose. The earth was created by God, but man was created in God’s image.

The environmentalists’ perversion of the relationship between man and nature seeks to turn things completely upside down, fostering confusion and degeneracy. Applied through government mandate, the principles of environmentalism choke off human progress and prosperity.

They also deny the fact that the earth is a gift to man from God.

And it has been stocked with the things that are necessary to support human needs for as long as God intends for humans to populate this planet.

Coal, for example, is not some evil substance interlarding the earth as a temptation to energy excess. It is, rather, a gift from God to give us light and heat, to fuel our industry and better our lives. The oil and gas fields around the world are not environmental cancers, they are miraculous aids to transportation, manufacturing and physical comfort.

They are all blessings.

They are causes for rejoicing.

But those who would leave them in the ground, who would turn their back on their bounty, are showing indifference and ingratitude. They are spitting in the face of the God who provided these resources for us.

Granted, we are not to be despoilers of the earth, we are to be its stewards. It is not moral to waste or to be filthy, to destroy just to destroy, to leave things – large or small – in an ugly and dangerous state. And we should take care of what we are responsible for. Good farming, construction, logging, drilling and mining practices conserve our resources so that they last longer and are used more efficiently.

We should turn off the lights when we leave a room, conserve water, protect our soil and let nothing whatsoever go to waste. We should reuse our trash when possible and produce less trash in the first place.

We should let some trees stand and some vistas go untouched by the hand of man. The beauty of nature is of practical worth, it is in and of itself a resource that – in balance – should be preserved. We should only kill things that we’re going to eat, or which are going to eat us. We can also kill things that are messing with our stuff – like bugs on our crops and mice in our houses.

But it’s got to stay in balance, and the needs of man must always trump. The world doesn’t stop for a snail darter or a spotted owl or some obscure species of desert wildflower.

We are shepherds of the earth. That means we must protect it and watch over it and keep it safe.

But we have to remember the context and purpose of that protection. The shepherd, after all, watches over the sheep so that he can shear their wool and eventually eat them. His stewardship is self-serving and fully directed toward his own self-interest.

And so is ours.

Earth Day is a great day to remind ourselves of the bounty of the earth, especially when managed under the ingenious hand of industry. It is a day to thank God for the richness of this earth, which supports us all so well. It is a day to worship the God who made the earth – but not the earth itself.

And it is a day to redouble our efforts to resist the paganism of our day, the cult of environmentalism. It is scientifically and morally wrong, it is nothing but the worship of a very large idol.

I don’t go along with it. And, I wager, neither do you.

HT: Bob Lonsberry

“For decades,” the letter says, “the United States Catholic bishops have supported universal health care. The Catholic Church teaches that health care is a basic human right, essential for human life and dignity.”

“Our community of faith,” the bishops continue, “provides health care to millions, purchases health care for tens of thousands and addresses the failings of our health care system in our parishes, emergency rooms and shelters. This is why we as bishops continue to insist that health care reform which truly protects the life, dignity, consciences and health of all is a moral imperative and an urgent national priority.”

Nevertheless, they add, “we are convinced that the Senate legislation now presented to the House of Representatives on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis sadly fails this test and ought to be opposed.”

The letter is signed by Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, Chairman of the Committee of Pro-life Activities; Bishop William F. Murphy, Chairman of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development; and Bishop John C. Wester, Chairman of the Committee on Migration.

“Why do we take this position, when we have a long record of support for health care reform?” the USCCB letter asks, answering that the fundamental objections can be summarized in two points.

First, the bishops argue that health care reform “must protect life and conscience, not threaten them.” The Senate bill “extends abortion coverage, allows federal funds to pay for elective abortions (for example, through a new appropriation for services at Community Health Centers that bypasses the Hyde amendment), and denies adequate conscience protection to individuals and institutions.”

“Simply put,” the letter to Representatives continues, “health care reform ought to continue to apply both parts of the Hyde amendment, no more and no less.”

The bishops also argue that, despite claims to the contrary, “the status quo prohibits the federal government from funding or facilitating plans that include elective abortion. The Senate bill clearly violates this prohibition by providing subsidies to purchase such plans.”

“While the Senate provides for one plan without abortion coverage in each exchange, those who select another plan in an exchange to better meet the special needs of their families will be required to pay a separate mandatory abortion fee into a fund exclusively for abortions. This new federal requirement is a far more direct imposition on the consciences of those who do not wish to pay for the destruction of unborn human life than anything currently in federal law.”

