READ THIS FIRST: In decline of all civilizations we first see a war against the freedom of ideas. Discussion is limited or prohibited. Speakers at universities are shouted down. Corruption takes over city governments and towns as dishonesty and corruption expands. Small stores have to shut down because none are honest enough to run a cash register. The stock of stores is looted by employees and pilfered and shop owners flee. Stock markets are rife with manipulation and the plague of dishonesty. We have learned that sound and lasting civilized ideas are built upon very rare and special foundations. Frances Schaeffer is one guy who has sparked my own thinking and study. He has influenced my writing and prison ministry greatly. Humans must be convinced intellectually, historically and reasonably as well as through the Biblical teachings. Francis Shaeffer has helped all of us wade through this vast propaganda sewer to approach fundamental questions, one of which is: “Why do nations and empires decline?”
Imagine living in a country in which members of Congress would mandate researchers ‘either destroy embryos or risk imprisonment.’ Imagine a nation that not only permits the killing of the most vulnerable among us but mandates such mayhem for the purposes of research. Imagine no further—the day has arrived. As the former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork has well said, we have began inexorably “slouching toward Gomorrah.”[1]I’ll never forgot the words of George Will, when he said, “we are experiencing the slow motion barbarization of America.”
The founders of our Republic could only in their darkest nightmares have imagined relativism trumping objective moral standards in a free society. The rise of technology and the fall of ethical consensus have brought us to a society full of moral dilemmas. This stark reality was born out in 1973 when Christians quietly passed in a battle in the war against abortion.
The far reaching impact of that abdication is felt in the raging battle over embryonic stem cell research. In the wake of the current moral and ethical tsunami, it is incumbent upon Christians to not only provide relief but bring the rebuilding process. Nothing less than Western Civilization is at stake.
I’ll never forget what Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer said many years ago: abortion would be the watershed issue of our era. “Of all the subjects related to the erosion of the sanctity of human life abortion is the keystone.”[2] Of course, his warning tragically fell on deaf ears.
Consider the statements of some of the leading spiritual and secular leaders of our age. Beverly Harrison, a professor of Christian Ethics at Union Theological Seminary, “Infanticide is not a great wrong. I do not want to be construed as condemning women who under certain circumstances quietly put their infants to death.”[3]Esther Langston, Professor of Social Work at the University of Nevada, “What we are saying is that abortion becomes one of the choices and the person has the right to choose whatever it is that is… best for them in the situation in which they find themselves: be it abortion, keep the baby, adopt the baby, sell the baby, leave the baby in a dumpster, put it on your porch, whatever. It’s the person’s right to choose.”[4] Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who famously remarked “that the most merciful thing a large family can do for one of its infant members is to kill it.”[5]
Where does this slippery slope lead? Think only to the words of James Watson, the Nobel prize winner and the co-discover of the structure of DNA, “Because of the limitations of present detection methods most birth defects are not discovered until birth; however, if a child was not declared alive until three days after birth the doctor would allow the child to die if the parents so chose and save a lot of misery and suffering.”[6]
This is the epoch in which we find ourselves. In view of this reality, we should go back to the words of Scripture. “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Ps. 139:13). A song was written with those words in mind. It was haunting, not only to hear the music but to see the images. It was the first pro-life song by Cindee Martin Morgan, who is the daughter of the late Dr. Walter Martin, the founder and former president of CRI. It was recorded by her daughter Sharon at the tender age of seven. We featured that song on the Bible Answer Man broadcast and we lauded the fact that Cindee Martin Morgan and her husband Rick Morgan were vigilant in the battle against abortion.
The reason we did that is because the reality is today there are very few Christians who will put their lives on the line for this issue. Christians have become apathetic. There was a recent Pew Research Poll that found that among all respondents to the poll concern about the abortion issues has dropped. Only 15% of respondents said that abortion was a critical issue.[7] It’s an issue to which we have been anesthetized to. This does not mean that we shouldn’t be involved in the debate or the discussion. It’s a watershed issue of our era; we should be involved.
So Cindee and Rick have continued the battle, recognizing it’s not about whether we win or lose. It’s about being faithful with the platform that God gives us. They have now come out with a new pro-life song called, “Who will Save the Little Ones?” It’s a call to lawful action on behalf of the unborn. You can hear this at our Website (http://www.equip.org/site/savethelittleones). I also did an hour long interview with Cindee and Rick on October 6, 2009; this can be heard also at our Website (http://www.equip.org/broadcasts/who-will-save-the-little-ones-20090610). To visit their Website go to (http://www.MtMoriahMusic.com) Also to equip you in defending the Pro-Life position we recommend the book Whose Ethics? Whose Morals? available at our Website or by calling 1-888-7000-0274.
Swedish economist Johan Norberg is the host of the new documentary Free or Equal, which retraces and updates the 1980 classic Free to Choose, featuring Milton and Rose Friedman. Like the Friedmans, Norberg travels the globe to look at the conditions under which prosperity and freedom flourish – and under what conditions they wither and die. Made by the same producer who created Free to Choose, Free or Equal will be appearing on PBS in 2011. For more information, a clip of the new documentary and the entire Free to Choose series, go here.
Norberg is the author of numerous books, including In Defense of Global Capitalism (2002) and Fiscal Fiasco (2009), a look at how the U.S. government’s policies contributed to and have exacerbated the length and intensity of the Great Recession.
Reason’s Nick Gillespie sat down with Norberg to discuss how the changes in the world since the Friedmans’ earlier documentary effect their basic argument that individual economic freedom is a building block for a prosperous and open society. Overall, says Norberg, the Friedmans’ basic insights hold true and some of the places they celebrated – such as Hong Kong, then under British protection and now part of the People’s Republic of China – are still flourishing. But in countries and regions that continue to constrain economic and political liberties, reports Norberg, fear and privation still dominate.
About 6 minutes. Shot by Jim Epstein and Joshua Swain; edited by Swain.
Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube Channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.
For an earlier Reason.tv interview with Norberg (about his book Fiscal Fiasco), go here.
Johan Norberg – Free or Equal – Free to Choose 30 years later 1/5
In 1980 economist and Nobel laureate Milton Friedman inspired market reform in the West and revolutions in the East with his celebrated television series “Free To Choose.”
Thirty years later, in this one-hour documentary, the young Swedish writer, analyst and Cato Institute Fellow Johan Norberg travels in Friedman’s footsteps to see what has actually happened in the places Friedman’s ideas helped transform. In location after location Norberg examines the contemporary relevance of Friedman’s ideas in the 2011 world of globalization and financial crisis. Central to his examination are the perennial questions concerning power and prosperity, and the trade-offs between individual liberty and income equality.
___________
President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
I am writing you today because I wanted you to understand that Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson both believed that the role of government was to be a referee in the marketplace and not a player.
I have enjoyed reading this series of reviews by T. Kurt Jaros on Milton and Rose Friedman’s book “Free to Choose.” I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
T. Kurt Jaros is currently a Master’s student studying Systematic Theology at King’s College in London. He holds a B.A. in Philosophy and Political Science cum laude and an M.A. in Christian Apologetics high honors from Biola University, an evangelical Christian university outside of Los Angeles.
