God Issues
By Dr. James C. Denison
President, The Center for Informed Faith, Dallas, Texas
May 13, 2010
Topic: Spiritual preparation

Ten hours at Wimbledon

I've never won a match at Wimbledon, which equals the record of John Isner and Nicolas Mahut before this year. But these two gentlemen will go down in history for playing the longest match in tennis history.

As I write on Thursday morning, we're still waiting for their match to resume after the two have played for exactly 10 hours over two days. To simplify: In a "major" championship such as Wimbledon, the first player to capture three "sets" is the winner. A "set" is won by the first player to capture six games. Except that he or she must win by two games, so that a set can be won 7-5.

If a set ends at 6-6, the two play a "tie-break," wherein the first to win seven points while leading by at least two is the winner. Tie-breaks can go to 24-22 points and so on, but such an event doesn't take long to play. However, the fifth set at Wimbledon cannot be decided by a tie-break—the victor must win by two games. Mr. Isner and Mr. Mahut are tied in their fifth set at 59 games apiece, the set lasting 7 hours and 6 minutes before it was called for darkness yesterday. Later today they will resume the longest set and the longest match ever played.

I looked up some comparisons: the longest Major League Baseball game in history was played in 1984, lasting 8 hours, 6 minutes. The longest NFL game was played in 1971, lasting 82 minutes and 40 seconds. The longest NBA game was played in 1951, lasting four hours. This year's Boston Marathon winner finished in 2:05:52. Mr. Isner and Mr. Mahut would call that a warm-up.

Defending Wimbledon champion Roger Federer said of the match, "It's beyond anything I've ever seen and could imagine." Andy Roddick, last year's runner-up, called the match "unreal." Even the umpire who sits in a chair and calls out scores was getting tired. At one point the scoreboard went blank.

How are they doing this? The answer is that they began preparing for this match years ago. Mr. Isner, who is 6' 9" tall and 25 years old, began playing tennis at age 11; Mr. Mahut, who is 6'3" and 28 years old, began playing at age 5. Years of conditioning and practice have made possible the history-setting event they'll continue today.

There is a spiritual lesson here: the best way to prepare for tomorrow is to get close to God today. The time to prepare for temptation is before it arrives. When the crisis comes, it may not wait while we go to a worship service or spend time in a Bible study. "Stay prayed-up," a wise friend once advised me.

Spiritual maturity takes work. We are called to "pray continually" (1 Thessalonians 5:17), to "do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15). As we work, God works. As we make time today for our Father, his Spirit strengthens and directs us. Then when the challenge comes, we are ready.

Is your soul prepared for this day?

By Wayne Winegarden

Learning from history requires a thoughtful analysis of what actually happened, not endlessly parroting a politically convenient slogan. The current economic crisis is not a repudiation of free markets, nor is it a repudiation of deregulation. Such an “explanation” is simply Barack Obama and the Democrats peddling their same discredited elixir under a new label.

The causes of the current economic crisis are complex, and many people are at fault. Focusing on the housing bubble, the housing crisis will define the Bush II economy just as the technology boom and bust of the 1990’s defined the Clinton economy. While bubbles developed during both periods, from a fundamental economic perspective, the two experiences have important differences. The lessons we need to learn from the current housing bust come from understanding these differences.

Rising wealth across the globe has increased the supply of money available for investing. During the 1990’s, the investment funds were put to good use – funding the Internet and information technology revolution. The investment in information technology transformed our economy. While the real annual long-run GDP growth in the U.S. is believed to be around 2.5% - 3.0%, from 1996 through the first half of 2000, real average annual GDP growth accelerated to 4.5%.

The technology boom led to an unrivaled and sustained acceleration in productivity for the average worker. As the productivity gains increased the effectiveness of workers, income levels for all Americans rose. When coupled with the capital gains tax reductions of the 1990’s, the result was the late-1990’s economic boom.

Like many transformational technology revolutions – such as the railroads of the 1800’s or the automobile industry of the early 1900’s – the information technology boom was associated with financial excesses. The life altering potential of information technology created a euphoria that was unsustainable. The result was the boom and bust of the stock market and with it the rise and fall of many early Internet companies and icons.

Importantly, the 1990’s boom was rooted in the creativity of individual entrepreneurs. Worldwide capital flows supported the dreams and visions of these entrepreneurs, all to the benefit of businesses and consumers worldwide. This was not the case for the 2000’s housing boom.

During the late 1990’s, Congress, guided by “socially responsible” visions, wanted to extend the American Dream to more people. To achieve this goal, the government unleashed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – as well as Community Reinvestment Act and Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations – to divert more money toward housing. In so doing, a housing bubble was all but inevitable.

