Judging between religions--part 2

I am discussing several ways we can judge between various religions, contrary to what relativists believe. For this blog, I'd like to examine the differences between the various religious leaders as part of my first point--that there is factual evidence we can look at in determining which religion seems the best for us to follow. See my previous blog for the first point regarding factual evidence for the belief.

Let's start with Jesus. I have created a special presentation about his uniqueness, so I'll give you a simplified edition of it here. Napoleon said about him, "Jesus Christ is no mere man." H. G. Wells noted, "I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history." Others have said similar things.

There are other ways he is unique. We have unique sources of information about him--close to his time and a great number of them. The prophecies he fulfilled are unique among religious leaders. What he did (miracles, healings, exorcisms) has never been equaled by other religious leaders. What he said was so different from others--who else claimed to give eternal life, raise people on the last day, to be the truth, to exist before Abraham? What his friends said about him was unique as well--they saw him as more than a human. Even his enemies claimed things about him that were unique--Jews later said he was a sorcerer, Roman historians said he was worshiped as a god. The impact he had on the world was so much better than any other religious leader--Jesus and his followers helped elevate the role of women, led to the creation of hospitals, created universities, brought about capitalism/civil liberties.

Now let's look at other religious leaders. Mohammed was a person devoted to revenge, he married young girl and had sex with her way earlier than he should have, he lacked mercy toward his enemies. How about Joseph Smith? Here's someone who dabbled in the occult, claimed to translate ancient Egyptian (proved to later be a fraud), and made many false prophecies. Does Mary Baker Eddy do any better? Hardly. She claimed her second husband was mentally poisoned, she claimed her book was unique but plagiarized it. Her claims of severe injury and healing were exposed by her own doctor as false. Then there's L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology. He became a recluse to avoid tax problems, he was known as a poor naval officer, he dabbled in the occult, he ended up married to two women the same time. Let's close with a look at the two early leaders of Jehovah's Witnesses. Charles Russell was a fanatic about pyramid power, he divorced his wife, he peddled miracle wheat, he lied in a courtroom about knowing ancient languages. Judge Rutherford, who followed Russell as head of the JWs, smuggled liquor during Prohibition, was estranged from his wife, made a lot of failed prophecies, lived a luxurious life.

So, there's another way we can judge between religions. Just look at the founders. I'll take the amazing life, sayings, and impact of Jesus any time.

Can we judge religions?

We live in an interesting society today. People are schizophrenic when it comes to judging things. They have no trouble deciding which car to buy, which house to live in, which job to take. But if you ask them which religion is the best one, you get replies like "Who can say," "There is no way to tell," "I just picked one that resonated with me." But in the next few blogs I'd like to suggest that there are four good, careful, rational ways to select a religion.

First of all, there is such a thing as factual evidence when it comes to religions, contrary to popular opinion. Let's start with scientific evidence, an area I'll spend the rest of this blog covering. All religions have some sort of holy book. Consider the manuscript evidence available for major world religions. Only Christianity has the earliest manuscripts (closest to the originals) and the largest number of manuscripts, which allows a better way of determining what the originals said. Compare this to other religions like Buddhism, Islam, or Hinduism. Their religious documents were compiled hundreds of years after the founder, so who knows what he originally said.

Then there is archaeological evidence. Again, think of all the places and people mentioned in the New Testament. Over and over scientists have discovered the accuracy of these claims. But consider Mormonism -- this religion says there was a huge civilization in Central and North America. However, nobody has ever found a single shred of evidence to indicate that this is true. In addition, Mormons believe Native Americans are Jewish remnants, but modern scientific study using DNA has shown these people to be Asiatic.

Other scientific discoveries have shown some religions are more accurate than others. Take cosmology. Hinduism says the world has always been here, going through cyclical processes. However, in the last 100 years evidence has mounted for the Big Bang, a beginning to the universe at a particular point in time. So the cosmos is not eternal as Hinduism claims. Islam says human life starts in a clot of blood -- not true. It also claims the sun sets in a muddy pool -- again, not true. The American Psychiatric Association denounces Scientology as a quack religion. It is the Judeo-Christian belief that looks good here. Consider its reference to God creating out of nothing--sounds like the Big Bang.

