IT IS ONE THING FOR OPRAH TO CAMPAIGN FOR
BARACK OBAMA; BUT QUITE ANOTHER THING
TO CAMPAIGN FOR A NEW RELIGION
The announcement that Oprah Winfrey would be joining
Barack Obama in his campaigning in Iowa, South Carolina
and New Hampshire to win the Democrat nomination for
president, came as no surprise to anyone. Prior to his
formal announcement to be a candidate in February, 2007,
Oprah opened the door for his candidacy on her national
TV program in October, 2006, and helped boost his just
released book, "The Audacity of Hope; Thoughts on
Reclaiming the American Dream" to the top of the best
seller lists. Then in September of this year she hosted a
fund raising event at her Montecito, CA, home, raising
$3 million for his campaign.
Oprah is no ordinary, run-of-the-mill, sort of supporter.
In a recent Gallup poll asking to name the most influential
women in recorded history, Oprah ranked fourth. Her TV
program is the highest rated talk show in television history,
seen every day by 15-20 million American viewers in 205
markets, and also in 132 countries overseas. It has been the
No. 1 talk show for 12 consecutive seasons. It has been well
said, "When Oprah speaks, people listen."
If she wants to go on the campaign trail to support Obama,
that is her right and her privilege as an American citizen.
At the moment she would appear to be the biggest cannon
in his arsenal.
But it has been announced that Oprah is about to take
on a new career, and become as some have expressed it, a
"Prophetess of a New Religion." Oprah is soon to launch
a new broadcast effort – a year long teaching program
called "A Course in Miracles" to be aired on all the stations
of her XM Satellite Radio network. Beginning on January 1,
2008, there will be offered one lesson each day, to complete
the 365 lessons in the program’s Workbook. The Workbook
defines the program in these words, "This is a course in mind
training," and says that it is dedicated to "thought reversal."
The teacher will be Marianne Williamson, one of Oprah’s
long time friends and an XM Satellite reporter – and one of
the leaders of the "New Age" religion. The "thought reversal"
presents Jesus as completely different from what the Bible
teaches about Him.
For example, here are some direct quotes from the course:
"There is no sin ..." "A slain Christ has no meaning
..." "Do not make the pathetic error of clinging to
the old rugged cross..." "There is no need for the
cross because there was never a transgression that
needed to be dealt with by God; only a mistake..."
And this classic: "The Atonement is the final lesson he
[man] need learn, for it teaches him that never
having sinned, he has no need of salvation."
Oprah introduced Ms. Williamson on her TV show in 1992,
and said that Williamson’s book "Reflections on the Principles
of A Course in Miracles" was one of her favorite books, and
that she had bought a thousand copies to give to everyone in
the studio audience. That program boosted Williamson’s book
to the top of the NY Times best seller list.
It can be said that reinventing, redefining and blaspheming
of Jesus is a sign of the times. The church – we Evangelicals –
do not seem to be aware of what is happening in the world
about us, and we are not following the Scriptural instruction
to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered
unto the saints." (Jude, verse 3)
Even as it is Oprah’s right to campaign for Barack Obama,
so it is also her right to sponsor the teaching about the New
Age version of Jesus Christ. And people have a right to listen
to that false teaching if they choose to. But the Evangelicals
in the church have not only the right but also the obligation
to teach about the Christ of the Scriptures as the necessary
and only means of salvation.
Afterthoughts . . .
Remember the ACLU attack on the Boy Scouts in
San Diego, and the attempt to ban them from using a city
owned park because of the word "God" in the Scout Oath?
Now the large scale attack has shifted to the East coast, and
the City of Philadelphia is threatening to evict the Scouts
from the Beaux-Arts building where they have had their
headquarters since 1928. The Scouts pay a token $1 a year.
The problem now is in the words "morally straight" in the
Oath, and the Scouts refusal to admit openly homosexuals.
There are two interesting points to consider, (1) In 2000
the US Supreme Court ruled that the Scouts have the right
to exclude homosexuals, and (2) The Scouts actually built
the building and gave it to the city in 1928 and entered into
the $1 a year lease, "in perpetuity." Now the City Solicitor,
a Romulo Diaz, plans to evict the Scouts as of June 1 unless
they surrender on the homosexual issue – and oh, yes . . .
they can stay if they accept a new lease at $200,000 a year.
And the name of the group? The "Cradle of Liberty Council."
Big changes in Philadelphia since 1776.