Certainly, flaws in the private sector significantly heightened the risk (and ultimate cost) of the housing bubble. Poorly structured securitization left banks with “no skin in the game” when they extended mortgages. This, along with poorly executed ratings from the ratings agencies is problematic and needs to be addressed. But, it was the government that created the incentives to over-invest in the housing sector in the first place. Without the government incentives, the housing bubble would not have developed.

Since 1970, residential construction activity has been typically around 4.5% of overall economic activity. Due to the government fostered housing boom, residential construction’s share of the economy swelled to an unprecedented 6.3%. Greater investment in housing replaced investing in other assets – including the accelerated technological investments that drove the 1990’s boom. The implication of this change was dramatic.

As the housing boom wore on, successively greater shares of the housing stock were being purchased by borrowers that were not capable of financing the home. From an economic efficiency perspective, the “productivity” of the money invested in these new houses was falling. Instead of investing in new technologies that could enhance our efficiency, government incentives drove more and more money toward building houses that could not be sustained.

Furthermore, many of the construction jobs created by the boom in the housing sector were filled by illegal immigrants, as the work and pay, while not attractive to many Americans, was attractive to this group. The surge in illegal immigration during the housing boom, and its subsequent drop during the housing bust, is simply a rational response to the capital investments that the American economy was making.

What is troubling for American workers, however, is not the illegal immigration but the skewed capital investment. Government policies encouraged investment dollars to be allocated toward less productive projects that will not increase worker productivity. Without productivity growth, there is no income growth.

The way forward takes time. Due to the excessive build-up of unproductive homes, we must go through the process of readjusting our capital stock toward more productive uses. Because real resources were used to build these homes, money that could have been allocated toward projects that would have increased workers incomes and our national wealth, have been wasted. Luckily, we have already experienced much of the re-adjustment pain, although there is more to come. Oil prices have been dropping as well, which should offset some of the pain as the affordability of food and gas should improve.

We will be unlucky, however, if we take the wrong lessons from our recent history. The housing crisis did not occur due to deregulation or a failure of the market. What has failed is a regulatory structure that promoted “socially responsible” visions above common sense. Time and time again, history has shown us that chasing the economic dream of a central planner ends with a crisis. The housing bubble is simply another example.

Wayne Winegarden's Biography
Wayne H. Winegarden Ph.D. is a partner in the firm Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics, a Lecturer in Economics at Marymount University, and a contributor to the website freeenterpriser.com. Dr. Winegarden’s research examines the impact on industries from current macroeconomic, policy and regulatory trends as well as tailored market and industry analyses; and presents his research findings to clients, conferences, and in the media including Bloomberg News and CNN-fn. Previously, Dr. Winegarden worked as an economist in Hong Kong for Philip Morris Asia Ltd where he forecasted economic trends for East-Asian Economies and created economic, fiscal, and pricing models that were leveraged as part of the company’s 5-year planning process. Dr. Winegarden also worked for Philip Morris Companies Inc. in New York City where he was responsible for managing the company’s tax and budget analyses and government affairs argumentation. Prior thereto, Dr. Winegarden worked for policy and trade associations in Washington D.C. where he authored papers and editorials on timely tax, budget, and regulatory issues and advised association members on the implications from domestic economic trends. Dr. Winegarden is the author of several policy and academic papers. He has a Ph.D. in economics from George Mason University.

A Passion for Truth - Website: breakpoint.org

A couple of years ago on this program, I had this to say of the book Doubts about Darwin by my friend Thomas Woodward: "The motivation for [the] . . . founders of the [intelligent] design movement to instigate this 'reformation within science' is a passion for intellectual truth-telling."

Woodward displays this passion for truth-telling yet again in his marvelous new book, Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design. What Woodward wrote about just a few years ago is even truer today. Amid a firestorm of criticism and abuse from committed Darwinists, the intelligent design movement continues to press forward, gaining scientific credibility and even grudging respect from some evolutionists. But as Woodward shows, there's still a long way to go.

Because the more respect intelligent design gains, the more alarmed the Darwinists become. Their thinking goes something like this: It's one thing for those religious people to talk about a creator God—that's religion; but now they are talking about science—so, they figure, "Let's label it religion." Woodward writes, "These sentiments were echoed in public declarations, verbally and in print, by Darwinian defenders, warning . . . that Intelligent Design is religion, not science . . . This statement," Woodward continues, "emerged as the number-one talking point for Intelligent Design opponents [over the last few years]."

The idea makes for a great sound bite, as the popular press is well aware. But it has no ground to stand on, and that's becoming increasingly obvious if you spend any amount of time researching the issue. Intelligent design theorists come from all backgrounds and creeds; some of them aren't "religious" at all. What they have in common is what Woodward calls a "scientific paradigm" that allows for design in any natural mechanism that can't be explained simply by chance or purely natural causes. His meticulously researched book clearly explains the scientific reasoning behind this paradigm.

