The Dangerous Rise Of Islam

Islam is growing worldwide at an alarming rate. Here are some important things to keep in mind:

(1) Statistically speaking, in terms of children, religious families by and large outproduce secular families.

(2) As America and other European countries become more secular, the fewer children we should expect to see in the next generation.

(3) These anti-religious, anti-child cultures create a religious vacuum, as well as a population vacuum, making it easy for Muslims to immigrate and fill in both the religious and population gaps.

(4) Were it not for immigration, America itself would be a dying nation (this should be no surprise considering we kill one-third of the next generation through abortion).



It is always disheartening to see non-Christians display a greater commitment to their false religion then Christians do with true Biblical Christianity. The tremendous growth of Islam is an excellent example. The Church in America needs to wake up.

'Hateful Words' May be Prosecutable

(Onenewsnow.com) Jim Brown

A Democratic congresswoman's candid remarks in the House Judiciary Committee yesterday bolster the fears of Americans who are concerned they one day may be convicted of a "hate crime" for merely publicly expressing their opposition to homosexuality.

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act was reported out of the Judiciary Committee yesterday in the House (see earlier story). The bill, which is expected to face a vote in the full House on Wednesday, would add gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the list of protected categories under federal hate crimes law.

Proponents of the hate crimes bill claim that Christians and others who speak out publicly against homosexuality are not threatened with the same type of prosecution that criminals would face for committing acts of violence against homosexuals and transgender people.

In response, Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-Michigan), a co-sponsor of the measure, stated: "The bill only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way."

However, during the Judiciary Committee markup yesterday, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) reinforced the notion that people could be prosecuted for having a particular belief. "We also need to protect those potential victims who may be the recipients of hateful words or hateful acts, or even violent acts," said the Democratic lawmaker.

Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a former judge, offered several amendments that would have provided religious-freedom protections from hate crimes prosecution, but they were all rejected by Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.

Earth Day for Evolutionists?

(www.str.org) Greg Koukl

Has anyone else but me noticed an inherent contradiction in the underlying convictions that drive annual “Earth Day” celebrations? The vast majority of those who attend such fetes are Darwinists who believe humans have a moral obligation to protect the environment? My question is: Why?

For millions of years “Mother Nature” has spewed noxious fumes and poisonous gasses into the atmosphere and littered the landscape with ash and lava. Indeed, the most “natural” condition in the universe is death. As far as we know, Earth is completely unique; death reigns everywhere else.

Species have passed into extinction at a steady rate from the beginning of time, the strong supplanting the weak. Why shouldn’t they? Each is in a struggle-to-the-death for survival. It is a dance of destruction that fuels the evolutionary process as every creature exploits every other creature for its own benefit. That’s evolution.

No locust swarm stops short of denuding a field because it ought to “leave a bit for the crickets. After all, we all have a right to be here.” The logic of naturalism and the rules of evolution dictate human beings rape our environment, just as everything else does, not protect it.

The moral obligations underpinning Earth Week activities simply do not follow from the naturalistic world view that embraces Darwinism. It follows, rather, from a theistic world view in which God has created man as unique and given him responsibility over the Earth to care for it. Earth Week makes sense for Christians, not for Darwinists.

You can read a longer take on this in "Worldviews & Earth Day."

Suggested STR resource on evolution: Why I'm Not an Evolutionist

Same-sex Rhetoric & Miss America

(www.str.org) Greg Koukl

Rhetoric is winning the day.

Lately when I hear public crossfire-type discussions on the issue of same-sex marriage—discussions that have filled the airwaves since the unfortunate incident at the Miss America pageant—traditional marriage wins on the merits, but the other side wins the rhetoric game.

It’s time we stop letting others frame the debate in terms of “tolerance,” “fairness,” “equality,” and “compassion,” in a way that pushes us into defense mode trying to neutralize the loaded language, but never really gaining any ground for our side.

The fact is, decent Americans are the ones being bullied here, citizens who are people of conscience, overflowing with tolerance in the classic sense, but are being pushed around and oppressed because they disagree with the extreme views of the minority. Instead of making the case for traditional marriage, maybe we should also point out what's really going on behind the rhetoric that appeals to fairness and equality.

Let me tell you what’s really going on here.

Good people with honest differences with the Homosexual agenda are being bullied.

First, Americans are incredibly tolerant of homosexuality, especially considering the moral concerns lots of folks have with it. Same-sex couples have been getting married for years in private ceremonies. No one interferes, and no one should.