The UN never seems to get anything right. This past
week the UN AIDS annual report disclosed that its reports
on world-wide AIDS infections had been grossly inflated
because staff members had used flawed methods to measure
and predict the spread of the epidemic. Much of the corrected
figure is based on revised information from India and Africa.
AIDS is still a serious problem and while the new figure of 25
million world cases instead of 33 million is still high and may
still be over-inflated, the UN estimates are not as outrageous
as they previously were.
Another flash-back in memory: remember the atheist
Michael Newdow who led the attack on the two words "under
God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Well, he is back ... after his
failure before the US Supreme Court, he has found a couple
in New Hampshire – an agnostic and an atheist – who have
filed a complaint with their local school board on behalf of
their 3 children, claiming the Pledge requires the children to
"participate in making the purely religious, monotheistic
claim that the United States is ‘one nation under God.’" In
their view, this violates their constitutional rights. One thing
can be said about Newdow: he may be an atheist, but he is
one stubborn, determined atheist.
An interesting commentary on our times. In a series
of interviews on ABC’s "Good Morning America" earlier
this month, here is the comment of one individual: "Because
of skyrocketing gas prices..grocery shopping is scaled back
to the basics...vacations will be short hops and even holiday
gift shopping won’t be the same...it is even taking a toll on
the family relationship with God...the effects could be
staggering...some people are foregoing visits to the doctor
or opting for cheaper foods, like pasta and peanut butter,
as opposed to protein, fruits and vegetables, in order that
they can save as much money as possible when they come
to fill up at the gas station." Let’s see – our national average
price per gallon of unleaded gasoline is $3.09. In Britain, the
average price (after adjustment to US gallons and currency
exchange rate) is $8.40. Cheer up, America! By comparison,
life must really be very difficult just across the Atlantic.
Stem cell studies end the debate on embryos. Two
groups of scientists, half a world apart, in Kyoto, Japan
and Madison, Wisconsin have succeeded in producing
advanced stem cells from human skin, proving, in the words
of Tony Perkins of Family Research Council (FRC) that
"it is never necessary to compromise ethics by destroying
life in order to achieve scientific aims." In Washington the
White House welcomed the news of the scientific success
which ethical critics believe will make unnecessary the much
debated controversial attempts to clone human embryos
for their cells. There are times when America’s moral values
come to the fore.
And from the Founding Fathers: "God who gave us life
gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought
secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a
conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are
a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with
His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect
that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever."
– Thomas Jefferson, 1791
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To Subscribe (no subscription charge), click on:
THE DEARTH OF CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP
INAMERICA TODAY; HAS "PROGRESS" AND
‘"DIVERSITY" TAKEN US TOO FAR FROM
OUR FOUNDING PRINCIPLES?
By "Christian" leadership, we mean essentially "Evangelical"
leadership . . . and there is immediately a need for a
clarification of terms. There is a distinct difference between
individuals who are Evangelical in their beliefs, and who
hold positions of leadership in one field or another, and
individuals who hold positions of leadership in the
Two nationally known evaluations of leadership come
immediately to mind. First, there is he much cited ranking
of the 100 most influential Conservatives in America, and
the 100 most influential Liberals in America as compiled
by the Washington staff of the London Telegraph. It is
interesting that in the list of 100 influential Conservatives
there were only 4 who were in positions of leadership in a
Christian cause. There were 3 who were considered to be
Evangelicals, but who were in positions of leadership in a
secular field. Incidentally, there is no Christian oriented
leader in the listing of 100 influential Liberals, but that is
not particularly surprising.
Second, there is the featured cover story in the November
19 issue of U.S. News and World Report, where the 18 Best
Leaders in America were listed. The project was a joint
undertaking between U.S. News and the John F. Kennedy
School of Government at Harvard University. A committee
of 35 first selected a group of more than 200 leaders, and
narrowed it down to the final 18. The first name listed was
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger; the second was Speaker
of the House Nancy Pelosi. Rounding out the list of 18 was
cellist Yo-Yo Ma. Significantly, there was not one individual
who was cited for any Christian or Evangelical persuasion,
or indeed anyone for any religious achievement whatsoever.
This past week two questions were posed; the first,
Name the best Evangelical TV preacher. Not difficult --
there are enough good ones to provide a favorite for almost
any taste. But the second question was more difficult: Name
the most effective Evangelical preacher in America. Here
almost anyone draws a blank. We have to face this fact: with
the passing of Jim Kennedy and Jerry Falwell, the Evangelical
cause lost its most effective Evangelical spokespersons, and in
a sense today that cause is leaderless.