He enjoys learning and thinking about theology, specifically historical theology, philosophical theology and philosophy of religion, and issues pertaining to monergism and synergism. Additionally, he enjoys learning and thinking about political philosophy, economics, American political history, and campaigns.
This is part of a series on Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose.”
This Christmas I asked for and received Free to Choose by Milton and Rose Friedman. I’ve been a big fan of Milton for a while now, be it reading some articles online or watching YouTube videos of him. My goal over the next several weeks is to write a post for each of the chapters to summarize his points and present something I’ve learned. There are ten in all, but this one will include the introduction.
Friedman begins the book by writing that there have been two miracles in the United States: one political and one economic. Coincidently, both miracles were the consequences of two written documents form 1776. The first, Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, explained how it could be that two parties could both achieve their objectives through cooperation in the marketplace. However, the only way for that to be done is if the cooperation is voluntary. This cooperation is also done out of the individuals self-interest (not necessarily greed). We all work so that we can pay our bills and make a good life for our children and ourselves. This is the building block of an economy. The second document was Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence from British rule. Jefferson’s words marked the first time in history that a nation was formed based upon the belief that men have inalienable, God-given rights. Among those rights are the rights to liberty and to the pursuit of happiness.
Friedman notes that there is a strong correlation between economic and political freedom. This is one-two punch of freedom allowed for a huge growth in wealth during the 19th century. In the late 18th century, “it took nineteen out of twenty workers to feed” the 3 million inhabitants of the country and yet today “it takes fewer than one out of twenty” to feed 330 million. What is the cause of this miracle? It’s obvious that there was no central government planning in agriculture (that first happened in the 1930s under the progressive Franklin Delano Roosevelt). The true cause of this change was “private initiative operating in a free market open to all” in the form of the industrial revolution.
Smith and Jefferson both believed that the role of government was to be a referee in the marketplace and not a player. Yet that view began to change over the course of time and people thought that perhaps government could help those that are less fortunate, if only government organization were in the right hands. This explains why the federal government has grown massively over the past 80 years. How much longer are we willing to let the government grow to create a massive entitlement state? “Adam Smith’s invisible hand has been powerful enough to overcome the deadening effects of the invisible hand that operates in the political sphere,” but for how much longer?
As each day goes on, we move closer and closer to the point of no return. Politicians keep spending other people’s money on themselves, their buddies in the special interests, and perpetual “temporary” programs. Our debt keeps increasing, states are going bankrupt, and soon enough the entitlement game will be over. We should stop it before it’s too late.
____________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
I must say that I have lots of respect for Reason Magazine and for their admiration of Milton Friedman. However, I do disagree with one phrase below. At the end of this post I will tell you what sentence it is. Uploaded by ReasonTV on Jul 28, 2011 There’s no way to appreciate fully the […]
Milton Friedman on Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” 1994 Interview 1 of 2 Uploaded by PenguinProseMedia on Oct 25, 2011 Says Federal Reserve should be abolished, criticizes Keynes. One of Friedman’s best interviews, discussion spans Friedman’s career and his view of numerous political figures and public policy issues. ___________________ Two Lucky People by Milton and Rose Friedman […]
What a great man Milton Friedman was. The Legacy of Milton Friedman November 18, 2006 Alexander Tabarrok Great economist by day and crusading public intellectual by night, Milton Friedman was my hero. Friedman’s contributions to economics are profound, the permanent income hypothesis, the resurrection of the quantity theory of money, and his magnum opus with […]
Milton Friedman videos and transcripts Part 7 On my blog http://www.thedailyhatch.org I have an extensive list of posts that have both videos and transcripts of MiltonFriedman’s interviews and speeches. Here below is just small list of those and more can be accessed by clicking on “Milton Friedman” on the side of this page or searching […]
Milton Friedman at Hillsdale College 2006 July 2006 Free to Choose: A Conversation with Milton Friedman Milton Friedman Economist Milton Friedman is a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and a professor emeritus of economics at the University of Chicago, where he taught from 1946-1976. Dr. Friedman received the Nobel Memorial […]
Milton Friedman said that getting George Bush I to be his vice president was his biggest mistake because he knew that Bush was not a true conservative and sure enough George Bush did raise taxes when he later became President. Below is a speech by George W. Bush honoring Milton Friedman: Milton Friedman Honored for […]
Below is a discussion from Milton Friedman on Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. February 10, 1999 | Recorded on February 10, 1999 audio, video, and blogs » uncommon knowledge PRESIDENTIAL REPORT CARD: Milton Friedman on the State of the Union with guest Milton Friedman Milton Friedman, Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution and Nobel Laureate in […]
Milton Friedman and Chile – The Power of Choice Uploaded by FreeToChooseNetwork on May 13, 2011 In this excerpt from Free To Choose Network’s “The Power of Choice (2006)”, we set the record straight on Milton Friedman’s dealings with Chile — including training the Chicago Boys and his meeting with Augusto Pinochet. Was the tremendous […]
Milton Friedman’s negative income tax explained by Friedman in 1968: President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a […]
Milton Friedman on the American Economy (5 of 6) Uploaded by donotswallow on Aug 9, 2009 THE OPEN MIND Host: Richard D. Heffner Guest: Milton Friedman Title: A Nobel Laureate on the American Economy VTR: 5/31/77 _____________________________________ Below is a transcipt from a portion of an interview that Milton Friedman gave on 5-31-77: Friedman: […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on Nov 1, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have linked several of the letters I sent to him below with the email that I received. I think it could have been this one 84.4 but maybe not. Most likely it was this one below:
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/22/morning-bell-religious-liberty-under-attack/ | The controversy over the Obama Administration’s anti-conscience mandate and the fight for religious liberty only serves to highlight the inherent flaws in Obamacare. This conflict is a natural result of the centralization laid out under Obamacare and will only continue until the law is repealed in full.
___________________________
President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Congress recognizes more each day that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known widely as the Obamacare statute, interferes unconstitutionally with the liberty of Americans. From the Obamacare individual mandate to buy health insurance that awaits the action of the Supreme Court, to the Obamacare mandate that many religious hospitals, charities, and schools abandon the tenets of their faiths and include in their group health insurance for employees coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization, Obamacare assaults the Constitution and American freedom.
Fortunately, Members of Congress and the American people are waking up to the need to repeal the Obamacare statute and move instead to market-based, patient-centered health care. Action in Congress this week to defend religious liberty continues to highlight the need to repeal the Obamacare statute.
The Obama Administration continues to trample on religious liberty by applying the Obamacare statute to mandate that many religious institutions’ group health insurance for employees cover abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization. The Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Treasury, and Labor published on February 15, 2012 final regulations that compel many religious hospitals, charities, and schools to abandon the tenets of their faiths and comply with that mandate beginning April 16, 2012, or pay fines for maintaining their religious faiths. The final regulations did not include any changes to respect religious liberty that President Obama had led people to expect.