Americans are happy to give equal rights, and that is done virtually everywhere. However, they do not want their arms twisted into approving something they do not think is good for America or for families. That’s the real issue.

Think about it: The government represents the people. When the government steps in and gives its approval, it’s like the people are giving their approval. With a marriage license for same-sex couples, it’s the same as the people saying that same-sex relationships are exactly the same as heterosexual relationships.

Some of those people do think that, but the vast majority of Americans do not—witnessed by the dozens of state referendums—and should not be forced to act like they do.

Miss California was bullied, and good, tolerant, compassionate Americans are being bullied, too. Decent people around the country do not want that.

Decent Americans who step out of line with political correctness are being punished simply for dissenting.

And they also don’t want to be punished for their views. Miss California was clearly manipulated by a homosexual judge for his own political purposes.

Increasingly, homosexual rights extremists are repressing dissent and oppressing those who disagree with them. More and more often, good people are being punished because they hold a different point of view—punished through name calling, punished through harassment, punished through public humiliation and intimidation (like Miss California after the pageant), punished through lawsuits, and even sometimes punished through the loss of their jobs (after Prop 8 passed in CA, for example).

Same-sex marriage is a strong-arm attempt of a minority to force public approval of homosexuality from a majority who doesn’t approve.

A marriage license does not confer any significant liberties that same-sex couples do not already have. Instead, it is meant to give them what they’ve been demanding for a long time—complete, unqualified, unconditional, and undiminished, social approval.

This is not about equal rights. It’s about public validation and social acceptance. It’s about one group who has a minority view trying to use the law to force their views on other people who don’t agree with them. If people want to celebrate same-sex unions, fine. That’s their business. Let them do that in private ceremonies, even religious ones if they can arrange them. But the government shouldn’t get involved. That basically gives broad cultural affirmation by government decree.

The insistence for same-sex marriage is about a radical attempt to alter the foundational institution of civilization by using government muscle to strong-arm the decent Americans into affirming a lifestyle and set of behaviors they does not, by and large, approve of, but are willing to tolerate as long as it is not forced on them.

The challenges, on balance, are empty and manipulative.

As to the charge, “That’s discrimination!,” I only note that it’s the same discrimination we make against polygamy. The people are not going to endorse polygamy because they think it’s wrong, just as they think same-sex marriage is wrong. Every argument for same-sex marriage is an argument for polygamy—and polyandry (multiple husbands), and polyamory (group marriage), etc. (get creative). If not one, why not the other?

Same-sex marriage advocates must support polygamy, given their logic. If they say, “That’s ridiculous,” I say, “You’re right. It is ridiculous. That’s my point. Ridiculous conclusions follow from the reasoning same-sex marriage advocates present.”

This is not about redefining marriage. This is about redefining civilization.

Kathy Ireland: An Effective Pro-Life Voice

Kathy Ireland recently appeared on the Mike Huckabee show where she shared her Christian testimony and what motivated her to change her stance on abortion from pro-choice to pro-life.

She does in excellent job of articulating a maximum number of facts in a minimal amount of time in a winsome and attractive manner. As Melinda from Stand to Reason notes, she is a "gracious and effective ambassador."

To watch the video, click here.

An Atheist Explains Suffering

A challenge to explain suffering is often a question asked to Christians. Some will wonder if a loving God exists, then how could there be suffering. This is a fair question and worthy of a reasonable response. However, this question is not exclusively for a believer in God, the atheist must explain suffering or the problem of evil as well.

Below is a video of one atheist’s explanation of suffering in the world. If you were an atheist, how would you explain why suffering exists in a world that you believe has no God? To paraphrase this young atheist’s answer “crap happens” would be the best answer I could give as well.

Watch this video to see what insight to the question you can gain.

Happy Resurrection Day!

HE IS RISEN! HE IS RISEN INDEED!

Looking for some resources on the life, death, and resurrection of Christ?
You might want to check out the following:

1. Gary Habermas' website, an excellent resource.

2. Articles by William Lane Craig, both scholarly and popular.

3. Great audio, including debates, as well as book reviews and essays at Apologetics315.

4. Risen Jesus, the apologetics ministry of Mike Licona.

Recommended books (just to name a few):
1. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona (If you get one book on the resurrection I would make it this one)

2. The Son Rises, by William Lane Craig

3. The Resurrection of the Son of God, by N.T. Wright (A hefty book that can also double as a weapon)

4. The Historical Jesus, by Gary Habermas

5. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, by Richard Bauckham

Rick Warren Disavows Support for Prop. 8

(Onenewsnow.com) Jim Brown

California mega-church pastor and author of The Purpose Driven Life Rick Warren says he apologized to his homosexual friends for making comments in support of California's Proposition 8, and now claims he "never once even gave an endorsement" of the marriage amendment.