We can also factually examine the history of religions. Let's start with Jehovah's Witnesses. Almost everything practiced by them before 1935 is now considered pagan-- voting, participating in war, observing holidays, smoking, believing Jesus died on a cross. Scientology has a history of indictments of its top officials. Mormonism has seen its Book of Mormon go through many changes although Joseph Smith claimed it was the most perfect book ever written. Islam got its start through bloodshed and warfare. Today, it is the fundamental, true believer in Islam who creates all the problems of terrorism because this individual is staying true to the original aims of his religion. How does Christianity do in this area? Much better than the others. It started as a small group proclaiming a resurrected Jesus in the very city in which he was put to death, which tells me something amazing must have happened for them to be able to make that claim where it would have been easy to prove it false. Christianity spread due to the compassion that it showed to women, children, the poor, those on the lower rungs of society.

I want to continue this in future blogs, but I'll stop here and give you something to think about. Keep in mind that I'm going through a lot of information very quickly, but you can verify all that I have said here if you are curious about this topic. Next time I'll look at the founders of religions to see if we can judge between them.

The wrong lessons about FDR and the New Deal

I'm halfway through a powerful book by Amity Shlaes which looks at the Great Depression -- The Forgotten Man. I recommend the book highly because it changes much of what we thought we knew about that time and how economics works. We are living through a very tough time now, and we have a president who believes in mistaken notions about what happened in the 1930s.

The author starts by describing extremely difficult economic times. She tells of a president and his backers who are out of touch with the common people; they do all the wrong things, such as raising taxes during this terrible time. What's surprising is the year which she is describing -- 1937. From her stories and shocking statistics, the reader first thinks she's describing the results of the crash of 1929. But in fact she is describing a depression within the depression that occurred five years after Franklin Roosevelt was elected. But aren't we told FDR got us out of the Great Depression?

Shlaes then describes the old, dominant view that most of us probably believe to be true about this time period. Thanks to many historians and history books, we believe that the 1920s was a time of false growth and low morals. The crash, which occurred in 1929, was an acknowledgment of the breakdown of capitalism. Dangerous inflation by speculators brought down the market. There was a belief that Washington needed to get more involved to save the financial well-being of the country. Hoover made things worse by failing to do much. Roosevelt, however, made things better by the being in charge and setting up the New Deal, which revitalize the country. According to this standard but incorrect view, we now realize that FDR's program is the best way to handle the economy in times of both crisis and stability. The New Deal also gave us powerful, dynamic leaders that led us out of the mess. FDR saved the country in peace and then in the war.

Shlaes says this view does not capture the realities of the time. Instead, the 1920s was a time of true economic gains. The crash of 1929 did not cause the depression. Instead, it was a necessary correction for a too-high stock market. In addition, she says Hoover and Roosevelt actually had much in common -- both preferred to control events and people, both underestimated the strength of the American economy, both mistrusted the stock market, both overestimated the value of government planning, both doctored the economy habitually. Roosevelt's remedies often came from socialist or fascist models abroad, which stressed collectivism.

All this is from the opening chapter of her book. I find it fascinating that the standard model of how we view the New Deal and Roosevelt is so flawed. Unfortunately, today we are drawing the wrong lessons from this time. Obama and his advisers, like FDR and his people, see the government as the savior and view free markets with great suspicion. We've seen the results of this attitude, and it hasn't been pretty. Let's hope there are enough people who know how capitalism really works to send our current administration packing.

Memorial Day reminder of the sacrifices

Memorial Day is coming up soon, and I wanted to share something I found in a recent issue of World magazine. It’s a powerful, moving letter sent by a Civil War soldier, Major Sullivan Ballou, to his wife a week before he was killed at the Battle of Bull Run. It was featured in Ken Burns’ Civil War documentary. Think about how much we owe to those who have given up everything to protect us.

Dear Sarah:

The indications are very strong that we shall move in a few days, perhaps tomorrow. And lest I should not be able to write you again I feel impelled to write a few lines that may fall under your eye when I am no more…

… Sarah, my love for you is deathless, it seems to bind me with mighty cables that nothing but omnipotence can break; and yet my love of country comes over me like a strong wind and bears me irresistibly with all those chains to the battlefield. The memory of all the blissful moments I have enjoyed with you come crowding over me, and I feel most deeply grateful to God and you, that I have enjoyed them for so long. And how hard it is for me to give them up and burn to ashes the hopes and future years when, God willing, we might still have lived and loved together, and seen our boys grow up to honorable manhood around us.