Thus the bishops insist that “it is not those who require that the Hyde Amendment be fully applied who are obstructing reform, since this is the law of the land and the will of the American people.”

“Rather, those who insist on expanding federal participation in abortion, require people to pay for other people’s abortions, and refuse to incorporate essential conscience protections (both within and beyond the abortion context) are threatening genuine reform. With conscience protection as with abortion funding, our goal is simply to preserve the status quo,” the letter argues.

The second point of objection, the USCCB says, is that “universal coverage should be truly universal. People should never be denied coverage because they can’t afford it, because of where they live or work, or because of where they come from and when they got here.”

“The Senate bill would not only continue current law that denies legal immigrants access to Medicaid for five years, but also prohibit undocumented immigrants from buying insurance for their families in the exchanges using their own money. These provisions could leave immigrants and their families worse off, and also hurt the public health of our nation,” the USCCB explains.

The bishops regret that the House leadership is “ignoring the pleas of pro-life members for essential changes in the legislation.”

“Apparently they will not even try to address the serious problems on abortion funding, conscience protection and fair treatment of immigrants.”

“We are bishops, not politicians, policy experts or legislative tacticians. We are also pastors, teachers, and citizens. At this point of decision, we cannot compromise on basic moral principles. We can only urge — and hope and pray — that the House of Representatives will still find the will and the means to adopt health care reform that protects the life, dignity, conscience and health of all.

“The legislation the House adopted, while not perfect, came closer to meeting these criteria. The Senate legislation simply does not meet them,” the bishops say.

“With deep regret, but clear in our moral judgment, we are compelled to continue to urge House members to oppose the Senate bill unless these fundamental flaws are remedied. At this critical moment, we urge Representatives to take the steps necessary to ensure that health care reform respects the life and dignity of all, from conception to natural death,” the letter concludes.

HT: CNA

Can something as simple as good manners help to stem the coarsening of our culture? Yes!

Cord Ivanyi, a Latin teacher at a Phoenix high school, was tired seeing the boys in his class subject the girls to vulgar words and behavior. The behavior was disrespectful, and disrupting to his classes. So Ivanyi decided to give the boys an example in chivalry. When a girl got up to go to the restroom, Ivanyi stood as a sign of respect. When she came back to class, Ivanyi held the door for her.

As he told AOL News writer David Knowles, “She had this funny look on her face, and the other kids giggled a little.” But it wasn’t long before Ivanyi was teaching the boys to do things like pull out the girls’ chairs when they sat down. Now, he says, “Ninety-eight percent of the boys stand now when a girl enters the room, and the girls love it.”

This now-routine show of respect has led to a difference in the way the boys behave around the girls. Being taught to show respect for them leads them to feel more respectful toward them.

It doesn’t please the feminists, of course. One recently told me that she’d kick me if I held a door open for her. But that’s ok—they need to learn as well.

Ivanyi is not the only one who understands the link between etiquette, attitudes, and behavior. In a recent Wall Street Journal piece, journalist Meghan Cox Gurdon notes that while proms retain old traditions like corsages and chaperones, student behavior is often vulgar. Gurdon quotes etiquette expert Emily Post, who wrote in the 1920s that, at public dances, couples were expected to demonstrate modesty and decorum because they were in public.

And Mrs. Post had no illusions about how teenagers would behave if chaperones were absent: Young men would try to paw their dates, or worse, she wrote. Today, it’s not unusual for girls to plan to lose their virginity on prom night.

Modern girls get no help from Peggy Post, a descendent of Emily Post. In her new book, Prom and Party Etiquette, Post says that when it comes to sex on prom night, she “made a conscience decision not to try to lecture teens or tell them what to do.”

This is sheer insanity. Eve Grimaldi, dean of students at a girls’ high school in Washington, D.C., understands that you cannot deal with moral issues without moral instruction. Moral neutrality is not neutral in a fallen world. Refusing to take a stand just allows kids to pander to their worst instincts.

This is why, on prom night, Grimaldi brings an armload of sweatshirts with her. Girls wearing immodest gowns are forced to put one on. Grimaldi also keeps a sharp eye on the way dancers behave. Good for her.