Monday night on CNN's Larry King Live, Pastor Rick Warren apologized for his support of Prop. 8, California's voter-approved marriage protection amendment, saying he has "never been and never will be" an "anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist."

"During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never -- never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop. 8 was going," Warren claimed.

However, just two weeks before the November 4 Prop. 8 vote, Pastor Warren issued a clear endorsement of the marriage amendment while speaking to church members. "We support Proposition 8 -- and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8," he said.

The following is a complete transcript of Warren's comments just weeks before the Prop. 8 election:

"The election's coming just in a couple of weeks, and I hope you're praying about your vote. One of the propositions, of course, that I want to mention is Proposition 8, which is the proposition that had to be instituted because the courts threw out the will of the people. And a court of four guys actually voted to change a definition of marriage that has been going for 5,000 years.

"Now let me say this really clearly: we support Proposition 8 -- and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8. I never support a candidate, but on moral issues I come out very clear.

"This is one thing, friends, that all politicians tend to agree on. Both Barack Obama and John McCain, I flat-out asked both of them: what is your definition of marriage? And they both said the same thing -- it is the traditional, historic, universal definition of marriage: one man and one woman, for life. And every culture for 5,000 years, and every religion for 5,000 years, has said the definition of marriage is between one man and a woman.

"Now here's an interesting thing. There are about two percent of Americans [who] are homosexual or gay/lesbian people. We should not let two percent of the population determine to change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years.

"This is not even just a Christian issue -- it's a humanitarian and human issue that God created marriage for the purpose of family, love, and procreation.

"So I urge you to support Proposition 8, and pass that word on. I'm going to be sending out a note to pastors on what I believe about this. But everybody knows what I believe about it. They heard me at the Civil Forum when I asked both Obama and McCain on their views."

During his CNN interview on Monday, Warren expressed regret for backing Prop. 8. "There were a number of things that were put out. I wrote to all my gay friends -- the leaders that I knew -- and actually apologized to them. That never got out," he admitted.

Additionally, Pastor Warren said he did not want to comment on or criticize the Iowa Supreme Court's decision last week to legalize same-sex "marriage" because it was "not his agenda."

Bryan Fischer with the Idaho Values Alliance says Warren is abdicating his biblical role as a pastor. "For Pastor Warren to say that shoring up marriage is not something that's on his agenda is just something that's hard to believe for somebody who believes the Bible is our rule for faith and practice," Fischer notes.

Dr. Jim Garlow, the senior pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in the San Diego suburb of La Mesa, helped spearhead the Prop. 8 effort in California. Garlow admits he is confused and troubled by Pastor Warren's decision to apologize for supporting Prop. 8.

"Historically when institutions and individuals back away from convictional biblical truth, it is driven primarily by one single factor -- and that is the respectability of other people. In other words, much more caring about what other people think about them than what God thinks about them," he concludes.

Pastor Warren did not respond to a request from OneNewsNow for an interview.

Message from Logan Sekulow

Thank You
Monday, April 6, 2009 at 12:05PM
(beheardproject.com)

We want to give a sincere thank you to everyone who signed our petition. We can not believe that over 58,000 of you signed up in support of the Conscience Clause. Keep checking our websites and blogs as we will report what the Presidents final decision is. Also, in the coming weeks we will be launching a new cause where you can Be Heard!

ALWAYS BE HEARD, Logan Sekulow

see his original post here

Communicators & Miscommunicators of Hope

.
Dr. Jerry Rueb, pastor of Cornerstone Church in Long Beach California, speaks on how we can tell who is the real communicator of truth and who is a false teacher.

The first portion of his sermon includes interview with a former lesbian activist Yvette Schneider, now current women's Ministry Director of Exodus International. Schneider explains her perception of Christians as a former lesbian activist and how she came to know Christ.

Listen Online here

Full MP3 Audio here
.

Evolution Cannot Explain Morality

(Awakengeneration.com) Frank Turek

Some atheists, such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, insist that morality is simply the product of evolution. Common moral sensibilities (Don't murder, rape, steal, etc.) help ensure our evolutionary survival. There are a number of problems with this view:

1. Rape may enhance the survival of the species, but does that make rape good? Should we rape?

2. Killing the weak and handicapped may help improve the species and its survival (Hitler's plan). Does that mean the holocaust was a good thing?