And this is not a good time for Evangelicals to be without a
strong voice. In the pages of this newsletter, we have frequently
cited some of the forces opposing the proclamation of the gospel
message or indeed, any expression of the Christian faith. Those
forces would be essentially in the Liberal camp, advocating the
killing of unwanted children (abortion) . . . the abandonment of
the religious concept of marriage (same-sex unions) . . . the
eradication of any and all Christian observances, including the
mention of God or the practice of prayer in our public schools,
or even the use of "Merry Christmas" as a seasonal greeting. But
we are all familiar with those efforts, headed often by the ACLU
in its many lawsuits against small communities and boards of
education easily dominated by skilled legal antagonists.
But now emerging from those overall Liberal opponents is a new
movement labeled simply as the "New Atheists."
Writing under the masthead of "The Church of the Non-Believers,"
defined as "A band of intellectual brothers mounting a crusade
against God," Gary Wolf writes, "We are called upon, we lax
agnostics, we non-committed nonbelievers, we vague deists who
would be embarrassed to defend antique absurdities like the
Virgin Birth ... or any other blatant myth, we are called out, we
fence-sitters and told to help exorcise this debilitating curse: the
curse of faith."
Mr. Wolf defines the "New Atheists" in these terms, "They
condemn not just belief in God, but respect for belief in God.
Religion is not only wrong: it is evil."
How many people are we talking about? In 2004 a
Barna poll reported that atheists and agnostics numbered
12% of the American population. In 2005 a Harris Interactive
poll put the number of atheists at 8%. Various polls put
the number of Americans who believe in the existence of
God or a Supreme Being at 91 or 92%. Other polls put
the number of American Christians at 85%.
Richard Dawkins, an Oxford University professor, whose
latest book titled "The God Delusion" continues to hold a
place in just about every best seller list, is probably the
leading figure in the "New Atheists" movement. And his
evaluation? "I guess we’re in the same position the gay
movement was in a few decades ago," and offers this view
of his fellow atheists today, "They are more numerous
than anyone realizes."
Like the homosexual movement, which is so contrary
to traditional American moral values and principles, but
which is making an impact on American society which
cannot be ignored, so the "New Atheists" whose beliefs
are also contrary to traditional American moral values
and principles, and their impact on our way of life may
soon be felt. This is no time for American Evangelicals
to be lacking adequate leadership.
A word from 1776: "It is the duty of all men in society,
publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME
BEING, the great Creator and Preserver of the Universe.
And no subject shall be hurt, molested or restrained, in
his person, liberty, or estate for worshiping GOD in the
manner most agreeable to the dictates of his own
conscience ..." – John Adams, 1776
Afterthoughts . . .
In case you are contemplating an overseas trip,
it may be of interest to you to learn that London is rated
the second most expensive city in the world, with Oslo
holding the No. 1 position. The computations included
shopping, transportation and entertainment. It might be
cheaper to stay here and visit the wonders of America.
And speaking of England, the figures have just been
released, and in 2006 more women than men were
ordained as priests in the Church of England by a 244 to
234 margin. One comment was offered that without the
women priests the nation’s pulpits would be "depopulated."
Mean time, the Church of England has moved one step
closer to ordaining women as bishops, with bishops by a
margin of 367-127 voting to ask the Synod to consider the
process for removing the legal barriers to such ordinations.
No comment, aside from suggesting that the British bishops
take a close look at the situation prevailing in the American
Episcopal Church. Perhaps they could learn something
from the "colonies."
The 2008 Olympic games in China; this may be the
traditional "tempest in a tea pot." The first story was that
the Chinese authorities had banned any Bibles being carried
by any visitors to the Olympic Games in August. An expected
uproar occurred, and the next word was an absolute denial of
any such restriction by the Chinese authorities. Now the
Deputy Director of the Beijing Organizing Committee has
explained that athletes and other individuals can bring their
own Bibles, but no one can bring multiple copies for public
distribution. That spokesperson also said that the people at
the customs and border check stations in China are "very much
professional," and "know how to handle the situation." That is
where the matter stands at this moment.