Ironically, it's the anti-intelligent design forces that are fully committed to a religious dogma—a dogma whose foundation is starting to show dangerous cracks. Their religion is materialism, and some of them even admit it, like Harvard geneticist Richard Lowentin. Woodward quotes him as saying: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs . . . because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."

Well, he's being honest, at least. But who is it now who's confusing science and religion?

Suggest the presence of something outside of and greater than the universe we know, and Darwinists get all but hysterical. Take the case of researcher Richard Sternberg. He isn't even an intelligent design advocate himself, but when he dared to publish a peer-reviewed article on intelligent design in his scientific journal, the Darwinists acted more like Grand Inquisitors than scientists, cutting off his access to research and trying to limit his academic freedom.

In light of such nonsense, the continuing quest of intelligent design theorists is all the more intriguing and admirable. As Woodward points out, this criticism is even cause for gratitude, because it is leading many intelligent design theorists to be more thorough in their research and to sharpen their arguments.

I hope you will visit our website, BreakPoint.org, to find out how you can get a copy of Tom Woodward's great new book, Darwin Strikes Back. I strongly recommend it to anyone who shares a true commitment to science and a passion for truth.

The relationship between biblical literacy and education was the subject of a survey conducted by the Bible Literacy Project. The study, whose subtitle is "What University Professors Say Incoming Students Need to Know," found that every professor surveyed agreed with the following statement: "Regardless of a person's faith, an educated person needs to know about the Bible." Every professor!

By way of elaboration, Professor George P. Landow, from my alma mater, the very liberal Brown University, said, "[Without the Bible] it's like using a dictionary with one-third of the words removed." Professor Ulrich Knoepflmacher at Princeton said that the lack of "Bible knowledge is almost crippling in students' ability to be sophisticated readers."

Case in point: A preparation workbook for the Advanced Placement Literature exam lists sixty-seven biblical allusions among the 105 allusions that it recommends students know. Yet, only 8 percent of public high schools teach about the Bible even as literature.

Then there's the Bible's central role in Western civilization. As David Kastan of Columbia said, "The Bible is the foundational text, certainly of the West . . . We need to know more, and we need to know it better."

Given the Bible's status, it shouldn't be "too much to ask," as Gordon Braden of the University of Virginia put it, for students to read what he called a "core Bible." This would include "Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms, the four Gospels, and the Book of Revelation." In Braden's words, "If they have that, then we can get started."

If leading academics agree on the importance of the Bible, regardless of one's faith or lack thereof, why isn't it being taught more? Why are we raising the first generation to have lost the biblical narrative that was second nature to prior generations in America?

The answer certainly is not for lack of a suitable curriculum. The Bible Literacy Project recently released a textbook called The Bible and Its Influence. The textbook has been well received, not only by evangelical leaders, but by Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish leaders as well.

The text enables students to learn about the role of the Bible in an accurate, scholarly, and constitutional way. It helps teachers and administrators feel more confident about their ability to do justice to our "foundational text."

The problem lies in getting past the "Christophobia" I mentioned earlier. Whether the problem lies in overt hostility or a misunderstanding of what the law actually says, many schools are reluctant to teach the Bible.

That's where you come in. There is overwhelming evidence of the need for biblical literacy in public education. You need to bring this evidence to the attention of those running your local school boards. You need to help them understand that the goal is not spreading a particular religion but preventing the spread of something far worse: a crippling kind of ignorance.

By definition, people known as Revolutionaries have experienced life transformation through their faith commitment - and lead very different, God-focused lives as a result. If you’d like to know more about the revolutionary spiritual life, read George Barna’s latest bestseller, simply entitled Revolution, to discover what this faith movement is all about.

Click here to read more about Revolution

"We know in our hearts that peace never really lasts for long, which leads to an interesting question: Why is it that humans are apparently designed to desire good and noble things we cannot possibly have? Considering this question, C. S. Lewis concluded, 'If our deepest desires cannot be satisfied in this world, then we must have been made for another world'."
- Charles Colson

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
- John Stuart Mill

THE FOUNDATION
"I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the end is worth more than all the means..." —John Adams

PatriotPost.US | Patriot No. 06-21

As we go, this we know, God is nigh...
To the congregation's strains of "America the Beautiful," the casket of Marine Cpl. Stephen R. Bixler was carried last week from his family church in Suffield, Connecticut, en route to his final resting place at Arlington National Cemetery.

Steve Bixler was an all-American kid. He was a model son to parents Richard and Linda. He was an Eagle Scout. He was a good athlete. After graduating high school, he became one of the few, the proud. Bixler was assigned to the 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. When his battalion called for volunteers to man a Provisional Rifle Platoon, Stephen stepped forward. His platoon commander, 1st Lt. Nicholas Lodestro, says Stephen was "loyal, knowledgeable and dedicated. He was a warrior I felt comfortable to serve with. He was the man in front protecting us. He was a dedicated, unselfish, charismatic warrior."