3. Evolution provides no stable foundation for morality. If evolution is the source of morality, then what's to stop morals from evolving (changing) to the point that one day rape, theft, and murder are considered moral?

4. Dawkins and Hitchens confuse epistemology with ontology (how we know something exists with that and what exists). So even if natural selection or some other chemical process is responsible for us knowing right from wrong, that would not explain why something is right or wrong. How does a chemical process (natural selection) yield an immaterial moral law? And why does anyone have a moral obligation to obey a chemical process? You only have a moral obligation to obey an ultimate personal being (God) who has the authority to put moral obligations on you. You don't have a moral obligation to chemistry.

As I mentioned in an earlier post (Atheists Have No Basis for Morality), several atheists at a I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist event at UNC Wilmington struggled greatly when I asked them to offer some objective basis for morality from their atheistic worldview. They kept trying to give tests for how we know something is moral rather than why something is moral. One atheist said "not harming people" is the standard. But why is harming people wrong if there is no God? And what if harming people enhances your survival and that of most others?

Another said "happiness" is the basis for morality. After I asked him, "Happiness according to who, Mother Teresa or Hitler?," he said, "I need to think about this more," and then sat down. This says nothing about the intelligence of these people--there just is no good answer to the question. Without God there is no basis for objective morals. It's just Mother Teresa's opinion against Hitler's.

See also Neil's post: Does our Morality come from our DNA?

crossexamined.org

The 9/12 Project

On March 13, 2009 Glenn Beck, on his Fox News Channel program, launched what is called The 9/12 Project. You can watch this special episode here. The response was overwhelming. Thousands of people tuned in to watch the show. There were hundreds of viewing parties across the nation where people came together in large groups to watch the special episode. The website was shut down five times due to the number of people trying to view it. Since then, over 250,000 people have signed up in support of this project.

The 9/12 Project is a non-political movement designed to bring Americans back to the place we all were on September 12, 2001. On that day, after America was attacked, Americans did not care about political parties or Red States and Blue States. America was united and committed to protecting this greatest nation on Gods greed earth.

Glenn Beck is hoping to foster that same commitment to this country through the 9/12 Project. He points out 9 Principles and 12 Values that made this nation great. Our Founding Fathers actually built this country on 28 principles. These original 28 principles have been distilled to these 9 basic principles.

The 9 Principle
1. America Is Good.
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
9. The government works for me. I do not answer the them, they answer to me.

The 12 Values
1. Honesty
2. Reverence
3. Hope
4. Thrift
5. Humility
6. Charity
7. Sincerity
8. Moderation
9. Hard Work
10. Courage
11. Personal Responsibility
12. Gratitude

If you believe in at least seven of the 9 principles then you may be interested in this site. Go to www.The912Project.com to read more. Also visit http://www.glennbeck.com/ and FoxNews.com/GlennBeck

Hermeneutics In Everyday Life*

Suppose you're traveling to work [on an east-west street] and you see a stop sign. What do you do? That depends on how you exegete [interpret] the stop sign:

1. A postmodernist deconstructs the sign (that is, knocks it over with his car) ending forever the tyranny of the north-south traffic over the east-west traffic.

2. Similarly, a Marxist sees a stop sign as an instrument of class conflict. He concludes that the bourgeoisie use the north-south road and obstruct the progress of the workers on the east-west road.

3. A serious and educated Catholic believes that he cannot understand the stop sign apart from its interpretive community and their tradition. Observing that the interpretive community doesn't take it too seriously, he doesn't feel obligated to take it too seriously either.

4. An average Catholic (or Orthodox or Anglican or Methodist or Presbyterian or Coptic or whatever) doesn't bother to read the sign, but he'll stop if the car in front of him does.

5. A fundamentalist, taking the text very literally, stops at the stop sign and waits for it to tell him to go.

6. A preacher might look up "STOP" in his lexicon and discover that it can mean: (1) something which prevents motion, such as a plug for a drain, or a block of wood that prevents a door from closing; or, (2) a location where a train or bus lets off passengers. The big idea of his sermon the next Sunday on this text is: "When you see a stop sign, it is a place where traffic is naturally clogged, so it is a good place to let off passengers from your car."