This is not a comment on presidential candidates, but
rather an indication of how different people say the same thing
in different ways. Think back to John Kerry’s claim to "flip-flop"
fame when he said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion
before I voted against it." Now there comes the issue of giving
driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, a proposal by NY Governor Eliot
Spitzer. Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton first said that the
plan "makes a lot of sense," but soon thereafter said, "I did not
say that it should be done." Then after it was disclosed that 70%
of New Yorkers opposed the plan, Governor Spitzer withdrew it
from consideration, and Hillary Clinton followed suit with this
proclamation, "As President I will not support driver’s licenses
for undocumented people." For the moment, we assume that
can be taken as definite in current day language.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
To Subscribe: (No subscription charge) click on:
ARE "RADICAL CHRISTIANS" A GREATER
THREAT THAN "RADICAL ISLAMISTS?"
As much as we dislike giving any more publicity to
Rosie O’Donnell, there are times when she earns it
by her outlandish statements and actions – like rushing
to marry her girl friend during San Francisco’s hiatus
from normalcy in the city’s "same sex marriage" episode
in 2004. . . or her ongoing invective feud with flamboyant
real estate magnate and TV personality Donald Trump . . .
or her outrageous pronouncements that the tragic events
of 9/11 were illusions staged by our government.
Now she may have gone a bit too far, at least for us
who are firm in our Christian convictions. Last week she
made this bold assertion, in a verbatim quote taken from
the transcript of the TV show: "Radical Christianity
is just as threatening as radical Islam."
One is inclined to wonder on what research she is basing
that strong conclusion. For example, in the Islamic holy
book, the Koran, Muhummad’s instructions with respect
to unbelievers is simple: "Slay them wherever ye catch
them." (Surah 2.191) "I will instill terror into the hearts
of unbelievers; smite ye above their necks and smite all
their fingertips off them. (Surah 8:12) And there are more,
many more similar instructions for Islamists.
By contrast, Jesus Christ, the founder of the Christian faith,
defined the great commandment as "Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and
with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment,
and the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbor
as thyself." (Matthew 22:37-39)
Since all those quotes are from the founders of the religions
of Islam and Christianity, they must represent the "extreme"
or "radical" teaching of each religion. It is difficult to follow
Ms. O’Donnell’s logic that showing love to one’s neighbor
is as threatening as beheading anyone who doesn’t believe
as you do.
But that sort of wild, unsubstantiated attack on
the Christian faith is accorded media attention, with no
factual rebuttal presented or even asked for. Perhaps the
only recourse left to us as believers is in the old phrase:
"Consider the source." But when the "source" flits from
one obscenely high paying TV job to another, that source
tends to gain considerable credibility among those of the
American public for whom wealth is a standard of success
A memorable quote, and a solid reason why statements
like the above from Rosie O’Donnell have very little lasting
impact upon American minds. "The Americans combine
the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in
their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive of
the one without the other." Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835
Afterthoughts . . .
An active Dennis Kucinich . . . it doesn’t really
violate our decision not to comment on the 2008
election by mentioning Mr. Kucinich. One has to
wonder if anyone really thinks he is serious about
seeking the Democrat nomination for president.
Anyway, he made the news this past week by sending
to the floor of the House his bill to impeach Vice
President Cheney for "high crimes and misdemeanors."
The bill has been tabled, and no date has been set for it
to reappear. Meantime the organization "Democracy
for America" released their poll that Liberal activists
have chosen Mr. Kucinich as their favorite candidate
for president. The bona fides for the organization?
It was founded by Howard ("The Scream") Dean.
Not exactly a presidential election comment,
but televangelist Pat Robertson lost what little respect
or influence on the so-called "religious right" he still
might have when last week he endorsed Rudy Giuliani
for president. It makes no sense – Giuliani stands for
just about every thing Robertson has opposed during
his years of activity in behalf of conservative issues –
abortion, same-sex marriage and illegal immigration
control. The "religious right" is leaderless – with Jerry
Falwell and Jim Kennedy both gone. Their wannabe
successor, Jim Dobson, had threatened to back a 3rd party
candidate, but now is rumored to be shifting any influence
he may have to former Governor Huckabee. Meantime
Rudy Giuliani is saddled with an endorsement from one
whose main attribute is what has been referred to as his
"dazzling personal wealth."
One more attempt to bring God to court. A couple
of issues ago we mentioned the Nebraska State legislator,
Ernie Chambers, who filed suit against God for what he
termed making terrorist threats and inspiring fear. Now
one Greg Rollins in Kansas City, MO, has filed suit in the
U.S. District Court for Western Missouri, for defects in
designing Rollins and his brother, and for His handling
of the world. In his suit Rollins had demanded $1 trillion.
The suit was dismissed, with Rollins claiming that the
court was afraid to hear a case against God.