Cpl. Bixler, age 20, was killed on 4 May while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in Al Anbar province, Iraq. His battalion commander, Lt. Col. James Bright, said of this young Marine, "He died fearlessly leading and willingly sacrificing his own safety for those around him."

Stephen Bixler is one of 2,738 uniformed Patriots who have died on the joint warfronts with Jihadistan - Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, most of them killed in combat operations.

This week, in advance of Memorial Day, we recognize Cpl. Bixler, not because he is more noteworthy than the more than eight-hundred-thousand American Patriots who have, since our nation's inception, made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our liberty, but because he is, in many ways, representative of all those who have fallen before him.

The closing words of Stephen's pastor, Rev. Michael Dolan, at gravesite should be heralded from shore to shore: "Do not squander the time given to you by God or the freedom preserved by this Marine's life."

"Do not squander the time given to you by God or the freedom preserved by this Marine's life." - Rev. Michael Dolan

Ponder these words if you will - "Do not squander the time given to you by God or the freedom preserved by this Marine's life."

Ask yourself, then: Do our politicians and judges - those who so often treat our nation's Constitution with utter contempt—really understand Reverend Dolan's words? (That would be the same Constitution that Cpl. Bixler swore to "Support and Defend.") Do all the rancorous political debates in Washington, all the derogatory headlines, disparaging reports and mindless 24-hour news-cycle interviews comport with the Reverend's simple mandate? Is the spirit of his words written on the heart of millions of those who call themselves "American" but will forget to honor Stephen Bixler and his fallen compatriots Monday, opting instead to flood shopping malls in search of Memorial Day bargains?

Indeed, Memorial Day has been sold out, and it is no wonder that too many among us have no understanding of the price others have paid for their liberty. Most government schools no longer teach civics or any meaningful history and the courts have excluded God (officially) from the public square. Regardless, there are still countless American Patriots who will take time to honor all those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coastguardsmen—those who have refreshed the tree of liberty with their blood, indeed with their lives, so that we might remain the proud and free.

Who were these brave souls?

On 12 May 1962, Gen. Douglas MacArthur addressed the cadets at the U.S. Military Academy, offering this description: "Their story is known to all of you. It is the story of the American man at arms. My estimate of him was formed on the battlefields many, many years ago and has never changed. I regarded him then, as I regard him now, as one of the world's noblest figures—not only as one of the finest military characters, but also as one of the most stainless. His name and fame are the birthright of every American citizen. In his youth and strength, his love and loyalty, he gave all that mortality can give. He needs no eulogy from me, or from any other man. He has written his own history and written it in red on his enemy's breast."

"Always for them: duty, honor, country." - Gen. Douglas MacArthur

Gen. MacArthur continued: "In twenty campaigns, on a hundred battlefields, around a thousand campfires, I have witnessed that enduring fortitude, that patriotic self-abnegation and that invincible determination which have carved his statue in the hearts of his people. From one end of the world to the other, he has drained deep the chalice of courage. As I listened to those songs in memory's eye, I could see those staggering columns of the First World War, bending under soggy packs on many a weary march, from dripping dusk to drizzling dawn, slogging ankle deep through mire of shell-pocked roads; to form grimly for the attack, blue-lipped, covered with sludge and mud, chilled by the wind and rain, driving home to their objective, and for many, to the judgment seat of God. I do not know the dignity of their birth, but I do know the glory of their death. They died unquestioning, uncomplaining, with faith in their hearts, and on their lips the hope that we would go on to victory. Always for them: duty, honor, country. Always their blood, and sweat, and tears, as they saw the way and the light."

As is tradition, at Marine Cpl. Stephen Bixler's interment at Arlington, a Final Roll was called. Three times his name was called out. Three times it was met with silence. His final farewell was the trumpeting of "Taps," the traditional words of which follow:

"Day is done, gone the sun, From the hills, from the lake, From the skies. All is well, safely rest, God is nigh; Go to sleep, peaceful sleep, May the soldier or sailor, God keep. On the land or the deep, Safe in sleep; Love, good night, Must thou go, When the day, And the night Need thee so? All is well. Speedeth all To their rest; Fades the light; And afar Goeth day, And the stars Shineth bright, Fare thee well; Day has gone, Night is on; Thanks and praise, For our days, 'Neath the sun, Neath the stars, 'Neath the sky, As we go, This we know, God is nigh."

Semper Fi, Stephen. In the words of your Savior, "There is no greater love than this—than to lay down one's life for one's friends." We are eternally grateful for your sacrifice, and that of all American Patriots who died in the line of duty.