If I do not return, my dear Sarah, never forget how much I loved you, nor that when my last breath escapes me on the battlefield, it will whisper your name…

Forgive my faults, and the pains I have caused you. How thoughtless, how foolish I have been! … But, oh Sarah, if the dead can come back to this earth and flit unseen around those they love, I shall always be with you, in the brightest day and in the darkest night… always, always. And when the soft breeze fans your cheek, it shall be my breath, or the cool air your throbbing temple, it shall be my spirit passing by.

Sarah do not mourn me dead; think I am gone and wait for me, for we shall meet again.

The fight for federalism and liberty

America's Founding Fathers wanted a federal government of limited powers. But over the last fifty years we have seen a steady erosion in federalism as the national government takes over more and more control of our lives. I was recently reminded of this when I read an article in Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College. By the way, the school will send you this interesting monthly if you contact imprimis@hillsdale.edu. Every month it has interesting articles by leading thinkers in various fields.

The article that caught my attention was by Virginia's Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli. He argues that there are two current issues which are being used by states to reassert federalism in defense of liberty – the new healthcare law and new EPA regulations.

Virginia was the first state to argue in federal court that the new health care law is unconstitutional. A federal judge back in December ruled in Virginia's favor that the mandate requiring people to purchase a private product (in this case, health insurance) is unconstitutional.

The first legal argument against this law is that the government's attempt to use the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to mandate the purchase of a private product goes beyond Congress's power. There has never been a mandate like this in all of American history. In fact, King George III was told by his own lawyer that a colonial boycott of British goods was legal under British law because no one could be forced to buy against his/her will. Obama's administration could use the same argument (that the government has a right to mandate purchases of private products) to force us to buy cars, alarm clocks, gym memberships, orthopedic shoes, non-slip mats for our bathtubs. If Virginia and all the other states that are suing lose this case, Congress will be granted a virtually unlimited power to order the American people to buy or to do anything.

What's interesting is the argument put forth by the Obama administration. It says that the fine for not buying government-approved health insurance is not a penalty, but a tax. Why? Because a tax to pay for the healthcare scheme would be constitutional under Congress's taxing authority. Of course, what's sneaky and hypocritical about this is that when Congress and President Obama debated the healthcare law, supporters repeatedly said that the fine for not buying health insurance was a penalty, not a tax. Obviously they said this because of the negative associations with calling something a tax. So now the administration is flip-flopping on the issue.

Virginia is also fighting an EPA decision. Back in December 2009 the EPA declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants dangerous to public health because they are alleged to cause global warming. The EPA relied primarily on data from the United Nations global warming report. But we now know, due to leaked e-mails, that some of the world's prominent climatologists manipulated data to overstate the effects of carbon dioxide on the environment (Climategate). Much of the U.N. report relied on that questionable data, and this, in turn, was what the EPA relied on. Some scientists have rethought their positions on global warming. One renowned climate researcher, Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, who had been a long-time proponent of the global warming theory, admitted recently that data in that UN report was misleading and that "it is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data" that would work against the theory of rapid global warming in the last century.

But is it such a big deal if the EPA is regulating CO2 emissions? Yes because some estimate the cost to every American household will be $3000 a year due to higher prices for energy, food, clothing, and any other goods that require energy to manufacture or transport. These new rules would add nearly $1000 to the price of each new vehicle purchased. What's really amazing is that all this sacrifice and all this money spent will produce such minimal results. The EPA's own model shows that over the next 90 years these regulations would only reduce temperature increases by less than 0.03°F. Amazing and discouraging that people would put us through so much for so little gain. These increased energy costs will drive industries out of business or force them overseas, leaving us with fewer jobs.

As the Attorney General points out, we do need to care for the environment, but we also need to care for our economy. He notes that economic growth underwrites environmental protection. It is the wealthy countries which pay for environmental improvement. He says," The only places on earth that have strived for a clean environment share two key characteristics: free people and free markets."

So it's important for us to get involved in this fight for federalism. Freedom is being eroded gradually but persistently, and we need to stand against those who would deprive us of it.

A new low for Obama

Well, just when you thought the Obamas had reached a new low, along comes Common, a rapper who performed at the White House last night. You may have noticed this item on the Drudge website, but you may not have seen some of the lyrics to his “music.”