7. An orthodox Jew takes another route to work that doesn't have a stop sign so that he doesn't risk disobeying the Law.

*Taken from Playing With Fire: How the Bible Ignites Change in Your Soul, by Walt Russell, pg. 49

God Is Not Dead Yet

(Awakengeneration.com) Frank Turek

The following is from Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig’s recent article “God is not Dead Yet” in Christianity Today. I encourage you to read the entire article. I include this section on the moral argument because of our recent discussion here about how the existence of objective morality requires God– a claim that atheists have yet to refute.

The moral argument. A number of ethicists, such as Robert Adams, William Alston, Mark Linville, Paul Copan, John Hare, Stephen Evans, and others have defended “divine command” theories of ethics, which support various moral arguments for God’s existence.

One such argument:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

By objective values and duties, one means values and duties that are valid and binding independent of human opinion. A good many atheists and theists alike concur with premise (1). For given a naturalistic worldview, human beings are just animals, and activity that we count as murder, torture, and rape is natural and morally neutral in the animal kingdom. Moreover, if there is no one to command or prohibit certain actions, how can we have moral obligations or prohibitions?

Premise (2) might seem more disputable, but it will probably come as a surprise to most laypeople to learn that (2) is widely accepted among philosophers. For any argument against objective morals will tend to be based on premises that are less evident than the reality of moral values themselves, as apprehended in our moral experience. Most philosophers therefore do recognize objective moral distinctions.

Nontheists will typically counter the moral argument with a dilemma: Is something good because God wills it, or does God will something because it is good? The first alternative makes good and evil arbitrary, whereas the second makes the good independent of God. Fortunately, the dilemma is a false one. Theists have traditionally taken a third alternative: God wills something because he is good. That is to say, what Plato called “the Good” is the moral nature of God himself. God is by nature loving, kind, impartial, and so on. He is the paradigm of goodness. Therefore, the good is not independent of God.

Moreover, God’s commandments are a necessary expression of his nature. His commands to us are therefore not arbitrary but are necessary reflections of his character. This gives us an adequate foundation for the affirmation of objective moral values and duties.

crossexamined.org

"Luca Was Gay" ("Luca Era Gay")

Songs have the ability to communicate ideas in a very powerful way. This song is an excellent example.

"Luca Era Gay" (Luca Was Gay) is the name of an Italian pop song performed by Giuseppe Povia. The song tells a story of a man named Luca who developed a homosexual orientation as a result of negative childhood experiences. Later in life he was able to overcome his struggles and effectively change his sexual orientation to heterosexuality. It should be no surprise that the song has sparked controversy in Italy and has been labeled by gay activists as "homophobic."

You can watch the video here with subtitles.

Also, read the article telling the story of the song and the reaction before and after it was performed at Italy's "Festival di San Remo."

Roberto Marchesini, the writer of the article, notes, "The popularity of 'Luca Era Gay' has given courage and dignity to the ex-homosexual community in Italy, who, until now, have been thoroughly intimidated by gay activists. The text's real-life insights regarding the ex-gay experience are undeniable."

NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality) is an organization which "upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care, and the right of professionals to offer that care." Check out their additional articles and resources.

Apologetic Junkie Feedback

We have been receiving some positive feedback about the Apologetic Junkie blog site and just wanted to say, "Thank you." Below are some of the comments we received:

"I'm very impressed with your blog...I think you all have done a marvelous job of putting it all together and covering the hot subjects of the day."
- Donna, Bryan TX

"I have read a couple of the blogs...one of the blogs has led me to a British documentary against global warming. I know it is a bit off track on apologetics but, it does show the media's place in shaping public opinion against truth. Now that's apologetics...Very impressed."
- Dave, Lakewood CA

"Great job, I think I will tax it."
- Barack Obama, Washington DC

Thanks to all our readers. We appreciate all the feedback and comments!

The President Calls for Comments On Conscience Clause

UPDATE- The President is saying he is going to remove the conscience clause that has been in place.

The Conscience Clause protects physicians and nurses choice not to participate in abortion procedures if it goes against their conscience. By reversing this clause, doctors will be forced to perform these procedures regardless of their individual beliefs. This is a freedom issue and a right to life issue. Here is a great artilce from Stand To Reason on the problem with this decision: "Pro-Choice? Only for One Choice"

YOUR OPPORTUNITY -The President has called for comments on the issue and 30 days were given starting on March 6th. Please consider taking action by being apart of the Be Heard Project.
Sign the petition that has already been siged by over 14,000 people. All it requires is your Name, Age and an email address. or you can call the ACLJ at 877-989-2255 where you can talk with person over the phone.

• Count: 57,259 signatures
• (last updated on 4/4/09)

This petition is presented by the ACLJ, a trusted source. Just go to www.beheardproject.com or www.ACLJ.org to sign this petition and learn more.

Pass on this information if you support this effort.

Is Government Robin Hood?

Given our current economical situation and new presidential administration, the term “redistribution of wealth” has been publicized. This of course is not a new issue. The Governments role in economical issues is a fundamental debate between the two political parties.

But what is the purpose of government form a Biblical worldview? If you're a Christian, that means you seek to understand the world the way God does and you conduct your life according to God's priorities. And if you’re a Christian living a biblical life, then God's purposes for government should be a concern.

In Romans 13:3-4 we read these statements:

"Rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it [authority] is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil." (NASB)

So, what is the goal of government? The main purpose of government is to exercise justice as the arm of God. It’s for the punishment of evil-doers and the praise of those who do right. That's the main purpose, justice. No mention of a money issue.

In 1Timothy 2:2 it states:

"Pray for kings and all who are in authority in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity." (NASB)

Why are we to pray for out leaders? So that they will provide an atmosphere of tranquility and quietness, so that we may live in godliness and dignity. There is no mention of money issues here either.

Recently, I saw another image of President Obama depicted to look like Robin Hood. This particular image was shown by protesters to the president’s economical plans.
Others, however, agree with Obama’s notion of using government to redistribute wealth. It’s thought to be an issue of fairness that the government take money from the rich and give to the poor. Just like the heroic Robin Hood.

But what did Robin Hood actually do?

The government had extorted money from the people. The government took it from them through unfair taxation. Robin Hood simply took it back.

The people who had the money were the rich, who were associated with government. These people used the machinery of government for illicit and unjust purposes and made the middle class poor through stealing their money.

Robin Hood stole from the rich and give it back to the people it had been taken from that were now poor. He did not take from the rich and give to the poor. He took from the government who stole it from the middle class, making them poor, and returned it to the rightful owners. This was not leveling the social playing field this was returning money back into the hands of the rightful owners. To make President Obama out like Robin Hood on either side of the argument does not seem to be an accurate parallel.

Scripturally, the purpose of government is actually narrow. But it is clear the goal of government is to do justice, not injustice.

The goal of government is not to redistribute wealth who earned it. In many cases, if not all, government has been illicit in its power to take from people and give it to others. That’s not charity, that's theft and that’s unjust.

When it comes to taking care of the poor I think it's the purpose of the church to help the poor. I also think it's a moral responsibility, if not obligation, for individuals to voluntarily help the poor.

Remember in Acts 5 when the church was sharing all things. Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit concerning how much they sold their possession for and died as a result. They were not punished by God because they didn’t give a particular amount of money. They were punished because they lied about what they were giving.

Peter said and interesting thing in verse 4 when confronting Ananias:

“The property was yours to sell or not sell, as you wished. And after selling it, the money was yours to give away...” (NLT)

We have a moral responsibility to care for the poor and not to be greedy. However, the choice is up to you and the government should not force people to be charitable.

Government is not the answer to these problems. It may be valuable for the government to be involved to some degree. But the answer I believe is in morality and personal responsibility.

California Supreme Court Weighs Arguments on Proposition 8

QUICK UPDATE– Today the California Supreme Court heard three hours of oral arguments from both sides of the debate. According to most reports, they are predicting that the court will uphold proposition 8 but also rule 18,000 same-sex marriages performed last year remain valid.

Here were the three main arguments the Supreme Court was hearing:

1) Does Proposition 8 amount to a violation of human rights or does it fall within the limits of people's power to change the state's Constitution?

2) Does Proposition 8 constitute an amendment or a revision of the state Constitution?

3) And, if Proposition 8 is upheld, how does it affect the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in the 4 1/2 months prior to the November Election?

The state attorney's office had asked the court to invalidate the measure, on the ground that certain fundamental rights, including the right to marry, are inalienable, and cannot be put up for a popular vote. It was also charged that Proposition 8 is a revision to and not an amendment of the constitution. (Note: voters do not have power to make revisions)

Kenneth Starr, however, argued that Proposition 8 does not revise the constitution or allow a majority to take rights away from same-sex couples because it leaves intact California's domestic partner laws. He also argued that California voters have an inalienable right to amend the constitution.

The Court must make a ruling within 90 days.

Watch a news clip of what went on, here.