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: One way you can help prepare for Memorial Day is by placing flags at headstones in your local military cemetery (generally done the Saturday prior to Memorial Day). Take a moment and read about the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. In honor of American Patriots who have died in defense of our great nation, lower your flag to half-staff from sunrise to 1200 on Monday, and join us by observing a time of silence at 1500 [your local time], for remembrance and prayer. On this and every day, please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces now standing in harm's way around the world in defense of our liberty, and for the families awaiting their safe return. The Patriot will not publish a Brief on Monday.

By Harry C. Green EGW

Psalm 27:1 The LORD is my light and my salvation; I will fear no one. The LORD protects me from all danger; I will never be afraid.

"Many men fail because they quit too soon. They lose faith when the signs are against them. They do not have the courage to hold on, to keep fighting in spite of that which seems insurmountable. If more of us would strike out and attempt the "impossible," we very soon would find the truth of that old saying that nothing is impossible ... abolish fear and you can accomplish anything you wish."
Dr. C. E. Welch, Founder, Welch's Grape Juice

In spite of all the successes I have had, I continue to face my two biggest foes …fear and self-doubt. Everyone I know that's been successful also faces these two foes daily. It's just part of the entrepreneurial experience. The difference between the winners and the losers is the way in which they face the challenge. Confidence and the experience of doing something makes it easier to overcome fear and self doubt.

Developing the right attitude about fear and self-doubt makes the entrepreneurial experience rewarding. Remember, it's not how many times you fall but how many times you get up that counts. Every professional performer will tell you that there's that split second of fear or self doubt that occurs just before making that jump, that speech, or stepping before an audience. Confidence comes when you know you can go ahead during that split second of concern. It's during that split second that we consider both the thrill of victory and agony of defeat. Knowing that the experience won't kill us, makes it possible for us to rise again. The pay off comes when we continue the process until we emerge victorious. It is our passion for what we are doing that keeps us keeping on. That is what the entrepreneur in you is all about.

Ironically the possibility of winning or losing is a strong motivator. Renowned behavioral psychologist B.F. Skinner proved that intermittent reinforcement is the strongest motivator of all. Stronger than winning all the time or stronger than losing the time is the motivation caused by the uncertainty of the outcome or result. In essence, we keep trying failing or succeeding because we don't know the outcome. This substantiates the fact that the process is the driving force rather than the result.

The scientific community has rightly distanced itself from Hwang over his falsification of data. But there is still one thing that his efforts and much of the biotech industry share in common: a utilitarian disregard for the dignity and sanctity of human life.
Prosecutors charge that Hwang used falsified data showing cloning success to defraud investors of at least $2 million. However, the real outrage lies in how Hwang obtained the eggs for the research whose results he falsified. The media referred to "junior researchers" having "donated" their eggs. In this case donated is a euphemism, suggesting a voluntary transaction between equals—not the case here.

For starters, there are reports that Hwang and his senior associates "applied pressure to team members" to donate their eggs. One researcher reportedly told Hwang she wouldn't do it, to which he replied, "Why not?" She then went through the procedure "out of worry" for her professional prospects.
Even without overt pressure, junior researchers are, as the New York Times put it, in a "dependent relationship" with their superiors—thus, vulnerable. Especially is this true "in the strict hierarchy of a scientific laboratory in a Confucian[-influenced] society like South Korea," where "junior members often feel great pressure to please their superiors."

Hwang's taking advantage of his researchers is emblematic of efforts to do anything to clone human beings and to do embryonic stem-cell research. The physical differences between adult women and human embryos should not obscure the utilitarian calculus involved. Neither should it matter that Hwang was, by all accounts, an egomaniac, while other researchers are depicted as altruistic visionaries. The clear point is that those least able to resist—whether subordinate researchers or human embryos—are expected to sacrifice themselves for some "greater good."

This is the issue in a measure pending in Congress to allow federally funded research on embryonic stem-cells obtained from frozen embryos. The treatment of these embryos, who were created for in vitro fertilization, represents utilitarian logic at its "finest." They were abandoned when they no longer served their original purpose. So now we can destroy them to fulfill a new purpose. The justification for this proposal amounts to: "They shouldn't go to waste."

Sadly, in a culture shaped by utilitarianism such as ours, when Christians insist that human life—at any stage—is not a "waste," we are labeled fanatics. When we argue that "progress," however defined, should not be purchased at the expense of the most vulnerable among us, we are made out as "enemies of the future." It does not matter that, to date, no treatments or cures have come from embryonic stem-cell research. It's our insistence on the sanctity and dignity of the human person that offends the prophets of progress.

But that insistence is the only reliable protection against the abuses that took place in Hwang's laboratory. In a world where some human life is expendable for the "greater good," there is nothing that protects the weak or, for that matter, protects any of us.

This is part five in the "War on the Weak" series.