Although Secretary of HHS Sebelius has said that, for one year, she will simply not perform her duty to enforce the final regulations, her decision not to enforce the regulations temporarily as a matter of grace does not eliminate the mandate’s interference with religious liberty. Indeed, her pronouncements reflect a failure to understand that religious liberty in America is an unalienable right with which our Creator has endowed us and a right that our Constitution’s First Amendment protects. Our religious liberty does not arise from the discretion of the Federal Government to do Americans a “favor” and tolerate their religions. Because President Obama and his agents continue to attack the constitutionally-guaranteed right of these religious institutions to free exercise of religion, Members of Congress are stepping forward to protect the Constitution.
Senator Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) has fought for religious liberty against the Obamacare assault. He plans to offer this week Senate Amendment No. 1520 to S. 1813, the highway authorization bill, to protect the right to religious liberty against the Obamacare mandate. The Blunt Amendment notes that, until the enactment of the Obamacare statute in 2010, “the Federal Government has not sought to impose specific coverage or care requirements that infringe on the rights of conscience . . . .” The Blunt Amendment would override the Obamacare mandate that religious institutions provide coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization when it is contrary to their faiths, allowing them to keep their faiths and provide health care coverage for their employees.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) has announced his intention to keep the Senate from voting on the Blunt Amendment by making a motion to “table” — that is, to refuse to consider — the Blunt Amendment. Senator Reid said he considered the Blunt Amendment that protects religious liberty to be a “distracting proposal.” Senator Reid may treat legislation to protect religious liberty as a “distraction,” but hundreds of millions of Americans hold their right to free exercise of religion to be a precious freedom.
President Obama and Senator Reid can man the ramparts of Castle Obamacare against the people for only so long. The American people want their liberty and they shall have it. The Obamacare statute must go.
__________-
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
___________
Here is the response I got from the White House on Nov 1, 2012:
Nov 1, 2012
Dear Friend:
Thank you for writing. President Obama has heard from many Americans about the Administration’s decision to ensure women have access to preventive care with no co-pays or deductibles, including contraceptive services. The President is committed to both preserving religious liberty and protecting women’s health. He appreciates your perspective.
The Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies to cover additional preventive services for women without charging a co-pay or deductible as of August 1, 2012. These preventive services include well women visits, domestic violence screening, and contraception. The independent Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science recommended coverage of these procedures to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The vast majority of women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives, but too many have struggled to afford it. The scientists and experts at the Institute of Medicine have documented significant health benefits for women that come from using contraception.
Get the facts about the Obama Administration’s plans to implement this policy.
The President understands the importance of the work faith-based organizations do and continues to take the ideas and concerns of religious groups seriously. On February 10, 2012, President Obama announced his Administration will implement this policy in a manner that fully accommodates religious liberty while protecting the health of women. After a transition, if a woman’s employer is a religious non-profit organization, such as a charity or hospital, and has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, her insurance company—not the employer—will be required to reach out and provide contraceptive care free of charge. And, consistent with previously existing conscience clauses, no religious doctor will have to prescribe these services. We will ensure religious liberty remains protected, and that women will receive the critical preventive services guaranteed by the law.
Find out more about how the Affordable Care Act impacts you.
Learn about the President’s efforts to provide affordable health care to all Americans.
Thank you, again, for writing.
Sincerely,
The White House
You are receiving this one-time email because you contacted the White House about a particular issue.
If you are interested in receiving regular updates from President Obama and senior White House officials, please visit our subscription page to sign up www.WhiteHouse.gov/get-email-updates.
The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. • Washington, D.C. 20500 • 202-456-1111
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on July 30, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on June 18, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on July 10, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on July 16, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have linked several […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on July 18, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on June 22, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email July 6, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response, but if I had […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on June 22, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on June 15, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on May 23, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on May 9, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on April 16, 2011. First you will see my letter to him which was mailed around April 9th. […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on March 7, 2011. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on January 27, 2011. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet. (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on January 25, 2011. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]
After appearing on the television program, “Who Do You Think You Are,” Gwyneth Paltrow has decided to raise children Apple, 7, and Moses, 5, as Jewish.
According to The Daily Mail, the NBC ancestry show sparked the discovery that the actress descended from a notable line of Eastern European rabbis. Though she’s long practiced Kabbalah, Gwyneth had previously stayed neutral about a formal religion upbringing in her household, which includes crooner husband Chris Martin, who is of Christian background.
“I don’t believe in religion. I believe in spirituality. Religion is the cause of all the problems in the world,” the actress once told The Daily Mail.
_______________
Below is a letter I mailed to Chris and Gwyneth recently:
To Chris Martin and Gwyneth Paltrow, c/o Go Go Pictures, 12 Cleveland Row, London, SW1A 1DH, United Kingdom, , From Everette Hatcher, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, USA:
I have been a huge fan of both of you and have posted many times on my blog about your religious views which have seemed to have changed over the years. I know that Chris was brought up as an evangelical Christian, but has long ago left the faith behind although he did revisit many biblical themes in his 2008 and 2011 cds.
I have shown what thought processes Solomon went through in Ecclesiastes and then compared them to the evident changes that are occurring with Coldplay. By the way, the final chapter of Ecclesiastes finishes with Solomon emphasizing that serving God is the only proper response of man. My prediction: I am hoping that Coldplay’s next album will also come to that same conclusion that Solomon came to in Ecclesiastes 12:13-14: 13 Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.
14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.
I have also written before about Gwyneth’s famous Jewish relatives which includes a famous Rabbi and I have wondered if she would decide to return to those roots. Actually that is what has happened. I salute you for rejecting your earlier statements against organized religion and for making the decision to teach your children the Bible and to have faith in God.
I know that you will spending lots of time in the scriptures and I wanted to share with you some key scriptures that talk about the Messiah.
Since Gwyneth’s great, great grandfather was a famous Rabbi he may have known some of the Rabbi’s that are going to be quoted below:
It’s commonly maintained that Isaiah 53 was never considered messianic by rabbis and Jewish sages. Sometimes the statement is phrased as, Judaism teaches” that Isaiah 53 refers to the nation of Israel.
The fact is that Isaiah 53 (more precisely, 52:13 to 53:12) has been interpreted in messianic terms by a wide variety of Jewish commentators over a long period of time. Other interpretations have certainly been offered, including the view first popularized by Rashi in medieval times that the prophet speaks of the nation of Israel. Neverthless the messianic interpretation has a long history in Jewish Bible exegesis, as shown by the quotations below.
The Targum
Behold, My Servant the Messiah shall prosper.
Targum (“Targum Jonathan”) to Isaiah 52:13, various editions (such as Samson H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation; the Messianic Exegesis of the Targum.” Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1974, p. 63).
In the early cycle of synagogue readings
We know that messianic homilies based on Joseph’s career (his saving role preceded by suffering), and using Isaiah 53 as the prophetic portion, were preached in certain old synagogues which used the triennial cycle…
Rav Asher Soloff, “The Fifty Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Commentators, to the Sixteenth Century” (Ph.D. Thesis, Drew University,1967), p. 146.
