Genevans meet Dr. Dre?

This is an example of a "secular" choir gone awry... Interesting that the kids at UCal would have the time to make this, but why did I just watch it twice? I'm not really sure -- maybe it's a combo of me liking Dr. Dre, rap, etc and the clash of me singing in choirs growing up... We never got to sing something like this ;)

This land is my land... this land is your land...er.. or is it?

Okay, okay, so here the question of the day: Should we give amnesty to the 10M+ people living in our country illegally? And if so, why? If not, why not? Well, this is a tough question -- because you could place well thought out arguments for both sides. For example, one might say "yes, because they came here just like our ancestors did many centuries ago -- looking for the American dream -- a better life -- and they take the shit jobs that Americans don't want." Or if you are against, you might say "these people came into our country illegally and did not follow an established system of laws. They have worked in our country without paying taxes and burdened our system by not being legit, and have ultimately diluted what it means to be an American, especially if they are allowed to just plain stay here forever and become Americans."

Anyway, a friend of mine, Dave, from church posted this today which got me thinking and then a bit riled up. I mentioned to Dave that some of the signs at the rally's for immigrant rights (or rather, illegal misdemenour peoples) said "this nation was founded by immigrants" and I feel like saying -- no shit man, so was your country (Mexico, etc) by Spaniards, French, Portugese, etc and you don't see me illegally sneaking into your country -- so why ours? Also, when people migrated to America, they registered officially either at Ellis Island (in the 1800s-1900s) or wherever. There was a system in place -- we have a system today, so use it!

Regarding a lot of immigrants these days: your nation was founded under different doctrine and was not established under a God-fearing system... that's why it sux so bad that you want to get into ours and dilute those who have been blessed... it isn't your "right" to invade our nation illegally and then seek amnesty and guaranteed citizenship. What the hell is that? If we can't do that in your nation (not that we would want to) why is it OK in ours?

It really makes you think of "nationalism" and what that means -- and then you can look at all the countries around the world that are in crisis (like France) who now have about 20% of their population coming from Muslim countries -- and they come to FRANCE, an established SECULAR nation that was founded to be ANTI-RELIGIOUS and then get offended at intollerance of their religious practices, etc... it's like -- whoa dude, wait a sec -- u knew this coming here, so u don't like it -- then go back to your burning mounds of tires in Mogadishu or wherever that is overrun with druglords...

Which brings me to my next disgruntlement: when people discuss separation of church and state -- what they fail to realize is that the purpose or reason was not to remove Christianity from government or society -- it was to remove the government sanctioning of a specific CHRISTIAN denomination over another.. that's what brought people to the New World in the first place.. it wasn't religious persecution by secularists or Muslims.. it was religious persecution by Catholics or the Church of England (quasi-catholic) over Protestants in expressing the way they worship, practice, and interpret Scripture -- NOT religion vs. no religion. Or Christianity vs. another religion... the issue of our country being founded on Christian principles was not even worth mentioning at the time because it was KNOWN by everyone!

And when our country's founders discussed "one nation, under God" it was not Allah, or Buddha, but God the Father of the Holy Bible.. Anyway, that's all for now... more later!

God and Evolution...

Okay, it's been a while... yes, yes, yes, but... well, I need to post more! So here we go. Starting off with something somewhat controversial, but I wanted to post a recent book review about a book my uncle wrote and published last year called "God and Evolution." and then a review or critique of that review by my father (also a writer) to give his perspective. My uncle, a professor of biology at Eastern College in Pennsylvania, a Christian college, is a known leader is his field, especially on the history of our ancestors using genetics, etc.

Before I post what they've been saying, let me say this -- yes, I believe science. It was created by God and both the historical accounts of creationism and theories on evolution do not have to be mutually exclusive. Quite the contrary in fact. To look up into the sky at night and see stars, whose light waves have been travelling towards earth for millions of years before they reach my retinas, I have to raise the red flag at a 5,000 year old earth as some believe. And it's not that it's a matter of weather one will go to heaven or not on this sort of a topic, but rather, the idea that a 5,000 year old earth DOES turn people away from the Gospel and the Bible because it's sort of a "flat-earth" theology, except we are in the 21st century and we know the earth is round.