First is his song threatening police and former President Bush. Here are some of the lyrics for you to ponder:

A Letter to the Law
. . . Tell the preacher, God got more than one son
Tell the law, my Uzi weighs a ton
I walk like a warrior,
from them I won’t run
. . . make them the main attraction
Turn around and attack them
Black gem in the rough
You’re rugged enough
Use your mind and nine-power, get the government touch
Them boys chat-chat on how him pop gun
I got the black strap to make the cops run
They watching me, I’m watching them
Them dick boys got a lock of cock in them
My people on the block got a lot of pok* in them
and when we roll together
we be rocking them to sleep
. . . Burn a Bush cos’ for peace he no push no button
Killing over oil and grease
no weapons of destruction
How can we follow a leader when this a corrupt one
The government’s a g-unit and they might buck young black people
Black people In the urban area one
I hold up a peace sign, but I carry a gun.


OK, besides the bad poetry, notice the references to guns and death—“nine power,” “”we be rocking them to sleep,” “Burn a Bush.” Nice, huh? Can you imagine if a white President invited a KKK leader to show up and sing threats to the black community??

Then there’s his other poem (using the term loosely) called “A Song for Assata.” This is a reference to convicted cop-killer and former Black Panther Assata Shakur, formerly known as Joanne Chesimard. She was convicted for the 1973 slaying of Trooper Werner Foerster on the New Jersey Turnpike, escaped prison in 1979, and is living in asylum in Cuba. Note the great sympathy for her in the portions of the song I have put here:

In the spirit of god.
In the spirit of the ancestors.
In the spirit of the black panthers.
In the spirit of assata shakur.
We make this movement towards freedom
For all those who have been oppressed, and all those in the struggle.
Yeah. yo, check it-

. . . Shot twice wit her hands up
Police questioned but shot before she answered
One panther lost his life, the other ran for his
Scandalous the police were as they kicked and beat her
Comprehension she was beyond, tryna hold on

. . . They lied and denied visits from her lawyer
But she was buildin as they tried to destroy her
. . . I read this sister's story, knew that it deserved a verse
I wonder what would happen if that woulda been me?
All this shit so we could be free, so dig it, y'all.


I'm thinkin' of assata, yes.
Listen to my love, assata, yes.
Your power and pride is beautiful.
May God bless your soul.



. . . It’s time for her to breathe, and not be told how or when
She untangled the chains and escaped the pain
How she broke out of prison I could never explain
And even to this day they try to get to her
But she's free with political asylum in cuba.


I'm thinkin' of assata, yeah.
Listen to my love, assata, yeah.
We're molded from the same mud, assata.
We share the same blood, assata, yeah.
Your power and pride, so beautiful...
May God bless your soul.
Your power and pride, so beautiful...
May God bless your soul.
Oooh.


So this is the person the Obamas stand beside, the person they want in the White House, the person they think can help bring us all together (wasn’t that what Obama told us he wanted when he ran for President?). What a disgusting joke.

Obama and Bush both deserve credit

I am so proud of our military for taking out Osama bin Laden the other day. But the forgotten man of this affair is former President George W. Bush. Our current President failed to mention him during his speech reporting the death of bin Laden. It might be useful to take a look at the last several years to see what a debt Obama owes Bush.


We now know that CIA interrogators during the Bush administration gathered the initial information that ultimately led to bin Laden's death. The United States located al Qaeda's leader by learning the identity of a trusted courier from the tough interrogations of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the 9/11 attacks, and his successor, Abu Faraj al-Libi, according to The Wall Street Journal.

President George W. Bush, not Obama, constructed the interrogation and warrantless surveillance programs that allowed this week’s action to take place. Remember how congressional Democrats and media pundits viciously criticized him for allegedly exceeding his presidential powers and violating the Bill of Rights? We were all going to live in a police state if Bush got his way, right?

After he became President, Obama set to work to dismantle the methods Bush had employed to keep us safe. In January 2009, he signed executive orders to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and limit the CIA to U.S. military interrogation methods. He made it clear that al Qaeda leaders would be tried in civilian courts. And in August 2009, his attorney general, Eric Holder, launched a criminal investigation into CIA officers who had interrogated al Qaeda leaders. Nice, huh? Our own people were being investigated instead of Islamic terrorists.

What would have happened if Obama had been in power immediately after the attack on the Twin Towers? After their "arrest," we would have read KSM and al-Libi their Miranda rights, provided them legal counsel, sent them to the U.S. for detention, and granted them all the rights provided a U.S. citizen in criminal proceedings. Of course, we would have gained no information to fight terror, and their trials would have become an anti-America farce.

The good news is that things have changed. Congressional pressure and reality have forced Mr. Obama to give up his law-enforcement approach to terrorism. Thanks to congressional funding riders, Gitmo remains open and terrorist detainees there cannot be brought to the United States. Attorney General Holder has finally dropped his ill-conceived plan to prosecute al Qaeda leaders in Manhattan, and he has now restarted the military commissions devised by the Bush administration. By the way, has there ever been such an inept attorney general?