The addition of 53.4-5 [to the cycle of synagogue readings] was evidently of a Messianic purport by reason of the theory of a suffering Messiah. The earlier part of [the Haftarah] (52.7ff.) dealt with the redemption of Israel, and in this connection the tribulations of the Messiah were briefly alluded to by the recital of the above 2 verses.
The Rabbis said: His name is “the leper scholar,” as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted. [Isaiah 53:4].
Soncino Talmud edition.
Ruth Rabbah 5:6
The fifth interpretation [of Ruth 2:14] makes it refer to the Messiah. Come hither: approach to royal state. And eat of the BREAD refers to the bread of royalty; AND DIP THY MORSEL IN THE VINEGAR refers to his sufferings, as it is said, But he was wounded because of our transgressions. (Isa. LIII, 5).
Soncino Midrash Rabbah (vol. 8, p. 64).
The Karaite Yefeth ben Ali (10th c.)
As to myself, I am inclined, with Benjamin of Nehawend, to regard it as alluding to the Messiah, and as opening with a description of his condition in exile, from the time of his birth to his accession to the throne: for the prophet begins by speaking of his being seated in a position of great honour, and then goes back to relate all that will happen to him during the captivity. He thus gives us to understand two things: In the first instance, that the Messiah will only reach his highest degree of honour after long and severe trials; and secondly, that these trials will be sent upon him as a kind of sign, so that, if he finds himself under the yoke of misfortunes whilst remaining pure in his actions, he may know that he is the desired one….
S. R. Driver and A. Neubauer, editors, The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters (2 volumes; New York: Ktav, 1969), pp. 19-20. The English translations used here are taken from volume 2. The original texts are in volume 1. Cf. Soloff, pp. 107-09.
Another statement from Yefeth ben Ali:
By the words “surely he hath carried our sicknesses,” they mean that the pains and sickness which he fell into were merited by them, but that he bore them instead. . . . And here I think it necessary to pause for a few moments, in order to explain why God caused these sicknesses to attach themselves to the Messiah for the sake of Israel. . . . The nation deserved from God greater punishment than that which actually came upon them, but not being strong enough to bear it. . . God appoints his servant to carry their sins, and by doing so lighten their punishment in order that Israel might not be completely exterminated.
Driver and Neubauer, pp. 23 ff.; Soloff pp. 108-109.
Another statement from Yefeth ben Ali:
“And the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all.” The prophet does not by avon mean iniquity, but punishment for iniquity, as in the passage, “Be sure your sin will find you out” (Num. xxxii. 23).
Driver and Neubauer, p. 26; Soloff p. 109.
Mysteries of R. Shim’on ben Yohai (midrash, date uncertain)
And Armilaus will join battle with Messiah, the son of Ephraim, in the East gate . . .; and Messiah, the son of Ephraim, will die there, and Israel will mourn for him. And afterwards the Holy One will reveal to them Messiah, the son of David, whom Israel will desire to stone, saying, Thou speakest falsely; already is the Messiah slain, and there is non other Messiah to stand up (after him): and so they will despise him, as it is written, “Despised and forlorn of men;” but he will turn and hide himself from them, according to the words, “Like one hiding his face from us.”
Driver and Neubauer, p. 32, citing the edition of Jellinek, Beth ha-Midrash (1855), part iii. p. 80.
Lekach Tov (11th c. midrash)
“And let his [Israel’s] kingdom be exalted,” in the days of the Messiah, of whom it is said, “Behold my servant shall prosper; he will be high and exalted, and lofty exceedingly.”
Driver and Neubauer, p. 36.
Maimonides, Letter to Yemen (12th c.)
What is to be the manner of Messiah’s advent, and where will be the place of his appearance? . . . And Isaiah speaks similarly of the time when he will appear, without his father or mother of family being known, He came up as a sucker before him, and as a root out of the dry earth, etc. But the unique phenomenon attending his manifestation is, that all the kings of the earth will be thrown into terror at the fame of him — their kingdoms will be in consternation, and they themselves will be devising whether to oppose him with arms, or to adopt some different course, confessing, in fact, their inability to contend with him or ignore his presence, and so confounded at the wonders which they will see him work, that they will lay their hands upon their mouth; in the words of Isaiah, when describing the manner in which the kings will hearken to him, At him kings will shut their mouth; for that which had not been told them have they seen, and that which they had not heard they have perceived.
Driver and Neubauer vol 1: p. 322. Edition is Abraham S. Halkin, ed., Igeret Teman (NY: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1952). See Soloff pp. 127-128.
Zohar II, 212a (medieval)
There is in the Garden of Eden a palace named the Palace of the Sons of Sickness. This palace the Messiah enters, and He summons every pain and every chastisement of Israel. All of these come and rest upon Him. And had He not thus lightened them upon Himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel’s chastisements for the transgressions of the law; as it is written, “Surely our sicknesses he has carried.”
Cited in Driver and Neubauer, pp. 14-15 from section “va-yiqqahel”. Translation from Frydland, Rachmiel, What the Rabbis Know About the Messiah (Cincinnati: Messianic Literature Outreach, 1991), p. 56, n. 27. Note that this section is not found in the Soncino edition which says that it was an interpolation.
Nachmanides (R. Moshe ben Nachman)(13th c.)
The right view respecting this Parashah is to suppose that by the phrase “my servant” the whole of Israel is meant. . . .As a different opinion, however, is adopted by the Midrash, which refers it to the Messiah, it is necessary for us to explain it in conformity with the view there maintained. The prophet says, The Messiah, the son of David of whom the text speaks, will never be conquered or perish by the hands of his enemies. And, in fact the text teaches this clearly. . . .
And by his stripes we were healed — because the stripes by which he is vexed and distressed will heal us; God will pardon us for his righteousness, and we shall be healed both from our own transgressions and from the iniquities of our fathers.
Driver and Neubauer, pp. 78 ff.
Yalkut ii: 571 (13th c.)
Who art thou, O great mountain (Zech. iv. 7.) This refers to the King Messiah. And why does he call him “the great mountain?” Because he is greater than the patriarchs, as it is said, “My servant shall be high, and lifted up, and lofty exceedingly” — he will be higher than Abraham, . . . lifted up above Moses, . . . loftier than the ministering angels.
Driver and Neubauer, p. 9.
The same passage is found in Midrash Tanhuma to Genesis (perhaps 9th c.), ed. John T. Townsend (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1989), p. 166.
Yalkut ii. 620 (13th c.), in regard to Psalm 2:6
I.e., I have drawn him out of the chastisements. . . .The chastisements are divided into three parts: one for David and the fathers, one for our own generation, and one for the King Messiah; and this is that which is written, “He was wounded for our transgressions,” etc.
Driver and Neubauer, p. 10.