The Times Strikes Out on Abortion - Website: breakpoint.org

Dr. Ted Joyce, an economist at Baruch College at the City University of New York, says that parental notification laws have little effect on teenage abortion rates.
Dr. Joyce also says that parental notification laws have a significant effect on teenage abortion rates.

Well, which Dr. Joyce is talking? Or is there something else going on here? Apparently, it all depends on what you read.

The New York Times recently conducted its own study on parental notification laws. The paper reported that it had found "no evidence that the laws had a significant impact on the number of minors who got pregnant, or, once pregnant, the number who had abortions." And then the Times quoted Dr. Ted Joyce as saying, "There are ongoing trends that are pushing both birth rates and abortion rates down significantly, and those larger trends are more important than the effect of these laws." The paper added, "[Joyce] found that they had limited effects on small subgroups of minors but little impact over all."

How strange that just two days later, the Dallas Morning News reported on a new study by—you guessed it—Dr. Ted Joyce, which showed that abortion rates among teenagers in Texas experienced a major drop after the passing of a notification law.

The paper stated that, according to Joyce, "the authors of the study tried to overcome flaws in previous work. . . . For example, the scientists pinned the analysis to a girl's age at [time of] conception, not just at delivery or abortion. Other studies also have not effectively accounted for girls traveling to neighboring states for abortions." Joyce's new study showed that such factors alone cannot account for the drop. The Texas law is clearly causing more teenage girls to carry their babies to term. (As Joyce himself is pro-choice, and was not sure that this was a positive outcome, it would be hard to argue that his bias affected the study.)

We can only assume from all of this that the flawed "previous work" Joyce mentioned would include the New York Times study. Could it be that the Times quoted Joyce out of context - and that the Times's own researchers were not as objective or thorough as Joyce and his team? Given the fact that the Times has very rarely managed to maintain neutrality on abortion, I'd say there's a distinct possibility.

As the Heritage Foundation reports, "This continues the newspaper's trend of poor reporting on abortion statistics over the last decade. For example, during the 2004 election season, the Times reported Glen Harold Stassen's erroneous finding that abortions had increased [under] George W. Bush's presidency. When the Alan Guttmacher Institute later released more comprehensive data showing that abortions had actually declined since President Bush's inauguration, the Times was among the media outlets that failed to report the finding."

This kind of advocacy journalism casts serious doubts about the Times's reputation for veracity. If only the Times were able to show the same objectivity as this pro-choice scientist, we might actually be able to have an honest dialogue in this country about how to help young girls and reduce the number of abortions.

This is part four in the "War on the Weak" series.

Who's Afraid of the Rain Man? - Website: breakpoint.org

I recently told you about Jason McElwain. He's the autistic high-schooler from Greece, New York, whose feats on the basketball court, in President Bush's words, "captivated our country."

Not surprisingly, McElwain's story is being turned into a movie. What is surprising is that this is not the only movie being made about autistic people.

There are at least three other films scheduled for release or in production about autistic people and their families. The most highly anticipated of them is probably Daniel Isn't Talking, starring Julia Roberts. Based on the novel by Marti Leimbach, it's the story of a woman whose seemingly perfect world is turned upside down when her three-year-old son is diagnosed as autistic.

Leimbach, whose nine-year-old son, Nicholas, is autistic, says that stories about autistic people "[dramatize] the fact that none of us have perfect children." In her estimation, this is why the stories have broad appeal.

As the grandfather of an autistic boy, I'm gladdened by the positive attention being given to people like my grandson Max, who has some amazing qualities. And one of BreakPoint's writers and a valued colleague is a single dad raising an autistic boy. This subject is close to home. But, as a Christian, I cannot help but notice that all of this attention is coming at a time when it's increasingly dangerous to be a handicapped child. They are squarely in the gunsights of those who are conducting what I call a "war on the weak," which is what this present series is about.

The best-known advocate of this war is Princeton Professor Peter Singer. He has justified the killing of a handicapped child if it "leads to the birth of another child with better prospects of a happy life." In this case, "the total quantity of happiness will be greater . . ."
It is tempting to dismiss Singer as a crank, that is, until you recall that, just last fall, the Netherlands legalized the killing of terminally ill children—this despite ample warning that the practice is not and will not be confined to the terminally ill. All Dutch children with birth defects are now at risk.

Outside the Netherlands, the threat is subtler, but no less real. Italian neonatologist Carlo Bellieni has coined the term handiphobia to describe the fear of having a disabled child. According to Bellieni, we in the West see "the fetus, as a means and not as the end they truly are." Thus, "the child is no longer loved unconditionally and respected as a human person."
Instead, we use prenatal testing to detect any identifiable defects in the unborn child. Those with such defects, like Down syndrome, are then aborted. As Bellieni puts it, "[A]s with all phobias, [the object of our fear] must be made to disappear."