So with science, again, created by God, is telling us the earth is billions of years, and that a day is like a thousand years to our Creator, who is outside of time, why does the world and the universe we know have to be created literally in 144 hours (6 days since God rested on the 7th)? I remember when it all clicked to me -- it became so clear. It was 11th grade Chemistry class and on the first day we were handed the table of elements... you know, from Hydrogen, Helium, Lithium, Berilium, Boron, Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen... and so on (I hope I got the first eight right in order!) Anyway, the whole balance of the atom and how protons balanced with electrons to keep the atom stable and neutrally charged, and they increased by one with each element made things completely in ORDER instead of CHAOS. Anyway, it was at that point that God and science to me made complete sense... and I remember looking at the chart with a smile saying to myself "God made this! How awesome!" Talk about his fingerprint... I mean, isn't it God who holds atoms together in the first place? :)

Okay, so now the discussion... here is what was just written about the book:

Review By Eric Severson(March 24, 2006)
God and Evolution: A Faith-Based Understanding
Author: David L. Wilcox
Valley Forge, Pa.
Judson Press, 2004.
136 pages.
$14 paperback.

It is common for teenagers who have been raised in conservative Christian churches to experience a disorienting shock when they take their first college science courses. No one better understands this phenomenon than David Wilcox, a biology professor and confessing Christian. He opens his book by quoting a 9-year-old girl, "I can't believe in both God and dinosaurs. So I
picked God." Wilcox writes God and Evolution to correct the false animosity toward science that so many Christian children learn in Sunday school.The book itself is clearly geared toward college students caught in the apparent tensions between evolutionary science and biblical faith. Though one can sense the author's concern with the particular theological mentality he repeatedly faces at Eastern College, he is not wrong in suggesting that people are struggling with these issues at all ages and in all places. Wilcox walks a thin line between discussing advanced scientific ideas and keeping his prose simple enough for his readers, occasionally drifting to either side of this line. The book does move systematically through most of the pressing and difficult questions in the dialogue between evolution and Christian theology. Wilcox strives to use the voice of a gentle mentor to guide the reader through a minefield of theological and scientific issues.One might question the "blank slate" philosophy that Wilcox uses to set up his work. With the cliché, "all truth is God's truth," he launches his attempt to reconstruct the dialogue for his readers. The impression he leaves is that his scientific explanations will be simple and straightforward "truth," free of the biases that have loaded this dialogue with tension and misunderstanding. His own biases, both scientific and theological, lie not far beneath the surface and should not be delivered under the guise of "God's truth." Still, for the most part Wilcox does succeed in presenting a helpful manual for Christians dealing with the apparent tensions between God and Evolution.

And my father's response to my uncle about the review:

I wanted to say that I thought the reviewer (Eric Severeid--from the grave??--further below) was out to lunch on a couple points. First, he used your remark "all truth is God's truth" in such a way as to imply that that was the sum total of your theological argument for what was to follow. On the contrary, you went to great pains to lay out clear biblical grounds for a God who remains active in His creation. That was your central (and obvious) theological point, but the reviewer didn't even mention it.

Second, regarding your supposed "bias just below the surface." Balderdash! I thought you were very evenhanded in your approach--not slanting the facts for the sake of your argument. When facts posed difficulties for a belief in evolution (such as those surrounding the origin of life itself), you were utterly honest and told exactly where science is up to--or not up to--in coming up with a solution. I thought your book was the opposite of one of those manipulative polemics put out by both sides of the evolution/creation debate today.

To me the clincher in answering the question, "Where are the facts proving that evolution actually happened?" was when you talked about the genetic markers that prove who descended from whom (or what). I'd never understood that before, and to me reading about it and then comprehending it was the equivalent (using your analogy) of looking through Copernicus's telescope. It occurs to me that a plain reason so many people might not take kindly to your book (and why they might be keeping quiet about it) is that it is, in a word, unanswerable. They'd really rather not have their neat systems disturbed.

Now, I personally haven't read this book or any others by my relatives... another of my uncles has at least a dozen books published through Princeton U. But I may now have to pick this one up... The reason for posting today? Last Sunday night, we studied the six methods of evangelism and we self-rated ourselves on each. Intellectual discussions were at the top for me, followed by relational and another. We are all quite familiar I'm sure with the most obvious of techniques -- confrontational -- those who go out and preach on the streets or face off against their friends or complete strangers. Jesus was confrontational at times -- like His rampage in the temple! But he also used intellectual arguments with the scribes in the temple, and relationships to confront those who were lost.

Support our troops! 

Tom Ridge Meets The Ox