R. Mosheh Kohen ibn Crispin (14th c.)
This Parashah the commentators agree in explaining of the Captivity of Israel, although the singular number is used in it throughout. . . .As there is no cause constraining us to do so, why should we here interpret the word collectively, and thereby distort the passage from its natural sense?. . . As then it seemed to me that the doors of the literal interpretation of the Parashah were shut in their face, and that “they wearied themselves to find the entrance,” having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined after the “stubbornness of their own hearts,” and of their own opinion, I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis, of the King Messiah, and will be careful, so far as I am able, to adhere to the literal sense.
Driver and Neubauer, pp. 99-100.
Another comment from R. Mosheh Kohen ibn Crispin
If his soul makes itself into a trespass-offering, implying that his soul will treat itself as guilty, and so receive punishment for our trespasses and transgressions.
Driver and Neubauer, p. 112.
R. Sh’lomoh Astruc (14th c.)
My servant shall prosper, or be truly intelligent, because by intelligence man is really man — it is intelligence which makes a man what he is. And the prophet calls the King Messiah my servant, speaking as one who sent him. Or he may call the whole people my servant, as he says above my people (lii. 6): when he speaks of the people, the King Messiah is included in it; and when he speaks of the King Messiah, the people is comprehended with him. What he says then is, that my servant the King Messiah will prosper.
Driver and Neubauer, p. 129.
R. Elijah de Vidas (16th c.)
Since the Messiah bears our iniquities which produce the effect of His being bruised, it follows that whoso will not admit that the Messiah thus suffers for our iniquities, must endure and suffer for them himself.
Driver and Neubauer, p. 331.
Rabbi Moshe Alshekh (El-Sheikh) of Sefad (16th c.)
I may remark, then, that our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah, and we ourselves also adhere to the same view.
Driver and Neubauer, p. 258.
Herz Homberg (18th-19th c.)
The fact is, that it refers to the King Messiah, who will come in the latter days, when it will be the Lord’s good pleasure to redeem Israel from among the different nations of the earth…..Whatever he underwent was in consequence of their own transgression, the Lord having chosen him to be a trespass-offering, like the scape-goat which bore all the iniquities of the house of Israel.
Driver and Neubauer, p. 400-401.
The musaf (additional) service for the Day of Atonement, Philips machzor (20th c.)
Our righteous anointed is departed from us: horror hath seized us, and we have non to justify us. He hath borne the yoke of our iniquities, and our transgression, and is wounded because of our transgression. He beareth our sins on his shoulder, that he may find pardon for our iniquities. We shall be healed by his wound, at the time that the Eternal will create him (the Messiah) as a new creature. O bring him up from the circle of the earth. Raise him up from Seir, to assemble us the second time on Mount Lebanon, by the hand of Yinnon.
A. Th. Philips, Machzor Leyom Kippur / Prayer Book for the Day of Atonement with English Translation; Revised and Enlarged Edition (New York: Hebrew Publishing Company, 1931), p. 239. The passage can also be found in, e.g., the 1937 edition. Also, Driver and Neubauer, p. 399.
The government can cut roughly $343 billion from the federal budget and they can do so immediately.
__________
John Boehner, Speaker of the House
H-232, The Capital, Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker,
I know that you will have to meet with newly re-elected President Obama soon and he will probably be anxious for you to raise taxes and federal spending, but he will want you to leave runaway entitlement programs alone. WE GOT TO CUT THE FOODSTAMP PROGRAM BECAUSE TOO MANY ARE BECOMING DEPENDENT ON THE GOVERNMENT. WHY NOT LET THE CHURCHES AND PRIVATE CHARITIES TAKE UP THE SLACK?
We are becoming a country filled with people that dependent on the federal government when we should be growing our economy by lowering taxes and putting people back to work. Why not cancel the foodstamp program and let the churches step in?
Today, the food stamps program is one of the largest and the fastest growing of the roughly 80 welfare programs funded by the federal government. Since 2000, spending has nearly quadrupled, with much of the growth taking place over the last four years. Since President Obama came to office, food stamps spending doubled from roughly $39 billion in 2008 to an estimated $85 billion in 2012.
As Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley explain, part of the recent growth is due to policies that make it easier for individuals to enroll in food stamps. “Application loopholes that permit food stamp recipients to bypass income and asset tests” boost participation rates. The program “discourages work, rewards idleness, and promotes long-term dependence.”
Removing work requirements from the few welfare programs that contain them seems to be the Obama Administration’s method of operation. President Obama’s 2009 stimulus suspended the food stamps work requirement through September 2010, and his next two budgets attempted to maintain the suspension. Then, on July 12 his Administration announced it would begin waiving the work requirements that were the heart of the successful 1996 welfare reform law.
Personal responsibility and work are key American principles. Food stamps and other welfare programs should promote these principles by requiring all able-bodied recipients to work, prepare for work, or at least look for a job in order to receive assistance.
DEBT LIMIT – A GUIDE TO AMERICAN FEDERAL DEBT MADE EASY. Uploaded by debtlimitusa on Nov 4, 2011 A satirical short film taking a look at the national debt and how it applies to just one family. Watch the guy from the Ferris Bueller Superbowl Spot! Produced by Seth William Meier, DP/Edited by Craig Evans, […]
DEBT LIMIT – A GUIDE TO AMERICAN FEDERAL DEBT MADE EASY. Uploaded by debtlimitusa on Nov 4, 2011 A satirical short film taking a look at the national debt and how it applies to just one family. Watch the guy from the Ferris Bueller Superbowl Spot! Produced by Seth William Meier, DP/Edited by Craig Evans, […]
Rep Himes and Rep Schweikert Discuss the Debt and Budget Deal Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 […]
Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. […]
Here is a study done on the votes of the 87 incoming freshman republicans frm the Club for Growth. Freshman Vote Study In the 2010 election, 87 freshmen House Republicans came to Washington pledging fealty to the Tea Party movement and the ideals of limited government and economic freedom. The mainstream media likes to say […]
Tea Party Conservative Senator Mike Lee interview Here is an excellent interview above with Senator Lee with a fine article below from the Heritage Foundation. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) came to Washington as the a tea-party conservative with the goal of fixing the economy, addressing the debt crisis and curbing the growth of the federal […]
I feel so strongly about the evil practice of running up our national debt. I was so proud of Rep. Todd Rokita who voted against the Budget Control Act of 2011 on August 11, 2011. He made this comment: For decades now, we have spent too much money on ourselves and have intentionally allowed our […]
Rep. Quayle on Fox News with Neil Cavuto __________________ We have to get people realize that the most important issue is the debt!!! Recently I read a comment by Congressman Ben Quayle (R-AZ) made after voting against the amended Budget Control Act on August 1, 2011. He said it was important to compel “Congressional Democrats and […]
What future does our country have if we never even attempt to balance our budget. I read some wise words by Congressman Jeff Landry (R, LA-03) regarding the debt ceiling deal that was passed on August 1, 2011:”Throughout this debate, the American people have demanded a real cure to America’s spending addiction – a Balanced Budget […]
I read some wise comments by Idaho First District Congressman Raúl R. Labrador concerning the passage of the Budget Control Act on August 1, 2011 and I wanted to point them out: “The legislation lacks a rock solid commitment to passage of a balanced budget amendment, which I believe is necessary to saving our nation.” I just […]
Congressmen Tim Huelskamp on the debt ceiling I just don’t understand why people think we can go on and act like everything is okay when we have a trillion dollar deficit. Sometimes you run across some very wise words like I did the other day. Kansas Congressman Tim Huelskamp made the following comment on the […]
You refer to the faithful “creating a mystery where none exists.” May I get you to agree that the question “Why is there something here rather than nothing at all?” does not fall into that category? If you and I were standing on a little thought-experiment balcony watching either the moment when the cosmic boilers blew, giving us the Big Bang, or watching the first glorious creational response to God’s fiat lux, can we agree that at that moment Ockham’s razor would be of absolutely no use to either of us?
