Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Evangelicals and Rudy Guiliani

There has been a lot written lately about the course Evangelical Christians may follow in the coming Presidential election if a pro-abortion Republican, such as Rudy Guiliani gets the nomination. The speculation started with the appearance of a story a month or so ago that James Dobson was encouraging Evangelicals to either not vote or, less likely, support a third party candidate. The rationale for this is that there is no issue facing more important than that of abortion, and if there is no pro-life candidate, then the moral choice is for Christians to sit the election out.

While I agree that the question of abortion is critical, I think it important to remind ourselves, as Christians, that abortion is not the only critical question that voters will be asked deal with come next November. There are a number of other issues that, if not just as important, certainly approach the abortion question in importance, not least of which is the fight against terrorism. Another critical question voters may decide next year is that of the role of Government in our lives; do we want the Government’s power to grow over us so that, in the next four years, it may even be up to the Government to determine the kinds of food we eat, or what we will wear?

These are hugely important questions. It could be argued that, if we fail in the war on terrorism, the resolution of the abortion question will pale in comparison. In fact, we won’t have to deal with it at all; it will be decided for us by Shar’ia law. If we lose the war on terror, we also lose our right to debate such issues, along with the right to practice the religion of our choice, the right to a free press, even the right of free speech. The election of any of the current Democrat candidates could move us dangerously in this direction. It’s possible that, allowing continued expansion of the right of Government to dictate purely personal choices, to interfere in our lives, could also cost us the right to practice our faith, among other things.

At the very least, Christians who sit out the next election, will almost assuredly spell the doom of the Republican nominee’s chances for election, and achieve the very goal they are so dedicated to – the furtherance of abortion in this country. Even if a candidate like Rudy Guiliani is elected, I think it could be argued that those opposed to abortion would be in much better position to oppose the murder of the innocents than if the Democrat is successful. At least they would have a place at the table.

I hope in the coming months that cooler heads among Evangelical Christian leaders will prevail and that they will not abstain from participation in the coming Presidential election. There’s too much at stake for Christians to sit this one out.

Monday, October 01, 2007

Verizon Wireless

Catholic News Agency (CNA) reports that Verizon Wireless has chosen to block text messages sent by the hard-core pro-abortion group NARAL. To quote CAN:

In turning down the program, Verizon told NARAL that it does not accept programs
from any group that ‘seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in
its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our

NARAL, of course, is claiming its right to “free speech” is being violated. However, the last time I read the First Amendment it said “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech . . .” Seems to me, in this case, NARAL, doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on. It goes without saying, that’s not their only error.

Makes me want to switch to Verizon.

Saturday, September 29, 2007

A Question

Last Friday evening, I was able to attend a lecture here in Colorado Springs given by James M. Kushiner, editor of Touchstone Magazine. The lecture was on the limits of science in relation to theology. It got me thinking again about something I have not had a clear understanding of for some time.

The argument concerning the so-called science of evolution has been going on for decades, with many evolutionary biologists programming that the dogma of Darwinian evolution has triumphed in proving that the universe we live in is the result of nothing but random events and that life has no purpose or meaning. This view, of course, is strongly opposed by those of us who claim a belief in the Transcendent God of creation.

This opposition is generally based on one of three lines of argument. First, there are those who accept the scientific basis of Darwinism while rejecting Darwinism as a philosophical or theological system. Then there are those who espouse Intelligent Design theories. Finally, there is a school of thought that posits that all living things share an inherent tendency to live and grow. They teach that life cannot be explained solely in terms of purely scientific or physical means. This group looks, ultimately, for the final cause of life on earth. I have greatly simplified these three schools of thought, but you get the idea.

The question at the back of my mind concerns those who fall into the first school of thought, those who basically accept Darwinism while otherwise espousing a Christian world view. It seems to me this is a huge inconsistency. I understand Darwinian evolution to mean that species arise as the result of a series of completely random genetic mutations that began and continue without cause or purpose. It seems that, whatever else you believe about the book of Genesis, the idea that life arose without God’s creative action is not one that a Christian can be comfortable with.

I know there are those who argue that God could create through the process of evolution as described by Darwin. I just don’t see how this idea deals in a satisfactory way with the random generation of species. If the argument is that God, in essence, simply set things in motion beginning with the Big Bang, are we then falling back into Deism? I think the third school of thought, described above, is much more satisfactory, since it takes into account God’s continuing presence in His creation.

Am I wrong?