Other good news has followed. The repatriation of Gitmo detainees has ceased, again due to congressional pressure. Mr. Obama's advisers have even publicly reaffirmed his authority to capture or kill terrorists as enemy combatants. Drone attacks have more than tripled.

Of course, Obama deserves credit for ordering the mission that killed bin Laden. But he and the American people should also recognize that he succeeded despite his urge to disavow Bush administration policies. I’m hoping that the American people, if not Obama, will acknowledge George W. Bush’s role in making last week's dramatic success possible.

A new book illustrates God's grand design

There’s a new book out by Jonathan Wells that sounds good. He is the author of Icons of Evolution, a devastating look at examples and models of evolution that have been proved wrong (or in some cases, have been shown to be frauds). His new book is called The Myth of Junk DNA. Here’s a brief overview of it, taken from his preface to the book.


At one time scientists claimed that much of our DNA was useless leftovers from evolutionary past times. They believed this because of discoveries in the 1970s that showed only a tiny percentage of our DNA codes for proteins. There were some biologists who predicted that non-protein-coding DNA would turn out to be functional, but the dominant view (obviously colored by an evolutionary worldview) said most DNA was junk.


Here’s the fun part--that view has turned out to be spectacularly wrong. Wells says that after completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003 many hundreds of articles have appeared in the scientific literature documenting the various functions of non-protein coding DNA, and more are being published every week.

But many biologists who claimed most DNA was junk have not gone quietly into the night. Since 2004, biologists Richard Dawkins, Douglas Futuyma, Kenneth Miller, Jerry Coyne and John Avise have published books which still use this discredited argument. So have philosopher of science Philip Kitcher and historian of science Michael Shermer. What’s sad is the report that one other special person is in this camp--Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project and present director of the National Institutes of Health. He’s a Christian who holds to theistic evolution. Wells said it’s ironic that Collins clings to this position, considering that he co-authored some of the scientific articles providing evidence against "junk DNA."

Wells points out that these authors claim to speak for "science," but they have actually been promoting an anti-scientific myth that ignores the evidence. So he believes it's time to expose the myth for what it is.

His thesis can be stated in a single sentence: “Far from consisting mainly of junk that provides evidence against intelligent design, our genome is increasingly revealing itself to be a multidimensional, integrated system in which non-protein-coding DNA performs a wide variety of functions.” Wells sees this as evidence for intelligent design.

Dr. Fuz Rana explored this idea as well in his book The Cell’s Design. I would encourage people to consider any of Wells’ books or Rana’s to see how God’s good work is being revealed.

The death of Osama bin Laden

I am strangely delighted at the death of Osama bin Laden. I’d like to explore the news of his death and my reactions.

I say “strangely delighted” for two reasons. As a Christian, I do mourn the loss of a soul that probably never found the truth. There is so much error in Islam—its concept of God, its emphasis on works, its holy book that comes so many years after the person who supposedly received it from heaven and has such poor manuscript evidence. Osama unfortunately was not a heretic of his faith. He was the most faithful adherent to Islam as it was originally conceived. I get tired of hearing that Islam was hijacked by people who have perverted the faith. No, it’s the other way around—the majority of Muslims are backsliders, ignoring the vicious commands as laid out in the Qur’an. Osama and his followers are the true believers.

Secondly, I am delighted because justice was meted out. So many times in this world we see justice stymied for some reason—incompetence, bribery, strong-arm tactics, ignorance. Of course, we know God is in command and will take care of it all eventually. But it’s satisfying to see the wronged nation able to track down and eliminate the source of so much evil and suffering. The United States once again has helped the world out, as we did before during World War 2 when we crushed the evil Nazi regime.

I watched President Obama’s report last night with mixed feelings. He acted strong and made no apology for the death of bin Laden. That was good. But why did he have to use so many personal pronouns (“I”) to tell how it all came about. There was no room to compliment President Bush for establishing the Guantanamo site and getting valuable information out of the detainees. All we heard as the run-up to his election was how Obama would do away with Bush’s methods. Now that he’s President, Obama has seen the wisdom of so much that Bush set up. A thank-you last night would have been appropriate for the courage with which Bush pursued the war.

We know the war will go on, and that is discouraging. But the news last night showed the courage and determination of our fighting forces. Thanks to all the brave men and women who keep us free. God bless them.