If Jesus had told a story about a black man stopping to help a beat-up white guy in Mississippi in the 1950’s, and you retold the story later with the merciful one now suitably white, I think it would be appropriate for me to point out the inversion, and that the story had been significantly changed and weakened. And when I said that the Good Samaritan fulfilled an ancient law, I did not say that obedience to this law was dormant during the intervening time. Of course it was not.
But neither was disobedience dormant, and Jesus was confronting a particular form of institutionalized disobedience—religious hypocrisy.
On the question of morality, you say that you are “simply reluctant” to say that if religious faith falls, then the undergirding decency must fall also. But your behavior goes far beyond a mere “reluctance to concede.” Your book and your installments in this debate thus far are filled with fierce denunciations of various manifestations of immorality. You are playing Savonarola here, and I simply want to know the basis of your florid denunciations. You preach like some hot gospeler—with a floppy leather-bound book and all. I know the book is not the Bible and so all I want to know is what book it is, and why it has anything to do with me. Why should anyone listen to your jeremiads against weirdbeards in the Middle East or fundamentalist Baptists from Virginia like Falwell? On your terms, you are just a random collection of protoplasm, noisier than most, but no more authoritative than any—which is to say, not at all.
You say that I need to admit that a “good person can be born” who can’t get his mind around what I am saying about Jesus. But my initial claim has been far more modest. I am simply saying that a good person needs to be able, at a minimum, to define what goodness is and tell us what the basis for it is. Your handwaving—”ordinary morality is innate”—does not even begin to meet the standard.
There are three insurmountable problems for you here. The first is that innate is not a synonym for authoritative. Why does anyone have to obey any particular prompting from within? And which internal prompting is in charge of sorting out all the other competing promptings? Why?
Second, the tangled skein of innate and conflicting moralities found within the billions of humans alive today also has to be sorted out and systematized. Why do you get to do it and then come around and tell us how we must behave? Who died and left you king? And third, according to you, this innate morality of ours is found in a creature (mankind) that is a distant blood cousin of various bacteria, aquatic mammals, and colorful birds in the jungle. Your entire worldview has evolution as a key foundation stone, and evolution means nothing if not change. You believe that virtually every species has morphed out of another one. And when we change, as we must, all our innate morality changes with us, right? We have distant cousins where the mothers ate their young. Was that innate for them? Did they evolve out of it because it was evil for them to be doing that?
Now this is how all this relates to the assigned topic of our debate. We are asking if Christianity is good for the world. As a Christian discussing this with an atheist, I have sought to show in the first place that atheism has nothing whatever to say about this topic—one way or the other. If Christianity is bad for the world, atheists can’t consistently point this out, having no fixed way of
defining “bad.” If Christianity is good for the world, atheists should not be asked about it either because they have no way of defining “good.” Think of it as spiking your guns—so that I can talk about Jesus. And I want to do that because he is good for the world.
Jesus Christ is good for the world because he came as the life of the world. You point out, rightly, that loving our neighbor as we love ourselves is impossible for us, completely out of our reach.
But you take this inability as a state of nature (which the commandment offends), while the Christian takes it as a state of death (which life offers to transform). Our complete inability to do what is right does not erase our obligation to do what is right. This is why the Bible describes the unbeliever as a slave to sin or one who is in a state of death. The point of each illustration is the utter and complete inability to do right. We were dead in our transgressions and sins, the apostle Paul tells us. So the death and resurrection of Christ are not presented by the gospel as medicine for everyone in the hospital, but rather as resurrection life in a cemetery.
The way of the world is to abide in an ongoing state of death—when it comes to selfishness, grasping, treachery, lust, hypocrisy, pride, and insolence, we consistently run a surplus. But in the death of Jesus that way of death was gloriously put to death. This is why Jesus said that when he was lifted up on the cross, he would draw all men to himself. In the kindness of God, the Cross is an object of inexorable fascination to us. When men and women look to him in his death, they come to life in his resurrection. And that is good for the world.
Christopher Hitchens – Against Abortion Uploaded by BritishNeoCon on Dec 2, 2010 An issue Christopher doesn’t seem to have addressed much in his life. He doesn’t explicitly say that he is against abortion in this segment, but that he does believe that the ‘unborn child’ is a real concept. ___________________________ I was suprised when I […]
Max Brantley in the Arkansas Times Blog reports that Ron Paul is leading in Iowa. Maybe it is time to take a closer look at his views. In the above clip you will see Chistopher Hitchens discuss Ron Paul’s views. In the clip below you will find Ron Paul’s latest commercial. Below is a short […]
DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 07 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death: Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 08 Author and […]
DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 04 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death: Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 05 Author and speaker Christopher […]
DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 01 Below are some reactions of evangelical leaders to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death: Christian leaders react to Hitchens’ death Posted on Dec 16, 2011 | by Michael Foust Author and speaker Christopher Hitchens, a leader of an aggressive form of atheism that eventually […]
If you like Woody Allen films as much as I do then join me every Wednesday for another look the man and his movies. Below are some of the posts from the past:
Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 Adrian Rogers – Crossing God’s Deadline Part 2 Jason Tolbert provided this recent video from Mike Huckabee: John Brummett in his article “Huckabee speaks for bad guy below,” Arkansas News Bureau, May 5, 2011 had to say: Are we supposed to understand and accept that Mike Huckabee is […]
Woody Allen, the film writer, director, and actor, has consistently populated his scripts with characters who exchange dialogue concerning meaning and purpose. In Hannah and Her Sisters a character named Mickey says, “Do you realize what a thread were all hanging by? Can you understand how meaningless everything is? Everything. I gotta get some answers.”{7} […]
Bananas (1971) en cast ex-wife, Louise Lasser (the duo were married from 1966 to 1969), as his romantic lead in this quirky comedy. When asked why he chose to title the movie Bananas, Allen quipped, “Because there are no bananas in it.” “Midnight in Paris” is one of Woody Allen best works. Woody Allen […]
Several members of the 70′s band Kansas became committed Christians after they realized that the world had nothing but meaningless to offer. It seems through the writings of both Woody Allen and Chris Martin of Coldplay that they both are wrestling with the issue of death and what meaning does life bring. Kansas went through […]
I guess the reason I have spent so much time on Woody Allen is because in so many films he discusses the big questions in life. His movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors” is a perfect example. Check out my earlier post Nihilism can be seen in Woody Allen’s latest film “Midnight in Paris” . September (1987) The director […]
Woody Allen and the Abandonment of Guilt Dr. Marc T. Newman : AgapePress Print In considering filmmaking as a pure visual art form, Woody Allen would have to be considered a master of the medium. From his humble beginnings as a comedy writer and filmmaker, he has emerged as a major influential force in Hollywood. […]
The dvd sales of “Midnight in Paris” which went on sale in December have gone through the roof (look at the bottom of this post) and this summer we learned this fact below: ‘Midnight in Paris’ becomes Woody Allen’s all-time biggest hit. How the heck did that happen? by Owen Gleiberman Categories: Annie Hall, Bridesmaids, […]
Woody Allen interviews Billy Graham on Religion This article below makes we think of the lady tied to the Railroad in the Schaeffer video. Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism (Modern man sees no hope for the future and has deluded himself by appealing to nonreason to stay sane. Look at the example […]
A surprisingly civil discussion between evangelical Billy Graham and agnostic comedian Woody Allen. Skip to 2:00 in the video to hear Graham discuss premarital sex, to 4:30 to hear him respond to Allen’s question about the worst sin and to 7:55 for the comparison between accepting Christ and taking LSD. ___________________ The Christian Post > […]
“Woody Wednesday” Allen acts silly in 1971 interview (Part 4) Woody Allen interview 1971 PART 4/4 Uploaded by captainvontrapp on Jul 21, 2008 Woody Allen interview from 1971, just after the worldwide release of ‘Bananas’ ________________________ David Mishkin God and Carpeting: The Theology of Woody Allen by David Mishkin March 1, 1993 This is an […]
Q: York County was recently in the news for a lawsuit involving the teaching of intelligent design. What’s your attitude regarding the teaching of evolution in public schools?