In an article in Christianity Today, I once quoted the great historian Arnold Toynbee. He contended that one clear sign of a civilization’s decline is when the elites—people he describes as the “dominant minority”—begin mimicking the vulgarity and promiscuity exhibited by society’s bottom-dwellers. The result: The entire culture is vulgarized.

Christians need to resist the slide into vulgarity by creating strong countercultural influences. We can start by elevating our own standards in speech and dress, if we need to.

And we should applaud teachers who are teaching good manners and decorous behavior to the young—manners and behavior that teach kids to view one another and treat one another with the respect they deserve.

HT: BreakPoint

Sociologist Christian Smith began his ambitious, multivolume effort to plumb the religious lives of Americans across the life course in his 2005 with Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers. In that book—aimed at an audience that the author hoped would include general readers as well as clergy and scholars—Smith painted an incisive portrait of religion among America’s adolescents. Especially insightful was the way Smith explained why the more sectarian religious traditions in the United States, such as evangelical Protestantism and Mormonism, were achieving greater success than more churchly traditions such as mainline Protestantism and Roman Catholicism in transmitting their faiths to the next generation. Also notable was the way Smith explained how the guiding religious ethos of American teenagers—what he aptly termed “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism”—seemed so suited for our culture.

Smith contended, in his 2005 book, that most religious teens in the U.S. had very little appreciation or regard for the theological and doctrinal particulars of their own religious traditions but did believe that God exists, loves them, wants them to follow the Golden Rule, and comforts them in the midst of the emotional ups and downs of adolescence. Moreover, Smith argued, most teens, including teens who were regular churchgoers, believed that all religious traditions are functionally equivalent, and that they provide spiritual succor, moral guidance, and emotional support in about equal measures. This, then, is Moralistic Therapeutic Deism; and, as Smith pointed out, it has proved enormously useful to American adolescents because it allows them to navigate the increasingly pluralistic milieu of the United States without stepping on the religious sensitivities of their peers or violating the tolerant conventions of the larger society.

In his latest book, Souls in Transition: The Religious & Spiritual Lives of Emerging Adults, Smith revisits the spiritual state of his respondents as young adults aged 18 to 23, at a life stage that is now called “emerging adulthood” in the social sciences. In a sense, not much has changed among the emerging adults Smith discusses in this new book. Young adults from more sectarian religious communities still do comparatively better when it comes to outcomes such as church attendance and orthodox religious belief, and most emerging adults still seem to subscribe to a form of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.

Smith notes, however, that emerging adults are less religious than they were as adolescents. Only 15 percent attend church on a weekly basis, and 26 percent indicate they have no religion. Part of the story here is that young adults often drift away from formal religious practice after they move out of their family homes and return to regular churchgoing only when they marry and have children. For much of recent American history, young adulthood has been the religious nadir of the life course for most Americans.

But the religious disconnect—institutional, moral, and theological— among contemporary emerging adults that Smith describes in Souls in Transition seems more profound than the typical pattern of temporary religious disengagement that has marked the lives of young adults over the last century or so. A majority of today’s emerging adults do not regularly darken the door of a church; are largely indifferent or, in some cases, hostile to religion; and are similarly indifferent or hostile to religious teachings about the good life—especially as they relate to sex, drinking, and drugs. Furthermore, a majority of the 30 percent of this cohort of emerging adults who are regular churchgoers are “selective adherents” who “believe and perform certain aspects of their religious traditions but neglect and ignore others.” By Smith’s reckoning, only 15 percent of emerging adults count as “committed traditionalists” who are committed and consistent believers. When it comes to religion, this seems to be a generation of lukewarm believers.

This should come as little surprise, however, when we step back from the religious lives of today’s emerging adults and look at the larger social milieu in which they find themselves. Their connections to education and work tend to be fragile and unstable. They live much of their lives in an isolated, electronically mediated world in which iPods, personal computers, and cell phones link them to their preferred music, movies, and friends and not much else. They are largely indifferent to the great causes of the right and the left. And, most importantly, for most of these emerging adults, marriage is not on the horizon. It is little wonder, therefore, that the members of this lukewarm generation are largely disconnected from American religion, given that they are also disconnected from stable long-term employment, civil society, and family life.