Well, that's putting it starkly, but it is true: If a prenatal test for autism were ever developed, it would not be long before autistic people would also be "made to disappear." While Leimbach is right about no one's child being "perfect," Bellieni is also right about how much "imperfection" we're not prepared to accept.

That's why I hope that stories like young Jason McElwain's do more than make us feel good. I hope they also help us to understand the evil that comes from giving in to our fears.

This is part three in the "War on the Weak" series.

Gay 'Marriage' and Children - Website: breakpoint.org

Note: This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley.

I have a quick test for you. Don't worry, it's a multiple-choice test and won't take long. Ready? Here's the question. Which of these things doesn't belong: A) children, B) Easter egg hunts, or C) political activists?

Unfortunately, the homosexual activists of the Family Pride Coalition did not pass this test on Easter, when a nearly 130-year-old tradition of hunting for eggs on the White House lawn suddenly became the bull's eye of controversy.

Three months before the event, the Family Pride Coalition announced that gay and lesbian couples would be attending the Easter Egg Roll with their children to raise awareness of gay and lesbian "families." While I echo the sentiments of Easter Egg Roll hostess Laura Bush—who said that all are welcome provided they comply with the rules—I categorically disagree with what the activists did. They used a children's event to make a raw political statement.

While it saddens me that the activists chose to politicize the event, it does not surprise me that children were once again the unfortunate casualties in the war on the weak. It fits the pattern.

From the get-go, the quest to legitimize gay "marriage" in this country has not really been about marriage. It has been about the pursuit of unlimited personal autonomy—no matter what the cost to society or to its most vulnerable members, our children—because, in the end, what gay "marriage" proponents are doing, intentionally or unintentionally, is undermining the institution of marriage itself. And when that happens, children are the real victims.

Now, lest we fail to remove the plank from our own eye first, we need to admit that the problem with marriage in this country began with no-fault divorces. The take-it-or-leave-it attitude toward marriage was the first step in undermining the sanctity of marriage.

Selfishness, sexual sin, high divorce rates, and casual attitudes toward marriage in general have opened wide the door to redefining marriage in a way that leaves the voiceless, in this case, children, vulnerable and at great risk.

It's distasteful when children are used as political pawns, but it's disastrous when a society fails to protect its weaker members. This is especially true when it comes to protecting the institution of marriage. As Dr. Timothy Dailey concludes in Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk, "The complementary aspects of parenting that mothers and fathers contribute to the rearing of children are rooted in the innate differences of the two sexes, and can no more be arbitrarily substituted than can the very nature of male and female . . . [despite] accusations of sexism and homophobia . . . , [despite] attempts to deny the importance of both mothers and fathers in the rearing of children, the oldest family structure of all turns out to be the best."

Children need a mom and a dad. And children need us to protect the institution that protects them best, whether that's fighting for strong marriages, or fighting against no-fault divorce laws and against so-called same-sex "marriages." In a little less than a month, there will be a vote in the Senate on the Marriage Protection Amendment. Please call your United States senators. If Christians don't protect society's most vulnerable, then who will? And if we don't do it now, then when?

This is part two in the "War on the Weak" series.

Cruelty by Another Name - Website: breakpoint.org

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) is under increasing pressure to allow debate on a measure that would allow "research using 400,000 frozen embryos created for in-vitro [fertilization] treatment."

This debate over embryonic stem-cell research is a good example of how the confluence of two worldviews has put the vulnerable in the crosshairs.

The proponents of this measure, passed by the House last year, argue that since most of the embryos will wind up being destroyed anyway, we might as well put them to good use. Why not? They're going to die anyway. Of course, so are you and I.

While the argument is rarely stated that bluntly, that's what it amounts to. President Bush has promised to veto it, opposing "science which destroys life in order to save life." But advocates of embryonic stem-cell research are taking advantage of the president's political weakness to push for their goals now.

But that's not the only weakness being exploited here. The most obvious one is that of the embryos. Their plight literally embodies two ideas that have come together to cause great suffering: utilitarianism and Darwinism.

Both of these ideas originated in Victorian England at a time when Christianity's influence, especially among the elite, was beginning to wane. In his book Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill wrote that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." By "happiness" Mill meant "pleasure, and the absence of pain . . . "

What was appropriate for individuals was also appropriate for the state. So utilitarianism held that societies should promote the greatest good for the greatest number. You can see where that leaves 400,000 frozen embryos, especially given the exaggerated claims about the potential of embryonic stem-cell research.

Darwinism's contribution to the suffering of the vulnerable was to diminish man's special status within creation. Instead of being created in the image of God and endowed with a unique dignity, man became just another animal—an especially clever ape, if you will. Life was not a gift from God, but a result of purposeless chance.

This combination of utilitarianism and Darwinism changed the way elites thought about the poor and the vulnerable. Instead of feeling an obligation to care for them, they increasingly felt free to target them in the name of the "greatest good."