A: “I’m a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state. But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. And I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry.”
Is there any purpose in life? Evolution is clear on this point. I have included the first portion of the article by Dr. Jerry Bergman who I have corresponded with in the past.
Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life…life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA…life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.1–Richard Dawkins
Evolution is “deceptively simple yet utterly profound in its implications,”2 the first of which is that living creatures “differ from one another, and those variations arise at random, without a plan or purpose.”3 Evolution must be without plan or purpose because its core tenet is the natural selection of the fittest, produced by random copying errors called mutations. Darwin “was keenly aware that admitting any purposefulness whatsoever to the question of the origin of species would put his theory of natural selection on a very slippery slope.”4 Pulitzer Prize author Edward Humes wrote that the fact of evolution was obvious but “few could see it, so trapped were they by the human…desire to find design and purpose in the world.” He concluded:
Darwin’s brilliance was in seeing beyond the appearance of design, and understanding the purposeless, merciless process of natural selection, of life and death in the wild, and how it culled all but the most successful organisms from the tree of life, thereby creating the illusion that a master intellect had designed the world. But close inspection of the watchlike “perfection” of honeybees’ combs or ant trails…reveals that they are a product of random, repetitive, unconscious behaviors, not conscious design.5
The fact that evolution teaches that life has no purpose beyond perpetuating its own survival is not lost on teachers. One testified that teaching evolution “impacted their consciences” because it moved teachers away from the “idea that they were born for a purpose… something completely counter to their mindset and beliefs.”6
In a study on why children resist accepting evolution, Yale psychologists Bloom and Weisberg concluded that the evolutionary way of viewing the world, which the authors call “promiscuous teleology,” makes it difficult for them to accept evolution. Children “naturally see the world in terms of design and purpose.”7 The ultimate purposelessness of evolution, and thus of the life that it produces, was eloquently expressed by Professor Lawrence Krauss as follows: “We’re just a bit of pollution…. If you got rid of us…the universe would be largely the same. We’re completely irrelevant.”8
The Textbooks
To determine what schools are teaching about religious questions such as the purpose of life, I surveyed current science textbooks and found that they tend to teach the view that evolution is both nihilistic and atheistic. One of today’s most widely-used textbooks stated that “evolution works without either plan or purpose…. Evolution is random and undirected.”9 Another text by the same authors added that Darwin knew his theory “required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its byproducts.” The authors continued:
Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which…nature ruthlessly eliminates the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.10
Another text taught that humans are just “a tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life” and the belief that a “progressive, guiding force, consistently pushing evolution to move in a single direction” is now known to be “misguided.”11 Many texts teach that evolution is purposeless and has no goal except to achieve brute survival: the “idea that evolution is not directed towards a final goal or state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”12 One major text openly teaches that humans were created by a blind, deaf, and dumb watchmaker–namely natural selection, which is “totally blind to the future.”
Humans…came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and our brains…. Natural selection…explains…the whole of life, the diversity of life, the complexity of life, |and| the apparent design in life.”13
The Implications
Many texts are very open about the implications of Darwinism for theism. One teaches that Darwin’s immeasurably important contribution to science was to show that, despite life’s apparent evidence of design and purpose, mechanistic causes explain all biological phenomena. The text adds that by coupling “undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”14 The author concludes by noting that “it was Darwin’s theory of Evolution that provided a crucial plank to the platform of mechanisms and materialism…that has been the stage of most western thought.”15 Another text even stated directly that humans were created by a random process, not a loving, purposeful God, and:
The real difficulty in accepting Darwin’s theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance…. |Evolution| asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.16
These texts are all clearly teaching religious ideas, not science. An excellent example is a text that openly ruled out not only theistic evolution, but any role for God in nature, and demonstrated that Darwinism threatened theism by showing that humans and all life “could be explained by natural selection without the intervention of a god.” Evolutionary “randomness and uncertainty had replaced a deity having conscious, purposeful, human characteristics.”
The Darwinian view that… present-type organisms were not created spontaneously but formed in a succession of selective events that occurred in the past, contradicted the common religious view that there could be no design, biological or otherwise, without an intelligent designer…. In this scheme a god of design and purpose is not necessary…. Religion has been bolstered by… the comforting idea that humanity was created in the image of a god to rule over the world and its creatures. Religion provided emotional solace, a set of ethical and moral values…. Nevertheless, faith in religious dogma has been eroded by natural explanations of its mysteries…. The positions of the creationists and the scientific world appear irreconcilable.”17
Darwin himself taught a totally atheistic, naturalistic view of origins. He even once said, “I would give nothing for the theory of natural selection if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.”18 John Alcock, an evolutionary biologist, therefore concluded that “we exist solely to propagate the genes within us.”19
Leading Darwin scholar Janet Browne makes it very clear that Darwin’s goal was the “arduous task of reorienting the way Victorians looked at nature.” To do this Darwin had to convince the world that “ideas about a benevolent, nearly perfect natural world” and those that believe “beauty was given to things for a purpose, were wrong–that the idea of a loving God who created all living things and brought men and women into existence was…a fable.”