What is to be done? Smith does not provide any easy answers to this question in Souls in Transition. He does, however, offer some excellent advice to parents and religious leaders about how they can steer today’s children away from the lukewarm lives being lived by contemporary emerging adults. According to Smith’s analyses, children are more likely to end up as committed and consistent young-adult believers if their parents integrate religious faith into daily family life; if children are exposed to engaging adult believers in their churches; if they have good religious friends; if they live chaste lives; and, interestingly, if they have to suffer for their faith. Smith notes that adolescents who were “made fun of by peers for [their] religious faith” were more likely to end up as serious believers as young adults. In other words, family, friends, sex, and suffering will have a lot to do with how successful the next generation of young people will be in avoiding the lukewarm path being trod by many of today’s emerging adults.

HT: FirstThings

Your life, freedom, prosperity, and health are worth some hard choices.

Catholic Online | by Jennifer Hartline | 2/20/2010

Freedom is in the decisions you make, the things you purposely choose and the exercise of your will. Stop playing the victim and be the woman of integrity God made you to be.

One of the women Tiger Woods had an affair with has retained an attorney. I watched this attorney on TV explaining profusely why this poor woman was so victimized by Tiger, how much damage he did to her life and her career, and why Tiger must own up to his wrongful treatment of her and offer a very humble apology. Only then can talk of monetary damages proceed.

It was the victim routine again. “The Victim” should be a Broadway production by now. Everyone is a victim nowadays, but I find it especially irksome when women play the victim-card for themselves or each other, as the liberal feminist attorney did for her client. It’s always the big, bad man being mean to the poor little woman. And then she cries, “How could you treat me this way?” I’ll tell you how – you let him.

Ladies, I’m going to do you one better than your liberal feminists sisters will do and tell you that freedom isn’t free. It costs something and requires conscious effort to protect. And the responsibility is yours. Stop blaming men for treating you badly and kick up some dust on your way out.

Here’s the thing: the empowerment you seek, the freedom you crave – it’s all in your mind – literally. It’s in the decisions you make, the choices you purposely choose and the exercise of your will. It is forfeited in the careless choices you make and the bad decisions you won’t turn from. It is lost in the mistakes you refuse to learn from and correct. It is restored when you decide to stop playing the victim and become the woman of integrity God made you to be.

It’s all up to you. It always has been. Are there men who treat women terribly? Absolutely, and I’m not releasing those men from their guilt. But why is it that here in Land of the Free there are so many women – bright, educated, accomplished women – who allow it? They would rather cry victim, suffer terribly and unnecessarily at the hands of a complete jerk than use their heads, make a truly empowered decision and walk away. Somehow it’s better to seek revenge in a courtroom after the fact than to use the power of their minds and stay out of trouble in the first place.

It really is all in your mind and your will. It isn’t easy, but so what? Isn’t your life, your freedom, your prosperity, your health, your body, your heart worth some hard choices? Who’s calling the shots anyway? You are.

I learned that lesson the hard way. Before I met my husband, I dated a man who was very charming and extravagant. Gary was quite successful at his job and had a fancy car and loved to dine at restaurants all the time. He brought me flowers unexpectedly, and would shower me with love notes and surprises. He was very romantic and I found it all quite irresistible. He was also a very troubled man, having grown up in a profoundly abusive home. Under the surface, he seethed with rage, and when it bubbled up, it was frightening. He would become verbally abusive, demeaning, cruel, and he would lose all control of his temper. He did not physically strike me, but he would delight in beating me emotionally.

Those scary scenes were always followed by great remorse and affection, and thus our relationship went on like this for nearly two years. He shared with me the horrific stories of the abuse he endured as a child, and my heart broke with compassion and love for this wounded man. We’d pray together for healing, and even went together to seek counseling for his rage. I thought that because I loved him, I could and should help him get well. I saw all his good qualities – there were many – and thought how unfair it was that this man was basically ruined by his cruel parents.

Someone needed to stand by him, and it was going to be me. Yet, my own heart was never comfortable with the thought of spending my life with him, and fear gnawed at me constantly. In my soul, I knew the relationship was wrong for me, but I was in love with him and I didn’t want to abandon him.

The blow-ups of rage became more frequent, our fights became more intense, and I was disintegrating into a victim mindset. I thought I’d be heartbroken for life without him, yet my soul was telling me I’d be a battered woman for life if I didn’t end the relationship now.

I’ve heard God’s voice with unmistakable clarity only a few times in my life, and one night on the floor in my apartment, sobbing, He asked me quite simply, “Is this what you want?” I whipped my head around to see who had come into my room because the voice was audible in my ears. I heard God’s voice. Again, I heard Him: “Do you really want to give your heart to a man who will hurt you?” Suddenly, my tears dried, my mind cleared and I heard myself say out loud, “No.”