The most obvious example of this was the eugenics movement, started by Darwin's cousin, which, in the name of "racial betterment," sterilized and even killed those it deemed "defective." But this targeting did not end with eugenics.

There are still many instances where a vulnerable class is being asked to sacrifice its well-being or even, as with embryos, its very existence, for the "greatest good." These include children, families, the sick, prisoners, and the elderly. Over the next couple of weeks, Mark Earley and I will chronicle some of the more egregious examples of this targeting of the vulnerable in this series called "War on the Weak."

Because it's time for another blunt truth: Happiness obtained through the suffering of others is cruelty by another name.

John D. Barrow and the Anthropic Principle - Website: breakpoint.org

On March 15, mathematician John D. Barrow joined the likes of Mother Teresa and Alexander Solzhenitsyn when he was named the winner of this year's Templeton Prize. The prize is awarded for "progress towards research or discoveries about spiritual realities."

What constitutes "progress" is as varied as the recipients themselves. I received the award in 1993, so it includes prison ministers and nuns ministering to the poor in Calcutta and noted scientists.

Barrow, who teaches at Cambridge University, is the latest in a recent series of scientists to win the prize. He is best known for his work on what is called the "Anthropic Principle."Simply stated, the Anthropic Principle is an account of the "seemingly incredible coincidences that allow for our presence" in the Universe. The existence of carbon-based life, which is what humans are, is dependent on a series of independent variables, what Astronomer Royal Martin Rees calls "just six numbers." These include "the particular energy state of the electron to the exact level of the weak nuclear force," to name but two.

If any of these values were off by even an infinitesimal amount, carbon-based life like us would be impossible—so would science, which is the act of observing nature. Barrows argues that the universe that "emerged out of the big bang . . . was already governed by laws that were fine-tuned to encourage the rise of carbon-based life forms."

This is what prompted Freeman Dyson, "the best physicist never to win a Nobel Prize," to say that "it appears that the universe knew we were coming."

Not surprisingly, this kind of talk makes today's evolutionary establishment—orthodox materialists, after all—nervous because it suggests that perhaps blind chance and purposelessness don't govern the cosmos. This prompted evolutionists to look for an alternative to the Anthropic Principle, one that would keep intelligence and purpose out of the picture.

Since the incredible fine-tuning of this universe can't be scientifically denied, the alternatives they looked to were Star Trek stuff. They posited the existence of multiple universes, and given an infinite number of universes, so they say, at least one of them will be fine-tuned in a way that makes carbon-based life possible.

The key word there is given, which, by definition, means we can't prove their existence. The "alternatives" are nothing but mathematical models that can neither be proven nor disproved. So, as philosopher Karl Popper wrote, this makes them metaphysics, not physics—in a word, speculation.

Ironically, this is the very charge directed by many of these same people at the intelligent design movement—that we are introducing religion or metaphysics. Yet, while the intelligent design movement is ruled out-of-bounds, this kind of speculation, whose true goal is to avoid thinking about the possibility of God, is regarded as the scientific cutting edge.

This unwillingness of many scientists to consider the implications of the Anthropic Principle made Barrow's work risky, courageous, and significant. Our congratulations to the Templeton committee for honoring such an eminent scientist, whose scientific work affirms that the idea of a Creator is the "best explanation" for the universe.

Illegal Beings - Website: breakpoint.org

In recent years, we have heard a lot of arguments in favor of therapeutic cloning, that is, cloning humans for medical purposes only. Reproductive cloning that would result in live births, we're told, is something no one wants. And so lawmakers claim that the government ought to ban reproductive cloning but allow—even encourage—therapeutic cloning, as if anyone could control what's done with the clone once produced.

But if no one is interested in reproductive cloning, how do we explain a recent book by Santa Clara University Law School professor Kerry Lynn Macintosh? In Illegal Beings: Human Clones and the Law, Macintosh argues that opponents of human reproductive cloning are bigots, and she compares anti-cloning laws to anti-miscegenation laws that forbade blacks and whites from marrying.

This is part one in the "War on the Weak" series.

A Tour de Distortion - Website: breakpoint.org

G. K. Chesterton famously said something to this effect: When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing—they believe in anything. A good example of this is Umberto Eco's novel Foucault's Pendulum, in which a group of friends program a computer to "write" a book about secret hidden knowledge. Titled The Plan, the book is the result of random links between things like Kabbalah, Rosicrucianism, the Knights Templar, and other crackpot ideas. While The Plan was intended as a prank, other people take it seriously, with tragic results.

Well, Foucault's Pendulum shows us how gullible unbelieving people are. And this is particularly so in our postmodern age when truth doesn't matter. This phenomenon partly explains the remarkable success of The Da Vinci Code. Like Eco's novel, it's about a heretofore hidden knowledge that promises to let us in on the "true" history of Christianity.