The world…steeped in moral meaning which helped mankind seek out higher goals in life, was not Darwin’s. Darwin’s view of nature was dark–black…. Where most men and women generally believed in some kind of design in nature–some kind of plan and order–and felt a deep-seated, mostly inexpressible belief that their existence had meaning, Darwin wanted them to see all life as empty of any divine purpose.20
Darwin knew how difficult it was to abandon such a view, but realized that for evolution to work, nature must ultimately be “governed entirely by chance.” Browne concludes:
The pleasant outward face of nature was precisely that–only an outward face. Underneath was perpetual struggle, species against species, individual against individual. Life was ruled by death…destruction was the key to reproductive success. All the theological meaning was thus stripped out by Darwin and replaced by the concept of competition. All the telos, the purpose, on which natural theologians based their ideas of perfect adaptation was redirected into Malthusian–Darwinian–struggle. What most people saw as God-given design he saw as mere adaptations to circumstance, adaptations that were meaningless except for the way in which they helped an animal or plant to survive.21
Neo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins recognized the purposelessness of such a system:
In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.22
How widely is this view held by scientists? One study of 149 leading biologists found that 89.9 percent believed that evolution has no ultimate purpose or goal except survival, and we are just a cosmic accident existing at the whim of time and chance. A mere six percent believed that evolution has a purpose.23 Almost all of those who believed that evolution had no purpose were atheists. This is only one example that Sommers and Rosenberg call the “destructive power of Darwinian theory.”24
References
Scheff, Liam. 2007. The Dawkins Delusion. Salvo, 2:94.
Humes, Edward. 2007. Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America’s Soul. New York: Ecco, 119.
Ibid, 119.
Turner, J. Scott. 2007. The Tinkerer’s Accomplice: How Design Emerges from Life Itself. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 206.
Humes, Monkey Girl, 119.
Ibid, 172.
Bloom, Paul and Deena Skolnick Weisberg. 2007. Childhood Origins to Adult Resistance to Science. Science, 316:996.
Panek, Richard. 2007. Out There. New York Times Magazine, 56.
Miller, Kenneth R. and Joseph S. Levine. Biology. 1998. Fourth Edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 658, emphasis in original.
Levine, Joseph S. and Kenneth R. Miller 1994. Biology: Discovering Life. Second Edition, Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 161, emphasis in original.
Raven, Peter H. and George B. Johnson. 2002. Biology. Sixth Edition, Boston, MA: McGraw Hill, 16, 443.
Purves, William K., David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, and H. Craig Keller. 2001. Life: The Science of Biology. Sixth Edition, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates; W.H. Freeman, 3.
Interview with Richard Dawkins in Campbell, Neil A., Jane B. Reece, and Lawrence G. Mitchell. 1999. Biology. Fifth Edition, Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley Longman, 412-413.
Futuyma, Douglas J. 1998. Evolutionary Biology. Third Edition, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 5.
Ibid, 5.
Curtis, Helena and N. Sue Barnes. 1981. Invitation to Biology. Third Edition, New York, NY: Worth, 475.
Strickberger, Monroe. 2000. Evolution. Third Edition, Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett, 70-71.
Darwin, Francis (editor). 1888. The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. London: John Murray, 210.
Browne, Janet. 1995. Charles Darwin: Voyaging, A Biography. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 542.
Ibid, 542.
Dawkins, Richard. 1995. River Out of Eden. New York: Basic Books, 133.
Graffin, Gregory W. 2004. Evolution, Monism, Atheism, and the Naturalist World-View. Ithaca, NY: Polypterus Press, 42.
Sommers, Tamler and Alex Rosenberg. 2003. Darwin’s Nihilistic Idea: Evolution and the Meaningless of Life.Biology and Philosophy, 18:653.
* Dr. Bergman is Professor of Biology at Northwest State College in Ohio.
Cite this article: Bergman, J. 2007. Darwinism: Survival without Purpose. Acts & Facts. 36 (11): 10.
_______________________________
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
Milton Friedman’s book “Free to Choose”, co-authored with his wife Rose, was among the first tracts I’ve read on the topic. I don’t remember exactly when I read it, probably in college. I would not be able to explain well the intracacies of monetarist policies and its alternatives, but Friedman’s simple message about free markets has always stuck with me.
He summed up the workings and the benefits of free markets with a simple idea: a pencil. Here is Friedman in his own words, taken from a transcript of a TV version of “Free to Choose”:
“Look at this lead pencil, there is not a single person in the world who could make this pencil. Remarkable statement? Not at all. The wood from which it’s made, for all I know, comes from a tree that was cut down in the State of Washington. To cut down that tree, it took a saw. To make the saw, it took steel. To make the steel, it took iron ore.
“This black center, we call it lead but it’s really compressed graphite, I am not sure where it comes from but I think it comes from some mines in South America. This red top up here, the eraser, a bit of rubber, probably comes from Malaya, where the rubber tree isn’t even native. It was imported from South America by some businessman with the help of the British government. This brass feral – I haven’t the slightest idea where it came from or the yellow paint or the paint that made the black lines – or the glue that holds it together.
“Literally thousands of people cooperated to make this pencil. People who don’t speak the same language; who practice different religions; who might hate one another if they ever met. When you go down to the store and buy this pencil, you are, in effect, trading a few minutes of your time for a few seconds of the time of all of those thousands of people. What brought them together and induced them to cooperate to make this pencil? There was no Commissar sending out orders from some central office. It was the magic of the price system – the impersonal operation of prices that brought them together and got them to cooperate to make this pencil so that you could have it for a trifling sum.
“That is why the operation of the free market is so essential. Not only to promote productive efficiency, but even more, to foster harmony and peace among the peoples of the world.”
The government can cut roughly $343 billion from the federal budget and they can do so immediately.
__________
We are becoming a country filled with people that dependent on the federal government when we should be growing our economy by lowering taxes and putting people back to work. Why not cancel the foodstamp program and let the churches step in?
Today, the food stamps program is one of the largest and the fastest growing of the roughly 80 welfare programs funded by the federal government. Since 2000, spending has nearly quadrupled, with much of the growth taking place over the last four years. Since President Obama came to office, food stamps spending doubled from roughly $39 billion in 2008 to an estimated $85 billion in 2012.
As Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley explain, part of the recent growth is due to policies that make it easier for individuals to enroll in food stamps. “Application loopholes that permit food stamp recipients to bypass income and asset tests” boost participation rates. The program “discourages work, rewards idleness, and promotes long-term dependence.”
Removing work requirements from the few welfare programs that contain them seems to be the Obama Administration’s method of operation. President Obama’s 2009 stimulus suspended the food stamps work requirement through September 2010, and his next two budgets attempted to maintain the suspension. Then, on July 12 his Administration announced it would begin waiving the work requirements that were the heart of the successful 1996 welfare reform law.
Personal responsibility and work are key American principles. Food stamps and other welfare programs should promote these principles by requiring all able-bodied recipients to work, prepare for work, or at least look for a job in order to receive assistance.
The Daily Hatch 