Then came His answer to me. “Then make your choice.”

It was my choice and God would let me make it and He would let me have whatever I chose, be it good or bad. I was not a victim, I was a willing participant and it was high time I made a better decision for my life. The responsibility was mine and I had no one to blame but me. As much as I thought I loved Gary, I could not change him or fix him or heal him. I could only stay and surrender my freedom to a man who would continue to hurt me. Gary stopped beating me with his anger the instant I stopped letting him.

I released him to the Lord, moved away and cleansed my mind and heart with God’s truth. Less than a year later, I met my wonderful husband and with great joy I gave my heart to a loving man who will never hurt me or our children, and God is as happy as I am that I made such an excellent choice. My life could have been very, very different. I shudder now to think of it. I thank God every day for His grace that saved me.

Ladies, the choices are ours to make. The Lord longs for us to protect our hearts and our freedom by using the good sense He gave us to make good decisions. I believe He weeps when we choose badly and then refuse to take responsibility for our choices. The power we need to live full, happy and free lives rests in the decisions we make. This woman who believes Tiger Woods has wronged and damaged her must start by looking in the mirror. There she will find the person who is responsible for her unhappiness, and the person who can change her life starting right now.

God’s abundant grace is there, waiting to be poured out on those who will choose well. Decide carefully, choose well, and you will live well. “Preserve sound judgment and discernment, do not let them out of your sight; they will be life for you, an ornament to grace your neck. Then you will go on your way in safety, and your foot will not stumble; when you lie down, you will not be afraid; when you lie down, your sleep will be sweet.” Proverbs 3:21-24

—————–
Jennifer Hartline is a lifelong Catholic, an Army wife and mother of four precious children. (One in heaven.) She is a contributing writer for Catholic Online on topics of Catholic faith, family, Life, and politics. She is also a serious chocoholic. Visit her at My Chocolate Heart.
—————–

HT: Catholic Online

One of today’s most contentious culture wars is over the religious commitments of our nation’s founders.

Were most of them orthodox Christians, deists, or agnostics? Scholarly books, college classes, radio talk shows, and blogs all debate this issue, and the Texas Board of Education recently joined the fray. Because of Texas’ large number of students, its huge educational fund, and its statewide curriculum guidelines, this board strongly influences what textbooks are published in the United States. Last month the board reviewed the state’s social studies curriculum, and its conservative Christian members injected more analysis of religion into the guidelines, including assessment of whether the United States was founded as a Christian nation and how Christian were the founders.

This issue is so heated that it was the subject of an extensive article in the most recent New York Times Magazine, titled, “How Christian Were the Founders?”

Conservative Christian authors such as David Barton, Peter Marshall Jr., and Tim LaHaye contend that most of the founders were devout Christians who sought to establish a Christian nation. Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore in “The Godless Constitution” and Brooke Allen in “Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers” counter that very few founders were orthodox Christians. They and others often generalize from famous founders, such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Thomas Paine, to argue that most founders were deists who wanted strict separation of church and state.

The truth lies between these two positions. Almost every major founder belonged to a Christian congregation, although a sizable number of them were not committed Christians whose faith strongly influenced their political philosophy and actions.

Two recent books edited by Daniel Dreisbach, Jeffry Morrison, and Mark David Hall—The Founders on God and Government and The Forgotten Founders on Religion and Public Life—carefully explained the religious backgrounds, convictions, and contributions of numerous founders. They show that many who played leading roles in the nation’s Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress, and the devising and ratification of the Constitution were devout Christians, as evident in their church attendance, commitment to prayer and Bible reading, belief in God’s direction of earthly affairs, and conduct.

Among others, these books discuss John Witherspoon, James Wilson, Samuel Adams, George Mason, Oliver Ellsworth, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Benjamin Rush, and Roger Sherman. A third book, which is currently being written, will explain how the faith of Congregationalist John Hancock, Quaker John Dickinson, Presbyterian Elias Boudinot, and Episcopalian Charles Pinckney, and others helped shape their political views, policies, and practice. Abigail Adams and Catholics Charles Carroll, Daniel Carroll, and John Carroll also were dedicated Christians. Moreover, Jay, Boudinot, Pinckney, and numerous other founders served as officers of the American Bible Society.