Let no one think Muslims are behind the times.
The Las Vegas MGM Mirage casino has announced that it
will develop a $3 billion luxury hotel and entertainment
complex for Muslims on Abu Dhabi Island in the Persian
Gulf. It will be a non-gambling resort, managed by MGM
Mirage, and is expected to open in 2012. Perhaps in 5 years
even the Muslims will have approved gambling. Or perhaps
Rosie O’Donnell will headline the opening show.
And a car to drive around the resort: Following a
proposal originating in Iran, Malaysia’s car maker Proton
is considering the manufacture of a car designed especially
for Muslims – with a compass to indicate the direction of
Mecca wherever they are, and compartments for prayer
scarves and the Koran. At the moment the proposal is
for the vehicle to be called simply an "Islamic car." But
surely they can come up with a better name than that.
"Super Jihad Cruiser" is a possibility.
Back to the First Amendment: Just 45 words, none
complex or difficult to comprehend . . . and yet 218
years later there is still a lack of understanding as to
what they really mean. "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances." And last week the results
of a survey by The First Amendment Center reported
that 56% believe that freedom of religion applies to all
religious groups – a decline from 72% in 2000. However,
only 19% remembered that freedom of religion was one
of the rights; 16% named freedom of the press, but a
huge 64% named freedom of speech. Another interesting
result is that nearly two thirds of the respondees believe
the Founders intended America to be a Christian nation,
and more than half believe the Constitution establishes
a Christian nation. And most of the respondees believe
that teachers should be allowed to lead prayers in our
public schools. We may not be far from right in feeling
that moral values will be important in the 2008 elections.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To Subscribe (no subscription charge), click on
A MAJOR CHANGE THIS WEEK: INSTEAD OF
DISCUSSING A SUBJECT, WE WILL LOOK
AT SOME ANALYSES OF THE NEWS
This has been called "The Age of the Poll." And very
frankly, most of us are getting a bit weary of polls on just
about every subject – as often as not concerning actions
in which public opinion plays no part whatsoever. And in
a slightly different but related format, we are constantly
exposed to analyses of current events compiled by editors,
commentators or news reporters.
This week we are going to present some analyses of the
news you may not otherwise have seen . . . but which we
think you will find interesting and perhaps even helpful.
The First one . . .
US Conservatives vs Liberals – a British view. One
of London’s great daily newspapers is the Telegraph, and
we in America can share in their daily news coverage via
their internet site. This past week they released a ranking
of the 100 Most Influential Conservatives in America , and
the 100 Most Influential Liberals in America. The lists were
compiled by Telegraph staff members based in Washington,
D.C. The rankings are interesting, but this caveat must be
always kept in mind: the rankings are based on the opinions
of the British editors and reporters. Because of space limits,
only the top 10 in each category will be listed here.
1. Rudy Giuliani
2. General David Petreaus
3. Matt Drudge
4. Newt Gingrich
5. Rush Limbaugh
6. Vice President Dick Cheney
7. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
8. Chief Justice John Roberts
9. Senator John McCain
10. Former Governor Mitt Romney
1. Former President Bill Clinton
2. Former Vice President Al Gore
3. Mark Penn
4. Senator Hillary Clinton
5. Speaker Nancy Pelosi
6. Senator Barrack Obama
7. Michael Moore
8. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
9. Oprah Winfrey
10. Senator Evan Bayh
By way of comment: President Bush is ranked at No.
21 – First Lady Laura Bush is at 59. Glenn Beck (the
only reason to watch CNN) is at 18, and deservedly so.
Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter are at 82 and 84. Over on
the Liberal side, Colin Powell is at 23 and Senator Harry
Reid is at 33. Howard Dean and Senator Ted Kennedy
hold the 84 and 85 spots, and Cindy Sheehan just makes
the top 100 at position number 98.
Those rankings disclose how professional journalists
from Great Britain, living and working in America,
evaluate the Conservative vs. Liberal situation here.
The Second one . . .
The "Do Gooders" are very high on aiding the poor
and combating poverty . . . it is part of the "Social Gospel"
approach to living the Christian life, which is based on
the philosophy that it is better to do good than be good.
In an election period we are being told by the liberal
media that the rich are getting richer, and the poor are
getting poorer. But is this evaluation based on fact?
In "Understanding Poverty and Economic Equality in
the United States," Robert Record of the Heritage
Foundation points out that some 35 million Americans
live in poverty. In 1971 32% of all Americans had air
conditioning in their homes. In 2001 76% of poor people
had air conditioning. In 1971 43% of all Americans had
color TV. In 2001 97% of poor people had at least one
set. In 2001 46% of poor people own their own homes.