Even many of those often labeled as deists—Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Alexander Hamilton—do not fit the standard definition of deism, which asserts that after creating the world, God has had no more involvement with it. Deism views God as a transcendent first cause who is not immanent, triune, fully personal, or sovereign over human affairs.

All of these founders, however, repeatedly discussed God’s providence and frequently affirmed the value of prayer. Their conviction that God intervened in human affairs and directed history has led some scholars to call these founders “warm” or “enlightened” deists, but these terms seem like oxymorons. A better label for their position is theistic rationalism.

As Professor Gregg Frazer explains, this hybrid belief system combines elements of “natural religion, Protestant Christianity, and rationalism—with rationalism as the controlling element.” Those espousing this perspective believed in a powerful, benevolent Creator who established the laws by which the universe operates. They also believed that God answered prayer, that people best served Him by living a moral life, and that individuals would be rewarded or punished in the afterlife based on their earthly deeds. Only a few founders, most notably Thomas Paine and Ethan Allan, can properly be called deists.

Despite their theological differences, virtually all the founders maintained that morality depended on religion (which for them meant Christianity). They were convinced that their new republic could succeed only if its citizens were virtuous. For both ideological and pragmatic reasons, the founders opposed establishing one denomination as a national church. However, they provided public support of Christianity through various means, including establishing Christian denominations at the state level, passing state laws restricting public office holding to Christians and punishing blasphemy, issuing proclamations of thanksgiving to God and calls for fasting, using federal money to finance missions to Indians, and permitting Christian congregations to use governmental facilities, both at the state and federal level, for their worship services.

While we must be careful not to overstate the role of religion in the founding of our nation and the Christian convictions of the founders in textbooks or public discourse, the tendency in many scholarly circles has been to ignore or discount these matters. The battle over how Christian the founders were is likely to continue in Texas and across the country. Fortunately, meticulous scholarship is providing a much more accurate picture of the founders’ religious commitments.

HT: BreakPoint.org

A large wooden cross was placed at an Air Force Academy worship area for pagans and other Earth-centered religions, prompting an investigation by academy officials, though some caution that it’s hardly “destructive behavior.”

Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said an Air Force Academy staffer spotted the cross — erected with railroad ties — lying against a rock at a worship area for pagan groups at the academy in Colorado Springs, Colo., on Jan. 17.

Tech. Sgt. Brandon Longcrier, a self-described pagan who sponsors the group that worships there, said the incident was similar to someone leaving a pentagram or a pagan symbol at the academy’s chapel altar and claimed he and others are victim of a hate crime. In an e-mail to Weinstein’s group, Longcrier said his group had been “thrown under the bus by the system we trusted” and that the “hate crime” has been ignored.

David Cannon, director of communications at the Air Force Academy, said the incident remains under investigation. He declined to indicate whether it could be classified as a hate crime pending completion of the probe.

Cannon said that if a cadet were behind the incident, the Air Force would have the power to prosecute. If a civilian did it, the case could be taken up by local authorities.

“Until (the investigation) is over, we can’t classify it as anything,” Cannon told FoxNews.com, adding that it remains unclear whether cadets were involved.

In a statement issued Wednesday, Lt. Gen. Mike Gould, the Air Force Academy’s superintendent, said the school will take “appropriate action” if a cadet were indeed responsible.

“Our message is simple: we are taking this incident very seriously and conducting an inquiry,” Gould’s statement read. “We absolutely do not stand for any type of destructive behavior or disrespect for human dignity.”

Regardless of who left the cross, some critics say Gould’s characterization of its placement as “destructive behavior” is inaccurate.

“What I think people are saying here is, ‘We reject the idea of paganism and we are expressing another religious symbol,’” said Herb London, president of the Hudson Institute, a Manhattan-based think tank. “I’m not sure I would characterize that as a destructive act. A symbol put next to another symbol does not represent destructive behavior. It’s somewhat exaggerated — you have your symbol, we have our symbol.’”

London said the incident is akin to placing a Hanukkah decoration in close proximity to a nativity scene.

“It’d be one thing if there was a harmful act, but to have competing symbols, I’m not sure I would put that in the category of destructive behavior,” London continued. “What is being expressed here is the view of the Judeo-Christian as opposed to the pagan tradition.”

Weinstein, whose New Mexico-based group represents more than 16,000 active duty and retired servicemembers, said the incident was “clearly” a hate crime and characterized any denial of that assertion to be preposterous.

“We don’t think, we know it was a hate crime,” said Weinstein, who compared the incident to spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue.

“It has the same impact, the same hurt, the same marginalization,” he said Thursday. “That circle is their mosque, their church, their synagogue.”

While the incident is “clearly insensitive and inappropriate,” Todd Gaziano, director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, also cautioned against applying that “destructive” label.

“This is a serious affront, it’s insensitive, it’s unacceptable — without saying it’s vandalism, without saying it’s a crime,” Gaziano said. “And that’s the way I think both sides should treat this. Some people can go too far in saying it’s destructive or vandalism. It’s serious notwithstanding, but it’s not vandalism and it’s not destructive of the property.”

Gould, meanwhile, said the Earth-centered spirituality group that meets at the worship area falls within the definition of religion as defined in the United States Air Force Instruction 36-2706: “a personal set or institutional system of attitudes, moral or ethical beliefs and practices held with the strength of traditional religious views, characterized by ardor and faith and generally evidenced through specific religious observances.”

Gould said the addition of the Earth-centered worship circle was done in response to requests of both cadets and active duty personnel.

“Therefore, it our obligation, my obligation, to accommodate the group’s religious requirements in a manner that is fair and consistent with other religious groups who are accommodated at the Academy,” Gould’s statement continued.

Gould said the worship area — a stone circle atop a hill overlooking the academy’s visitor center — is the latest addition to other sacred spaces for Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists.

“Cadets learn that to succeed as an Air Force officer we must be able to support and respect the people who we lead, serve with and fight alongside even if they do not share our personal beliefs,” Gould said. “Cadets learn that every servicemember is charged with defending freedom for all Americans and that includes the freedom to practice a religion of their choice or to not practice any religion at all.”

. . . more

One of my all-time favorite movies reminds me that it often takes a bold act to awaken the conscience of a nation. It’s one of the most dramatic scenes in a really great movie. The movie is Amazing Grace. The scene is the House of Commons in the latter years of the eighteenth century. William Wilberforce stuns his parliamentary colleagues by unrolling an enormous scroll down the aisle. On the scroll were the signatures of 390,000 Englishmen, demanding that Parliament abolish the slave trade—the greatest moral issue of the day.

The signatures of nearly five percent of the country forced his reluctant, if not hostile, fellow members of Parliament to understand that the evil status quo could no longer stand.

Two hundred years later, in the spirit of Wilberforce, Christians across this country are affixing their signatures to another document as a way of saying “enough!”

Before Wilberforce presented his petition, slave traders and the economic interests that benefitted from the trade believed that they owned Parliament. That’s why it was called the rotten borough system. They literally bought seats! They believed they could ignore Wilberforce without repercussions. The petition showed them otherwise. It broke the back of their resistance.

Today, when it comes to sanctity of life, the traditional family and religious freedom, we are told that the cultural tide flows in only one direction—and that Christians should adapt.

Well, the last time I checked over 400,000 people have disagreed—loudly and clearly. They have signed the Manhattan Declaration, which, among other things, forcefully rejects the idea of Christians adapting to the cultural tide. It makes it clear that there are times when “civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required.”

While it took years for Wilberforce to gather his petitions, thanks to the internet, it has only taken us only two months to get 400,000 signatures. But our goal is one million.

Not because one million is a round and impressive number, but because that kind of response has the potential to electrify the church and make the cultural elite take notice as it did in Wilberforce’s day.

The church needs to get over this business that “we can’t get involved in politics.” That’s an excuse. It needs to understand that bearing witness about the sanctity of life, the traditional family and religious liberty isn’t political – it’s profoundly moral. It’s about who we are as a church and our relationship to the rest of the culture.

Likewise, it’s about making it clear that the cultural elite cannot silence us simply by labeling our views out-of-bounds. It’s about their having to realize that they cannot silence the church, especially when it speaks authoritatively across confessional lines.

By telling them that we will not render to Caesar what is God’s we can break the stranglehold that the abortion lobby has on Congress and the stranglehold of the gay rights movement on politicians.

But this willingness to swim against the tied can come at a price. Like Martin Luther King, whose birthday the nation honored this week, we must be clear that an unjust law does not bind the Christian conscience. And that we’ll pay the price to oppose it as he did.

The church in America must say “enough!” We must strive to overcome the reluctance and hostility we face. Whatever else the supporters of the status quo may own, they do not own our consciences.

. . . more

The Declaration opens:

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are (1) the sanctity of human life, (2) the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and (3) the rights of conscience and religious liberty…We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

The three issues that Declaration signers see as preeminent and the rationale for opposition:

Human Life

The lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are ever more threatened. While public opinion has moved in a pro-life direction, powerful and determined forces are working to expand abortion, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, and euthanasia…We pledge to work unceasingly for the equal protection of every innocent human being at every stage of development and in every condition. We will refuse to permit ourselves or our institutions to be implicated in the taking of human life and we will support in every possible way those who, in conscience, take the same stand.

Marriage

The institution of marriage, already wounded by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is at risk of being redefined and thus subverted. Marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all. Where marriage erodes, social pathologies rise. The impulse to redefine marriage is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil law as well as our religious traditions…Marriage is not a “social construction,” but is rather an objective reality—the covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the duty of the law to recognize, honor, and protect.

Religious Liberty

Freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized…Attacks on religious liberty are dire threats not only to individuals, but also to the institutions of civil society including families, charities, and religious communities. The health and well-being of such institutions provide an indispensable buffer against the overweening power of government and is essential to the flourishing of every other institution—including government itself—on which society depends.

With these three issues in mind, and aware of the secularist undermining of tradition and culture, the signers resolved:

Unjust Laws

As Christians, we believe in law and we respect the authority of earthly rulers. We count it as a special privilege to live in a democratic society where the moral claims of the law on us are even stronger in virtue of the rights of all citizens to participate in the political process. Yet even in a democratic regime, laws can be unjust. And from the beginning, our faith has taught that civil disobedience is required in the face of gravely unjust laws or laws that purport to require us to do what is unjust or otherwise immoral. Such laws lack the power to bind in conscience because they can claim no authority beyond that of sheer human will.

Therefore, let it be known that we will not comply with any edict that compels us or the institutions we lead to participate in or facilitate abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or any other act that violates the principle of the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every member of the human family.

Further, let it be known that we will not bend to any rule forcing us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality, marriage, and the family.

Further, let it be known that we will not be intimidated into silence or acquiescence or the violation of our consciences by any power on earth, be it cultural or political, regardless of the consequences to ourselves.

We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

Orthodox signers of the original Declaration include:

• Metr. Jonah Paffhausen Primate, Orthodox Church in America (Syosset, NY)
• His Grace, The Right Reverend Bishop Basil Essey The Right Reverend Bishop of the Diocese of Wichita and Mid-America (Wichita, KS)
• Fr. Chad Hatfield Chancellor, CEO. And Archpriest, St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary (Yonkers, NY)
• Fr. Johannes L. Jacobse President, American Orthodox Institute and Editor, OrthodoxyToday.org (Naples, FL)
• Fr. Patrick Reardon Pastor, All Saints’ Antiochian Orthodox Church (Chicago, IL)
• Fr. Alexander F. C. Webster, Ph.D. Archpriest, Orthodox Church in America; Professorial Lecturer, The George Washington University (Ashburn, Va.)

You can sign the declaration on the Manhattan Declaration website.

From OCA News:

NEW YORK, NY (OCA Communications) – His Beatitude, Metropolitan Jonah, Primate of the Orthodox Church in America, and the Very Rev. Chad Hatfield, Chancellor of Saint Vladimir’s Seminary, were among some 125 US religious leaders who signed a 4,700-word declaration addressing the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty here recently.

The statement, known as the “Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience,” issues “a clarion call” to Christians to adhere to their convictions and informs civil authorities that the signers will not “under any circumstance” abandon their Christian consciences. The text of the declaration, which already has generated considerable controversy, was released on Friday, November 20, 2009.

“The Manhattan Declaration is the result of several months of dialogue among Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christian leaders culminating in a gathering of approximately 100 leaders in New York City on September 28, 2009,” Catholic News Agency [CNA] reports. “Attendees considered an early draft… but the document was entrusted to a drafting committee.”

“We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths,” the Declaration reads. “We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence.

“We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral,” the signatories explain.

But, CNA reports, they also made clear that “we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriage or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family.”

The signatories explained that they speak now because in order “to defend principles of justice and the common good that are now under assault.”

“We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but we will under no circumstances render to Caesar what is God’s.”

. . . more