75% of poor households own a car; 30% own two or
Want more? Only 5% of those in the bottom fifth of
income in 1975 were still there in 1991 – the rest had
moved up to the top three fifths, or the middle class.
30% of the lowest income earners in 1975 had moved
into the top fifth of income earners by 1991.
To condense: the bottom line is yes, the rich are getting
richer, but the poor are also getting richer. Poverty in
America, as we used to know it, no longer exists. But
for statistical purposes and political propaganda, if
those living in poverty are defined as the lowest fifth
of income earners, "poverty" will always be with us.
And here’s one more . . .
The matter of "National Health Insurance." In
an election period such as we are just entering, this is
a much talked-about subject, and the great advantages
of the British and Canadian systems, for example, are
being touted by the Liberals.
But from the London Telegraph (October 31) we learn
that more than 70,000 Britons will have medical care
abroad this year – a number that is expected to rise to
200,000 by the end of this decade. The reason? Their
despair over the quality of the National Health Service,
and the long NHS waiting lists. And where do they go
for their health care? India, Malaysia, South Africa,
Hungary, Poland and Spain, for example. The records
show they have gone to 112 foreign hospitals in 48
countries in their search for safe, affordable treatment.
And concerning the Canadian system, Durhane Wong-
Rieger, chair of the Consumer Advocate Network in
Canada, had this to say: "For too many Canadians,
long waiting lists, lack of access to specialists and
general practitioners, and insufficient drug coverage
are the grim realities of our health care system." So
consider these evaluations when you decide upon the
political promise for health care you choose to believe.
A not-to-be forgotten quote from one of our great
military leaders: "History fails to record a single
precedent in which nations subject to moral decay
have not passed into political and economic decline.
There has been either a spiritual awakening to
overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive
deterioration to ultimate national disaster."
– General Douglas MacArthur
Afterthoughts . . .
As we approach Christmas, our Postal Service has
prepared a choice of five Holiday stamps. One features
a Madonna motif, another has a snowman smoking his
pipe, then there is one commemorating the Islamic
holiday of Eid, and another commemorating the
African native holiday of Kwanzaa, and a final one
bearing Hanukkah greetings. For a Christian holiday,
one out of 5 probably isn’t bad, by today’s standards.
It is surprising that the ACLU allowed that one to be
issued, but perhaps next year they will eliminate even
And it isn’t only in the U.S. According to a London
think-tank used by British Prime Minister Gordon
Brown, it is time for Britain to accept the fact that it is
no longer a Christian nation. The Institute for Public
Policy Research (IPPR) is about to release a report
which will state that Christmas should just be one of
several religious holidays the government recognizes.
The report includes reference that church attendance
is at a historical low; the British Empire is gone; the
Monarchy is far less popular, and the triumphs of World
War II are slipping out of memory. It even goes so far as
to say that Bishops of the Church of England should no
longer sit in the House of Lords. In short, Britain should
embrace and demonstrate "multiculturalism."
A note of concern over "recalls." In recent weeks
we have read about instance after instance where toys
intended for American children are being recalled
because of the lead content in the toy’s paint. Virtually
all of these recalls were manufactured in China and
imported by American toy companies. In these cases
the toys will not be distributed – but we have to ask:
how many others were not recalled and are threatening
our children? And we have been shocked by the food
recalls – just this past week we read of 1 million pounds
of hamburger patties recalled from a Pennsylvania plan
– think it through: that is 500 tons of patties! But in
October a hamburger processor in New Jersey recalled
21.7 million pounds of ground beef products. (Work out
that one in tons!) And this past week we read of the
recall of 414,000 cases of packaged frozen pizzas. It
becomes frightening to know what you dare buy to eat.
Is this something this our much heralded new Liberal
Congress should do something about?
And it isn’t only hamburger and pizzas. This week
we read that Alabama health officials had identified 212
workers out of 765 in a chicken processing plant who
tested positive for tuberculosis. This observation was made:
"Accompanied by the rise in illegal immigration, TB is
making a comeback in the U.S., often eluding diagnosis by
doctors who are unfamiliar with the disease." Last year
it was reported that of the 2,903 cases in California, more
than 75% were among foreign natives. This is just one more
aspect of the still not resolved illegal immigration problem.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To Subscribe (no subscription charge), click on: